usa national standard for cars/vehicles minumum 35mpg

[bruegf]

Think I'll go fire up the SUV run around the block and turn on all the lights.  Life is good (for now)

With all due respect, that's the same attitude that got us into the current mess.  The financial markets went out and did what was good for them and in the process wiped out a big chunk of the retirement savings for millions of people.  The sad fact is, that with large multinational organizations, you can't depend on them to be responsible and market forces alone won't always make organizations do the responsible thing in a timely fashion.

Fred

 

[greg mann]

My perspective on this is a little different, I guess. I personally don't care if the cost of getting from point A to point B doesn't improve with higher mileage standards. And, for the most part, if I am in a smaller car and most everyone else is as well, I am relatively as safe as when we are all in bigger vehicles. I don't buy the notion that Big Three cars are inferior. I have driven quite a few over the last 20 years and the quality has steadily risen with them just as it has with the foreigns and transplants. I work in the automotive sector in SE Michigan so I am fairly knowledgable about Big Three transgressions, most of which I am willing to forgive if they can stay in business as American companies because we need the jobs and we need to create value, through manufacturing, to support our standard of living.

The bigger picture for me is getting off dependence on foreign oil. I have a stepson on his third tour in Iraq and I am very interested in changing the way we use and create energy. I am also concerned about climate change, but even on this issue, I don't particularly care if Al Gore is right or wrong. We have an opportunity to redefine how we create and use energy that could help immensely if he is right, can't hurt if he is wrong, and still improve our overall standard of living by greatly improving our energy security, economic independence, and minimize the number of times we put our young men and women in harms way. If driving around in a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle that may or may not cost me more to get between points A and B, that may or may not be safer, if that will help keep our young folks safer, sign me up.

 

[daveg]

I won't be buying from any company that is owned in part by the government and the unions. Can you imagine the red tape to have warranty work done? It's the worst of both worlds. Ford is much more likely to get my next purchase now that they refused the government buy in. I have much more respect for that self reliant attitude than the entitlement attitude that results from government control. BTW, community or government ownership and administration of "means of production" does fall under the definition of socialism. There is no debate about that.

Also, increasing MPG requirements will do little to reduce the consumption of oil or the burning of fossil fuels. When it's cheaper to drive, people will drive more. Therefore, using and burning more fossil fuels. That is basic economics.

The amazing bit of hypocrisy is that the best alternate energy source to cut down on the burning of fossil fuels is the one that the wizards of smart in government leadership won't expand here in the USA (that would be nuclear). Even France gets something like 80% of it's grid energy from nuclear.

 

[b_m_hart]

I won't be buying from any company that is owned in part by the government and the unions. Can you imagine the red tape to have warranty work done? It's the worst of both worlds. Ford is much more likely to get my next purchase now that they refused the government buy in. I have much more respect for that self reliant attitude than the entitlement attitude that results from government control. BTW, community or government ownership and administration of "means of production" does fall under the definition of socialism. There is no debate about that.

Also, increasing MPG requirements will do little to reduce the consumption of oil or the burning of fossil fuels. When it's cheaper to drive, people will drive more. Therefore, using and burning more fossil fuels. That is basic economics.

The amazing bit of hypocrisy is that the best alternate energy source to cut down on the burning of fossil fuels is the one that the wizards of smart in government leadership won't expand here in the USA (that would be nuclear). Even France gets something like 80% of it's grid energy from nuclear.

Community control of these entities wasn't done unilaterally, they came begging for help.  This wasn't done by some sort of nationalization effort (ala Castro in the 50s or Chavez recently), this was done at the request of GM and Chrysler.  The feds have what amounts to no day-to-day control over the operations at either company, by and large the management and board of directors of each company remain intact (with one CEO being driven out - for show perhaps?).

You are correct that a decrease in the price associated with driving will lead to more driving.  You are incorrect in assuming that it is some sort of linear relationship.  It isn't.  Reducing the amount of fuel consumed per mile by 50% (as an arbitrary example) will not lead to twice as much driving on a per capita basis.  It just doesn't.  Reducing the cost of driving (by increasing fuel efficiency) will result in greater driving, but will ultimately result in less oil being refined and consumed for passenger vehicles.

And, I agree that the US needs to get energy from non-oil and non-coal sources.  Even Obama's dragged out the "clean coal" lie.  Solar, wind, and nuclear are key for this country.  The problem is that there's been a lack of investment in the sciences over the last few years, especially when it comes to alternative energy sources.  If you put solar panels on every rooftop in the US, power companies wouldn't be out of business, but there would be a whole world of difference in what we consumed. 

The problem with nuclear is that it is prohibitively expensive to get a plant up and running.  Now, cost per watt hour is the best out there, but there's a huge barrier to entry.  THAT is why this country, given the free market, doesn't have more.  Companies want immediate results, so they can have good quarterly numbers, every quarter.  Dropping multi billions on a plant that won't be up and running and generating revenue and profits for years doesn't work too well in that short-sighted economic environment.

 

[Gene Howerton]

For thought on renewable energy read the site listed below.  He lays it all out better than I could.  We are going to be using oil for a long time, unless there is some huge advance.  Even if there is a great new technology it will take years for the infrastructure to be put in place.  Even then it will be a rough go to build the infrastructure necessary.  That will be fought all along the way with NIMBY's.  I design highways for a living and we spent most our time now dealing with the public and permitting large projects.  The engineering is secondary.

http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/questar-ceo-debunks-global-warming-alarm

 

[Tom the Remodeler]

I'm curious to see how/if it affects work trucks, such as will it apply to 1/2 ton trucks but not 3/4 tons?

I think the current definition covers vehicles below 8,500 pound GVW, which should only cover 1/2 ton and smaller. 

Looks like my next truck will likely be a 3/4 ton Tundra then  ;D

 

[Tom the Remodeler]

Something interesting we're seeing here in Minnesota is that as people drove less, the state government is bringing in less money in the form of gas taxes to pay for the highways, roads and bridges. What is being raised as a possible solution is a mileage tax, where a GPS unit would be mounted in cars and you would be taxed based on how far you drive, and at what time (rush hour vs. off-peak).

From a purely selfish standpoint I'm ok with smaller cars on the road. I'll always be in a full sized truck, so the smaller my fellow drivers are, the less damage they will be able to impart on my larger vehicle. Granted, being big doesn't equate to being safe, but my truck has a 5 star rating to begin with, and the smaller cars just make the truck that much safer.

I wonder if we'll start to see more small diesel engines in passenger cars? My understanding is the VW diesels often get upwards of 40mpg....

 

[bonesbr549]

Think I'll go fire up the SUV run around the block and turn on all the lights.  Life is good (for now)

With all due respect, that's the same attitude that got us into the current mess.   The financial markets went out and did what was good for them and in the process wiped out a big chunk of the retirement savings for millions of people.   The sad fact is, that with large multinational organizations, you can't depend on them to be responsible and market forces alone won't always make organizations do the responsible thing in a timely fashion.

Fred

With all due respect, it was the government who decided that everyone has a right to own a home, and used freddie and fannie to gvie lones to people who could not pay it back!  I played by the rules pay my mortage on time and do not think I should subsize those who can't!  Further if a business makes bad decisions it should go OUT OF BUSINESS.  GM could go into backruptcy and emerge, but thats not what the plan is.  The Obama plan is to sieze control and give that company to the unions and I'm going to have to help pay for it.  Most of GM's cars are some of the best mpg ratings out there, but it did not save them.  Paying workers long after they quit making cars, paying people to do nothing and promising the world got them where they are.  Its' management and unions fault!  Business fail all the time.  And to think that higher mpg will free us from dependency is lunacy.  What do you think will happen once every body has these cars and gas usage declines and fuel tax revenues decline what will happen, any savings will be substituted with higher taxes.  See what's really bothering the governent is not that we are dependent on foreign oil and send that money overseas, it's pissed that they are not getting it!  One state has already kicked around the idea of using gps's to chare by the mile driven!    If freeing us from foreign oil was so  important, why has nuclear power not made a big move foward. How many gallons of oil and tons of coal could we save?  The government does not want us to be independant, they need dependants to help feed the coffers. 

 

[b_m_hart]

Think I'll go fire up the SUV run around the block and turn on all the lights.  Life is good (for now)

With all due respect, that's the same attitude that got us into the current mess.   The financial markets went out and did what was good for them and in the process wiped out a big chunk of the retirement savings for millions of people.   The sad fact is, that with large multinational organizations, you can't depend on them to be responsible and market forces alone won't always make organizations do the responsible thing in a timely fashion.

Fred

With all due respect, it was the government who decided that everyone has a right to own a home, and used freddie and fannie to gvie lones to people who could not pay it back!  I played by the rules pay my mortage on time and do not think I should subsize those who can't!   Further if a business makes bad decisions it should go OUT OF BUSINESS.  GM could go into backruptcy and emerge, but thats not what the plan is.  The Obama plan is to sieze control and give that company to the unions and I'm going to have to help pay for it.  Most of GM's cars are some of the best mpg ratings out there, but it did not save them.  Paying workers long after they quit making cars, paying people to do nothing and promising the world got them where they are.  Its' management and unions fault!  Business fail all the time.  And to think that higher mpg will free us from dependency is lunacy.  What do you think will happen once every body has these cars and gas usage declines and fuel tax revenues decline what will happen, any savings will be substituted with higher taxes.  See what's really bothering the governent is not that we are dependent on foreign oil and send that money overseas, it's pissed that they are not getting it!  One state has already kicked around the idea of using gps's to chare by the mile driven!    If freeing us from foreign oil was so  important, why has nuclear power not made a big move foward. How many gallons of oil and tons of coal could we save?  The government does not want us to be independant, they need dependants to help feed the coffers. 

There are two ways of looking at the "subsidizing" issue you're railing against here.  You're going to subsidize the failure of these individuals and organizations one way or another.  Don't believe me?  Watch what happens to a neighborhood as 20% (or more) of the houses go into foreclosure.  Yeah, you and I are playing by the rules, but we're still going to pay.  How?  Decreased property values.  Decreased property taxes collected by the municipalities that we live in.  So, we get hit on both ends - higher local taxes, AND substantial losses in home value.  Most folks aren't in a position to have to deal with the margin call that's going on right now.  It's amusing that you lay the blame at the feet of freddie and fannie.  If they're the culprits, why is pretty much every single bank in the US hurting right now?  They've ALL underwritten a bunch of lousy loans.

Now, you think that letting GM and Chrysler go the way of bankruptcy is fine, and that's your choice.  Personally, I'd prefer to see all of the "down-stream" businesses not go under, and utterly devestate large swaths of this country.  Same with the banks.  You think that we should let them all go under? Well, kiss your @$$ goodbye when that happens.  Countries will drop the USD as a common currency (buh-bye petro-dollars), and the value of our currency will crumble.  Massive inflation will kick in, and we'll see an economic collapse that will make the great depression in the US look like child's play.  Look at the hyper-inflationary Germany post Treaty of Versailles - that's right, have your wife ready to pick up your paychecks at lunch so she can go buy bread before the money devalues into worthlessness.

Now, the taxes on gas consumption - will they go up?  Most assuredly, they will.  We've been riding tax cuts to the detriment of our country's infrastructure for decades now.  There's only going to be one way to pay for roads to be paved, bridges to be retro-fitted so they don't continue to collapse during rush hour, and so on.  If you want to play the game, you have to pay.  S'how it works, my friend.  We could go to a private roads model, but then things would get hideously expensive compared to how it is now.

Now, on to the management and unions in the auto companies.  Explain why you think the unions have anything to do with this.  Explain to me why I should change my opinion that the management of the big three are what caused their implosions.  Explain to me why the unions are at fault because the car companies didn't fund their contractual commitments (things like pensions, health care, etc.) on a "pay as you go" basis, rather than leaving those contractual obligations to be paid for from future revenues.  Explain to me how the unions are to blame for ballooning health care costs that inflate the cost of the car maker's obligations.  They have nothing to do with that - and had the car companies done their accounting in a sane manner, and paid for their obligations as they arose, they wouldn't pay more for healthcare than they do for steel.

And, why aren't we using more nuclear power?  People have voted against it in more than one state, be it paranoia or being misinformed.  I personally am hugely in favor of nuclear power.  The problem arises from the fact that the federal government hasn't gone out and mandated HOW power is generated - simply the amount of toxic crap that the power plants in operation are allowed to spew into the air we breathe.  If you want energy independence and a HUGE economic boom?  How about putting solar panels on every roof in the country, and wind turbines wherever reasonable and feasible in towns / cities.  Now, that doesn't remove the need for a power grid, but it sure as hell will cut the need for more power plants for quite some time.  Think of the jobs it would create to make solar panels for 150 million buildings, and to install them.  Then think of the payback each and every tax payer would get (in the form of having no electricity bill, or an extremely small one).  Nuclear plants take years to get going, and each one is HUGELY expensive.  Now, I'm sure you'd call this socialism, as the government would foot the bill for it with our tax money, and mandate that it get done... even though we'd all come out WAY ahead.

 

[bonesbr549]

Think I'll go fire up the SUV run around the block and turn on all the lights.  Life is good (for now)

With all due respect, that's the same attitude that got us into the current mess.   The financial markets went out and did what was good for them and in the process wiped out a big chunk of the retirement savings for millions of people.   The sad fact is, that with large multinational organizations, you can't depend on them to be responsible and market forces alone won't always make organizations do the responsible thing in a timely fashion.

Fred

With all due respect, it was the government who decided that everyone has a right to own a home, and used freddie and fannie to gvie lones to people who could not pay it back!  I played by the rules pay my mortage on time and do not think I should subsize those who can't!   Further if a business makes bad decisions it should go OUT OF BUSINESS.  GM could go into backruptcy and emerge, but thats not what the plan is.  The Obama plan is to sieze control and give that company to the unions and I'm going to have to help pay for it.  Most of GM's cars are some of the best mpg ratings out there, but it did not save them.  Paying workers long after they quit making cars, paying people to do nothing and promising the world got them where they are.  Its' management and unions fault!  Business fail all the time.  And to think that higher mpg will free us from dependency is lunacy.  What do you think will happen once every body has these cars and gas usage declines and fuel tax revenues decline what will happen, any savings will be substituted with higher taxes.  See what's really bothering the governent is not that we are dependent on foreign oil and send that money overseas, it's pissed that they are not getting it!  One state has already kicked around the idea of using gps's to chare by the mile driven!    If freeing us from foreign oil was so  important, why has nuclear power not made a big move foward. How many gallons of oil and tons of coal could we save?  The government does not want us to be independant, they need dependants to help feed the coffers. 

There are two ways of looking at the "subsidizing" issue you're railing against here.  You're going to subsidize the failure of these individuals and organizations one way or another.  Don't believe me?  Watch what happens to a neighborhood as 20% (or more) of the houses go into foreclosure.  Yeah, you and I are playing by the rules, but we're still going to pay.  How?  Decreased property values.  Decreased property taxes collected by the municipalities that we live in.  So, we get hit on both ends - higher local taxes, AND substantial losses in home value.  Most folks aren't in a position to have to deal with the margin call that's going on right now.  It's amusing that you lay the blame at the feet of freddie and fannie.  If they're the culprits, why is pretty much every single bank in the US hurting right now?  They've ALL underwritten a bunch of lousy loans.

Now, you think that letting GM and Chrysler go the way of bankruptcy is fine, and that's your choice.  Personally, I'd prefer to see all of the "down-stream" businesses not go under, and utterly devestate large swaths of this country.  Same with the banks.  You think that we should let them all go under? Well, kiss your @$$ goodbye when that happens.  Countries will drop the USD as a common currency (buh-bye petro-dollars), and the value of our currency will crumble.  Massive inflation will kick in, and we'll see an economic collapse that will make the great depression in the US look like child's play.  Look at the hyper-inflationary Germany post Treaty of Versailles - that's right, have your wife ready to pick up your paychecks at lunch so she can go buy bread before the money devalues into worthlessness.

You make the assumption that bankruptcy means shuttering the doors.  It does not.  It allows the business to make hard decisions and renegotiate contracs.  You mention inflation, well hold on to your arse (or gold) because its coming.  Bailing out everybody, how do u think that is being done? We are printing money fast.  I don't know your age and if you cant remember Jimmy carter get ready here we go again.  We are acumulating more debt that all our previous administrations combined.  Would it be bad to let the bus go into bankruptcy but it would emerge quicker that the govt getting.  Govt cannot run a bus! 

Now, the taxes on gas consumption - will they go up?  Most assuredly, they will.  We've been riding tax cuts to the detriment of our country's infrastructure for decades now.  There's only going to be one way to pay for roads to be paved, bridges to be retro-fitted so they don't continue to collapse during rush hour, and so on.  If you want to play the game, you have to pay.  S'how it works, my friend.  We could go to a private roads model, but then things would get hideously expensive compared to how it is now.

Sorry that dog won't hunt.  We have been taxing everthing for decades and it is the gov'ts that say with one voice we will tax the gas oil roads tires you name it and it will be used to fix the roads.  Total BS governments use that money for every thing else.  The feds use it as a club over the heads of the states to make them do all their mandates without paying for it.  The states then do the same.  What makes you think the politician will suddenly use the money for that purpose.  I guess the shining example of the tobacco tax and how they used that for healthcare (oops they did not exactly do as they said on that one, but I'm sure they will mean it this time. 

Now, on to the management and unions in the auto companies.  Explain why you think the unions have anything to do with this.  Explain to me why I should change my opinion that the management of the big three are what caused their implosions.  Explain to me why the unions are at fault because the car companies didn't fund their contractual commitments (things like pensions, health care, etc.) on a "pay as you go" basis, rather than leaving those contractual obligations to be paid for from future revenues.  Explain to me how the unions are to blame for ballooning health care costs that inflate the cost of the car maker's obligations.  They have nothing to do with that - and had the car companies done their accounting in a sane manner, and paid for their obligations as they arose, they wouldn't pay more for healthcare than they do for steel.

Explain how the uniions had anything to do with this are you kidding me!  How's extortion threating massive consessions or face bankruptcy.  Management u bet is responsible but so is the unions.  You cant shut down a plant that is not profitable.  You have to pay workers that don't produce anything (not talking retireees) Well brother its a ponzie scheme that finally ran out new buyers.  They could not compete with the toyotas.  As to loyalty of brands.  I'm a GM guy since a kid.  I have a vet, gmc acadia, harley softail.  I buy American.  I'm looking at a Silverado  but with GM now becoming Government Motors may have to look at a Ford (God I can't believe I'm saying that)

And, why aren't we using more nuclear power?  People have voted against it in more than one state, be it paranoia or being misinformed.  I personally am hugely in favor of nuclear power.  The problem arises from the fact that the federal government hasn't gone out and mandated HOW power is generated - simply the amount of toxic crap that the power plants in operation are allowed to spew into the air we breathe.  If you want energy independence and a HUGE economic boom?  How about putting solar panels on every roof in the country, and wind turbines wherever reasonable and feasible in towns / cities.  Now, that doesn't remove the need for a power grid, but it sure as hell will cut the need for more power plants for quite some time.  Think of the jobs it would create to make solar panels for 150 million buildings, and to install them.  Then think of the payback each and every tax payer would get (in the form of having no electricity bill, or an extremely small one).  Nuclear plants take years to get going, and each one is HUGELY expensive.  Now, I'm sure you'd call this socialism, as the government would foot the bill for it with our tax money, and mandate that it get done... even though we'd all come out WAY ahead.

Solar could be possilbe but it's just not plausable based on cost.  Not near enought to supply what we use.  I like how you say the government could mandate and foot the bill.  You do realize there is not a pot for them to pay from.  It's me and you!  Cap and trade, is really cap and tax.  Do you think the new utility costs are going to be easier to pay! The reason power plants can't get going is it takes 20 years to get through the red tape.  Eliminate that and make it easier to make it happen.  so you see we have the power (pardon the pun) we simply choose not do do it.

 

[b_m_hart]

Think I'll go fire up the SUV run around the block and turn on all the lights.  Life is good (for now)

With all due respect, that's the same attitude that got us into the current mess.   The financial markets went out and did what was good for them and in the process wiped out a big chunk of the retirement savings for millions of people.   The sad fact is, that with large multinational organizations, you can't depend on them to be responsible and market forces alone won't always make organizations do the responsible thing in a timely fashion.

Fred

With all due respect, it was the government who decided that everyone has a right to own a home, and used freddie and fannie to gvie lones to people who could not pay it back!  I played by the rules pay my mortage on time and do not think I should subsize those who can't!   Further if a business makes bad decisions it should go OUT OF BUSINESS.  GM could go into backruptcy and emerge, but thats not what the plan is.  The Obama plan is to sieze control and give that company to the unions and I'm going to have to help pay for it.  Most of GM's cars are some of the best mpg ratings out there, but it did not save them.  Paying workers long after they quit making cars, paying people to do nothing and promising the world got them where they are.  Its' management and unions fault!  Business fail all the time.  And to think that higher mpg will free us from dependency is lunacy.  What do you think will happen once every body has these cars and gas usage declines and fuel tax revenues decline what will happen, any savings will be substituted with higher taxes.  See what's really bothering the governent is not that we are dependent on foreign oil and send that money overseas, it's pissed that they are not getting it!  One state has already kicked around the idea of using gps's to chare by the mile driven!    If freeing us from foreign oil was so  important, why has nuclear power not made a big move foward. How many gallons of oil and tons of coal could we save?  The government does not want us to be independant, they need dependants to help feed the coffers. 

There are two ways of looking at the "subsidizing" issue you're railing against here.  You're going to subsidize the failure of these individuals and organizations one way or another.  Don't believe me?  Watch what happens to a neighborhood as 20% (or more) of the houses go into foreclosure.  Yeah, you and I are playing by the rules, but we're still going to pay.  How?  Decreased property values.  Decreased property taxes collected by the municipalities that we live in.  So, we get hit on both ends - higher local taxes, AND substantial losses in home value.  Most folks aren't in a position to have to deal with the margin call that's going on right now.  It's amusing that you lay the blame at the feet of freddie and fannie.  If they're the culprits, why is pretty much every single bank in the US hurting right now?  They've ALL underwritten a bunch of lousy loans.

Now, you think that letting GM and Chrysler go the way of bankruptcy is fine, and that's your choice.  Personally, I'd prefer to see all of the "down-stream" businesses not go under, and utterly devestate large swaths of this country.  Same with the banks.  You think that we should let them all go under? Well, kiss your @$$ goodbye when that happens.  Countries will drop the USD as a common currency (buh-bye petro-dollars), and the value of our currency will crumble.  Massive inflation will kick in, and we'll see an economic collapse that will make the great depression in the US look like child's play.  Look at the hyper-inflationary Germany post Treaty of Versailles - that's right, have your wife ready to pick up your paychecks at lunch so she can go buy bread before the money devalues into worthlessness.

You make the assumption that bankruptcy means shuttering the doors.  It does not.  It allows the business to make hard decisions and renegotiate contracs.   You mention inflation, well hold on to your arse (or gold) because its coming.  Bailing out everybody, how do u think that is being done? We are printing money fast.  I don't know your age and if you cant remember Jimmy carter get ready here we go again.  We are acumulating more debt that all our previous administrations combined.  Would it be bad to let the bus go into bankruptcy but it would emerge quicker that the govt getting.  Govt cannot run a bus! 

Now, the taxes on gas consumption - will they go up?  Most assuredly, they will.  We've been riding tax cuts to the detriment of our country's infrastructure for decades now.  There's only going to be one way to pay for roads to be paved, bridges to be retro-fitted so they don't continue to collapse during rush hour, and so on.  If you want to play the game, you have to pay.  S'how it works, my friend.  We could go to a private roads model, but then things would get hideously expensive compared to how it is now.

Sorry that dog won't hunt.  We have been taxing everthing for decades and it is the gov'ts that say with one voice we will tax the gas oil roads tires you name it and it will be used to fix the roads.  Total BS governments use that money for every thing else.  The feds use it as a club over the heads of the states to make them do all their mandates without paying for it.  The states then do the same.  What makes you think the politician will suddenly use the money for that purpose.  I guess the shining example of the tobacco tax and how they used that for healthcare (oops they did not exactly do as they said on that one, but I'm sure they will mean it this time. 

Now, on to the management and unions in the auto companies.  Explain why you think the unions have anything to do with this.  Explain to me why I should change my opinion that the management of the big three are what caused their implosions.  Explain to me why the unions are at fault because the car companies didn't fund their contractual commitments (things like pensions, health care, etc.) on a "pay as you go" basis, rather than leaving those contractual obligations to be paid for from future revenues.  Explain to me how the unions are to blame for ballooning health care costs that inflate the cost of the car maker's obligations.  They have nothing to do with that - and had the car companies done their accounting in a sane manner, and paid for their obligations as they arose, they wouldn't pay more for healthcare than they do for steel.

Explain how the uniions had anything to do with this are you kidding me!  How's extortion threating massive consessions or face bankruptcy.  Management u bet is responsible but so is the unions.  You cant shut down a plant that is not profitable.  You have to pay workers that don't produce anything (not talking retireees) Well brother its a ponzie scheme that finally ran out new buyers.  They could not compete with the toyotas.  As to loyalty of brands.   I'm a GM guy since a kid.  I have a vet, gmc acadia, harley softail.  I buy American.  I'm looking at a Silverado  but with GM now becoming Government Motors may have to look at a Ford (God I can't believe I'm saying that)

And, why aren't we using more nuclear power?  People have voted against it in more than one state, be it paranoia or being misinformed.  I personally am hugely in favor of nuclear power.  The problem arises from the fact that the federal government hasn't gone out and mandated HOW power is generated - simply the amount of toxic crap that the power plants in operation are allowed to spew into the air we breathe.  If you want energy independence and a HUGE economic boom?  How about putting solar panels on every roof in the country, and wind turbines wherever reasonable and feasible in towns / cities.  Now, that doesn't remove the need for a power grid, but it sure as hell will cut the need for more power plants for quite some time.  Think of the jobs it would create to make solar panels for 150 million buildings, and to install them.  Then think of the payback each and every tax payer would get (in the form of having no electricity bill, or an extremely small one).  Nuclear plants take years to get going, and each one is HUGELY expensive.  Now, I'm sure you'd call this socialism, as the government would foot the bill for it with our tax money, and mandate that it get done... even though we'd all come out WAY ahead.

Solar could be possilbe but it's just not plausable based on cost.  Not near enought to supply what we use.  I like how you say the government could mandate and foot the bill.  You do realize there is not a pot for them to pay from.  It's me and you!  Cap and trade, is really cap and tax.  Do you think the new utility costs are going to be easier to pay! The reason power plants can't get going is it takes 20 years to get through the red tape.  Eliminate that and make it easier to make it happen.  so you see we have the power (pardon the pun) we simply choose not do do it.

It's interesting to see conservatives yell that the 'sky is falling' regarding debt and spending now, after Republican presidents have presided over roughly 85%-90% of the entire national debt.

I dunno, I guess I'm just a bit old fashioned.  When I "sign on the dotted line", I expect to keep up my end of the bargain, and I certainly expect the other party to do the same.  If you call that extortion, then I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.  It's kinda like I contracted with you to do some work on my house, but then blew all of my money on stuff that was really, really not necessary.  Then, when I come back to you to "re-negotiate" (as in, not pay you what I promised you, in writing), YOU are somehow extorting me when you ask me to honor my commitment?

And while the cost of the solar panel idea may be high, it's not "as high" as you think it is.  150 million buildings, $30K average cost per building to do so.  That pencils out to...$4.5T.  Yup, that's a MESS of money.  But that's a program that legitimately would take 10 years.  So, $450B a year.  Now, consider if (at best) it would offset the import of $100B worth of oil per year on average.  The fact that it would keep $100B in country, and we'd get the multiplier effect to roll here, instead of in Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, or Russia, that $100B really translates into ballpark-ish $250B a year.  Take 25% of that, and we're talking $62.5B in federal tax revenue.  Now, consider that a third of the cost would be labor, so take another 20% of that for tax revenues, that's $30B ($150B / yr * 20% = $30B), now we're up to $92.5B in revenue.  Now, add in 8% in sales tax on the rest of it ($300B * 8% = $24B) we're looking at $116.5B a year in revenues for state and federal agencies, on a $450B outlay.  Yes, it means that it costs $333.5B a year, but hell, we've spend three times that in Iraq and Afghanistan every year for the last 5 years.  I think we could manage just fine.

I agree with you on cap and trade - it doesn't work, and it won't.  I think that it's basically a stop-gap measure, and should be supplanted with research that will make the renewable resources cheaper to exploit for power than coal and oil.  Until that happens, it just doesn't matter.  And without the good old government prodding things along, it isn't going to happen.  Private industry is pretty visionary, that's for sure, but if they were so visionary, why do SO MANY of the technologies that we currently rely on these days (the internet, modern computing devices, etc.) come from programs that were government funded?

 

[Woodenfish]

bm, you have a unique way of filtering complex issues into very brief ideas in a personal attempt to land your finger on the pulse of reality!
I won't be keeping score though! ;D

Using your math for the sake of discussion, how are people going to afford another $30K of debt for a new energy source when:
A) They do not have a job.
B) Their home has lost 30%+ in value so their equity is gone, their loan is upside down?

Would it not be best then for us as a nation to fore go these wild, untested, dramatic transformations to the unknown?

Why would we not choose to fully exploit our own existing natural resources using current proven technology to expand our economy?

If we avoid spending trillions of new borrowed dollars today for useless needs, would we be more able to set goals further down the road when boom times return? At that time, new venture capital would be available to fund developments privately rather than to have massive new government mandates with absolutely no way to fund them publicly other than to raise taxes.

 

[b_m_hart]

bm, you have a unique way of filtering complex issues into very brief ideas in a personal attempt to land your finger on the pulse of reality!
I won't be keeping score though! ;D

Using your math for the sake of discussion, how are people going to afford another $30K of debt for a new energy source when:
A) They do not have a job.
B) Their home has lost 30%+ in value so their equity is gone, their loan is upside down?

Would it not be best then for us as a nation to fore go these wild, untested, dramatic transformations to the unknown?

Why would we not choose to fully exploit our own existing natural resources using current proven technology to expand our economy?

If we avoid spending trillions of new borrowed dollars today for useless needs, would we be more able to set goals further down the road when boom times return? At that time, new venture capital would be available to fund developments privately rather than to have massive new government mandates with absolutely no way to fund them publicly other than to raise taxes.

Well, sunlight is the most abundant of all of our natural resources, and solar panels are quite well proven technology.  Take all the potshots that you want, but if you consider the need to cut our reliance on oil from some of the most hostile parts of the world a "useless need", then I question whether or not you've been paying attention the last few (15-20) years.  The description was an attempt to describe something in a very brief manner, for the obvious sake of brevity.  I took a wild guess, and assumed that people wouldn't bother to read a 10000+ word essay with a bunch of economic modeling and all that.  Something like that would pencil out, and it certainly won't be private industry that takes something like solar power from less than 1% to something we'd all consider "significant".

And once again, I bring us back to the question at hand: how does the federal government mandating fuel economy standards equate to socialism?  I mean, it's clear that we're all having a bit of fun poking at each other, because we're clearly on opposite sides of the fence.  But for all the bluster, I still can't get answers - just more chatter about various talking points, but never addressing the challenge to the assertion in a direct manner.  Issuing loans to a company and taking stock as collateral (and not running the day to day operations) is so not even closely related to socialism or communism that it's comical to even suggest it is so.  Legislating to protect the environment so you and I have clean air to breath, to protect the common good (please, try to argue that having polluted air so we all get asthma / emphysema / cancer is a good thing) - is the core purpose of government.  But every time I ask a straight up, honest question, either no one answers, or offers veiled insults.  Really, I get that people don't like being challenged on this board (look at any of the threads where someone says something negative about Festool, hah), but c'mon.

 

[Forrest Anderson]

It's interesting to see conservatives yell that the 'sky is falling' regarding debt and spending now, after Republican presidents have presided over roughly 85%-90% of the entire national debt.

I dunno, I guess I'm just a bit old fashioned.  When I "sign on the dotted line", I expect to keep up my end of the bargain, and I certainly expect the other party to do the same.  

Just two months ago The Far Side board was created to keep political discussions off the main forum:

Political discussions, and other similar types of problem topics, really push the envelope -- and the patience of your administrator...

Here is the solution:

• I have created a new board called "The Far Side."  This board will be the only place in the FOG for political discussions.
  "The Far Side" will only be accessible to members who specifically ask for permission to see it.  To everyone else, the board remains invisible.
• If somone does not want to see political discussions of any kind, they just don't go to that board.

Starting this morning, I will begin moving some discussions that were previously locked into "The Far Side."  Once they are in that board, I will unlock the discussions to allow further posting.  In the future, political discussions that appear in the regular area will be moved into "The Far Side."

From the very first post I knew this thread was going to turn political, and I suggest that this thread is moved to The Far Side forthwith.

Forrest

 

[Woodenfish]

And once again, I bring us back to the question at hand: how does the federal government mandating fuel economy standards equate to socialism? 

I've never seen or heard anyone here or elsewhere link fuel economy standards to socialism. I have heard though something about the government taking control of auto manufacturers, firing the CEO and placing the control of the company into the hands of the union members. Now if that ain't socialism than I guess I fail to see the definition?

I also agree with Forrest, you cannot discuss energy without politics because I feel we don't have an energy crisis, we have a political crisis.

 

[daveg]

And once again, I bring us back to the question at hand: how does the federal government mandating fuel economy standards equate to socialism? 

I've never seen or heard anyone here or elsewhere link fuel economy standards to socialism. I have heard though something about the government taking control of auto manufacturers, firing the CEO and placing the control of the company into the hands of the union members. Now if that ain't socialism than I guess I fail to see the definition?

I also agree with Forrest, you cannot discuss energy without politics because I feel we don't have an energy crisis, we have a political crisis.

Agreed.

And, I rarely see so many numbers pulled out of a hat with no sourcing, no rationale, no nothing (referring to bmh's "solution" to our energy crisis). I think BO needs bmh on his energy team. It's quite amusing. I just hope that other readers do their homework and realize that those numbers were by and large pulled out of a hat. Not to mention that this 150 million building solar panel mandate would be another unproven program based primarily on "hope". Kind of like pumping billions of tax payer dollars into failing auto companies. If it wasn't so sad, it would be amusing as well.

I also found it strange that this thread was not in the Far Side. It was obvious it would get political.

 

[b_m_hart]

And once again, I bring us back to the question at hand: how does the federal government mandating fuel economy standards equate to socialism? 

I've never seen or heard anyone here or elsewhere link fuel economy standards to socialism. I have heard though something about the government taking control of auto manufacturers, firing the CEO and placing the control of the company into the hands of the union members. Now if that ain't socialism than I guess I fail to see the definition?

I also agree with Forrest, you cannot discuss energy without politics because I feel we don't have an energy crisis, we have a political crisis.

Agreed.

And, I rarely see so many numbers pulled out of a hat with no sourcing, no rationale, no nothing (referring to bmh's "solution" to our energy crisis). I think BO needs bmh on his energy team. It's quite amusing. I just hope that other readers do their homework and realize that those numbers were by and large pulled out of a hat. Not to mention that this 150 million building solar panel mandate would be another unproven program based primarily on "hope". Kind of like pumping billions of tax payer dollars into failing auto companies. If it wasn't so sad, it would be amusing as well.

I also found it strange that this thread was not in the Far Side. It was obvious it would get political.

The notion that using ballpark numbers to frame a strawman for the sake of conversation not making sense is amusing as well.  If you want sourcing, go take a look at what it costs you to put 3-4 KW worth of solar panels on your roof, and you'll find out where the $30K number comes from.  But if it's a hat that you're looking for, please note that I erred on the side of going bigger than smaller, as digging up exact numbers on the number of federal and state buildings is going to be tricky - but please, since you seem to know enough about it to dismiss my estimate, please, any information you can provide would be appreciated, since you seem to be so well versed on the subject.

Hope is what lead to pumping billions of dollars into failing auto companies.  Hope for what?  Hope that millions more jobs wouldn't be lost.  Hope that millions more houses wouldn't go into foreclosure, and further drag down housing prices.  Hope that millions of people could retain jobs, and not end up homeless, or turning to crime.  Hope that millions would be able to retain health insurance.  Hope that MY property value and YOUR property value wouldn't be destroyed.  Hope that MY local police department and YOUR local police department would continue to have money to be funded.  Hope that the economy wouldn't grind to a halt.  I guess that because it didn't require military action, the gung-ho 'go get em' attitude disappears in your set, doesn't it?

You are right, if it wasn't so sad, it would be amusing.  Your inability to connect yourself to the greater picture, and to just shrug and say 'let them fail' is amazing.  Your ability to not act on your own self-interest is amusing - except for the fact that impacts me as well.

And, we agree that this was bound to end up as a political conversation, our country desperately needs an energy policy that wasn't written by Enron and oil companies.

 

[b_m_hart]

And once again, I bring us back to the question at hand: how does the federal government mandating fuel economy standards equate to socialism? 

I've never seen or heard anyone here or elsewhere link fuel economy standards to socialism. I have heard though something about the government taking control of auto manufacturers, firing the CEO and placing the control of the company into the hands of the union members. Now if that ain't socialism than I guess I fail to see the definition?

I also agree with Forrest, you cannot discuss energy without politics because I feel we don't have an energy crisis, we have a political crisis.

Yes, you fail to see the definition.  The definition is a government that seizes control of "means of production" - as in, ALL means of production.  There is no "emergency loan" that's extended, there is no stock purchased in the company.  Unilateral action is taken, and if you were an owner / shareholder, you get nothing.  That's what Chavez did, that's what Castro did.  If you can honestly connect the two, you're deluding yourself based upon partisan dogma, and blind to what has actually happened.  It's almost like calling a mortgage from any big bank socialism.  They've all been bailed out by the Fed (based upon the lousy mortgages that they all underwrote), and the source of all the money that they lend is ultimately the taxes that you and I pay.  So, I guess if you are going to go three or four steps past what's actually happened, start connecting dots in weird ways, then trying to wrap it all back to the events that took place that are not directly connected in any way, then OK, I follow you, it's "socialism".

The current administration was offered equity for their loans, at the request of the auto manufacturers.  Let me repeat that, because it really doesn't seem to have sunk in: at the request of the auto manufacturers.  Ford didn't make the request, so they weren't offered loans, nor were equity positions taken.  Now, this is an extremely usual business practice.  It happens ALL THE TIME.  We (my business partners and I) actually have people approach us on a fairly regular basis wanting to give us money in exchange for equity positions in our company.  You are proponents of the free market, and letting private industry "figure it out" - well, for all that chatter, I'm amazed that you haven't connected the two.  But given the lack of understanding between the differences between stocks and bonds, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Private industry IS trying to figure it out - by asking the last standing entity (the US Federal governement) that is willing and able, to give them a loan so they can continue ongoing operations without having to destroy what remains of shareholder equity by declaring bankruptcy.  If I were a shareholder of GM, I'd be mad as hell at the notion that they'd just roll over and declare bankruptcy and make my stock worthless, rather than try to do every last thing imaginable to get out of the mess that they're in, and get back on track.

 

[Woodenfish]

You are proponents of the free market, and letting private industry "figure it out" - well, for all that chatter, I'm amazed that you haven't connected the two.  But given the lack of understanding between the differences between stocks and bonds, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Private industry IS trying to figure it out - by asking the last standing entity (the US Federal governement) that is willing and able, to give them a loan so they can continue ongoing operations without having to destroy what remains of shareholder equity by declaring bankruptcy.  If I were a shareholder of GM, I'd be mad as hell at the notion that they'd just roll over and declare bankruptcy and make my stock worthless, rather than try to do every last thing imaginable to get out of the mess that they're in, and get back on track.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code

Chapter 7 bankruptcy, liquidation

The bankruptcy court selects an outside trustee who liquidates the assets and distributes the proceeds among claimholders according to

The absolute priority rule:

*Bondholders must be paid in full before shareholders receive any proceeds
*Secured debtholders must be paid before unsecured debtholders
*Senior debtholders must be paid in full before junior debtholders

What did I miss?

 

[polarsea1]

What you missed is that after the bondholders get pennies on the dollar - the shareholders are gonna get zip. Got it?