A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 06, 02:45 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 655
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules


Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
our troops killed.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm

GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET

DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
General Motors (GM) executive said.

Bob Lutz, GM's vice chairman and the head of global product
development, said the proposed changes to the government's Corporate
Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards would represent an unfair
burden on the traditional Big Three automakers.

"For one thing, it puts us, the domestic manufacturers, at odds with
the desires of most of our customers, namely larger vehicles," Lutz
said in a year-end posting on a website maintained by GM. "That
effectively hands the truck and SUV market over to the imports,
particularly the Japanese, who have earned years of accumulated credits
from their fleets of formerly very small cars."

Lutz, a longtime critic of government fuel economy regulations,
compared the attempt to force carmakers to sell smaller vehicles to
"fighting the nation's obesity problem by forcing clothing
manufacturers to sell garments only in small sizes."

A group called the Energy Security Leadership Council, which includes
more than a dozen prominent U.S. executives and retired military
officers, issued a report earlier this month calling on Congress to
take steps to reduce the reliance on imported oil. The group called for
tougher fuel economy regulation, including a 4% annual increase in CAFE
standards, which have been held essentially flat for the past decade.

In a related move, the Consumer Federation of America released a study
last month showing that nine of 13 major automakers had a fleetwide
average fuel economy performance that was lower in 2005 than it had
been a decade ago.

(snip)

Ads
  #2  
Old December 27th 06, 03:02 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
necromancer[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk
Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving:
> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
> our troops killed.


Since when do you give two ****s about our troops????

--
LBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops:
"Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take
the place of these two. "
--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2
Message ID:
  #3  
Old December 27th 06, 03:11 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,010
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>
>>The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional
>>sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil
>>overseas.

>
>
> Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program
> to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller
> cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would
> save both money and lives. THINK
>


If you think those are worthy goals than lobby for higher fuel taxes.
It's the only way the public is going to do it. Think, indeed.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #4  
Old December 27th 06, 03:11 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk
> Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving:
>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>> our troops killed.

>
> Since when do you give two ****s about our troops????


Of course the troll doesn't care. If fuel economy was a real issue then
we would have european style taxes on fuel. Placing the burden on the
manufacturers makes Lutz's anaology spot on.

The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional
sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil
overseas. It's more profitable because the US tax payers and those in
the military pay the price for the instability of the region. If big oil
had to foot the bills of foreign aid, military intervention, etc and so
forth, middle east oil would be too expensive to bother with. Oil shale
would look dirt cheap. Middle east oil might not even be profitable if
all those costs were carried by the oil companies.


  #5  
Old December 27th 06, 03:19 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 655
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules


Brent P wrote:

>
> The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional
> sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil
> overseas.


Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program
to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller
cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would
save both money and lives. THINK

  #6  
Old December 27th 06, 03:20 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Ed White[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules


Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
> our troops killed.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>
> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules


So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
want to buy? And of course the politicians will keep buying gas
guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the
hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at
the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are
about the environment.

If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they
should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis
might quit buying them off.

I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I
just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they
won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM.
Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will
just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel
economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and
Chrysler.

Ed

  #7  
Old December 27th 06, 04:12 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional
>>>sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil
>>>overseas.


>> Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program
>> to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller
>> cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would
>> save both money and lives. THINK
>>

>
> If you think those are worthy goals than lobby for higher fuel taxes.
> It's the only way the public is going to do it. Think, indeed.


The troll is completely off base as the processes for unconventional oil
already exist and are profitable at current oil prices without tax money.
The problem is that cheap to extract middle east oil has a huge government
subsidy in the forms of military costs and foreign aid.

The problem with consumption taxes is that income taxes will not go away
to off set them. I would prefer consumption taxes, however government
implementation of such will probably include all sorts of tracking and
logging.


  #8  
Old December 27th 06, 06:46 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,rec.autos.driving
noalternative
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Ed White wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>>Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>>our troops killed.
>>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>>
>>GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

>
>
> So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
> want to buy? And of course the politicians will keep buying gas
> guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the
> hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at
> the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are
> about the environment.
>
> If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they
> should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis
> might quit buying them off.
>
> I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I
> just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they
> won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM.
> Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will
> just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel
> economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and
> Chrysler.
>
> Ed
>

People who buy these gas guzzlers are given 18,000 dollar tax breaks.
You don't get those for driving fuel efficient cars, carpooling to work,
riding public transportation riding bikes or walking. The market for
these vehicles is artificially propped up, by socialism for the rich. I
have little sympathy for them. Also the idea that they face more
competition from Asia for monster suvs than hybrid vehicles betrays
common sense. These are lazy ceos, no wonder they are losing market share.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #9  
Old December 27th 06, 07:12 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
[email protected][_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Ed White wrote:
> So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
> want to buy?


That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General
Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
wanted them to keep doing it.
Today's SUV is just the successor to last generation's full-size
station wagon - a very popular car for families with kids a generation
ago. Both are the vehicle families hauled Scout campout stuff or
hunting gear in. A Prius won't do that.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
L98: starts, but won't keep running. Dave Gee Corvette 15 October 22nd 05 08:43 PM
Can 02 Mustang show which cylinder misfires on scanner? John Shepardson Ford Mustang 3 August 29th 05 03:40 AM
High Gas Prices Fuel an Octane Rebellion MrPepper11 Driving 434 August 18th 05 12:25 AM
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell Shrike Dodge 0 March 30th 05 09:03 PM
Change in fuel economy with roof racks on A4 Avant? Robert Audi 7 August 7th 04 11:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.