yearofthenick
Active Member
Answer my question, Bulldog. Why why are people like me putting the UAW out? I just don't understand how you'd come to that conclusion based upon the things I've said so far in this thread.
Death to the Free Market, thanks Obama
- Thread starter aquaknight
- Start date
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/3048263
I have mixed emotions on this one...You know I'm a speed nut and love fast cars Aqua, but I would love to see the car companies figure out how to do it without burning so much fuel, this may help to force them too....I live on the outskirts of the 5th largest city in the U.S., and the golf course I work at is evelated enough to see the entire city, the smog is horrific on a good day.
The main problem is that is these decisions are being made by the power of a few people, these laws don't particular affect. This should be determined by the buying public and they have shown they just aren't that interested in econo-boxes. It's that if I wanted to buy a fuel hog, I should have the right too. If I want a Suburban that gets 12mpg, it's my damn business. Not the governments. If people wanted this as a whole, my voice would so muffled, no one would hear.
What's next? I can't buy a 80" television because it uses too much power?
The other thing is mentioned in the 3 last paragraphs of the article. Those that do buy new cars, are just going to used cars instead. If larger more powerful cars aren't avaiable new, they will just buy used ones. This adminstration is killig the companies they are 'helping.' They are just implementing these laws because the crippled automotive market has no choice but it. If this was 2004, you could manage the outrage.
Also these CAFE rules/fees are retarded and bias. For a while now smaller manfactures (at least in the US) like BMW and Mercedes have long not meet current CAFE standards and just pay a fee. Since Cadillac is part of GM, if Cadillac did meet those same standards, it's fees would be astronomical. By 2010 Cadillac will no longer have a V8 powered car. If that isn't a wake up call, I don't know what is.
Link to CAFE fines collected by manufacture. BMW and Mecerdes lead the way....
NHTSA CAFE fines link
http:///forum/post/3048263
I have mixed emotions on this one...You know I'm a speed nut and love fast cars Aqua, but I would love to see the car companies figure out how to do it without burning so much fuel, this may help to force them too....I live on the outskirts of the 5th largest city in the U.S., and the golf course I work at is evelated enough to see the entire city, the smog is horrific on a good day.
The main problem is that is these decisions are being made by the power of a few people, these laws don't particular affect. This should be determined by the buying public and they have shown they just aren't that interested in econo-boxes. It's that if I wanted to buy a fuel hog, I should have the right too. If I want a Suburban that gets 12mpg, it's my damn business. Not the governments. If people wanted this as a whole, my voice would so muffled, no one would hear.
What's next? I can't buy a 80" television because it uses too much power?
The other thing is mentioned in the 3 last paragraphs of the article. Those that do buy new cars, are just going to used cars instead. If larger more powerful cars aren't avaiable new, they will just buy used ones. This adminstration is killig the companies they are 'helping.' They are just implementing these laws because the crippled automotive market has no choice but it. If this was 2004, you could manage the outrage.
Also these CAFE rules/fees are retarded and bias. For a while now smaller manfactures (at least in the US) like BMW and Mercedes have long not meet current CAFE standards and just pay a fee. Since Cadillac is part of GM, if Cadillac did meet those same standards, it's fees would be astronomical. By 2010 Cadillac will no longer have a V8 powered car. If that isn't a wake up call, I don't know what is.
Link to CAFE fines collected by manufacture. BMW and Mecerdes lead the way....
NHTSA CAFE fines link
yearofthenick
Active Member
Just because I drive a Toyota? Give me a car I can rely on and I'll drive it. Before my toyota, I had a Jeep Grand Cherokee 2001. at 37k miles, the tranny started going out. The brakes sucked, the 4x4 sucked. before that, I had a 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee - same thing, bad tranny We had to have it rebuilt, and to this day it won't start without you putting it into drive, reverse, drive again, then back into park... only then will it start. Also, the engine was always having problems. Before that, I had a 1994 Chevy Suburban. Don't even get me started on that one. It was a nightmare. Before that, I had a 1996 Pontiac Firebird. Blew a head gasket at 47k miles. It's a sports car, I shouldn't have to baby the throttle every time I drive it, although 95% of the time I did... it was for commuting and I would only push it like 5% of the time. Overheated once and seized all the bolts. Had to throw the engine out and get a new one.
I've been in construction for a number of years, and have seen how terribly made the 90's ford trucks were. It's just one huge disappointment after another. I had a construction friend who had to have his transmission replaced/rebuilt 8 times before it was reliable, and even then it sounded like a wailing animal under the hood.
No one can debate that the honda civic, although a rattle trap, is the most reliable vehicle on the market. Both Honda and toyota have it figured out. 250k miles with nothing but oil changes is amazing. When the American automakers start producing vehicles with the same reliability, then I'll buy one.
The only thing that gets me looking at a Ford again is because they didn't receive any bailout money. Instead, they lowered all of their heating systems from 72 to 68 degrees... they took 1/3 of all their light bulbs out of their facilities... all to save money. It's honorable in my opinion, and I would probably be willing to set aside my reservations about Ford's quality to support them as a company trying to make it.
I've been in construction for a number of years, and have seen how terribly made the 90's ford trucks were. It's just one huge disappointment after another. I had a construction friend who had to have his transmission replaced/rebuilt 8 times before it was reliable, and even then it sounded like a wailing animal under the hood.
No one can debate that the honda civic, although a rattle trap, is the most reliable vehicle on the market. Both Honda and toyota have it figured out. 250k miles with nothing but oil changes is amazing. When the American automakers start producing vehicles with the same reliability, then I'll buy one.
The only thing that gets me looking at a Ford again is because they didn't receive any bailout money. Instead, they lowered all of their heating systems from 72 to 68 degrees... they took 1/3 of all their light bulbs out of their facilities... all to save money. It's honorable in my opinion, and I would probably be willing to set aside my reservations about Ford's quality to support them as a company trying to make it.
Originally Posted by Bulldog123
http:///forum/post/3048229
Americans have short memories. You all should be driving a Prius. There made here.
Not everyone wants to drive a tiny little vehicle that can fit just over zero cargo and is ugly as hell to boot
http:///forum/post/3048229
Americans have short memories. You all should be driving a Prius. There made here.
Not everyone wants to drive a tiny little vehicle that can fit just over zero cargo and is ugly as hell to boot
jdl
Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3048285
Not everyone wants to drive a tiny little vehicle that can fit just over zero cargo and is ugly as hell to boot
it reminds me of an AMC gremlin
http:///forum/post/3048285
Not everyone wants to drive a tiny little vehicle that can fit just over zero cargo and is ugly as hell to boot
it reminds me of an AMC gremlin
bulldog123
Member
I believe in the Prius as much as I believe in our President. I drive a GMC 2500 Duramax. Most of my business comes from the evil oil companies. I wish everyone would drive more and leave their heating and air on more. These lower prices are not good for me. I get sick of people saying we need to use wind/solar power. If these things were so damn good they would be on the market without govt mandating it. The infrastructure isnt there and wont be for a long time. Gas stations didnt pop up over night and nether will wind/solar. Lets use what we have now(drill off the coast of Cali) and work in wind/solar slowly.
jdl
Member
I believe in the Prius as much as I believe in our President. I drive a GMC 2500 Duramax. Most of my business comes from the evil oil companies. I wish everyone would drive more and leave their heating and air on more. These lower prices are not good for me. I get sick of people saying we need to use wind/solar power. If these things were so damn good they would be on the market without govt mandating it. The infrastructure isnt there and wont be for a long time. Gas stations didnt pop up over night and nether will wind/solar. Lets use what we have now(drill off the coast of Cali) and work in wind/solar slowly.
wind and solar are good. The reason they arent readily on the market is price. Your attitude is to devour what we have now and let the next person worry about it is why we are in this position we are in.
wind and solar are good. The reason they arent readily on the market is price. Your attitude is to devour what we have now and let the next person worry about it is why we are in this position we are in.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bulldog123
http:///forum/post/3048256
Your going to have to explain why not.
this is why.
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3048262
It will from me... I drive a Toyota Tundra.
Because the prius uses Ni-Mh batteries in order for it's hybrid synergy drive to work. About every 5-7 years, those batteries need replacing. If you go in and have Toyota do it, they will charge you $9,600. Part of it is for the new battery, part of it is to dispose of the old one. This is one of the reasons why a 2003 Prius is so much cheaper, because it's probably going to need new batteries and that severely depreciates it's value.
The chemical waste in disposing of the batteries is far more harmful to the environment than the 5 years of emissions from a full-size pickup. No matter how you look at it, the Prius is about as wasteful in the long run as any other vehicle on the market.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3048265
If you run the numbers on annual fuel savings vs. price of the car, the economic saving is virtually nil compared to keeping the car you have now or buying a cheaper car that gets less mpg., over the same period of time.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3048261
Bush's Energy Independence and Security Act of Dec 2007 already mandates 35 mpg by 2020. Obama's asking for 35.5 by 2016
Just because Bush did it doesn't make it right...
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3048281
What's next? I can't buy a 80" television because it uses too much power?
The other thing is mentioned in the 3 last paragraphs of the article. Those that do buy new cars, are just going to used cars instead. If larger more powerful cars aren't avaiable new, they will just buy used ones. This adminstration is killig the companies they are 'helping.' They are just implementing these laws because the crippled automotive market has no choice but it. If this was 2004, you could manage the outrage.
It is going to turn into a black market, you buy your f-250 with no horse power, then go buy a crate motor, and drop it in.
And the nuts are creating energy usage regulations for big TV's...
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/eu...down-20090113/
http:///forum/post/3048256
Your going to have to explain why not.
this is why.
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3048262
It will from me... I drive a Toyota Tundra.
Because the prius uses Ni-Mh batteries in order for it's hybrid synergy drive to work. About every 5-7 years, those batteries need replacing. If you go in and have Toyota do it, they will charge you $9,600. Part of it is for the new battery, part of it is to dispose of the old one. This is one of the reasons why a 2003 Prius is so much cheaper, because it's probably going to need new batteries and that severely depreciates it's value.
The chemical waste in disposing of the batteries is far more harmful to the environment than the 5 years of emissions from a full-size pickup. No matter how you look at it, the Prius is about as wasteful in the long run as any other vehicle on the market.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3048265
If you run the numbers on annual fuel savings vs. price of the car, the economic saving is virtually nil compared to keeping the car you have now or buying a cheaper car that gets less mpg., over the same period of time.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3048261
Bush's Energy Independence and Security Act of Dec 2007 already mandates 35 mpg by 2020. Obama's asking for 35.5 by 2016
Just because Bush did it doesn't make it right...
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3048281
What's next? I can't buy a 80" television because it uses too much power?
The other thing is mentioned in the 3 last paragraphs of the article. Those that do buy new cars, are just going to used cars instead. If larger more powerful cars aren't avaiable new, they will just buy used ones. This adminstration is killig the companies they are 'helping.' They are just implementing these laws because the crippled automotive market has no choice but it. If this was 2004, you could manage the outrage.
It is going to turn into a black market, you buy your f-250 with no horse power, then go buy a crate motor, and drop it in.
And the nuts are creating energy usage regulations for big TV's...
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/eu...down-20090113/
bulldog123
Member
Didnt you see the GE super bowl commerical. Smart Grid, govt knows best.
The Natzi are coming.
The Natzi are coming.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3048302
Just because Bush did it doesn't make it right...
I didn't say it did.
The OP and the linked article both implied this would be solely Obama's doing. I was just being fair and balanced in pointing out it's not.
http:///forum/post/3048302
Just because Bush did it doesn't make it right...
I didn't say it did.
The OP and the linked article both implied this would be solely Obama's doing. I was just being fair and balanced in pointing out it's not.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3048316
I didn't say it did.
The OP and the linked article both implied this would be solely Obama's doing. I was just being fair and balanced in pointing out it's not.
But it is obama doing it... And it is the leftist ideology that he subscribes to where it stems from...
http:///forum/post/3048316
I didn't say it did.
The OP and the linked article both implied this would be solely Obama's doing. I was just being fair and balanced in pointing out it's not.
But it is obama doing it... And it is the leftist ideology that he subscribes to where it stems from...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3048339
By that logic, then Bush was a leftist, no?
Just to reiterate, I have offered no opinion on the matter - just pointed out a relevant fact.
One of my whole contentions about the reason he was so loathed. He was at centrist. Except on a couple issues, the only problem is those issues were the sacrament of the left.
Mainly abortion. But from the war, no child left behind, and his spending issues, he was very much a reach across the isle type of guy.
http:///forum/post/3048339
By that logic, then Bush was a leftist, no?
Just to reiterate, I have offered no opinion on the matter - just pointed out a relevant fact.
One of my whole contentions about the reason he was so loathed. He was at centrist. Except on a couple issues, the only problem is those issues were the sacrament of the left.
Mainly abortion. But from the war, no child left behind, and his spending issues, he was very much a reach across the isle type of guy.
small triggers
Active Member
i will always drive my s-10 4x4 even if gas is $9 a gallon. I would however like to see more flex0fuel stations, more ethanol in gas and the availability of bio-diesel.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3048378
One of my whole contentions about the reason he was so loathed. He was at centrist. Except on a couple issues, the only problem is those issues were the sacrament of the left.
Mainly abortion. But from the war, no child left behind, and his spending issues, he was very much a reach across the isle type of guy.
That's a fair statement. I find him to have been a bit more right, but it's all a matter of perspective.
Having lived in other parts of the world, I do find it funny how extremely the edges of American politics are portrayed, esp. w/in our own media, considering how narrow the spectrum actually is. That goes for Obama as well. He's certainly more left than Bush, but not really that much. Most of his current policies are continuations of the previous administration's (from TARP, to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the aforementioned issue) w/ some minor tweaking here and there.
http:///forum/post/3048378
One of my whole contentions about the reason he was so loathed. He was at centrist. Except on a couple issues, the only problem is those issues were the sacrament of the left.
Mainly abortion. But from the war, no child left behind, and his spending issues, he was very much a reach across the isle type of guy.
That's a fair statement. I find him to have been a bit more right, but it's all a matter of perspective.
Having lived in other parts of the world, I do find it funny how extremely the edges of American politics are portrayed, esp. w/in our own media, considering how narrow the spectrum actually is. That goes for Obama as well. He's certainly more left than Bush, but not really that much. Most of his current policies are continuations of the previous administration's (from TARP, to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the aforementioned issue) w/ some minor tweaking here and there.
bulldog123
Member
Its easy to sit on the outside and say we are getting out of Iraq. But once he received the information his mind changed quick. We as the people have to have enough brains to know we dont have all the information. All we know is what we are told and most of the is wrong or incomplet. Bush was just easy to pick on because of his speaking or lack of. Obama is much more to the left IMO, he will continue to show it as time goes by. Its only been 120 days and look what he is doing or letting his party do. The biggest thank we can hope for is that we never have to count on Joe. Lord help us!!!
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3048406
That's a fair statement. I find him to have been a bit more right, but it's all a matter of perspective.
Having lived in other parts of the world, I do find it funny how extremely the edges of American politics are portrayed, esp. w/in our own media, considering how narrow the spectrum actually is. That goes for Obama as well. He's certainly more left than Bush, but not really that much. Most of his current policies are continuations of the previous administration's (from TARP, to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the aforementioned issue) w/ some minor tweaking here and there.
This is where I start disagreeing. And a major reason I did like Bush minus his domestic spending policy. I think Bush took a high road when it came the office. That is why you didn't see him defend himself. He made the same mistake with democrats that Obama is making with terrorists.
He assumed they had their countries best interest at heart. And that is where our government will fail. Because unless you want a take over similar to hitler (I'm not saying obama is hitler) just that you can with the wrong intentions take over a republic for your own wacko agenda. We have to elect politicians who aren't out in self interest but to serve.
http:///forum/post/3048406
That's a fair statement. I find him to have been a bit more right, but it's all a matter of perspective.
Having lived in other parts of the world, I do find it funny how extremely the edges of American politics are portrayed, esp. w/in our own media, considering how narrow the spectrum actually is. That goes for Obama as well. He's certainly more left than Bush, but not really that much. Most of his current policies are continuations of the previous administration's (from TARP, to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the aforementioned issue) w/ some minor tweaking here and there.
This is where I start disagreeing. And a major reason I did like Bush minus his domestic spending policy. I think Bush took a high road when it came the office. That is why you didn't see him defend himself. He made the same mistake with democrats that Obama is making with terrorists.
He assumed they had their countries best interest at heart. And that is where our government will fail. Because unless you want a take over similar to hitler (I'm not saying obama is hitler) just that you can with the wrong intentions take over a republic for your own wacko agenda. We have to elect politicians who aren't out in self interest but to serve.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3048513
We have to elect politicians who aren't out in self interest but to serve.
Get rid of the salaries and benefits that come with being a politician and you will then see who is doing it to serve....
http:///forum/post/3048513
We have to elect politicians who aren't out in self interest but to serve.
Get rid of the salaries and benefits that come with being a politician and you will then see who is doing it to serve....
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3048611
Get rid of the salaries and benefits that come with being a politician and you will then see who is doing it to serve....
A good start would be state legislated term limits,along with getting rid of the big fat retirement package one term congressmen receive.Let them pay or invest for their own like everyone else.
http:///forum/post/3048611
Get rid of the salaries and benefits that come with being a politician and you will then see who is doing it to serve....
A good start would be state legislated term limits,along with getting rid of the big fat retirement package one term congressmen receive.Let them pay or invest for their own like everyone else.
