Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax

beretta304

Rookie
Aug 13, 2012
8,664
76
0
A Saner Place
While all eyes were on the Republican National Convention in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac on the Gulf Coast, the White House was quietly jacking up the price of automobiles and putting future drivers at risk.

Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker's cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.



On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized "historic" new fuel efficiency standards. (Everything's "historic" with these narcissists, isn't it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drives to proclaim that "(by) the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last."

Jon Carson, director of Obama's Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how "auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards" and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will "save consumers $8,000" per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America's Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have "veto power" over reporters' quotes from campaign officials.And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will "save consumers $8,000"? Why, the administration, of course! "The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs," the Times dutifully regurgitated, "resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025."

The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What they want you to forget is that the "negotiations" (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to former Obama green czar Carol Browner's tenure — when she infamously told auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding their secret CAFE talks.Obama's number-massagers cite phony-baloney cost savings that rely on developing future fuel-saving technology.


Given this crony government's abysmal track record in "investing" in new technologies (cough — Solyndra — cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What is real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now. That figure comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

War on Middle-Class Consumers, anyone?

Beyond the White House-media lapdog echo chamber, the economic and public safety objections to these sweeping rules are long grounded and well founded.

For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing corporate auto fuel economy standards (CAFE). Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: "(T)he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering."

H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that "322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles." USA Today further calculated that the "size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths."

These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police "CAUTION" tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll


Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax | CNSNews.com
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker's cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.

Is you are using this paragraph as a basis of your "rant" you are a real fool. :lol:

The people that made the commercial claiming that Mitt murdered that mans wife was a fringe PAC called Priorities USA, NOT the administration.
 
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.

That sound you just heard is the sound of a jetpack-powered argument flying over your head.

If a 500 mile range car were technically feasible, then the market would create one, not government dictat.

The idea that conservatives would be opposed to a 500 mile range electric car is a bogus strawman. We are opposed to government meddling in manufacturing innovation. Do you see Obama trying to force iPods to have faster download times and cost less?

.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.

That sound you just heard is the sound of a jetpack-powered argument flying over your head.

If a 500 mile range car were technically feasible, then the market would create one, not government dictat.

The idea that conservatives would be opposed to a 500 mile range electric car is a bogus strawman. We are opposed to government meddling in manufacturing innovation. Do you see Obama trying to force iPods to have faster download times and cost less?

.

Perhaps you would not be, but you really should read the nonsense concerning the high mileage hybrids that so many other 'Conservatives' have posted.
 
Perhaps you would not be, but you really should read the nonsense concerning the high mileage hybrids that so many other 'Conservatives' have posted.

I have considered buying a hybrid in the past, but then I did the math. The premium that is added to the price of a hybrid car and its repair costs is not made up for in gas savings. So they are economically unfeasible at this point.

That is why I am "opposed" to a hybrid. It makes no sense to my wallet to buy one.


Some leftists think the proper solution to this is to have the price of gas raised to the point where a hybrid is economically feasible, and it is exactly that kind of costly meddling with market forces which angers conservatives.
.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Perhaps you would not be, but you really should read the nonsense concerning the high mileage hybrids that so many other 'Conservatives' have posted.

I have considered buying a hybrid in the past, but then I did the math. The premium that is added to the price of a hybrid car and its repair costs is not made up for in gas savings. So they are economically unfeasible at this point.

That is why I am "opposed" to a hybrid. It makes no sense to my wallet to buy one.


Some leftists think the proper solution to this is to have the price of gas raised to the point where a hybrid is economically feasible, and it is exactly that kind of costly meddling with market forces which angers conservatives.
.

LOL. You think that the price of fuel is going to do anything but go up? We are in competition with Asia and Europe for every gallon of fuel. And if the oil companies can get a better price abroad, they will ship the refined fuel from oil produced here to those areas. It is simply supply and demand. And the demand from Asia is going straight up.
 
Hell, Mitt and company are really good at undoing things. Look at his business record. And just look at the present polls.

I am shocked to find that I agree with you. He's brilliant at undoing failing companies, his business record attests to that... and yea, he's undoing the failing popularity of the GOP and turning that around into a strong run against an incumbent POTUS. He rocks! And I'm delighted that you finally see that.
 
Hell, Mitt and company are really good at undoing things. Look at his business record. And just look at the present polls.

I am shocked to find that I agree with you. He's brilliant at undoing failing companies, his business record attests to that... and yea, he's undoing the failing popularity of the GOP and turning that around into a strong run against an incumbent POTUS. He rocks! And I'm delighted that you finally see that.

LOL.

President Obama 332 Governor Romney 206

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

If those numbers change, I will post them. Thus far, I little evidence of Romney turning anything around, except his positions.
 
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

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?
 
Hell, Mitt and company are really good at undoing things. Look at his business record. And just look at the present polls.

I am shocked to find that I agree with you. He's brilliant at undoing failing companies, his business record attests to that... and yea, he's undoing the failing popularity of the GOP and turning that around into a strong run against an incumbent POTUS. He rocks! And I'm delighted that you finally see that.

LOL.

President Obama 332 Governor Romney 206

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

If those numbers change, I will post them. Thus far, I little evidence of Romney turning anything around, except his positions.

and out of those points 124 of them are in states that are at a difference of less than 5%,

Confidence in August/September is the sign of a fool.
 
I think that is actually 136 points. However, the President leads in all but 2 of the 9 states that are listed as tossups.

I use this site, and to be fair I did the math in my head, looking at the screen in like 10 seconds.

ElectoralVote

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
 

Forum List

Back
Top