Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Obama's astonishing takeover of the automobile industry, unlike his health care takeover, occurred without even a vote of Congress. Yesterday, to much fanfare, the administration announced its astonishing ratcheting up of vehicle fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. These regulations -- I call them "ObamaCar" -- were accomplished not through open debate in Congress, but through corrupt backroom deals in which our elected officials had no voice.

ObamaCar will, according to the administration's own estimates, add over $2,900 to the price of a new car. This low-ball estimate was created by using a brand-new cost-estimating methodology that uses arbitrary factors to produce a cost estimate for a vehicle considerably lower than the total cost of its individual parts.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

AndreaMackris

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The interesting thing, it does nothing for the insurance rates of drivers...... gotta get on that....

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

ratcheting up of vehicle fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Oh my GAWD! The sky is falling! Again.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2014-02-18 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't worry 726. It won't hit you or your bicycle.

#2 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-18 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Who gets upset over better fuel economy standards?

The person who doesn't pay for the fuel --- that's who.

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-18 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who gets upset over better fuel economy standards?

The apologists for the fuel industry.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2014-02-18 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, the main thing to take away from this article is that oil will still be the method used to power cars in 2025.

How unfortunate that the oil companies have that much control over our government, our economy, and our future technologies.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-18 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who gets upset over better fuel economy standards?

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses

Those who are then mandated to use ethonel which degrade those standards. This ain't that complicated, Chief.

#6 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-18 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Those who are then mandated to use ethonel, bla, bla"

The article does not mention "ethanol", not even once.
Are you on this planet, or is there some other universe we should reference when having to deal with your drivel, (and its ethanol, not "ethonel", you stupid dweeb)?

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-18 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

And speaking of stupid drivel, (thanks for reminding me, wis).

The fuel standards are for trucks, not passenger cars, which projects a 530 million barrel of oil saved and a 50 billion dollar reduction in fuel costs for businesses.

So like I said. The only person who objects to fuel standards is a person who doesn't pay the fuel bills.

#8 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-18 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The fuel standards are for trucks, not passenger cars, which projects a 530 million barrel of oil saved and a 50 billion dollar reduction in fuel costs for businesses.
So like I said. The only person who objects to fuel standards is a person who doesn't pay the fuel bills."

Funny when it was the government that put the kibosh on half ton diesels that would have gotten 30 mpg.

But no the ones mentioned are for cars and light trucks. an increase to an average of 54.5 mpg(34.5 bu 2016). A mandate regardless of it's plausibility. One that NADA says will increase the cost of a car by 5-12 grand. The medium and heavy duty trucks will also be required to make a 10-20% reduction in consumption depending on use. With the biggest hit to go to semis who are already running at the edge to maximize mpg and minimize the cost of use.

Another dumb move, a pipe dream with no footing in reality. Add cost, reduce quality to meet standards and somehow people are still going to buy them. Yup seems legit.

#9 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-18 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The only person who objects to fuel standards is a person who doesn't pay the fuel bills."

There is more to the equation the cost at the pump.
I could drive an older vehicle that gets half the mileage and it is still cheaper then a new car. 30 plus thousand buys a whole lot of gas even at our prices now. The average cost per person per year is about 2200 so even if you were to double the MPG the 11 a year in savings would take most of 5 years to make up if the scenario was perfect. Add to that the cost of a new car and you can see that you can drive a big old truck that is paid off getting 10 mpg for how many years before you break even?

The people that object are those that look at the big picture.

#10 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-18 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The people that object are those that look at the big picture"

Really?
How's this for "picture"; I want better fuel economy. I could care less what your pizza face can or can't "afford". It's not my issue, that you are a bottom feeder --- that's your doing, my friend.

How's that for a "big picture"?

#11 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-18 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11

So you want better mpg's at an economical and environmental cost?
That would make you exactly the kind of person who would write these nonsense and counterproductive laws.

Why do you want better mpg's?

Obviously it is not cost, you have made that clear. So what you think it is better on the environment? Again you would be wrong. A car produced will only put out what is put in. Almost a third of the environmental impact of a car happened before you buy it. So you would need about twice the economy over the expected life span to come close to even with driving a car that has already been made.
So again you are most likely doing more damage then good.

So money or environment, neither gain from these regulations.

#12 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-18 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

The poor can just bicycle or walk and the shrinking middle class can get 10 year car loans - see, problem solved.

#13 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-18 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

This article is a year and a half old. The standard were put in place before the 2012 election. The standards were set in cooperation with the major automakers and will be reviewed in 2018 and could be reduced if it appears the automakers will not meet the target.

#14 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2014-02-18 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

So like I said. The only person who objects to fuel standards is a person who doesn't pay the fuel bills.
#8 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

Ever wonder what it costs to power the military fleet? Don't have a number, but I bet it's a hell of a lot. Of course, the military doesn't pay for it.

#15 | Posted by Ray at 2014-02-18 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14

That is true. Like i said it is all a pipe dream.
When common sense strikes the regulations will be brought way back. But as of today it allows politicians to fool people, at least hose who have no idea about the subject, into thinking they are actually doing something useful.

#16 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-18 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

God Damnit people! Its not that hard.
"Then" is used to indicate a sequence of events. "I went to the store, then I wasted my gas money on snake oil."
"Than" is the word you want to use when comparing two things. "I could drive an older vehicle that gets half the mileage and it is still cheaper than a new car."

On a site where everyone is intent on proving how much smarter they are than everyone else, there is a whole lot of self inflicted foot wounds which makes taking ones word a little difficult.

Also, as a former member of the poor, I'd like to point out the poor don't generally buy new cars, and rarely care what they cost when new. The gas mileage on these cars will be extremely relevant to the poor about 10 years after they are in effect though. I still see it with my family, brother-in-law's favorite excuse for losing a job is "I ran out of gas/gas money."

#17 | Posted by blah at 2014-02-18 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

And so I must correct myself:
"...there are a whole lot of self inflicted foot wounds which makes taking ones word a little difficult."

Sorry, I didn't mean to snap about the grammar. I've just spent the whole three day weekend editing a novel for someone who cant tell the difference between Than & Then, Are and Our, To and Too, Your and You're, etc... On top of thinking that "til" is the most eloquent word in English, needing to reside within each and every paragraph as an expression of their mastery over the English language. After bidding far too low for how bad this writer is, I had a brief moment of irrational rage.

#18 | Posted by blah at 2014-02-18 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Add to that the cost of a new car and you can see that you can drive a big old truck that is paid off getting 10 mpg for how many years before you break even? "

For a reasonable amount of time, yes. but look around, how many '70s vehicles do you actually see on the road, how many '80s vehicles do you actually see on the road? Increases in efficiency eventually even filter down to the low income buyers of used cars.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-18 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

And speaking of stupid drivel, (thanks for reminding me, wis).
The fuel standards are for trucks, not passenger cars, which projects a 530 million barrel of oil saved and a 50 billion dollar reduction in fuel costs for businesses.
So like I said. The only person who objects to fuel standards is a person who doesn't pay the fuel bills.

#8 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES AT 2014-02-18 04:37 PM | FLAG:

Funny projection. Government can project all kinds of things. People only tout government numbers though when it tells them what they watn to hear.

The actual mpg standard is irrelevant to the main car line. They can make high MPG cars, but it requires gutting them which drastically impacts sales. Companies know that and are experts at manipulating this system. So in turn, the companies introduce niche models with extremely high MPG that will have abysmal sales. Sales do not matter though, the vehicles are light and cheap, and only exist to raise the fleet MPG average.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-19 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

The article does not mention "ethanol", not even once.

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses

I know. If they were honest and did, you'd look like a bigger fool.

#21 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-19 08:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with those saying that the regulation is really just BS because this isn't a hard goal and the auto industry will be allowed to the move the number at will.

That said, if you were buying a new car and there was upgrade that costs $2,900 but would almost double your gas mileage, would you take it?

I'm not a fancy car guy but that's one updgrade I would take in a minute. By 2025 gas will be over $6.00 gallon too.

#22 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-19 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"For a reasonable amount of time, yes. but look around, how many '70s vehicles do you actually see on the road, how many '80s vehicles do you actually see on the road? Increases in efficiency eventually even filter down to the low income buyers of used cars."

There is a life expectancy of each car. While it is true the older ones are phased out the problem becomes what they are replaced with. for instance you see very few early 90's or late 80's cars and trucks on the road because of poor build quality. Well to make the requirements the quality will go down. things like noise reduction and thickness of the materials used will have to be reduced. You will lose corrosion resistance and gizmo's and gadgets reducing the car to a new version of the yugo. They will not last very long so the benefits will not be seen by those who really feel fuel costs. Remember that it is fleet average so those who do not care about fuel costs will still be able to get whatever they want it will only be the middle and lower classes that will be impacted by this.

#23 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-02-19 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I get the headline AM and I'm sure that is a wonderful outcome for libs and even libs here who I"M SURE WOULD GLADLY SACRIFICE whatever car they have for global warming ....

but if this happens I SURE HOPE IM alive to see some places in east texas where G-men come out and try and make sure their pick-em-up trucks pass these EDICTS from on high...

sure I know they'd come from the factory but I know more than a couple that would have that junk changed out in one weekend.

#24 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-19 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ahhh, the blessing of being young and dumb. I remember what cars cost before the feds started mandating things. Much more cheap meaning the poor could get transportation.
But those who always say they want to help the poor churn out mandates making necessities more expensive.
They remind me of the walrus in Alice's Adventures Underground who was crying while eating clams because he was devastated by the plight of the poor clams.

#25 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-20 01:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oysters, sorry. Alice was puzzled:

"I like the Walrus best," said Alice, "because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters."

"He ate more than the Carpenter, though," said Tweedledee. "You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise."

"That was mean!" Alice said indignantly. "Then I like the Carpenter best -- if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus."

"But he ate as many as he could get," said Tweedledum.

This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, "Well! They were both very unpleasant characters -- "

#26 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-20 01:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

That said, if you were buying a new car and there was upgrade that costs $2,900 but would almost double your gas mileage, would you take it?
I'm not a fancy car guy but that's one updgrade I would take in a minute. By 2025 gas will be over $6.00 gallon too.

#22 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-02-19 12:39 PM | FLAG:

Weird hypothetical. This is the correct way to phrase it with the products on the market right now:

"Would you pay 60% more on your car for a 40% increase in your mileage?"

Most people choose not to. You have to drive a lot of miles for it to make economic sense, or gas has to be up near $8/gallon.

#27 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-02-20 07:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

but if this happens I SURE HOPE IM alive to see some places in east texas where G-men come out and try and make sure their pick-em-up trucks pass these EDICTS from on high...
sure I know they'd come from the factory but I know more than a couple that would have that junk changed out in one weekend.

#24 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2014-02-19 03:19 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You seem to be missing the salient points of the article, but that is nothing new.

#28 | Posted by Nixon at 2014-02-20 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort