Comments on: Bush’s Final Fumble on Fuel Economy

By: PulSamsara

PulSamsara — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:05:32 +0000

Go Barack —- Way overdue… but we may have finally gotten the knuckle draggers out of the way.

By: ty

ty — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:24:36 +0000

Gee WIZZARD tell us how you really feel. :>)

I would include California in the 'go to hell' list. CARB deserves a special place in hell to be tortured by the very best (worst?). Put them in the same place child molesters go.

By: anon Imus

anon Imus — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:47:44 +0000

Bush: a great beer, an awful president.

By: WIZZARD

WIZZARD — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:48:21 +0000

you must be out of your deranged mind.
giving more tax dollars to the government.
they raided the social security fund twice without any remorse.
why should we give those imbeciles more to spend?
“Miss”-appropriation is the name of the game in DC
americans are so ignorant, they do not know that the french are building diesel cars for at least 15 years which get 50 miles to the gallon (4 cylinders) and more than that, outperform many gas engines with emission standards california would be proud of.
with crude oil in the mid 30's we are still getting fleeced at the pump by at least 50cents/gal
let detroit go to hell.
they had more than one chance to shape up.
the unions ruined GM.

By: Shines

Shines — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:42:54 +0000

cho cha - did you say something?

I didn't think so...

By: Shines

Shines — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:35:10 +0000

I have to agree with AP once again. The fuel tax and rebate is simple and direct. It doesn't require any additional government infrastructure (keeps government small).
Increasing the tax on gasoline will be a hard pill for most Americans to swallow. Yes and having terrorists slam planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was a hard pill to swallow also.
Even if the tax is used to develop alternative fuels and improve infrastructure it is still the right way to get more Americans to realize we need to wean ourselves from foreign oil and (If you believe CO2 is a pollutant) fossil fuels.

By: Need2Change

Need2Change — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:03:50 +0000

Bush has been awful, and I too am a Republican. But I think this was the correct decision. Obama would have changed it anyway. He's clearly supporting the California approach to emissions -- both on what he says and who his has appointed to key environmental positions.

Why pass a law that will be changed before implemented?

Don't worry, the price of energy will increase -- not only for gasoline, but everything else including electricity and home heating.

Obama has stated that immediately after 9/11 that the U.S. should have significantly increased the tax on oil.

With Obama supporting huge government handouts, including improving roads and hybrid vehicles, rest assured that gasoline taxes are headed up. He must increase revenue somewhere.

Yes, owners of hybrids like seeing the price of gasoline high. It helps justify their decision. But a majority of Americans want gaslone as low as possible. Increasing the tax on gasoline will be a hard pill for most Americans to shallow, but it will happen.

By: cho cha

cho cha — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:33:51 +0000

Thank God Jesus "Obama" Christ is here to save the world! What would we do without the man who has done nothing? Except talk?

Good luck, fools.

By: AP

AP — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:07:05 +0000

Anonymous, your idea is easily gotten around by having someone who doesn't hardly drive fill your tank. Most proposed solutions are too full of loopholes. A revenue-neutral gas tax is simple. The Prius will sell like hotcakes, not because its technology is afforable, but because it is subsidized by Toyota (shielding the customer from the real cost). They are willing to lose money on them (despite their claims to the contrary) in order to punch their green ticket.

The gas tax idea in my post returns the money to income tax filers, keeping the money in the economy. In fact, it helps the economy by suppressing the amount of crude oil purchased, and its wholesale price, reducing the amount of money sent to other countries (which would also reduce terrorism funding).

danface, I think your worries are unfounded. The government loan hearings showed that the Detroit automakers have no great political clout (many people think they haven't donated ENOUGH campaign money, at least in comparison to the banks).

Despite the moronic and repetitive "Detroit needs to build the vehicles people wants" from the press and certain politicians, Detroit has done exactly that. The combination of high CAFE for cars and low gasoline prices drove people to SUV's, and Detroit (and Japan) complied (Why are Hummers vilified and Sequoias aren't?). Check out the wholesale price of gasoline in 1998; it was about 40 cents per gallon! When gasoline was less than a dollar in the 1990's, I had to ask myself why I was driving a Prizm. I just don't like big vehicles, but when gas is cheap, how can you blame someone for buying the biggest thing they can fit in their garage?

It isn't Detroit that has caused this mess: it's Washington and their lack of political courage to address the real problem: gas prices. Washington just likes using Detroit as a scapegoat.

By: danface

danface — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:33:24 +0000

The shift to better fuel economy is attainable. Perhaps one of the 'sacrifices' we as a country need to make to fight terror is to drive fuel efficient vehicles? Gasp, how we live without mortgaging our houses to buy Lincoln Navigators that only go off road when we park to close to the lawn?

I hope this moment of 'change' is not lost. I think the Obama Administration is smart enough to figure this out. Can the folks in Congress who take money from (and give money to) the automakers have enough grit to do the 'right thing'? The 'right thing' being to take advantage of the bail out to force (yes, the government will force) better gas mileage?

Stay tuned folks and remember DON'T "follow the money". It will just make you sick to your stomachs

Dan