A forum for comments about Naperville news and issues.

New emissions, efficiency standards for vehicles

| 55 Comments | No TrackBacks

President Barack Obama is expected to announce new national emissions standards for vehicles Tuesday, as well as fuel efficiency standards of 35.5 miles per gallon on average by 2016.

The standards should save billions of barrels of oil but are estimated to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle.

Administration officials say the plan would be the environmental equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road. New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program, they said.

Under the changes, the overall fleet average would have to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, with passenger cars reaching 39 mpg and light trucks hitting 30 mpg.

What do you think of the plan? Are you willing to pay more for more efficient vehicles? Is this a sign that or attitudes toward driving are changing as a nation?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/6186

55 Comments

Civics,

Both on Beck, he starting out thinking we were on the road to socialism. After a number of interviews with historians (including Shlaes http://www.amityshlaes.com/), Beck concluded (correctly) that where we are headed is Government control of private property, fascism.

Sowell, who is widely published and read; when asked if we were headed towards socialism, his answer was "no, we're heading into fascism". Government control of private property.

IMHO, the so called carbon emissions bill that the rubber stamp Legislature is ramming through without reading enables the FEDs to track, record, know and control almost everything you do.

Anonymous May 28 7:30-ish

Were they both on Fox News, or just Napolitano?

Has anyone else heard Judge Napolitano state that we are quickly moving to Fascism?

http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml

Did anyone else hear Dr. Sowell state that we are quickly moving to Fascism yesterday?

http://www.tsowell.com/

To: Anonymous on May 24, 2009 12:48 PM

Thanks for the explanation. It's good we have watchful people out there on the lookout for signs the democrats are finally moving us toward their long-dreamed-of socialist state.

Did you know that all stop signs in this country are printed on the back with invisible maps that give directions to key national defense infrastructure and civilian control points? It takes a special viewer to read them, and only UN troops have them. The maps were put in place years ago -- during the Carter administration and updated during Clinton -- just waiting for a time when democrats would again be in solid control of things and could start implementing the World Socialist Government (WSG).

Also, if you line your hat with aluminum foil connected to a 9V battery, the government mind-reading systems (implanted in every cell phone sold in this country) cant penetrate your brain. If you dont believe me, why do you think they dont allow kids to wear hats in school anymore? Its because they were losing the ability to plant thoughts in their head!

Think about it....

Oh, and on the buffoon issue. Obama doesn't look like one when he makes a mistake, but luckily we have Biden picking up the slack. Bush and Biden are cut from the same cloth, both overgrown frat boys. In the interest of fairness, enjoy the following:


http://theglennbeck912project.com/2009/04/30/if-you-think-joe-bidens-gaffe-about-the-flu-on-the-today-was-an-isolated-incident-think-again-and-enjoy-this-little-montage/

To Ken on May 23, 2009 12:27 AM:

I wasn't ignoring your last post, I just had an very busy weekend.

Of course you are right (and very eloquently put, as well). Obama, like everyone else in the game, is a political animal, and his success so far definitely reflects that. But accurately predicting what will happen months or years down the road is far from an exact science--look how badly the Bush admin misjudged Iraq.

Here's where we begin to part ways on this: Obama was very vocal about TARP as president-elect. I remember him agreeing with Bush on not only the TARP bail-out but the auto co. ones as well. If TARP had turned out to be a disaster, it would have been nearly impossible for Obama to do an about face and blame it entirely on Bush after the fact. He went on the record supporting these programs before he was even sworn in, so everyone knew he was committed to continuing this course of action once he took office. If getting a political win/win scenario out of this was his first priority, he would have voted for it but kept his mouth shut until he saw which way the wind was blowing and then exploited it to his advantage like most good little politicians. But his candor on this issue from the beginning really ruined that strategy for him.

This is why I like the guy. I may not agree with everything he does, but I understand why he's doing it and I do believe he's acting in the best interests of the country, not just for himself, or his place in history, or to keep his party in power, which the Republicans are obsessed with. You can say we're brain-washed, been drinking the Kool-Aid, whatever. But I see more intelligence and integrity in Obama than I've seen in any president for a long time, and if this makes me an idiot to you, I can live with that.

Civics and who I suspect is AKA What the ?: Anonymous 5/24/09 12:48 defined it almost perfectly but left a major component out: A corrupted media. I will write it until my fingertips are raw: any newspaper or other news media that endorses a political candidate will give us policticians with the honesty and integrity of a Rod Blago.

Civics,

Oops, I must have hit close to home.

At the core of our Country, as I understand it, is the Constitution which limits government and the Bill of Rights which empowers the individual. These two documents and the Country are inseparable.

At the core of the Constitution is the notion of private property, limited representative government, capitalism, and the individual.

When any political party wants:

*Judges that can't read the Constitution, and make it up as they go.

*Talks about group rights, aka collectivization and race, age and gender, sexual preference based laws.

*Starts nationalizing or effectively commanding (Command Economy) huge sectors (autos, power, banking, insurance etc) of the private economy.

*Aggressively usurps the rights of state a local governments.

That party does not love the USA.

Lets define the party:

*National in scope.

*Socialist in it policies. Openly trashes successful individuals and capitalism.

*Workers, champions workers rights over the rights the rights of others.

*Race, gender and sexual preference laws in addition to open hostility towards religions.

*Has an official enemies list: Bankers, Wealthy Individuals and Christian Veterans.

*Undermines Democracy through the use of groups like Acorn funded by the Democratic Elite.

*Uses Gestapo like intimidation tactics against opposition like the tea parties.

*Proposes the creation of national youth groups funded by the state under the control of the leader.

What do we have?
The National Socialist American Workers Party. We even have our own cult leader with adoring followers.

One of the first things to go in Germany was the cross replaced with new symbol of the secular state.

Here is the web site where you can read up the the Democrats model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party


Anonymous 10:12

When I first started reading your post, you seemed like a person with some interesting ideas (though they might conflict with my own.

Then I read this sentence:

"The leaders in the Democratic Party hate the US and see it as a flawed racist, capitalist, Christian country that they need to "re-make"."

And I realized you were just another wack-o with a computer.

To What ?

1.
TARP: Who knows what Bush thought? No matter what the policy, Bush wouldn't be around to implement it. Summers wrote TARP, he is still Obama's key economic adviser. Bush looked so in shock when he was reading "the sky is falling" statements to get TARP approved, it looked like he was reading off of an approved 3x5 card.

Bush's hands are very dirty, he pushed for more sub-prime Fannie and Freddi loans just like a good little social engineering Progressive. Like many of our leaders, his mind was probably ruined at Harvard.

2.
UAW Bailout: If Bush had allowed GM to go into bankruptcy, we would have been hearing how the uncaring Conservatives could have saved GM from their unions and didn't for the next 100 years.

So, Bush pissed away what will be $100 Billion, before its over, to save what will be 50,000 UAW jobs. GM still fails the day Obama leaves office and they are off of life support. The UAW and bad management killed them.

In the mean time, every other citizen in the USA is getting sucked dry from Obama's Union paymasters.

3.
National Security: The thing that is obvious, and continues to be self evident, is that the Democrats can't be trusted with the police, courts or the military.

The leaders in the Democratic Party hate the US and see it as a flawed racist, capitalist, Christian country that they need to "re-make".

Obama has made it clear that the terrorists are the victims. He is now moving the Gitmo terrorists into the Federal Prisons where they can begin recruiting.

If they don't wear uniforms, the Geneva conventions don't protect them from a firing squad, which is where they belong.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By what the? on May 22, 2009 8:34 PM

1.
There are some things that Bush and Obama appear to have agreed on. One was TARP,

2.
the other was not allowing the American car industry to disappear,

3.
and it seems O is also coming around to recognizing that some of the questionable policies Bush implemented after 9/11 probably weren't all that bad.

To (yet another) Anonymous on May 22, 2009 6:55 PM:

I know you were addressing Ken, but I couldn't let this statement go by: "Bush, did not want to start a program Obama would abandon as soon as he took office. TARP is Obama's baby."

Not buying it. TARP was Bush's baby first, Obama kept it going. Bush was commander-in-chief at the time, he announced it, he signed it into being, he owns it no matter how much the Republican party wants to disown it. And now you're insisting that Bush would not have signed off on TARP if Obama had objected? Is this the latest version of the story to get the Rep party off the bail-out hook, so they can claim that Obama MADE Bush do it? Please. That's too lame, even for Bush.

Bush embraced TARP because the LAST thing he wanted connected to his term was a major economic depression. On top of all the other disasters of his 8-year reign, this would have been the coup de grace to his presidential legacy. TARP was his way of not allowing that to happen, in addition to the fact that he probably believed it was needed. I have no doubt Bush would have approved TARP even if Obama had not been on board with it. To have done nothing would have been disastrous for his legacy and his party's.

What the, recognizing the fact that Obama is an astute politician able to look at a situation and see how it can be played to his advantage weeks, months, or years down the road does not make me part of the black helicopter crowd. It is just recognizing what Obama has proven throughout his career; the fact that every move he makes is carefully thought out as to how it will affect his future. Any one with any sense could see that it was a win/win move for Obama to push for TARP on Bush's watch for the reasons I have already given.

I don't think every move Obama makes is part of a conspiracy, or a secret socialist agenda. In fact, most of his socialist moves are pretty overt.

However, I do believe that every move that Obama makes is tempered by how it will affect his political life. This is no different than any other politician, and Obama is obviously quite good at playing the political game. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the press didn't have his back and treated him like they treated Bush, but I doubt that will ever happen.

To Ken on May 22, 2009 2:49 PM--

Yes, I knew that anonymous 5/21 12:35 was you.

There are some things that Bush and Obama appear to have agreed on. One was TARP, the other was not allowing the American car industry to disappear, and it seems O is also coming around to recognizing that some of the questionable policies Bush implemented after 9/11 probably weren't all that bad. While this drives the far left loons crazy, I'm okay with it. If two presidents so ideologically different as Bush and Obama can agree that these things are necessary to keep our country afloat, then I really think we, meaning the rest of us, should probably shut up and let those whom we elected handle it.

What irritates me to no end is the politicizing of all these issues. Bush initiated the TARP program, but I'm sure Obama would have done the same if he had been in office at that time. So to say that "it was obvious that Obama and his followers (people like you) wanted to be able to say the bailouts were Bush's failed policy if the economy did not immediately turn around. If it had, Obama and his acolytes would have claimed it was their plan at work" is simply political BS. I seriously doubt Obama saw the future at the time he supported the first TARP and recognized this as a win/win for him politically whether it worked or not. That's what you hear from the "black helicopter" crowd. EVERYTHING is done for political purposes, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, EVERYTHING has a socialist secret agenda, yada, yada, yada.

If you want to see half truths and stupidity at their best, go to Fox News, Rush L., Michelle Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, etc etc. In fact, poor Laura has looked like she's had a mouth full of s**t ever since Obama gave his Notre Dame commencement address. Since she couldn't find anything about his speech to disparage--to her dismay, Bill O'Reilly loved it--she's been disparaging Notre Dame instead, that "it's no longer a Catholic school" because Obama was invited to speak there. Maybe she can ask the Pope to excommunicate the entire university.

As much as TARP irked me, I can't say it was a mistake. We didn't take the do nothing option, so we'll never know how that would have turned out. But I'm certain Obama does not have the ability to see the future and make political decisions based on what he sees there. If you do, then your helicopter is waiting . . .


Ken,

TARP was designed by Larry Summers of Harvard and Clinton 1; Obama designated him as his guy to save the banks after he was President elect but not yet in office.

Bush, did not want to start a program Obama would abandon as soon as he took office. TARP is Obama's baby. Obama was running domestic policy when he was president elect. Bush kept running foreign police up to the last day.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By Ken on May 22, 2009 2:49 PM

What the, anonymous 5/21 12:35 was obviously me.

Obama may have been sworn in on January 20, but he was obviously involved in the TARP funds decisions, calling for Bush to implement the bailouts instead of letting it wait until he came into office.

What the, anonymous 5/21 12:35 was obviously me.

Obama may have been sworn in on January 20, but he was obviously involved in the TARP funds decisions, calling for Bush to implement the bailouts instead of letting it wait until he came into office. This is one of those rare times you and I will agree that Bush made a mistake, as it was obvious that Obama and his followers (people like you) wanted to be able to say the bailouts were Bush's failed policy if the economy did not immediately turn around. If it had, Obama and his acolytes would have claimed it was their plan at work.

You should go to work for Air America. The half truths you tell, and your assumption that people are as stupid as you would make you a good fit there.

From the Trib on May 20th:

“It had taken weeks of hardball negotiations, but on Sunday afternoon, White House officials thought everything was falling into place. In less than 48 hours they would unveil a landmark deal with U.S. automakers to impose sharply higher fuel-efficiency standards on new cars and trucks.

Then at 3 p.m., the telephone rang.

A senior Ford executive said the company had run the numbers again and concluded it might not survive if it accepted the deal. If Ford pulled out, it would mean a major setback for two of President Obama's signature goals -- combating global warming and reducing the nation's appetite for foreign oil.

In the end, with more number-crunching and another application of White House pressure, Ford did not bolt.”

I don’t see Mulally’s standing beside BHO for this announcement as any great endorsement of the new plan. I see it as just one more US corporation and CFO afraid to defy the president.

The govt can tell Detroit what to make, but it can’t make consumers want to buy the cars. Sales of fuel-efficient cars only spikes when gas prices are high. BHO is just planning the US auto industry around his energy plan (cap and trade) which will push gas prices to the point where these cars will appear more attractive to consumers. The second act in this drama has yet to come.

T.B.

$40,000 for the Volt! Boy, they should sell like hot cakes.

To Anonymous on May 21, 2009 12:35:

I would rather be in denial than full of crap. A comment in your last post is a dead giveaway:

"Enjoy your emperor, whose own shopping habits couldn't even save his favorite suit company because of the policies he instituted."

BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES HE (OBAMA) INSTITUTED? Seriously? The maker of Hartmarx suits filed for bankruptcy protection on JANUARY 23 of this year. Obama was sworn into office on JANUARY 20, three days before. Are you trying to have us believe that policies Obama instituted his first 3 days in office caused the bankruptcy of Hartmarx? The $25 billion in TARP funds Wells Fargo Bank, Hartmarx's main creditor, got from the Bush admin last fall sure didn't trickle down to the employees of that company, did it?

You should write for Rush Limbaugh. This is the kind of clueless propaganda he spews into the airwaves 3 hours a day. Heck, for a $400 million contract I'd sit and spew it too. I don't think you're getting paid that much for carrying the flag as a loyal Republican foot soldier, though, are you?

Cars Won’t All Shrink Under Obama’s Fuel Plan, Automakers Say

May 21, 2009

Automakers say they won’t have to overhaul their technology or flood the U.S. with tiny cars buyers may not want under President Barack Obama’s standards for fuel economy and greenhouse-gas emissions.

Even as they face more than $21 billion in annual costs to meet the new standards by 2016, General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. will benefit from a single national system, rather than a patchwork of state rules, and an approach that allows them to tweak the fuel efficiency for each category of vehicle sizes and weights.

The plan announced by Obama at the White House yesterday “gives the automobile manufacturers a lot of flexibility,” said Robert Sawyer, professor of energy studies at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s designed in part to not penalize the U.S. manufacturers versus their Japanese competitors. The U.S. automobile industry will be able to deal with it.”

Automaker chief executive officers, including Fritz Henderson of GM and Alan Mulally of Ford, stood alongside Obama and environmentalists at the White House yesterday and endorsed his plan. It would require the industry to produce vehicles that get, on average, 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 models, up from the 27.3 average in 2011, the last year before the new plan takes effect.

The plan won’t “necessarily” force Ford to make smaller vehicles, Mulally said in an interview after Obama’s White House ceremony.

“We can make the size of vehicle that people really do want,” he said. “The command is, no matter what the size, that we will improve fuel efficiency every year going forward.”


‘Costs More Upfront’

“It costs more to make fuel-efficient vehicles, it costs more upfront,” Lisa Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said yesterday in an interview. The cost “pays for itself” for consumers through fuel savings after three years of driving, she said.

The five percent annual increase in fuel mileage over five years would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce 900 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, according to the administration. That is the equivalent of taking 177 million vehicles off the road.

Auto companies achieved some important goals in Obama’s plan. They will face one federal standard rather than regulations by California and other states, which could apply different rules, raising costs.

The companies also won assurances that the overall 35.5 mpg goal can be achieved through a series of standards set by vehicle size and weight rather than for entire fleets. That removes pressure to produce small cars to compensate for making pickups and sport utility vehicles.

Ford’s EcoBoost

Technology already available to U.S. automakers includes Ford’s EcoBoost powertrain, which adds power with turbochargers while feeding precise amounts of fuel to the cylinders to improve efficiency, said Hill of the Center for Automotive Research said.

By 2013, 90 percent of all Ford vehicles will be able to incorporate that technology, Mulally said.

GM’s Hybrids

GM has plans already to move its fleet to alternative propulsion, including the Chevrolet Volt electric car scheduled for next year. In a viability plan submitted to the federal government, the company said it will have 26 gas-electric hybrid models in 2014, up from 9 this year.

GM has said it intended for its car fleet to attain a 38.6 mpg average fuel economy by 2015 and its trucks to hit 27.6 mpg, according to that plan. The company would use smaller engines, six-speed automatic transmissions, lighter vehicles, hybrids and all-electric vehicles.

Bill Ford’s Comments

Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford said Obama’s plan represents “swift action to prevent the deterioration of the industrial base.”

“That’s something I felt strongly about for years, and I didn’t think enough attention was being paid to it nationally,” Ford said in an interview yesterday.

Automakers can use off-the-shelf technology, including cleaner engines, more efficient transmissions, better air conditioning systems and cleaner fuels, said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program.

“Automakers have the technology they need to meet and beat these standards,” Kliesch said in a statement.

It seems that many here are again ignoring at least some of the facts about this change. For all the talk about 'death traps' and 'how will I fit a family of 7...' please note that it is a fleet average that is on the line here. That means that the total of the passenger cars offered by a manufacturer has to meet that point, not ever last car that is for sale. Want to offer a giant gas hungry SUV? Fine, but it has to be balanced by a small, very efficient model.
Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't get rid of larger less efficient cars, just creates a balance. If you think about the idea that the last CAFE standards were put into place in a very different world, in 1985, perhaps it is long overdue?
For those of you that remember that time frame and what they were trying to do, the standards were supposed to creep up over time. They didn't, and for my part, I think it's time to do something about that, for the environment as well as for reducing our needs for ANY additional oil, but primarily foreign.
The argument here should be about the details of the plan, not the rep. or dem. talking points. Read it, understand it.
It's not a nightmare...

For 8 years I have watched that dumb--s Bush kill our own teenagers and young adults, kill hundreds of thousands of iraqi's, cripple the military, enrich the rich, roll over civil rights, pervert science, bankrupt the country, destroy the economy, polute the environment, start an unprovoked war and lie to do it, ignore the constitution, subvert the legislature, condone torture, and destroy our credibility in the world, and along with it our ability to operate as a force for good. And all I have had to console myself with is an hour a night of John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and a bit of Letterman. In the end, you had to laugh at the man and his idiocy because the only alternative was to cry.

I am not the most liberal person in the world. I would call myself a moderate conservative overall and moderate liberal on social issues. But Bush was such an idiot, such a weak-willed puppet of the far, far right reactionary neocons......it really warms my heart to see the conservatives absolutely stewing in their own bile and hatred.

They are now lying in the very bed that their policies over the last 8 years made for them. And they refuse to take accountability for their own predicament. They want to blame everybody but themselves! They refuse to face the fact that it is their own actions and policies, not the "liberal" media, that resulted in Obama's win AND the sweep in congress.

In fact.....the more I think about it, the more I smile! Their unhappiness makes me absolutely giddy!

What the, you are in denial, so why bother going on with you. As usual, I have offered proof of my claims; you have only disparaging remarks. I shouldn't be surprised as it is complete idiots like you who elected Obama, and I am sure you will continue to stand behind him even when the facts prove you wrong. Enjoy your emperor, whose own shopping habits couldn't even save his favorite suit company because of the policies he instituted.

Oh Kenneth, you're not paying attention. Yes, the last 10 tens have contributed to where we are now. My 10 year time frame acknowledges the Clinton Admin's part in starting deregulation, Fannie and Freddie, etc. If I wanted to lay in all on Bush, I would have said 8 years, but this would not have been accurate. Nothing new in your link, this was all discussed ad nauseum before Obama was even sworn in. But further deregulation during the Bush years along with an extreme lack of governmental oversight and control which his admin. encouraged, sealed the deal. Bush et al. hold the majority of the responsibility because they were in office for 8 of the last 10 years. Duh.

I have a very clear concept of the new credit card regulations, which i also support (even tho I didn't necessarily support a cap on interest rates, but that wasn't passed anyway). Glad to hear you do too. Then stop belly aching that it MIGHT cost you something. We can have this discussion in 9 months after the changes take effect. Until then, it's all just speculative griping. In fact, everything you listed is just that so far, speculation. Some less so than others, but speculation all the same. The Reps use the fear that these changes might cost us something to try to stop them dead in their tracks. This is why these problems have existed unchanged for so many years. Enough already. This is the home of the brave, remember? Suck it up and give it a shot. It might actually work. Or is that what you're really afraid of, the president you dislike having ideas that actually work?

And sorry, you completely lose credibility when you deny that Obama is an excellent speaker. Even his opponents do not deny him this, except you. And no one cares about a teleprompter. If Bush didn't use one then he obviously should have. And I have never heard any of Obama's opponents refer to him as a buffoon, either, except you. He is cool-headed and disciplined. George Bush was not. In fact, Obama's opponents criticize him for being TOO cool-headed and disciplined. And Obama has made as many mistakes as Bush? Really? REALLY? I don't think ANY president has made the number of public gaffes that Bush did. Get a grip, Ken, you've lost credibility on this point and it sounds like you're starting to lose your grip on reality too. The emperor wears Hartmarx suits.

What the, you keep stating that the last 10 years have led us to this present crisis. Even though that includes two years of the Clinton administration, you seem to put the blame mostly on republican policies. Here is a link that shows how and why our present problems were brought on by the democrats:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313027333411197

Good reading with facts to back it up, but I am sure you will find some fault with it as it shows you don't know what the... you are talking about. You don't even have a clear concept of what the credit card reform will do (something I am in favor of, by the way)or what practices it is aimed at.

So far, everything Obama has proposed will cost me more money. Cap and trade? By his own admission, it will drive up our energy bills. New fuel mileage standards without time to get the technology right and cheaper? By his own admission, $6-1300 more per car, if you can believe a government estimate. Good luck on that. National health care? New taxes on sugary drinks. New fuel mileage standards? Smaller cars, or the old fine the manufacture per vehicle trick, which obviously gets passed on to the consumer. I don't know how I am going to fit a family of 7 in an economy car, but I am sure Obama will be happy to make sure I pay a lot more for a larger vehicle for the sin of having a large family. Maybe you want to keep giving away more of your income, but I prefer to keep mine.

By the way, I already drive a fuel efficient vehicle that passes mandated pollution testing. Gets 37mpg on the highway, and I paid $8,000 new for it 9 years ago. I've been doing my part for 9 years; why should I be forced to pay more now? And if Obama was serious about cutting dependence on foreign oil, why not open up the various oil fields here that he just denied use of? It wouldn't solve our whole problem, but it would help.

Last, but not least, if you think Obama is a great speaker, you obviously have not seen him off the teleprompter. If Bush had made as many flubs as Obama had while using the teleprompters, Letterman would have been all over it. If Bush had stated that there were 60 states in the U.S., as Obama did, Letterman would have been all over it. There are numerous other such mistakes that Obama made, yet you don't hear a peep about it from Letterman. Letterman is afraid to show Obama's buffoonery because he doesn't want to admit he makes just as many mistakes as Bush did. In this case, the self appointed destroyers of Bush just can't admit that their emperor is wearing no clothes.

To Anon or Ken, whichever: Here is the original post I was referring to. Take another look yourself:

"If anyone needs more proof that the Federal Government has over reached beyond their Constitutional Authority, this is it. Obama is going to put all of us and our families in death traps manufactured by his union paymasters.

What needs to happen is a dramatic downsizing of the Federal Government striped to its intended role: National Defense, interstate transportation networks, customs to defend our industries and the post office for communications. Three of the above four, the FEDs suck.

Lets be honest, giant Federal Government is a giant failure that is bankrupting the Nation, eliminating individual rights and state's rights."

Obama is going to put all of us and our families in death traps? Giant federal government is a giant failure? Ok, aside from insisting our president wants to put all of us and our families into death traps, which is Republican-speak for small, fuel-efficient cars, the rest isn't that bad, but it does sound
alarmist. "what needs to happen is a dramatic downsizing of the FG striped to its intended role". Fine, except that over half of the American people voted for MORE FG when they voted for Obama. Is this a country by the people, or by what you and some other folks think it should be?

And "giant Fed Gov is a giant failure that is bankrupting the Nation, etc."? This Giant FG is only several weeks old. It has yet to be proved a failure or to have bankrupted the nation. And keep in mind that the Fed Gov became giant as a response to the disastrous consequences of 10 years of deregulation, lack of oversight and laissez fair capitalism. The FG stepped in to save this nation's butt, whether you think it needed saving or not. If you want the FG out of the marketplace, then put back in the necessary laws and regulations that will prohibit this from happening yet a third time in the future. Then the FG can get back to its "intended role".

Everything Obama introduces is not going to automatically take more of your income; this is the Republican fear argument against any and all change. It's ok to pollute the air, but God forbid don't cost me a little bit of money. It's ok to stay dependent on foreign oil, but don't cost me a little bit of money. Even "if the credit card legislation goes through, the credit card companies will just start everyone at a higher interest rate, even those with good credit." Newsflash, Ken: the credit card companies are ALREADY doing this, have been for months. The new credit card legislation is in response to this practice, not the cause of it. It seems the Reps, like the credit card companies, have this argument bass ackwards.

And you think I offered up Letterman as a defense for Obama? As if! You Reps are so joyless you wouldn't recognize humor if it walked up and peed on your leg. We make fun of Bush's mistakes because he gave us so much to make fun of! Bush earned this reputation. His presidency will be the gift that keeps on giving for years to come. Compared to Bush, you're right, Obama's mistakes, the few there have been, do go relatively unnoticed. When personalities like Fox's Hannity get so desperate to make fun of Obama that they are reduced to ridiculing the president's preference for spicy Dijon mustard, which couldn't be made even remotely funny, then you know we're missing the good old days of rampant presidential buffoonery. Ah, memories!

If the goal is to free us from foreign oil and create American manufacturing jobs, then tax imported oil by $10 a barrel and drop the federal taxes on cars made in the USA.

What this is about is Obama rewarding his union paymasters and an ego tripping politician that wants to play Hugo Chavez with the best economy and medical systems in the world, at least for the short term.

I don't listen to Rush and thought that Bush sucked, Obama sucks worse.

Same old movie, free tradism, cronyism, bigger government, bailouts, insane deficit spending, lots of new rules to make sure the right people get lots of money etc etc etc......Change?

Sanity: I posted at 2:40, not Ken. I do listen to Fox News and Rush when I can. I prefer the counter point of alternative media to the kool aid drinking, HA HA OBAMA as someone wrote crowd. And because I do not listen or pay attention to big networks, government PBS or most newspapers, I am smarter than you. I wrote it before and I will write it again for you. It is my opinion Highlanders were designed and engineered for girls. They are not the kind of vehicles men drive unless of course you are a diminuitive little liberal man with very small hands. Real men DO NOT drive Highlanders unless their Dodge Challenger is in the shop, again having government backed warranty work done on it. If you think I am wrong, sit in front of any school in 203 or 204 and watch who is driving up in Highlanders or Odyessys. Girls, all girls. No anger issues, LMFAO!

Anonymous 3:30 was me. Sure wish this site would go back to the format that allows one to enter their name in the comment field and it would stay there...

Sanity, I don't feel I am embarrassing myself any more than you blind followers of your chosen one are.

Here's a newsflash for you, I don't listen to Rush and watch Fox News far less than the main stream media stations. In fact, when I do listen to talk radio, it is 99.9, the "progressive station". It's kind of like listening to a comedy station, and funny how they spend more time attacking Rush and Fox, like you, instead of telling how Obama's plans are actually going to work without creating the biggest deficit ever.

Even with your 'chosen one' in office all you can do is attack people. You and your ilk are the truley pathetic people. It would be nice, Sanity, if you could address the issues discussed instead of attacking people.

I thought the headline in today's Sun was asinine. Would you spend $1300 to save the planet? The $1300 figure must have been pulled out of thin air. No one really knows what the technology will be to get the kind of mileage they are talking about and what it will cost. And SAVING the PLANET????? This global warming bit is way over hyped. The largest green house gas is water vapor not carbon dioxide. And a few years from now we will probably be worried about global cooling.

If one is really worried about global warming, how abuot a headline

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT TO SAVE THE PLANET?
After all one could start "saving the planet" today not years from now.

Or how about a headline:

ARE YOU WILLING TO DRIVE A GLORIFIED GOLF CART TO SAVE THE PLANET"
The is what one will be driving with mileage restrictions they are talking about.

Or another possible headline addressed to the traffic engineers:
ARE WILLING TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC LIGHT TIMING TO SAVE THE PLANET.



Annonymous 2:40 and 3:30

Please stop embarrassing yourself - your arguments are pathetic and transparent. It's obvious you think you're smarter than anyone else, but it's equally obvious you haven't a clue what your talking about. Have you had a single thought yet that didn't come from directly from Fox News or Rush the idiot? It's past time to get over your anger issues ... which are no doubt more about fear anyway - stop, think, and if you come up with an original thought then MAYBE consider posting it. BTW, nothing says loser louder than deciding a car is "for girls" .... and I can't think of a color or option package that would make someone so obviously afraid of anyone who thinks differently than they do appear to be any kind of man.

What the, what socialist theories or black helicopter stories have I stated? You lie just as much as the man you adore, as I have done neither.

It is a fact that Obama is requiring the mileage standards, and it is a fact that his policy is going to cost consumers more money. Same with his cap and trade policy. Everything he introduces is going to take more of my income, yet you seem to expect me and the rest of the country to be happy about this. Even if the credit card legislation goes through, the credit card companies will just start everyone at a higher interest rate, even those with good credit.

I think it is funny that the best defense of Obama you can give is Letterman. Funny how he made fun of Bush's mistakes, but never mentions Obama's. Like you, and most of the media, he has drank the koolaid and feels his chosen one can do no wrong.

You are correct on the timing What the ?. It is hard to keep up with your active mind. Plus I'm a little disturbed and not thinking clearly that my next company car could be a: Corrolla, named after a cigar I smoked at beer parties in college. Or was it Corrona? Whatever. And I agree with Always-Right-for is OK unless they take money from the government. Problem is I have heard from more than one source they cannot deliver ordered vehicles very quickly and I wonder if closing the plants for a period of time in the summer has something to do with it. But was checking our Highlanders and while they are for girls, the right color and option package may be OK for those of us who know we are men anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. is still a capitalist, free market society, at least for now. That means the consumers dictate what kind of cars they want the automakers to manufacture by what they purchase. The government has no business telling us what we can and can't buy. Tailpipe emissions should be the technological target, not miles per gallon. Regardless of what you might have read, there are plenty of fuel sources for internal combustion engines, which can all be made to run cleanly. Obama is trying to force us all into euro-style econo-boxes which are great in Europe but inappropriate for many U.S. uses and roads. If people want to buy mini-cars they will. But they should also have the option of having a family-sized van, a pickup truck that will do the work required for a farm or business, or a high-horsepower luxury or sports car if they can afford one. The technology exists to produce all of these and still be environmentally responsible. We don't need to have econo-boxes inflicted on us by government zealots who fail to understand the basics of our economic system.

No matter which company comes up with a high mileage death trap, the only vehicle I would purchase would be a Ford or foreign nameplate. I would never purchase a GM or Chrysler from the national Obama/Gettelfinger Motor Company.

To Anonymous on May 20, 2009 9:24 AM:

Hey, Einstein, I posted at 2:03 AM, not 10:42. Literacy helps, you should work on that.

And it's Wendy's, not Burger King. We stay open late! ;-)

Is this to 'save the earth' or to reduce our dependence on foreign energy? If the former, then it's a moot point. China, India and the other major energy users and polluters will still be doing the same as they are now.

How does the govt. think that we as a nation can simply replace our vehicles with the new cars that get 34mpg? For me and my immediate family, all our cars have at least 100k miles. We purchased reliable ones so that we could keep them for a long time. And with the economy, who can afford to purchase new anyway, even if you can get financing.

Granted, you have to start somewhere, but there a lot of vehicles out there that are not going to be taken off the road anytime soon. Unless of course that we are told we have to, which these days seems to be closer than ever before.

Everyone Be for real, when you drive on any of our area highways which car OR truck is driving the posted speed limit of 55? The only time people do the speed limit is when there's a state trooper sitting there with a radar gun.

News flash from HQ in 5/18/09 memo disributed to all employees assigned a company vehicle. In addition to stupid tips about keeping tires properly inflated and anticipating stopping distances to increase brake life, our company fleet dept. will now keep cars 100,000 miles instead of replacing them at 65,000 miles. Nationwide about 207 units currently in use in 22 states. Secondly, they are talking to Honda and Toyota in an attempt to replace the fleet with for the first time: foreign cars! Looks like gone are Imapalas and the Ford Taurus which is a shame as both were good cars we fleet drivers thought anyway. Seems that GM fleet reps are not returning calls or able to make deals. Ford is having problems delivering timely. To bad for you domestic auto workers. At one time I liked my Taurus company car so much, I purchased an upgraded model for my personal car. Now, count me along with the rest of my family; we by Hondas. Domestic makers are with great risk and uncertainty. At first those of us who are fleet users were furious but we are now embracing the idea that maybe an Accord IS better than the Impala. Maybe change is good. Why have a domestic auto industry if we can simply import quality cars? Let other countries deal with pollution, labor injustices and all the other downsides of automobile production such as good paying jobs for example. Our automotive workers will be available for green jobs which may be a good thing for the planet after all. And to What the ?. Are you still working at Burger King? You posted at 10:42 and I wonder how you got off work at 10:30pm and made it to your room and on the computer in 12 minutes?

Who is Obama kidding ---- what a farce ---- $1300.00 more when you buy a car for better mileage. How long before you get your investment back if any. IF WE ALL GOT 100 MILES PER GALLON THE GAS COMPANIES WOULD ONLY RAISE THEIR PRICE SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT MAKING ENOUGH MONEY DUE TO LACK OF DEMAND. Gas will be $20.00 a gallon!

This is nothing more than a bait and switch!!!

Isn't socialism wonderful. Wake UP America !!!

Yes, some countries have stricter emission regulations than the US. That isn't the problem, except for manufacturing and product exportation... which isn't likely to happen due to economic and some other differences anyway. The real problem is that the vast majority of the countries on earth don't have any environmental regulations and we are slowly getting to the point where the worldwide pollution problem has to be addressed. It is pointless to have strict controls in a few countries if the rest of the world isn't doing their part. Any country that isn't doing there part to address ghg should be cut off as a global trading partner or at the very least hit with such large import tariffs that it would make economic sense for them to adopt equivalent environmental regulations.

To Anonymous on May 19, 2009 3:02 PM:

So it looks like you and Ken have joined the black helicopter folks with all your gloom, doom, fear and socialist theories. I'm sure this kind of thing works well with the Rush Limbaugh crowd but it's a harder sell with the literate. We all know the government will be happy to relinquish control of the car companies once they get their act together. Remember, they came begging to congress, not the other way around. Same with the banking industry. What you folks think everyone has forgotten is that it was eight years of Republican deregulation, lack of oversight and laissez faire capitalism that caused this. And you still think the disease will become a cure if you just click your heels and really, really believe . . .

To Ken on May 19, 2009 4:01 PM:

"Now that you are starting to learn what he (Obama) is all about, the bliss is dissipating."

You WISH!. I've been hearing this quote from the Republican propaganda machine just about every day since Obama took office. Let's see, so far this week his administration has legislated changes in credit card practices and enacted stricter car emission standards. And it's only Tuesday! O's on a roll and bliss levels are at a record high. You Reps are so dour.

Here's a little something to help you revisit those wonderful Bush years that you obviously miss so much. Enjoy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/19/the-best-of-lettermans-co_n_205091.html

We should have the best cars. Do you know our cars do not even pass many other country's test so we can't sell them. No wonder our economy is tanking. Now 1,300 more to buy the car. First, big deal, how much is it going to save me in gas. Next, if people can't afford them they won't buy they and they will have to do something about it. If people can afford them by 2016 then it will be ok. I don't see a problem here.

Well, anonymouse 8:55pm, since I have been in the trucking industry for 18 years, I do know what I am talking about. My experience makes it equally plain to me that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about concerning the trucking industry.

Just an example of your ignorance, there are only 7.5 states out of the 50 that have a speed limit under 65 for trucks. Ohio lets trucks go 65 on the turnpike. Hawaii and D.C. limit both cars and trucks to 55.

Actually, it is self appointed experts like you who do the most harm, because you act like you know everything, and mindless idiots tend to believe you even when you are obviously just another mindless idiot.

Ken,

The trucking industry is a joke. They could care less about safety, speed, or the environment. Nothing but a bunch of independent truckers who only care about how much money they can make.

Lobbying for a 65 mile per hour speed limit? Lots of speed limits right now are set lower not that any truckers obey the law. Most trucks are going at least 75. The physics say we all are likely to die if we get hit by a truck. Add in the monster doubles and triples and instead of taking out one car they will take out several. Separating cars and trucks doesn't help one bit because the truck lane restrictions are a joke and the state police haven't enforced them for years. Trucks drive pretty much where ever they darn well please.

So let's raise the speed limit for trucks knowing they will burn more fuel running at a higher speed. Then let's compare the difference in pollution between diesel autos and diesel trucks then compare how much diesel is burned and how much total pollution versus how much gasoline is burned and total pollution and look at it from a proportional basis and the automobile is getting the short end of the legislation.

Self appointed experts like you assume everyone else is wrong and know nothing. Try sticking to what you actually know for a change and throw in a healthy dose of objective facts... if you know any.

Obama is a Sox fan; he enjoys it when the Cubs lose.

It is amazing how powerful a decree can be!

I heard that Obama will next decree a cure to all diseases. Then, a decree to eliminate dumbness, followed by decrees to stop ugliness, Cubby losses, rich people ---- and on the seventh day, he shall rest.

As it is written, and so it shall be.

US Rail traffic off by 20%

World shipping traffic off by 22%, 1200 super size container ships riding at anchor.

US truck traffic off by 25%.

Prius sales have collapsed, anyone that thinks a Soviet command economy is good should run over to the Toyota dealer, they will give you a steep discount and probably 0% financing to take a Prius off their lot.

Lets increase the cost basis for all of these evil carbon based companies and drive them all out of business. We can grow our own food in the backyard 3 months and year then starve in the dark and if we don't freeze to death first.

Anonymous 1:56pm, it is obvious that you do not know all that much about the trucking industry. The ATA has been lobbying for 65mph speed limiters on trucks for a while now. With the economy in a nosedive, the amount of trucks on the road has steadily declined, as freight demand has dropped. Trucks manufactures have had to put increasingly pollution free engines in their trucks for the last 10 years, with the strictest requirements hitting in the last 4 years. All this has done is drive fuel mileage down because people like you who know nothing about the industry are mandating the changes. Funny thing is that the general public, again, like you, just automatically assume nothing is being done.

As many who voted for Obama have proven, ignorance is bliss. Now that you are starting to learn what he is all about, the bliss is dissipating.

"death traps manufactured by his union paymasters"

oh, please.
PLEASE.

Honda is already within 5.5 MPG at the fleet level, which is what is required, and they have 7 years to get that 5.5 miles. Want to bet they can do it?
cited from: http://jalopnik.com/5261242/no-automakers-meet-obamas-new-fuel-economy-standard

More proof that in addition to being a Socialist, and elitist Obama can also add the most arrogant President since Wilson to his title.

If anyone needs more proof that the Federal Government has over reached beyond their Constitutional Authority, this is it. Obama is going to put all of us and our families in death traps manufactured by his union paymasters.

What needs to happen is a dramatic downsizing of the Federal Government striped to its intended role: National Defense, interstate transportation networks, customs to defend our industries and the post office for communications. Three of the above four, the FEDs suck.

Lets be honest, giant Federal Government is a giant failure that is bankrupting the Nation, eliminating individual rights and state's rights.

Great, just great. The trucking industry lobbies for bigger, faster, heavier trucks. Yet absolutely nothing is being done to address truck pollution or fuel consumption and there are hundreds of thousands more trucks on the road these days than just a few years ago.

Meanwhile the new fuel and emission standards will have us all driving micro euro car crap in just a few years. Take a look at the not-so-smart car and decide for yourself if you are going to live or die if you are in an accident with an 18 wheeler in one of these things? Why don't the feds just mandate pall bearer handles down the sides of these things while they are at it?

I think it's a great idea. Why shouldn't we have the best, most fuel efficient cars here in the US?

It's time to stop depending on Saudi Arabia. The money we spend on their oil possibly filters to Al Qaeda - where does Osama Bin Laden get money from? You can call it a "liberal president's agenda" but it's high time we got more efficient.

I don't think this is a sign that habits are changing. I think this is a sign that a liberal president that burns fuel on useless trips in air force one all around the country is jamming this crap down our throats whether we want it or not. It was clear from the minute he took over GM and Chrysler that this was his intention. I have no intention of buying a new car, but I am sure this will change when he outlaws any old car that does not meet new standards.

Leave a comment

Naperville Potluck

The Sun invites you to share opinions about news and issues. Have a question? E-mail us.  

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Chris Magee, moderator published on May 19, 2009 12:07 PM.

Discuss what you will was the previous entry in this blog.

Connelly's first bill seeks to cut corruption is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.