General Motors CEO said WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mtandrews]

Well I'm making an option C, besides safety standards the Government needs to get the hell out of the auto industry and let them build vehicles that the motoring public is willing to buy. Everyone don't want a 2000 lb. 85 horsepower crackerbox! Some do but many don't and I am one of the many. I don't need the government "nudging" me into the direction that they think I should be going in! Crew cab turbo diesel for me thank you very much, now GO AWAY!

 

[RH62]

im with option C also!

 

[Dart_Doctor]

im with option C also!

me 2

 

[70aarcuda]

Are all you guys registered to vote?

 

[2 Darts]

There are two options: (A) The government legislates itself into engineers and makes decisions for the automakers about what kind of cars to make. (B) The government adjusts the price of fuel to come closer to covering its real, total costs to society, thus spurring market demand for better fuel efficiency, thus driving automakers to provide it.

Option "B" is a whole hell of a lot closer to the market-based policies most of those bîtching and moaning in this thread would claim to espouse.

Option "A" is what we have had for decades; it's called CAFE and it's a rotten system. It does a poor job of improving fuel economy, and it greatly restricts the range of options for automakers and for car buyers. Other markets elsewhere in the world, where they use Option "B", have much wider range of vehicle choice and much better on-road-fleet fuel economy.

There's more to option "A" than CAFE. Without federal regulation vehicles would not be as safe as they are today. Why? Because safety doesn't sell cars. This was proven by Ford in the mid-50s and by GM in the late 70s.

As far as option "B" goes there are two issues. First, raising the gas tax puts money in the hands of those who have demonstrated an inability to handle it properly. Unless there is a referrendum on the issue, there's not going to be much the electorate can do to tell its officials what to do and what not to do with the funds. In short, additional revenues will be frittered away and not used to improve the transportation system or reduce federal debt.

Second, raising the gas tax turns it into a poor tax. Those who can not afford more fuel efficient vehicles end up paying the most tax, proportionately. It puts inflationary pressure on wages to be raised so that the tax can be paid and/or more fuel efficient vehicles purchased.

IMO a hybrid approach is needed. The safety of the public should be protected, so I don't see FMVSS going away (Option "A"). The federal tax on gasoline needs to progressively raised $1.00 per gallon. Funds derived from the increased tax need to be earmarked for transporation infrastructure rehabilitation (rebuilding existing roads, bridges, and overpasses that are unsafe) and reduction of the federal debt. (Option "B").

 

[Rice Nuker]

"...land where 100-octane gasoline costs a nickel a gallon and everyday grocery-getters have 440 engines and get 10 mpg because it doesn't matter."

Whooooo hooooo! YEaaaaaaa fireee er up and shoot some soot!

Ahhh that is a nice little line when taken out of context, SlantSixDan!

Ahhh the land where gas pumps are run by pretty ladies in bikinis pumping 100 octane fer a nickel.

Sorry, havnt had enough coffee yet this morn.

 

[cudaspaz]

Wasn't he (GM's CEO) appointed to that position when Obama fired everybody? Obama is pushing for econo-boxes, electric cars, and whatever else. Isn't it possible that this is merely 'part of the plan"?

My thoughts exactly.

I scratch your back and you scratch mine because a government bailout is a deal with the devil.

Still loving this "change we can believe in?"

Does the phrase "The fundamental transformation of America" mean anything to you people yet? or has it not impacted your cushy existence...yet?

Oh, just wait because it's only getting better especially with the puppet master himself , George Soros talking about there being civil unrest in the not so distant future...hhhmmmm.

You libbies might wanna just go with the conservative next time around and see what happens.

it can't be that bad...maybe a couple less babies get murdered, a few more illegals get deported, a few evil rich people get some tax breaks and can expand and hire more employees, we may pay off a big chunk of our national debt, maybe get the fair tax passed, a few hundred thousand oil workers just may get their jobs back in the oil industry since obama retarded moratorium, we may just get on the road to energy independence, and a few tree hugging enviro hippies may get their thongs in a bunch, and 1/6th of the economy may not get spent on socialized medicine and all that money might be better used on other things like drilling for oil HERE.
Now only if Israel is not blown up to 1/3rd it's original size and WWIII is not in full swing from Obama's arab spring, we just may be on the path to financial recovery.

 

[Dustedu2]

Nope, CIA World Factbook shows that the US has been increasing oil output since 2008:
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/oil_production.html

And if you like charts, check this one out:
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

Interesting stuff there.
C

Looks like the chart says "est 2009" so it was a prediction based on certain criteria. :wack: I think things have changed sice 2009. (Gulf spill that stopped all new drilling) Even if production went up 2% I'm sure usage has gone up 3%. The U.S. has enough oil "below" to support ourselves for 100 years if we would go after it. NO BOMA won't allow more drilling. I have learned dealing with the government for 30 years about what happened to my dad "classifed mission" in vietnam, that they will lie to make you believe anything. (point here is I wouldn't believe any charts by the CIA or any part of the Government). I have no confidence what so ever in a "non christian" government. I'm done. lol

 

[Revhendo]

If it weren't so sad, the lack of horse sense displayed in this thread would be a laugh riot. Here we have people babbling about the big bad government…in response to an industrialist's suggestion that the market, rather than the government, ought to be the driving factor in buyers' choice of vehicles. Sure, it's fun to fantasize about dreamy-dream land where 100-octane gasoline costs a nickel a gallon and everyday grocery-getters have 440 engines and get 10 mpg because it doesn't matter. Here in the real world, though, the government of every civilized country is involved in regulating vehicle fuel economy. Even if you're a knuckledragging idjit who thinks there's no such thing as pollution and emission controls are Satan's handiwork, you can't deny the national security and trade deficit issues closely tied to how much oil we burn up, so clearly society -- through democratically-elected government -- has an interest in the matter.

There are two options: (A) The government legislates itself into engineers and makes decisions for the automakers about what kind of cars to make. (B) The government adjusts the price of fuel to come closer to covering its real, total costs to society, thus spurring market demand for better fuel efficiency, thus driving automakers to provide it.

Option "B" is a whole hell of a lot closer to the market-based policies most of those bîtching and moaning in this thread would claim to espouse.

Option "A" is what we have had for decades; it's called CAFE and it's a rotten system. It does a poor job of improving fuel economy, and it greatly restricts the range of options for automakers and for car buyers. Other markets elsewhere in the world, where they use Option "B", have much wider range of vehicle choice and much better on-road-fleet fuel economy.

Those of you blowing your head gaskets and blubbering about Obama and GM and the Chevy Volt and all that…STFU for a minute or two and use the brains god gave you. Please and thank you.

Ouch Dan, batteries go dead in the vibrator? Not arguing your points at all, but I think the context of the CEO's comment (at least what I took from it) was to raise gas prices for no OTHER purpose than to compell folks to buy new cars that get better fuel economy. (I would also swear I heard that same comment attributed to Mr. Obama a few months ago). Near as I can tell, that's manipulation not supply and demand. But then, I could be wrong.
Your batteries could be just fine.

 

[LXguy]

If it weren't so sad, the lack of horse sense displayed in this thread would be a laugh riot. Here we have people babbling about the big bad government…in response to an industrialist's suggestion that the market, rather than the government, ought to be the driving factor in buyers' choice of vehicles. Sure, it's fun to fantasize about dreamy-dream land where 100-octane gasoline costs a nickel a gallon and everyday grocery-getters have 440 engines and get 10 mpg because it doesn't matter. Here in the real world, though, the government of every civilized country is involved in regulating vehicle fuel economy. Even if you're a knuckledragging idjit who thinks there's no such thing as pollution and emission controls are Satan's handiwork, you can't deny the national security and trade deficit issues closely tied to how much oil we burn up, so clearly society -- through democratically-elected government -- has an interest in the matter.

There are two options: (A) The government legislates itself into engineers and makes decisions for the automakers about what kind of cars to make. (B) The government adjusts the price of fuel to come closer to covering its real, total costs to society, thus spurring market demand for better fuel efficiency, thus driving automakers to provide it.

Option "B" is a whole hell of a lot closer to the market-based policies most of those bîtching and moaning in this thread would claim to espouse.

Option "A" is what we have had for decades; it's called CAFE and it's a rotten system. It does a poor job of improving fuel economy, and it greatly restricts the range of options for automakers and for car buyers. Other markets elsewhere in the world, where they use Option "B", have much wider range of vehicle choice and much better on-road-fleet fuel economy.

Those of you blowing your head gaskets and blubbering about Obama and GM and the Chevy Volt and all that…STFU for a minute or two and use the brains god gave you. Please and thank you.

Thank you slantsixdan for that eloquent dose of reason.

 

[340wedge]

OPEC has decided not to raise production, welcome to the double dip recession, it's coming on fast...one million jobs created, what they don't say is most were created in other countries from US companies,,.thanks NOBAMA

 

[jkeck55]

The topic of gas prices is one I always find entertaining. So few people understand how fuel prices work and how things affect the price of gas and how adjusted for inflation gas prices are about where you should expect them to be. So few people think about how much choices they have made their gas costs. Things like how long their commute is. How much driving they do that is unnecessary. You actually have much more power over your fuel expenditures than most any other expense you have.

 

[crossram383]

There are two options: (A) The government legislates itself into engineers and makes decisions for the automakers about what kind of cars to make.

Haven't they been doin that since somewhere around 1972 ?

(B) The government adjusts the price of fuel to come closer to covering its real, total costs to society, thus spurring market demand for better fuel efficiency, thus driving automakers to provide it.

Is that some sort of New liberal code word for Significant Tax INCREASE ?

They're Not tryin' to TAX the F**K outta ya'......Al Gore is merely making a small miniscule adjustment to help xxextortxx .....I mean spur public demand for the development of a more fuel efficient and stylish Crackerbox ?

Do ya think while the governments ADJUSTING the gas prices they could ADJUST my property TAX BILL to better represent the REAL assessed market Value of my home?

Well I'm making an option C, besides safety standards the Government needs to get the hell out of the auto industry and let them build vehicles that the motoring public is willing to buy. Everyone don't want a 2000 lb. 85 horsepower crackerbox!

(especially this CRACKER)

Some do but many don't and I am one of the many. I don't need the government "nudging" me into the direction that they think I should be going in! Crew cab turbo diesel for me thank you very much, now GO AWAY!

As always Thankyou MT
for that significantly revelatory
abundant heapin' helpin'
of coherent logical rationalization
called option C
(which I surmise stands for option Cracker)!!!

 

[TexasDart]

one reason the off shore drilling spill happened in the first place is because they cannot do shallow offshore drilling because of regulations preventing the safer drilling.

 

[mtandrews]

Are all you guys registered to vote?

I am, first vote of my life was for Renaldus Magnus...

 

[slantsixdan]

Are all you guys registered to vote?

Yup. And I do -- every single time.

 

[slantsixdan]

Well I'm making an option C, besides safety standards the Government needs to get the hell out of the auto industry

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but it's not popular or thoughtful enough to get any serious traction. That's just not how it works in the civilized world. Don't like it? Fine, go live in some 3rd-world toilet where the government isn't involved in the auto industry. Send us a postcard and let us know how perfect and awesome it is!

 

[slantsixdan]

There's more to option "A" than CAFE. Without federal regulation vehicles would not be as safe as they are today.

That is true and correct. US auto safety standards are in many ways inferior to the international-consensus European-based ones most of the rest of the world uses (and superior in some ways), and the way our safety standards work is quickly becoming a major problem as the Chinese and the Indians begin to send their cars worldwide, but what we have with our flawed FMVSS is a whole hell of a lot better than what we would have without any government involvement in auto safety. The same is true for emissions (and how!) and fuel economy.

raising the gas tax puts money in the hands of those who have demonstrated an inability to handle it properly

That's a structural problem with our government, not a gas tax problem (or a Republican problem or a Democrat problem). It definitely needs fixing; I have no idea how.

Second, raising the gas tax turns it into a poor tax. Those who can not afford more fuel efficient vehicles end up paying the most tax, proportionately.

That is also true, and a real problem.

The federal tax on gasoline needs to progressively raised $1.00 per gallon. Funds derived from the increased tax need to be earmarked for transporation infrastructure rehabilitation (rebuilding existing roads, bridges, and overpasses that are unsafe) and reduction of the federal debt.

Works for me, but then how do you address the problem you raised above, with the least-well-off people being hit hardest by the gas tax?

 

[mtandrews]

??? dude, I gotta go live in a 3rd world toilet because I think the government is overbearing in the automotive world? Really? I know how it works in the "civilized world" and I know Government creating a problem so they can charge the masses for a solution to a problem they created when I see it as well!

I don't have to like it because you deem this is the way it should be. I got a better idea, I'll stay here in the country of my origin and voice my opinion respectfully. I've been to Panama, Honduras, Iraq, and Kuwait, no more 3rd world toilets for me thank you very much. You'd probably cringe if you seen some of the "postcards" I've collected over the years in these places...

 

[slantsixdan]

Haven't they been doin that since somewhere around 1972 ?

1966.

Is (adjust) some sort of New liberal code word for Significant Tax INCREASE?

It's a word that means, among other things, to bring the parts of to a true or more effective relative position. In this case, we're talking about costs of gasoline usage that the market can't see or account for, making its price artificially low relative to its actual costs.

If you wanna talk about code words, "subsidy" is a code word for throwing taxpayer money at companies and industries that don't actually need it because they already make billions of dollars a year. Like the oil industry or the ethanol industry, for example. "Subsidy" has other meanings, too. When the price of a commodity is lower than its cost, there's some serious subsidy going on. Somebody's paying to make up the difference. In the case of the (true and total) costs of motor fuel usage, we all pay, no matter whether we drive a Prius or a Hummer. In the land of the free(HEEEEEEEEEEEEE!) and the home of the brave, those who run up a bigger bill of costs ought to be paying more than those who run up a smaller one. This isn't difficult to understand; I'm sure you can do it if you put on yer thinkin' cap and give it a good try.

Al Gore

As far as I know, he's not a part of the present administration.

 

[slantsixdan]

besides safety standards the Government needs to get the hell out of the auto industry

Why except safety?

Crew cab turbo diesel for me thank you very much

No objection here, yer awnner…if you can afford to fuel it, go for it. But what -- aside from a bloated sense of self and being accustomed to paying artificially-low prices for motor fuel -- makes you think you're entitled to carry on doing so forever?

 

[slantsixdan]

??? dude, I gotta go live in a 3rd world toilet because I think the government is overbearing in the automotive world?

If you want to live your dream of being where the government isn't involved in the auto industry…yes, that's what you have to do, because in the civilized world that's not how it works.

I know how it works in the "civilized world"

You don't seem to.

I don't have to like it

No, you don't have to like it. There's plenty I don't like about the way things work in America. There's plenty I don't like about the way things work in Canada. I'm a citizen of both countries, and I vote in both countries, which -- every time I do it -- renews my American bitching license and my Canadian bitching licence.

I got a better idea, I'll stay here in the country of my origin and voice my opinion respectfully.

That seems to be what we're both doing here right now, more or less.

I've been to Panama, Honduras, Iraq, and Kuwait, no more 3rd world toilets for me thank you very much.

Are you suggesting that governmental involvement in the auto industry, even if you think it's excessive, might be a reasonable tradeoff for not living in a 3rd-world toilet?

 

[LXguy]

Works for me, but then how do you address the problem you raised above, with the least-well-off people being hit hardest by the gas tax?

Public transportation?

:toothy9:

 

[slantsixdan]

You libbies might wanna just go with the conservative next time around and see what happens.

We tried that in 2000 and 2004. The result was the present crapmess.

maybe a couple less babies get murdered, a few more illegals get deported, a few evil rich people get some tax breaks and can expand and hire more employees, we may pay off a big chunk of our national debt

Right, 'cause all that wonderful stuff happened under Bush…and his dad…and Reagan, right? Wrong.

Look, I don't like paying $4/gallon for gasoline, either. I'd rather be paying $3 or $2 or $1 or 50¢. But as Mick Jagger said, yew cain't always git whatchyoo wa-hant…but if you try sometimes, y'just might find…y'git whatchya NEE-HEED!

 

[mtandrews]

Are you suggesting that governmental involvement in the auto industry, even if you think it's excessive, might be a reasonable tradeoff for not living in a 3rd-world toilet?
I'm not suggesting anything, I responded to your injection of suggesting that I move to a 3rd World toilet. Plus I don't make suggestions, I make statements.
Why except safety?
safety as in fair crash standards, seatbelt strength, minimum glass shear strength, things like that, not fuel mileage or electric or gas or whatever as it has nothing to do with PUBLIC SAFETY.
aside from a bloated sense of self and being accustomed to paying artificially-low prices for motor fuel -- makes you think you're entitled to carry on doing so forever?
who's paying artificially low prices for motor fuel? I think its the other way around, its artificially high.
You don't seem to.
Well I am whether you agree or not, don't faze me at all. Its apparent the we have a different view of Governments role in our daily lives. I'll let you have your view and I'll keep mine without telling you that you don't know how the "civilized world works".
We tried that in 2000 and 2004. The result was the present crapmess.
Nope, Bush was a Republican, not a Conservative. Contrary to the beliefs of the center Left, they are not one and the same.
I'm a citizen of both countries, and I vote in both countries, which -- every time I do it -- renews my American bitching license and my Canadian bitching license.

That's a personal choice made by you, but by all means ***** away...