- 231
- 10
56 MPG mandate by 2025 = SCRAPPED BY current EPA
- 231
- 10
- 1,661
- 81
Yeah, oil is going to last forever d00d. The evil Amerikkkan empire is just trying to pull us away from it so that it can screw over the citizens.
- 1,661
- 81
Yeah, oil is going to last forever d00d. The evil Amerikkkan empire is just trying to pull us away from it so that it can screw over the citizens.
- 7,000
- 12
So when I finally put together enough money to buy my dream Lamborghini, I can't even buy one cause the US wants "efficient" cars?
- 7,000
- 12
So when I finally put together enough money to buy my dream Lamborghini, I can't even buy one cause the US wants "efficient" cars?
- 6,617
- 13
By posting the Fox News bit on this you've instantly discredited your point of view.
- 6,617
- 13
By posting the Fox News bit on this you've instantly discredited your point of view.
- 70,049
- 24,223
Originally Posted by scshift
So when I finally put together enough money to buy my dream Lamborghini, I can't even buy one cause the US wants "efficient" cars?
bingo.
By posting the Fox News bit on this you've instantly discredited your point of view.
so judging a book by its cover is hot on da streets now?
you tell me what part of da segment were they acting crazy and bringing up irrelevant information......exactly
- 70,049
- 24,223
Originally Posted by scshift
So when I finally put together enough money to buy my dream Lamborghini, I can't even buy one cause the US wants "efficient" cars?
bingo.
By posting the Fox News bit on this you've instantly discredited your point of view.
so judging a book by its cover is hot on da streets now?
you tell me what part of da segment were they acting crazy and bringing up irrelevant information......exactly
- 1,661
- 81
Fox News is notoriously absurd and one-sided. They literally blame the decline in America on atheists. Yeah, that sounds like a credible news source. They're acting crazy by refusing to understand the push for fuel efficient vehicles.Originally Posted by ninjahood
so judging a book by its cover is hot on da streets now?
you tell me what part of da segment were they acting crazy and bringing up irrelevant information......exactly
furrell
Banned
- 3,104
- 10
Next time you post a video from NBC, ABC, CNN or CBS you will discredit your point of view.
You guys really think Fox News is the only "biased" outlet out there. If they don't cover issues from the right, who will? No one because the liberals control the media even down to NPR which is no longer funded via public dollars because of the Juan Williams firing.
- 1,661
- 81
Fox News is notoriously absurd and one-sided. They literally blame the decline in America on atheists. Yeah, that sounds like a credible news source. They're acting crazy by refusing to understand the push for fuel efficient vehicles.Originally Posted by ninjahood
so judging a book by its cover is hot on da streets now?
you tell me what part of da segment were they acting crazy and bringing up irrelevant information......exactly
furrell
Banned
- 3,104
- 10
Next time you post a video from NBC, ABC, CNN or CBS you will discredit your point of view.
You guys really think Fox News is the only "biased" outlet out there. If they don't cover issues from the right, who will? No one because the liberals control the media even down to NPR which is no longer funded via public dollars because of the Juan Williams firing.
al audi
Banned
- 29,810
- 4,562
ninjahood aint neva lied
al audi
Banned
- 29,810
- 4,562
ninjahood aint neva lied
- 94,401
- 33,458
sure but they are gonna be expensive, thats the problem. oh wow the chevy volt came out, still uses gas though and it costs $40k.
- 94,401
- 33,458
sure but they are gonna be expensive, thats the problem. oh wow the chevy volt came out, still uses gas though and it costs $40k.
- 70,049
- 24,223
seems obama already caught da words from da unions to chill, cuz that mandate is a STRAIGHT UP job killer
Jul 15, 2011
[h1]Report: Obama offers to ease 56.2-mpg gas mileage proposal[/h1]
[h4]By Fred Meier, USA TODAY[/h4]
Updated 2d 2h ago
http:///i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/caption0.gif")">http://i.usatoday.net/_co.../caption0.gif") no-repeat scroll left center transparent;">CAPTION
Ford, Wieck
The White House is ready to alter its proposed 2025 fuel economy mandates to let automakers improve pickups and crossovers at a slower pace than cars, says a report in The Wall Street Journal, citing sources familiar with the talks.
That would help Detroit automakers meet the targets and help allay the job fears of Obama administration allies in the United Auto Workers union. The makers and the union, as well as foreign makers, have pushed back on Obama plans to double the industry mpg average to a mandated 56.2 mpg by 2025. The rules call for a rise to a 35.5-mpg average by 2016.
The White House, which has a lot of things on its plate, wants to get broad agreement on the proposal for the 56.2-mpg mandate, according to the report, and to get it apparently is willing to show some flexibility on the pace to 56.2.
The WSJ report says that one option the White House offered to gain support this week was to order the fuel economy of light trucks to rise 3.5% a year, less than the 5% requirement for cars.
Whether the state of California, which the administration has included in the talks, will go along or make trouble for the White House by walking out (a lot of that going on lately) and setting its own standard remains to be seen. California and environmentalists are likely to recoil at any flexibility on light trucks and what they see as help for U.S. automakers.
The dilemma for the Obama administration: Detroit automakers make much of their profits on their light trucks and can afford to build these higher-margin vehicles in the USA. A standard that forces them to cut back on those to make and sell more smaller-margin small cars probably means more vehicles made, such as Ford's new Fiesta, in Mexico and other lower-wage countries. Even Asian makers, with more car-heavy lineups, don't make their smallest models in North America.
With an election coming and the U.S. jobless rate rising, rules seen as potentially cutting sales by raising the price of a new car $2,000 or more by some estimates and pushing production out of the USA are a political problem.
Our colleagues at the Detroit Free Press, reported that United Auto Workers officials met with automakers this week to express concerns about the effects of the proposed new rules on jobs. Here is their report:
DETROIT -- The UAW, which is concerned about how automaker profits, jobs and wages could be impacted by higher fuel economy standards, met with Detroit automakers this week to discuss regulations proposed by the Obama administration.
Among those meeting with the union were Pete Lawson, Ford's vice president for government relations, and executives from General Motors and Chrysler, according to people familiar with the session.
UAW officials could not be reached for comment.
The automakers, UAW and the National Automobile Dealers Association have argued that the proposed corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 56.2 mpg would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and eliminate jobs assembling larger and heavier vehicles such as full-size pickups and SUVs.
While the Detroit Three have made progress with their small cars, a large percentage of sales and profits still comes from trucks and larger SUVs.
The UAW is concerned about the potential impact the higher CAFE standard would have on profitability, jobs and wages, Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, said last week.
The Obama administration's push for higher fuel economy standards by 2025 comes on the eve of national contract talks between the UAW and the Detroit automakers, which formally begin later this month.
The union and automakers are negotiating a new four-year contract to replace a pact that expires Sept. 4. After years of job cuts and plant closures, the UAW is hoping to win back some concessions and secure more job commitments from the Detroit Three, who have been increasingly profitable.
For the first three months of the year GM earned $3.2 billion, Ford earned $2.6 billion and Chrysler earned $116 million. Second-quarter earnings will be reported by the companies in the coming weeks.
-- Brent Snavely, Greg Gardner and Chrissie Thompson
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...sions-on-gas-mileage-proposal/1?csp=obnetwork
unlike 90% of NT, i know I know %@* im talkin about
Jul 15, 2011
[h1]Report: Obama offers to ease 56.2-mpg gas mileage proposal[/h1]
Comments18
[h4]By Fred Meier, USA TODAY[/h4]
Updated 2d 2h ago
http:///i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/caption0.gif")">http://i.usatoday.net/_co.../caption0.gif") no-repeat scroll left center transparent;">CAPTION
Ford, Wieck
The White House is ready to alter its proposed 2025 fuel economy mandates to let automakers improve pickups and crossovers at a slower pace than cars, says a report in The Wall Street Journal, citing sources familiar with the talks.
That would help Detroit automakers meet the targets and help allay the job fears of Obama administration allies in the United Auto Workers union. The makers and the union, as well as foreign makers, have pushed back on Obama plans to double the industry mpg average to a mandated 56.2 mpg by 2025. The rules call for a rise to a 35.5-mpg average by 2016.
The White House, which has a lot of things on its plate, wants to get broad agreement on the proposal for the 56.2-mpg mandate, according to the report, and to get it apparently is willing to show some flexibility on the pace to 56.2.
The WSJ report says that one option the White House offered to gain support this week was to order the fuel economy of light trucks to rise 3.5% a year, less than the 5% requirement for cars.
Whether the state of California, which the administration has included in the talks, will go along or make trouble for the White House by walking out (a lot of that going on lately) and setting its own standard remains to be seen. California and environmentalists are likely to recoil at any flexibility on light trucks and what they see as help for U.S. automakers.
The dilemma for the Obama administration: Detroit automakers make much of their profits on their light trucks and can afford to build these higher-margin vehicles in the USA. A standard that forces them to cut back on those to make and sell more smaller-margin small cars probably means more vehicles made, such as Ford's new Fiesta, in Mexico and other lower-wage countries. Even Asian makers, with more car-heavy lineups, don't make their smallest models in North America.
With an election coming and the U.S. jobless rate rising, rules seen as potentially cutting sales by raising the price of a new car $2,000 or more by some estimates and pushing production out of the USA are a political problem.
Our colleagues at the Detroit Free Press, reported that United Auto Workers officials met with automakers this week to express concerns about the effects of the proposed new rules on jobs. Here is their report:
DETROIT -- The UAW, which is concerned about how automaker profits, jobs and wages could be impacted by higher fuel economy standards, met with Detroit automakers this week to discuss regulations proposed by the Obama administration.
Among those meeting with the union were Pete Lawson, Ford's vice president for government relations, and executives from General Motors and Chrysler, according to people familiar with the session.
UAW officials could not be reached for comment.
The automakers, UAW and the National Automobile Dealers Association have argued that the proposed corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 56.2 mpg would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and eliminate jobs assembling larger and heavier vehicles such as full-size pickups and SUVs.
While the Detroit Three have made progress with their small cars, a large percentage of sales and profits still comes from trucks and larger SUVs.
The UAW is concerned about the potential impact the higher CAFE standard would have on profitability, jobs and wages, Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, said last week.
The Obama administration's push for higher fuel economy standards by 2025 comes on the eve of national contract talks between the UAW and the Detroit automakers, which formally begin later this month.
The union and automakers are negotiating a new four-year contract to replace a pact that expires Sept. 4. After years of job cuts and plant closures, the UAW is hoping to win back some concessions and secure more job commitments from the Detroit Three, who have been increasingly profitable.
For the first three months of the year GM earned $3.2 billion, Ford earned $2.6 billion and Chrysler earned $116 million. Second-quarter earnings will be reported by the companies in the coming weeks.
-- Brent Snavely, Greg Gardner and Chrissie Thompson
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...sions-on-gas-mileage-proposal/1?csp=obnetwork
unlike 90% of NT, i know I know %@* im talkin about
- 70,049
- 24,223
seems obama already caught da words from da unions to chill, cuz that mandate is a STRAIGHT UP job killer
Jul 15, 2011
[h1]Report: Obama offers to ease 56.2-mpg gas mileage proposal[/h1]
[h4]By Fred Meier, USA TODAY[/h4]
Updated 2d 2h ago
http:///i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/caption0.gif")">http://i.usatoday.net/_co.../caption0.gif") no-repeat scroll left center transparent;">CAPTION
Ford, Wieck
The White House is ready to alter its proposed 2025 fuel economy mandates to let automakers improve pickups and crossovers at a slower pace than cars, says a report in The Wall Street Journal, citing sources familiar with the talks.
That would help Detroit automakers meet the targets and help allay the job fears of Obama administration allies in the United Auto Workers union. The makers and the union, as well as foreign makers, have pushed back on Obama plans to double the industry mpg average to a mandated 56.2 mpg by 2025. The rules call for a rise to a 35.5-mpg average by 2016.
The White House, which has a lot of things on its plate, wants to get broad agreement on the proposal for the 56.2-mpg mandate, according to the report, and to get it apparently is willing to show some flexibility on the pace to 56.2.
The WSJ report says that one option the White House offered to gain support this week was to order the fuel economy of light trucks to rise 3.5% a year, less than the 5% requirement for cars.
Whether the state of California, which the administration has included in the talks, will go along or make trouble for the White House by walking out (a lot of that going on lately) and setting its own standard remains to be seen. California and environmentalists are likely to recoil at any flexibility on light trucks and what they see as help for U.S. automakers.
The dilemma for the Obama administration: Detroit automakers make much of their profits on their light trucks and can afford to build these higher-margin vehicles in the USA. A standard that forces them to cut back on those to make and sell more smaller-margin small cars probably means more vehicles made, such as Ford's new Fiesta, in Mexico and other lower-wage countries. Even Asian makers, with more car-heavy lineups, don't make their smallest models in North America.
With an election coming and the U.S. jobless rate rising, rules seen as potentially cutting sales by raising the price of a new car $2,000 or more by some estimates and pushing production out of the USA are a political problem.
Our colleagues at the Detroit Free Press, reported that United Auto Workers officials met with automakers this week to express concerns about the effects of the proposed new rules on jobs. Here is their report:
DETROIT -- The UAW, which is concerned about how automaker profits, jobs and wages could be impacted by higher fuel economy standards, met with Detroit automakers this week to discuss regulations proposed by the Obama administration.
Among those meeting with the union were Pete Lawson, Ford's vice president for government relations, and executives from General Motors and Chrysler, according to people familiar with the session.
UAW officials could not be reached for comment.
The automakers, UAW and the National Automobile Dealers Association have argued that the proposed corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 56.2 mpg would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and eliminate jobs assembling larger and heavier vehicles such as full-size pickups and SUVs.
While the Detroit Three have made progress with their small cars, a large percentage of sales and profits still comes from trucks and larger SUVs.
The UAW is concerned about the potential impact the higher CAFE standard would have on profitability, jobs and wages, Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, said last week.
The Obama administration's push for higher fuel economy standards by 2025 comes on the eve of national contract talks between the UAW and the Detroit automakers, which formally begin later this month.
The union and automakers are negotiating a new four-year contract to replace a pact that expires Sept. 4. After years of job cuts and plant closures, the UAW is hoping to win back some concessions and secure more job commitments from the Detroit Three, who have been increasingly profitable.
For the first three months of the year GM earned $3.2 billion, Ford earned $2.6 billion and Chrysler earned $116 million. Second-quarter earnings will be reported by the companies in the coming weeks.
-- Brent Snavely, Greg Gardner and Chrissie Thompson
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...sions-on-gas-mileage-proposal/1?csp=obnetwork
unlike 90% of NT, i know I know %@* im talkin about
Jul 15, 2011
[h1]Report: Obama offers to ease 56.2-mpg gas mileage proposal[/h1]
Comments18
[h4]By Fred Meier, USA TODAY[/h4]
Updated 2d 2h ago
http:///i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/caption0.gif")">http://i.usatoday.net/_co.../caption0.gif") no-repeat scroll left center transparent;">CAPTION
Ford, Wieck
The White House is ready to alter its proposed 2025 fuel economy mandates to let automakers improve pickups and crossovers at a slower pace than cars, says a report in The Wall Street Journal, citing sources familiar with the talks.
That would help Detroit automakers meet the targets and help allay the job fears of Obama administration allies in the United Auto Workers union. The makers and the union, as well as foreign makers, have pushed back on Obama plans to double the industry mpg average to a mandated 56.2 mpg by 2025. The rules call for a rise to a 35.5-mpg average by 2016.
The White House, which has a lot of things on its plate, wants to get broad agreement on the proposal for the 56.2-mpg mandate, according to the report, and to get it apparently is willing to show some flexibility on the pace to 56.2.
The WSJ report says that one option the White House offered to gain support this week was to order the fuel economy of light trucks to rise 3.5% a year, less than the 5% requirement for cars.
Whether the state of California, which the administration has included in the talks, will go along or make trouble for the White House by walking out (a lot of that going on lately) and setting its own standard remains to be seen. California and environmentalists are likely to recoil at any flexibility on light trucks and what they see as help for U.S. automakers.
The dilemma for the Obama administration: Detroit automakers make much of their profits on their light trucks and can afford to build these higher-margin vehicles in the USA. A standard that forces them to cut back on those to make and sell more smaller-margin small cars probably means more vehicles made, such as Ford's new Fiesta, in Mexico and other lower-wage countries. Even Asian makers, with more car-heavy lineups, don't make their smallest models in North America.
With an election coming and the U.S. jobless rate rising, rules seen as potentially cutting sales by raising the price of a new car $2,000 or more by some estimates and pushing production out of the USA are a political problem.
Our colleagues at the Detroit Free Press, reported that United Auto Workers officials met with automakers this week to express concerns about the effects of the proposed new rules on jobs. Here is their report:
DETROIT -- The UAW, which is concerned about how automaker profits, jobs and wages could be impacted by higher fuel economy standards, met with Detroit automakers this week to discuss regulations proposed by the Obama administration.
Among those meeting with the union were Pete Lawson, Ford's vice president for government relations, and executives from General Motors and Chrysler, according to people familiar with the session.
UAW officials could not be reached for comment.
The automakers, UAW and the National Automobile Dealers Association have argued that the proposed corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 56.2 mpg would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and eliminate jobs assembling larger and heavier vehicles such as full-size pickups and SUVs.
While the Detroit Three have made progress with their small cars, a large percentage of sales and profits still comes from trucks and larger SUVs.
The UAW is concerned about the potential impact the higher CAFE standard would have on profitability, jobs and wages, Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, said last week.
The Obama administration's push for higher fuel economy standards by 2025 comes on the eve of national contract talks between the UAW and the Detroit automakers, which formally begin later this month.
The union and automakers are negotiating a new four-year contract to replace a pact that expires Sept. 4. After years of job cuts and plant closures, the UAW is hoping to win back some concessions and secure more job commitments from the Detroit Three, who have been increasingly profitable.
For the first three months of the year GM earned $3.2 billion, Ford earned $2.6 billion and Chrysler earned $116 million. Second-quarter earnings will be reported by the companies in the coming weeks.
-- Brent Snavely, Greg Gardner and Chrissie Thompson
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...sions-on-gas-mileage-proposal/1?csp=obnetwork
unlike 90% of NT, i know I know %@* im talkin about
- 1,661
- 81
Yeah, you said you knew what you were talking about when you used Yahoo Answers to prove that being gay is a choice.
- 1,661
- 81
Yeah, you said you knew what you were talking about when you used Yahoo Answers to prove that being gay is a choice.
- 4,738
- 739
QUE?!
I cant breathe
- 4,738
- 739
QUE?!
I cant breathe
- 1,073
- 22
WWWOOOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!!!...I can't breath. This is probably the best response I have ever read on NTOriginally Posted by CriminalMinded
