“The Bush Administration is concerned that the estimated $85 billion it would cost to conform to the proposed bill would greatly hurt the economy”

Actually, I think the $400 Billion it costs to take over a country greatly hurts out economy. The proposed bill would hurt Bush’s constituents.

Sorry, but I just really hate everything this joker stands for. He has completely screwed our environment.

Well, even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while! GWB isn’t the greatest leader I’ve ever seen, but someone needed to stop this runaway train. Trucks and cars are different, and should be treated differently under CAFE. That said, there should be more stringent fuel economy ratings for trucks and cars. My concern is they should be reasonable.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: rather than spending billions of dollars on a slow moving bill that will be irrelavant by the time it is effective, why not spend that money on encouraging consumers to choose drive the more fuel efficient vehicles that are ALLREADY on the road in the form of rebates????

Oh yeah thats right- that would be effective, and that would hurt big oil, who owns our goverment.

6ix, isn’t that what we charge all our politicians with most, to not hurt their constituents (aka, we the people)? If you meant to say special interest groups, I think it’s safe to say that the UAW and the auto industry as a whole are probably not his closest of friends or contributors. With that said, I think it’s safe to say most at LLN do not want to talk politics anymore than they want to talk religion, so I’ll just say that I think even Bush couldn’t have “completely screwed our environment” in less than seven years as you say. At least not anymore than Al “Captain Planet” Gore did as VP in 8 years. I’m assuming global warmism “existed” before Bush was even governor or Texas, but I could be wrong. Damn it, now we’re talking politics. Sorry everyone. Shut up dmbpearl, you f**king idiot!!!!! How ’bout that new 2008 Malibu?

It is all irrelevant. GWB will be former prez in 15 months. Whoever will sleep in the White House will make that bill into a law and it will stand. Perhaps it will be more lenient in terms of penalties, but you cant use Escape Hybrid for Al Gores security detail and that is the inconvenient truth.

since when does the US Congress know anything about how to engineer cars and trucks to get better fuel economy. Maybe if the bill had a clear direction as to how these manufacturer’s can do this, it would be legit, but they don’t. We need a smaller government immediately.

I just did a couple minutes math. The article says Bush is concerned that the $85 billion cost to hit 35mpg will hurt the economy, so……

I assumed the average current car gets 25mpg and drives 15,000 miles/year. At 35mpg, it would consume 428.5 gallons/year, and at 25mpg it consumes 600 gallons. Assuming a conservative $2.75 per gallon and 200 million cars on the road, the additional 171 gallons costs the economy $94.3 billion per year (as opposed to the $85 billion industry-project cost over many years) so I guess that BS argument is out the door.

Ricardo, you’ve made and assumption that cost of gas is $2.75/gallon. In place of your childhood it haven’t been so low for number of months (years?) and stands at almost $4/gallon. Folks form CA please correct me. The market of oil just went over $88/barrel yesterday. This will translate in cost of gas going up again. There is one certainty in life: oil is going up.

Ricardo…very impressive math. Seriously.

Here is the kicker. That extra $94 Billion costs the consumer and goes directly to the sheiks. If the auto industry has to develop cars that get 35mpg, some of the expense will be on hiring white-collar staff to create the cars. Seems like a good idea to me to make the cars MUCH more efficient. And more money in the pockets of the average consumer.

6ix – you got it right. I was going to add that tidbit about the sheiks, but I figured reactionary people like Autonut would misread what I wrote anyway.

Autonut, I said CONSERVATIVE 2.75. Read it, man. And what I did was disprove the white house claim using conservative math. The raelity is the cost will be well over $100 billion to those sheik a-holes and exxon buttstains, so the white house claim that the economy cant handle the $85 billion is pure bullchit.

6ix leave politics at home, cars and trucks should be treated differently.

Ricardo, since I am reactionary, 2.75 is NOT conservative enough for me. OK ?
I hate sheiks, commie-bastards-oil-former-KGB tycoons to a point that I don’t mind 35 mpg limit on auto industry. I am real conservative and don’t mind to conserve.

BTW – last week when I filled up I paid $2.46 hence my estimate. I’m fully aware it costs more elsewhere and will go up in coming years easily. This week I saw the same station at 2.69.

Autonut, I only said “reactionary” because you took a little shot at me above (childhood comment). I’m no fan of government regulations at all, and maybe cars and trucks should be treated differently as CTS says, so let’s say instead of 35mpg for cars and truck they go with 37mpg for cars and 32 for trucks. Issue settled. Now everyone is happy except the sheiks, the exxon buttstains, and the terrorists. Poooooorrrrr babies. My heart oges out to them all.

PS – my ethnic background is primarily arabic and still I think that entire region should be nuked flat and perhaps the fried sand will make for some good cheap glassware.

I did not take cheap or expensive shots at you: I recall that you were stating that you are originally from California. The gas there is VERY expensive. But since you admitted of being a terrorist: watch out! I also recall you stealing mats from Honda. Writing in German and Russian. Definitely terrorist material trained by GRU. Salam aleikum.

Keeping car and light trucks seperate makes absolutely no sense.

Why?

Because combining the two is the ONLY way you will stop the abuse that occurs under the current system. That abuse has allowed the Dodge Magnum to be classified as a truck (truth – look it up), and therefore get away with less stringent fuel regs than it should. Other large wagons like the BMW 5 series wagon and Mercedes E class are classified as cars. Does that sound just to anyone? Furthmore, this system only encourages the auto manufacturers to market trucks more heavily, meaning that more people are driving less efficient vehicles. Aruguably, this is in part responsible for the popularity of SUV’s and Minivans vs. station wagons.

You can’t seperate cars and light trucks anymore because no one can provide a reasonable definition that precisely distinguishes the two. Modern automobiles are simply too diverse for this outdated classification.

Why not just come up with some number that is properly weighted between 32mpg and 35mpg to cover both of them? Call it 33.5mpg. Or maybe 33 or 32.7mpg. Whatever. This is still much higher than today’s standard for both cars and trucks. Why would this be bad?

hmmm car and trucks – define a truck. is a CRV a truck? Is an Acadia a truck? By seperating the two they are just giving the manufacturers loopholes to exploit.

By definition a truck should be any vehicle that does not have sitting surfaces on more than 50% of its horizontal frame not counting the engine bay. So panel vans and trucks apply. SUVs,CUV’s are considered cars.

RicardoHead I like your 37/32 numbers

And really 30mpg, 37 mpg 5mpg. does it really matter? All we’re talking about is lengthining the time that we are dependent on oil. If we are using less oil then the reserves will last longer paying more money to oil companies owners over time.

“By definition a truck should be any vehicle that does not have sitting surfaces on more than 50% of its horizontal frame not counting the engine bay. So panel vans and trucks apply. SUVs,CUV’s are considered cars.”

Surely, there are lots of two-seat cars out there that fit this criteria, no?

And what, exactly, preceisely, is a “frame”?

Why are the hell are we messing around with such details instead of just having a single number? Is there any reason – any at all – why one number will not work?

RicardoHead – Are you sure the $85 Billion is derived from the improved fuel mileage? I interpretted this a bit differently… The $85 Billion is derived from estimated costs the auto manufacturers and car buyers will incur as a result of the engineering needed to make these cars achieve 35mpg. Those costs are in turn passed onto the consumers. The cost of an average vehicle will be high enough to limit sales, effecting the economy.

One number won’t work because, for every 20mpg large vehicle, a 50mpg vehicle will have to be offered. Can you tell me how many vehicles today get 50mpg in the US?

That’s right. ZERO. Not even the Prius, according to 2008 fuel economy measurements.

2020 is too near of a timeframe to hit that target because lead times for automotive products take YEARS, not months or weeks. The major manufacturers won’t have to get there in 2020, they’ll have to get there in 2016 because that’s when they’ll be engineering the cars and trucks that go on sale in 2020. 8 years to increase fuel economy 30% on passenger cars and 60% on trucks is ridiculous.

I do agree that trucks should be more narrowly defined. Anything that’s RWD-based, with more than 5-6″ of ground clearance and a towing capacity of its own weight or greater should be considered a truck.

But I do NOT agree with this ridiculous assertion that the lower fuel economy figure for trucks is what makes people buy trucks instead of cars.

CUSTOMERS CHOOSE THEM BECAUSE CAFE MAKES IT MORE AFFORDABLE TO FILL THE TANKS OF THE LEAST EFFICIENT VEHICLES REGULATED. So Americans can buy bigger without having to pay more than they do now.

Higher fuel taxes are what the EU imposes, and they work. If we’re serious about conserving fuel, we need our politicians to do this, not go to war against an incredibly important industry that happens to be fledgling right now.

Piablo – your interpretation of the $85B cited by the White House is the same as mine … namely the additional (primarily engineering) cost the manufacturers will incur and pass on to hit the target. Mind you that is $85B over a number of years.

Compare that, however, to the minimum $94B – PER YEAR – cost of the additional fuel (see my posts above) required by cars at today’s avg mpg (about 25) vs 35mpg, and the White House’s contention that the economy can’t handle $85B over time falls flat on its face because the economy would be enduring more … just not to the pockets of the chosen special interest groups.

Mind you … that $85B can be amortized out to auto sales worldwide (theoretically most all vehicles will incorporate the advancements) so let’s just say about 200 million cars over 5 years or so (likel;y conservative, again). According to my math thats about $425 per car … in 2020 dollars. At 15,000 miles per year the average consumer will gain more than that in fuel savings in the first 10 months(at european fuel prices in maybe 6 months – they do less mileage). After that it is gravy and not feeding osama, the sheiks, or some troglodyte running Exxon.

Inline6, one 20mpg large vehicle can be offset with 4 vehicles averaging 38.75mpg. It does not need to be 1/1. It’s the sales mix that drives it

Conversely, if they get that 1 large vehicle to 28mpg (reasonably doable by 2020), sell a 2 midsizes that average 33mpg, and two others that average 40.5mpg, you end up averaging 35mpg for all 5 them together. Those mileages, by the way, are doable by 2016 to be honest because they can be achieved in 2008 with diesels, so in effect 2020 is not far fetched.

In the end, some form of this legislation will pass, and the ra-ra people who support this will get just what they asked for. The problem is, the effects of this legislation will not be felt until it’s 20 years later. As demonstrated time and time again, the US society’s attention span is only long enough to comprehend the here and now. There’s more interest in the latest celebrity nip-slip than where the price of a gallon of gasoline comes from. This simple minded ‘don’t bother me-I’m busy with my own life’ attitude is what allows Al Gore to produce a movie of lies and win a nobel prize for it. This self induced ‘I’m too busy to care about truth’ attitude is also what allows people to support legislation that will certainly harm our economy, further increase our trade deficit, and widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. It becomes hysterical when the same government also mandates more and more safety engineering in vehicles that limits design and makes vehicles heavier. Let’s ignore the fact that plastics make up more than 60% of a barrel of oil. But we’ll at least ween ourselves off 18% of that barrel if we completely stop using gasoline period. That should make a dent! Let’s ignore that there hasn’t been a nuclear plant built since the ’70s.

I would love to know how many of the hypocrites who support this legislation own sports cars or SUVs, bag their groceries in plastic bags or use heating oil instead of an electric furnace.

jonmiles: fuel economy is its own reward. CAFE should be scrapped

Are y’all experiencing gas shortages? A station in my exurb was out last night, and another where I work has closed its pumps at least twice over the last couple of weeks.

autonut:
“you cant use Escape Hybrid for Al Gores security detail and that is the inconvenient truth.”
Maybe Gore should stay inside his palace, and send his speeches by carrier pigeon. I paid $3.09 Tuesday, when I could get gas.

RicardoHead: The time for nuking was the day saddam didn’t get his black ass out.

if y’all want to diffrentiate cars from trucks, the best way is to rate them by cargo capacity and towing capacity.

A Caravan is a car. A Suburban is a truck.

inline6: what do you suggest the government do with the revenue from higher fuel taxes?

You guys with your economic theories are killing me. Liberal-arts major!

Funny you brought up trade deficit. We have seen RECORD trade deficit under the current admin. Stop pouring money into the other country, that surely will improve this country’s economy, along with more research funding, better education system that really won’t leave a child behind and some basic healthcare. All I am saying is this president has some room to talk.

And just what is your proof that Gore is lying? I can as easily say that you refuse to accept or even entertain opposing point of view. Al Gore is not THAT brilliant to fabricate everything and to win a Nobel Prize. When did you win your Noble Prize, Piablo?

I agree, sport cars may be a problem, but a turbo doesn’t kill mpg as quickly as a V8 will. SUV needs to die, period. Plastic bag – well, a lot of places are now charging for them. I am sure if it is costly enough, more will follow suit. Electric furnance, that’s doesn’t even compare. You can make a law about selling high efficiency furnance, but it is different from telling homeowner to stop using their old ones.

Same thing with cars, no one is telling you to junk your used hummer, just that by certain year, NEW car and truck should meet certain mpg standard. Safety equipment??? Human life comes first, now try to understand that simple truth!

So there is nothing hypocritical about supporting this legislation, it is your inability to analyze the issues because you have made up your mind. That’s fine, but stop spreading your ignorance around.

Ricardo Head – I get what you are saying, I just don’t see the similarity. They are two different types of costs, and one is more easily absorbed. The price of oil is controlled by the market and it’s demand. Less demand, smaller price. Thus why $88 barrels are still bringing $2.60 gallons of gas to market (or $2.46 in your case). If this were July, that same barrel would generate a $3.00+ most likely considering a barrell was less than $80 this past summer. The price of cars cannot fluctuate as such. Absorbing $85 billion in the auto industry is just not as easy. Adding $500 to the sticker of a vehicle can make a car loan unfeasible. The price of vehicles is largely dependant on economies of scale. Not to mention, I don’t think there’s any promise over the next 20 years to not increase CAFE standards or mandate more safety features or mandate anything else they can think of. It just spells a higher sticker price. And it makes it far more difficult to amortize that $85 Billion over many vehicles. We also have to consider that if we feel GM is good for the economy, along with Chrysler and Ford, that this may be a pretty bad idea. Their ability to absorb costs is far worse than Toyota, Nissan or Honda. The japanese are actually making money. Our companies are not. Add another fixed cost into production and we bring them that much closer to bankruptcy. I’m not saying CAFE limits will do this, they will simply add to the problem.

And if all of this is to ween ourselves of foreign oil, there are far better ways of doing such without throwing our auto industry down the tubes.

Piablo, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who hates Al Gore more than I do. Nor have I had respect for a nobel prize since Arafat got one, but Gore? Gore is a fekking retard, and the nobel committee can be hanged.

And I am no fan of government, regulation, or taxation, either. In fact I loathe them all. Still, although I concurn with you 10,000% that a truly comprehensive plan involving nuclear power, a shift from petro-based plastics (maybe something can be made from soybeans, potato-starch, or cow-crap), better vehicle mileage, and reduced general energy consumption is by far the best plan to get off the import oil habit, we both know that will never happen given the utter spinelessness and inability of our glorious leaders to see beyond the latest polls, or the inability of the average American to do anything but gab about American Idol and download porn.

So given that – to get us weaned – I’ll take the systematic increments I can get (such as this crappy feelgood mpg Bill) and control at a personal level what I can. I am relatively conservative I suppose, but pay a load of attention to packaging, live comfortably in a large house in a hot area but my electric bill is about $45/month average, generate virtually no garbage (one small small bag per week), recycle like hell, and when I want I drive in a way that I gets astounding gas mileage even from a truck, and I do not need some crap-a$$ politician, city, or hairy-legged chick telling me to do it, nor do I need a bumper sticker to announce it.

My point in the posts above is to discredit any contention that this is not achievable, because it is. I think I handily did that with the “50mpg vehicle is impossble” post, as well as the white house contention that the economy can’t afford $85 over time, which it can. Hell, the economy can readily afford interest on the government debt that is many many times that, not to mention government drug plans, maybe hillary’s health crap, iraq, a bloated bail-out of lousiana’s corruption, paying $400 million dollar bonuses to Exxon retirees, and apparently $94 billion/year in higher gas costs … so the economy can afford this too.

sharpie, R-head:
Many people in my wife’s hometown in germany bring their bags with them shopping. Then, they hang them up, and use them again the next time.

Guys, I will back-up self-proclaimed terrorist Ricardo. Furthermore I think his math is conservative because cost of the gas is higher already by 10% and will go higher at higher rate then 10%. Therefore the cost of fuel waste rto US economy is higher then 100 billions per year!! Why government should in the vehicle definition business? 5 years ago there was no CUV and 15 years ago there was no SUV (although there was Suburban). Who give a crap? Every auto manufacturer has to meet corporate goal of 35 mpg any way they like it. Thet can do it any way they want to do it: adopt diesel, hybrid, build Volts and Amps. If manufacture fails: they pay tax. If consumer needs low mileage vehicle: they pay tax. If you need a truck for business: it is cost of doing business, you can afford to drive Rolls: god bless you can afford it. Europe does it for years. It is not only fuel, but pollution as byproduct of burning fuel.

Sharpie – We have different philosophies you and I. As much as I do not understand yours, I don’t expect you to understand mine. I certainly don’t have a Nobel prize, nor am I a climatologist. And I think it is safe to say you are neither as well. So by your logic, you can also serve yourself up a plate of STFU since neither of us are qualified to discuss the merits of Gore’s film or the climate, period. Now that’s productive, isn’t it?

It is hypocritical to support this when the same person contributes to the problem necessitating this legislation. That is by definition, hypocrisy. You can make up your own little definition to suit your arguments though if you so please. But hey, misery loves company. So let’s legislate and let everyone share in it.

Human life comes first huh? And how do you feel about abortion? Safety features do not promote safety. Air bags do not promote safety. Traction control does not promote safety. They promote faster driving which is less safe. “Speed kills”. That’s true. Just check out a high school physics book. If you want to save lives my bleeding heart friend, then think about how many more lives and how much better fuel economy could be if auto manufacturers were able to build lighter vehicles void of design mandates. Just think about it. No seriously, think about it.

RicardoHead,
The problem with diesels is that Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel emissions legislation that has passed has made it economically unfeasible for diesels to be an appropriate replacement for gasoline engines. This legislation is more than 30x more stingent than what the EU imposes, btw.

These standards now requiring that diesel powerplants (already twice the manufacturing cost of petrol engines) have a veritable chemical factory installed in order to meet emissions regs. Which are adding another $2000+ to the cost of every vehicle they’re sold with. That’s why they’re only coming available, at first, on luxury cars, where the costs can be better recovered.

And with these chemical factories underneath, they’re REDUCING the fuel mileage advantage of diesel engines notably.

Will the market bear a $20,000 BASE Chevy Cobalt today, especially when most consumers will have to pay more than what Premium costs to fill their tanks? Because it’d have to bear its equivalent in 2020 dollars if we went with diesel.

Plus, with increasing safety legislation, how are these manufacturers going to compensate in just 8 years’ time for all the weight they’re going to have to add to the crash structures of their vehicles? Because, as we all know, weight is the biggest roadblock to better fuel economy. And diesel engines, especially with all of their extra emissions equipment, will be even heavier. I don’t see how diesel is the solution.

Also, right now, the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid gets 21mpg city/22hwy – the same city mileage as a standard 4cyl Camry. And the Tahoe gets this mileage by using better aerodynamics, weight-saving technologies, DoD, and a state-of-the-art Two-Mode full hybrid system. It’s a state-of-the-art vehicle.

Eight years is not a long time. In 2000, we were shown the first hybrid vehicles on our shores: the Honda Insight and Gen I Toyota Prius. Eight years lates, the Insight is out of production, and the second-gen Prius gets only 48 city/45 highway.

In 8-10 years, we’ll only be two vehicle generations – best case scenario – ahead of the vehicles that are on sale or finalized for production now.

The most stringent legislation on the books is simply too stringent to keep the market performing at the already mediocre level it is today. That’s why the Hill-Terry legislation is the best compromise.

JackJimTurkey: The higher fuel taxes can go to improving our highway infrastructure, mass transit, paying down our national debt, subsidizing the auto manufacturers to develop technologies that eliminate the need for fossil fuels altogether…lots of things.

inline 6:

The actual number used do not matter. The point is that whatever you decide upon for trucks and cars, you can always pick a weighted average in between them that will work. It is simple math. In other words, if you cannot offset the 20mpg trucks under a single number system, then you will certainly do no better than that with proposed 32mpg/35mpg system either. I am not advocating those numbers at all, in fact. I don’t care what number is picked, as long as there is just one.

“I do agree that trucks should be more narrowly defined. Anything that’s RWD-based, with more than 5-6″ of ground clearance and a towing capacity of its own weight or greater should be considered a truck.”

Any definition will be abused. It is possible to build passenger cars that fit that criteria. I am not even convinced that no passenger sedans exist today that fit that very criteria you give. Furthermore, some SUVs cannot tow their own weight and thus would be discluded unfairly. For that matter – any manufacturer could just low-ball the towing capicity and sidestep the rule.

Again, why is having one number not going to work. Its just an average of the two numbers we’d otherwise be using. There’s no disadvantage to that.

“CUSTOMERS CHOOSE THEM BECAUSE CAFE MAKES IT MORE AFFORDABLE TO FILL THE TANKS OF THE LEAST EFFICIENT VEHICLES REGULATED.”

Bingo. And it also makes them more affordable for the auto manufacturers to build. And thus it makes the automanufacturers find incentive to find ways to sell trucks to the average consumer instead of cars. This is exactly what I was saying.

HAHAHAHA CHEAP GLASSWARE, LMAO RICARDO HAHAHAHA

inline6, benz already cleared diesels for US market, for all 50 states. BMW and VW has the rights to the same technology. The diesel will come to our market, but not next year. By 2009 Honda promising simpler diesel technology then Benz and per what I read from Honda their 6 cyls (not inline) will go for Odyssey and their trucks. They have excellent 2.2L diesel in Europe, which they plan to bring her as well. FOr smaller cars (Civic) they intend to use hybrids, although with 40 mpg for Civic & Fit I don’t see great need. There are couple companies who will be curve busters here. If you “Big Four” you can argue about your impotence and high cost, but when other companies can achieve the goal the argument is hypocritical and self serving.
And frankly, I read that GM is working ass off on new diesel technology, which is quite revolutionary.

Sometimes .. when I am in prolonged teleconferences … like now … I love to close my door, hit mute, and take a nap.

RicardoHead – And that’s just it. I know we agree on many things, for one, leading one’s life in a manner one hopes others would. Leading by example. I try to do the same. Where our agreement ends is where my idealism continues. I am a self admitted Idealist. My idealism is what causes most of the arguments I have on this board. I look at the energy and thought brought about by this legislation, and it’s a shame. It could be put forth towards areas that really could make a difference. I agree with you, it is a tough road to travel. But there are benefits along that road, as apposed to costs incurred with this CAFE legislation. Mathematically, CAFE standards will do nothing to ween us off oil. It’s mathematically impossible. If we stopped using gasoline completely, we would use 18% less oil than yesterday. If we double our gas mileage across the country, we would only reduce consumption by 9%. I can’t support that. especially, if the goal is to use less foreign oil, we could start drilling our own, building our own refineries, and building more nuclear plants. I bring up Al Gore’s movie because it’s an example of the spread of false information. If more people made an effort to seek out and spread the truth, the more “ideal” way of moving forward would become much easier.
And I agree, this legislation is achievable. We will survive and life goes on. But when there are present day examples around the world showing exactly what not to do, I can’t fathom why we would move forward with something that is simply the wrong way to deal with a problem.

Piablo: I think we should drill. This whole “reduce our dependency on foreign oil” thing is transparent and childish.
They’ll just sell that oil to India and China.

USA is the home of cheapest cars and outside of Middle East cheapest gas. What we need is to elect Al Gore and it will end.
I believe that with or without CAFE regulation vehicles will get more fuel efficient with cost of oil going up. It is hypocritical for auto industry to defy those mandates, however. If CAFE will do nothing (hypothetical scenario) “Big 3″ will be begging for tax breaks 3-5 years from now, because their vehicles are not competing with “imports” due to higher mileage. They know very well how to apply for handouts.

JackJim – THANK YOU. And why don’t we drill our own? Because bambi might have to piss and sh!t 20 feet left of where he normally does to make room for the new pipe line. Last I knew, wildlife surrounding the current Alaskan pipeline is alive and well. There are people who care more about unaffected deer and chipmunks than their own fellow man. So instead of drilling our own, let’s just stop using oil period, become martyrs for the cause, and make our vehicles more expensive. Makes sense to me, sign me up.

Today on my lunchtime jog there was a deer in the gutter who was way more affected my a current vehicle than any future deer would be from a pipleine. I also say drill.

autonut: I’ll try to find it, but believe it or not, chinese drivers are paying less for gas than we are. If the Big 3 can’t compete, I say let them die. Also, the airlines.

Piablo: and they’re for damn sure not concerned about other working americans.

And build some more damn refineries, already!

We’d save money getting cars and trucks up to 35MPG, in gas anyway.. but research and design, along with implementation.. especially with all the safety standards required in the industry nowadays.. would more than likely wipe out any gains.

RicardoHead/6ix: that’s some serious ammo you got there! Anyone who wants to tackle that $ 85 billion argument will quickly realize he’s mistaken. Very valid points, both of you.

I believe that every step towards improving our fuel efficiency is important. Research by both The National Academy of Sciences and the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute show that getting 35miles per gallon by 2020 is both technically feasible and would actually benefit our economy.

This would be the first fuel efficiency standards increase in decades, making this a potentially monumental energy bill. I am part of a coalition that you can learn more about at http://www.energybill2007.us Check out our site, learn more about this very important piece of legislation.

Screw your site, EnergyBill. Everyone hopes you wake up dead.

Go Blue!

jeebus effin chris i cant believe some wackjob is advertising his coalition here

I love modern debate tactics… take the main argument of the opponent and simply say it’s actually the opposite. ‘Oh, this bill won’t hurt the economy, it will actually BENEFIT IT!’ Straight off the talking heads news channels.

EnergyBill, the only people who feel this would benefit the economy are the Europeans and communists.

No, actually, Piablo. I drive a 530i BMW and get an average of 21-miles-per-gallon; however, I work at home and don’t have a commute. So, my car is for fun and for pleasure and my next car might very well be a 911 Carrera but they would probably all end up being objet d’art and a date car.

Anyway, when it comes to http://energybill2007.org, the things you’re saying about the energy bill are just plain wrong. The bills being discussed in Congress will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create cheap, renewable energy, save taxpayers money, and create jobs all at the same time.

Nothing commie about it.

Besides, remember something about those commie Europeans: they make better road rockets than we do, that’s for sure. How commie can the countries that build the M5, the Esprit Turbo, the Enzo, and the CLK 63 Black Series?

Chris – Were you drunk when you posted? So you drive a bimmer and Germany builds an M5. Your only argument as to why I am wrong is that you simply state I am wrong. Your debate tactics remind me of two 5 year olds arguing. Making something more expensive to build does not create jobs, and it certainly does not save any money!

As for your link, it’s nothing but a hippie lib propoganda website. Global warming is a hoax perpetuated by anti-Americans and anti-capitalists. Please, go waste another vote for John Kerry or Al Gore.