Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax

Is there any kernal of truth or fact in that loony RIGHT WING op/ed?

All I can find is fiction.

(Nice word for More Friggin rw LIES.)
 
Interesting ...

I have submitted three posts to this op/ed. Each one was respectful and civil but factually refuted each and every thing that loon Michelle Malkin wrote.

Each was accepted but then, a very short time later, disappeared.

Just goes to show you, the one thing the R cannot abide is FACTS.
 
Or maybe its just a usual money grab by democrats, who know most manufacturers will be over the standard, thus adding a $5.50 per 0.1 mpg per vehicle sold "tax" to be paid by the manufacturers to the government. And guess who ends up paying for this?
As long as a larr

Were I presently in the market for a new vehicle, I would be buying that Ford right now. As the high mileage vehicles become the majority of the fleet, we will wonder what took so long.

2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid First Drive

Again, your choice. I prefer my taxes up front, not loaded into a penalty paid by the car manufacturer and then hidden in the cost of the vehicle.

Also, if I want to buy something like a mustang or a challenger why should my choice be eliminated?
Because the left has decided that you don't need one.

After all, they know better than you.

Right, Roxy?
 
Interesting ...

I have submitted three posts to this op/ed. Each one was respectful and civil but factually refuted each and every thing that loon Michelle Malkin wrote.

Each was accepted but then, a very short time later, disappeared.

Just goes to show you, the one thing the R cannot abide is FACTS.
So why can't you be respectful and civil here? Or is this really your respectful and civil mode?
 
OP: Can tin foil Pub dupes be any more over the top with their brainwashed BS hater Pubcrappe. Thanks to Dem pushing, cars have never been more efficient and FASTER. Thanks for fear mongering improved and more intelligent EVERYTHING (Volt, insulation, alternative power, OIL and GAS production etc etc).Un-American MORONS.

Thanks for the cronyism and corruption DEPRESSION and mindless obstruction. How's your militia coming along, hater dupes?
 
And leading in a tossup state in August doesnt mean squat.

These charts go by national polling, which I know doesnt affect the electoral college, but it does show the general trending, and right now its in Romney's favor, and has been for a few weeks.

Daily Kos: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: It was a dark and stormy night

I nominate this for stupidest post of the week.

tell me why this is stupidest post of the week? or are you a drive by snark machine, with no real ability to provide actual content to a discussion?
 
Really stupid. Ford is now producing a hybrid SUV that gets 47/47.

2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid Overview

You can get one for $25,000. That is well within most budgets. And they are planning next years model to be a plugin with 20 miles ev range. That will put the car well over the mileage mandate.

I don't know what the problem is with you 'Conservatives', but I swear if somebody came up with a battery that was cheap, made a car with 500 mile range on a single charge, with charge time of less than 15 minutes, you would declare that it would cause the destruction of the nation.

Everything in the mandate is achievable with present technology. At a reasonable cost.

Or maybe its just a usual money grab by democrats, who know most manufacturers will be over the standard, thus adding a $5.50 per 0.1 mpg per vehicle sold "tax" to be paid by the manufacturers to the government. And guess who ends up paying for this?
As long as a larr

Were I presently in the market for a new vehicle, I would be buying that Ford right now. As the high mileage vehicles become the majority of the fleet, we will wonder what took so long.

2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid First Drive

I am counting on liberals like yourself to pay the premium price for hybrids so that eventually economies of scale will kick in and I can buy one for much less.

In the meantime, no sensible person is going to pay $25,000 for a subcompact hybrid when they can pay $15,000 for a regular subcompact. But hey, if you want to be that stupid, go right ahead.

.
 
Last edited:
As cars become more fuel efficient, they become lighter and less safe. Cars that have to haul around heavy batteries have to be the lightest and the least safe. Among hybrids, the most safe is the Toyota Highlander, which even though a hybrid, gets less mileage than a non-hybrid Ford Focus.
 
And leading in a tossup state in August doesnt mean squat.

These charts go by national polling, which I know doesnt affect the electoral college, but it does show the general trending, and right now its in Romney's favor, and has been for a few weeks.

Daily Kos: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: It was a dark and stormy night

I nominate this for stupidest post of the week.

tell me why this is stupidest post of the week? or are you a drive by snark machine, with no real ability to provide actual content to a discussion?

I can provide plenty of content to a discussion. But what you said there is just plain stupid. Go on, take another look and see if you can figure it out. It's really fucking stupid.
 
I nominate this for stupidest post of the week.

tell me why this is stupidest post of the week? or are you a drive by snark machine, with no real ability to provide actual content to a discussion?

I can provide plenty of content to a discussion. But what you said there is just plain stupid. Go on, take another look and see if you can figure it out. It's really fucking stupid.

On the "all inclusive" chart Romeny's line has been moving steadily upwards. On the "we exclude rassmussen and gallup because we dont like them" the lines have been intertwined for weeks. Remember any closeness is more a problem for Obama, as he is the incumbent. The information you get is general trending, and the trends are in Romeny's favor.

Or do you not know how to read graphs.
 
tell me why this is stupidest post of the week? or are you a drive by snark machine, with no real ability to provide actual content to a discussion?

I can provide plenty of content to a discussion. But what you said there is just plain stupid. Go on, take another look and see if you can figure it out. It's really fucking stupid.

On the "all inclusive" chart Romeny's line has been moving steadily upwards. On the "we exclude rassmussen and gallup because we dont like them" the lines have been intertwined for weeks. Remember any closeness is more a problem for Obama, as he is the incumbent. The information you get is general trending, and the trends are in Romeny's favor.

Or do you not know how to read graphs.

Stop, just stop. Go back and re-read what you said. It's really fucking stupid. If you still don't understand why it's so stupid, then just give up. Because shit like that can't be explained to someone who says it, thinking it makes sense. It's stupid. Just trust me on this. Go and find it, and redeem yourself in the process. Don't sit here and try to excuse it away.
 
Or maybe its just a usual money grab by democrats, who know most manufacturers will be over the standard, thus adding a $5.50 per 0.1 mpg per vehicle sold "tax" to be paid by the manufacturers to the government. And guess who ends up paying for this?
As long as a larr

Were I presently in the market for a new vehicle, I would be buying that Ford right now. As the high mileage vehicles become the majority of the fleet, we will wonder what took so long.

2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid First Drive

I am counting on liberals like yourself to pay the premium price for hybrids so that eventually economies of scale will kick in and I can buy one for much less.

In the meantime, no sensible person is going to pay $25,000 for a subcompact hybrid when they can pay $15,000 for a regular subcompact. But hey, if you want to be that stupid, go right ahead.

.
But think of all the greener-than-thou smugness you can exude!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/business/04hybrid.html
In fact, more than half of the Prius buyers surveyed this spring by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore., said the main reason they purchased their car was that “it makes a statement about me.”

Only a third of Prius owners cited that reason just three years ago, according to CNW, which tracks consumer buying trends.

“I really want people to know that I care about the environment,” said Joy Feasley of Philadelphia, owner of a green 2006 Prius. “I like that people stop and ask me how I like my car.”

Mary Gatch of Charleston, S.C., chose the car over a hybrid version of the Toyota Camry after trading in a Lexus sedan.

“I felt like the Camry Hybrid was too subtle for the message I wanted to put out there,” Ms. Gatch said. “I wanted to have the biggest impact that I could, and the Prius puts out a clearer message.”​
 
I can provide plenty of content to a discussion. But what you said there is just plain stupid. Go on, take another look and see if you can figure it out. It's really fucking stupid.

On the "all inclusive" chart Romeny's line has been moving steadily upwards. On the "we exclude rassmussen and gallup because we dont like them" the lines have been intertwined for weeks. Remember any closeness is more a problem for Obama, as he is the incumbent. The information you get is general trending, and the trends are in Romeny's favor.

Or do you not know how to read graphs.

Stop, just stop. Go back and re-read what you said. It's really fucking stupid. If you still don't understand why it's so stupid, then just give up. Because shit like that can't be explained to someone who says it, thinking it makes sense. It's stupid. Just trust me on this. Go and find it, and redeem yourself in the process. Don't sit here and try to excuse it away.

Yes, i got the contents of the charts wrong. What you are not answering is that the trends are showing romney catching up. Why dont you answer that question?

So the first is rasmussen and gallup free, and the second is rassmussen and gallup alone.

I answered your question, fine you got me on the source of the charts, but now answer me, who does the charts favor at this point?
 
Everything in the mandate is achievable with present technology. At a reasonable cost.

And were exactly does the federal government have the authority to mandate such things? Did I miss that in enumerated powers?
Excellent question.


Repeal ObamaCar
By Phil Kerpen 12:55 PM 08/29/2012


Obama’s astonishing takeover of the automobile industry, unlike his health care takeover, occurred without even a vote of Congress. Yesterday, to much fanfare, the administration announced its astonishing ratcheting up of vehicle fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. These regulations — I call them “ObamaCar” — were accomplished not through open debate in Congress, but through corrupt backroom deals in which our elected officials had no voice.ObamaCar will, according to the administration’s own estimates, add over $2,900 to the price of a new car. This low-ball estimate was created by using a brand-new cost-estimating methodology that uses arbitrary factors to produce a cost estimate for a vehicle considerably lower than the total cost of its individual parts.

An analysis by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which followed the government’s usual methodology, found the cost impact would be $4,800 per vehicle. But NADA also found that even the usual methodology has historically underestimated the actual cost impact by an enormous factor. NADA suggests a worst-case scenario of a $12,349-per-vehicle price jump.

Even using the EPA’s official low-ball estimate, NADA’s analysis found that “6.8 million licensed drivers will no longer qualify for a loan on that least expensive new vehicle.” So people will buy used cars, or drive their old cars longer. There will be less efficient, dirtier vehicles on the road, and reliable, affordable transportation will be much less accessible.

And if you can afford a car under ObamaCar, will it actually be a car you want to drive? Even the vaunted hybrids only get around 35 to 40 miles per gallon — if you’re light on the gas. Cato scholar Pat Michaels has observed that the third-generation Prius maxes out at 50 miles per gallon, but its vehicle weight is too heavy to get much more than that. At 54.5 miles per gallon, cars will be smaller, lighter, less crash-worthy, less powerful, and less comfortable than you can even imagine. A nice-sized family vehicle? Good luck.

How did this happen?

The Supreme Court opened the door for the misuse of the 1970 Clean Air Act with its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007. That five-to-four decision — an absurd act of judicial activism — allowed the EPA to transform the 1970 Clean Air Act into a global warming law, regulating fuel economy standards under the pretext of regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions.The principal author of the Clean Air Act, Democratic U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, said this of the decision back in 2008: “In last year’s Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the court stated that it believed that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those who wrote that legislation. … So we are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.”Then-Climate Czar Carol Browner oversaw the secret negotiations with the auto industry over these new global warming regulations. (She quietly resigned from the White House last year, just before her role in delaying Solyndra layoffs past the 2010 election was made public.)

Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, was the other key player in a game of bad cop and really bad cop; basically, Browner told the auto industry that if it didn’t acquiesce to these new fuel economy rules, California would be given a free hand to impose its own, even more destructive regulations that — because many states have adopted California standards — would cripple the industry. Nichols told The New York Times that Browner “quietly orchestrated” the secret negotiations between the White House, regulators, and auto industry officials. “We put nothing in writing, ever,” Nichols said.

That was the first backroom shakedown. Yesterday’s rule is the result of a second round that followed closely on its heels, and at this rate the third round may be well underway.

Congress never voted for these absurd standards, which will drive vehicle prices through the roof for no meaningful environmental benefits.Mitt Romney has an applause line in his stump speech about repealing ObamaCare. He should add another one promising to repeal ObamaCar.



Read more: Repeal ObamaCar | The Daily Caller
 

Forum List

Back
Top