Obama to Let States Restrict Emissions Standards

[Psychoblues]

Cool Move President Barack Hussein Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This ought to make the Libertarians happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama’s Order Is Likely to Tighten Auto Standards

By JOHN M. BRODER and PETER BAKER
Published: January 25, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.

The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.

Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.

Once they act, automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.

Mr. Obama will use the announcement to bolster the impression of a sharp break from the Bush era on all fronts, following his decisions last week to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; tighten limits on interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers; order plans to withdraw combat forces from Iraq; and reverse President George W. Bush’s financing restrictions on groups that promote or provide abortion overseas, administration officials said.

Beyond acting on the California emissions law, officials said, Mr. Obama will direct the Transportation Department to quickly finalize interim nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards to comply with a 2007 law, rules that the Bush administration decided at the last minute not to issue.

To avoid losing another year, Mr. Obama will order temporary regulations to be completed by March so automakers have enough time to retool for vehicles sold in 2011. Final standards for later years will be determined by a separate process that under Mr. Obama’s order must take into consideration legal, scientific and technological factors.

He will also order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he will highlight the elements in his $825 billion economic stimulus plan intended to create jobs around renewable energy.

The announcements, to be made in the East Room, will begin a week of efforts to get the stimulus plan through Congress. The White House hopes the Senate will confirm Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury secretary on Monday, and Mr. Obama plans to travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to meet with both Senate and House Republican caucuses and lobby for his stimulus package. Mr. Obama’s aides expect the House to vote on its plan on Wednesday.

But the centerpiece of Monday’s anticipated announcement is Mr. Obama’s directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to begin work immediately on granting California a waiver, under the Clean Air Act, which allows the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set standards for automobile emissions stricter than the national rules.

California has already won numerous waivers for controls on emissions that cause smog, as opposed to global warming.

The Bush administration denied the waiver in late 2007, saying that recently enacted federal mileage rules made the action unnecessary and that allowing California and the 13 other states the right to set their own pollution rules would result in an unenforceable patchwork of environmental law.

The auto companies had advocated a denial, saying a waiver would require them to produce two sets of vehicles, one to meet the strict California standard and another that could be sold in the remaining states.

The Bush administration’s environmental agency director, Stephen L. Johnson, echoed the automakers’ claims in denying California’s application, ignoring the near-unanimous advice of agency lawyers and scientists that the waiver be granted.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, wrote to Mr. Obama last week asking him to swiftly reconsider Mr. Bush’s decision. The head of California’s Air Resources Board, Mary D. Nichols, also wrote to the new director of the environmental agency, Lisa P. Jackson, asking for a quick reversal of the Bush policy.

Ms. Nichols said Sunday night that she had not been formally notified that Mr. Obama intended to move toward granting the waiver. But she said, “Assuming that it is favorable to our request, we’re delighted that the president is acting so quickly to reverse one of the worst decisions by the Bush administration and to get the E.P.A. back on track.”

Ms. Jackson indicated in her confirmation hearing this month that she would “aggressively” review California’s application. The environmental agency has routinely granted California such waivers dozens of times over the past 40 years.

The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable. The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.

The emissions standards are part of an ambitious California plan to reduce emissions of the gases that are blamed for the heating of the atmosphere. Automotive emissions account for more than one-fifth of all such greenhouse gases............................................. ..

Much More: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26calif.html?_r=2&hp

:beer: to State's Rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

Well, I'm definitely good with the return of some States Rights, the federal government should have been the sole proprietor of that in the first place.

Along with the closing of gitmo, and put some actual limits on interrogation, he seems he be making a good run of things so far, save for that one big ticket item, the $832 billion drop of money into the economy. It won't repair the economy, it'll just make it look like it will, and while that would be enough for many, it will simply see the same problems crop up again in a few years, along with either raising out taxes, and/or devaluing the dollar even further.

[Classact]

CA is going bankrupt with all their liberal legislation and now they want to add another $5,000 to the cost of a new auto to be sold in their state. The auto makers will not make autos for one or five states and will not want to lose the sales so one state will be able to increase the price of all states autos by $5,000. Is that cool or what?

[PostmodernProphet]

will the federal government demand that refineries actually produce fuel for states that set different standards or can they just concentrate on producing fuel for states that use the most common standard.....fuel would be so much cheaper if the refineries didn't have to recalibrate for different standards.....I figure states like California should build their own refineries if they want custom made fuel......

[5stringJeff]

If it gets too expensive for refineries to make that fuel, they'll quit making it, and pretty soon there won't be enough fuel in CA that meets their new mandates. Then? The regulations get dropped.

[manu1959]

will the federal government demand that refineries actually produce fuel for states that set different standards or can they just concentrate on producing fuel for states that use the most common standard.....fuel would be so much cheaper if the refineries didn't have to recalibrate for different standards.....I figure states like California should build their own refineries if they want custom made fuel......

california already has special refineries for their fuel....it is why gas costs more out here....and now cars will cost more....

[April15]

It is one of the best things to happen so far. The Japanese have cars that will meet the standards already from what my auto people say.

[PostmodernProphet]

It is one of the best things to happen so far. The Japanese have cars that will meet the standards already from what my auto people say.

sweet.....you have auto people?.....I only get people people.....

[April15]

sweet.....you have auto people?.....I only get people people.....It is one of the perks of being who I am.

[Mr. P]

It is one of the best things to happen so far. The Japanese have cars that will meet the standards already from what my auto people say.

It may kill the U.S companies deader than they already are. The UAW is gonna hate this guy very soon.

[Classact]

I think the whole point is the president is allowing a single state with liberal government to make law that could not pass in the federal government. How about if CA Supreme Court says Gay Marriage is constitutional and Obama says the entire US will agree to that same standard?

[Mr. P]

I think the whole point is the president is allowing a single state with liberal government to make law that could not pass in the federal government. How about if CA Supreme Court says Gay Marriage is constitutional and Obama says the entire US will agree to that same standard?

Your premise is ONE STATE sets the standard for the Country which is false.
Each state could set their own standard which will be a disaster for the auto industry.

[Monkeybone]

Your premise is ONE STATE sets the standard for the Country which is false.
Each state could set their own standard which will be a disaster for the auto industry.

only if they tried to make a dif car for a dif state. they need to make one car and then "attachments" or mods that they can sell to make the vehicle meet your state's standards. there yah go, money in the pocket hahaha

[red states rule]

Somebody at ABC gets it - and may be fired for pointing out the obvious


Saving the Environment or Killing Detroit?
President Obama Acted for Cleaner Air, But He Might Have Also Hurt Automakers
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit


Will cleaner air take the wind out of automakers' sails?

That's the question many are now asking after President Barack Obama took sweeping action Monday to reduce the amount of pollution that new American cars will be allowed to spew.

His move to curb auto emissions might be great for the environment, but several analysts said it's the last thing struggling automakers need.

"It's crippling in terms of its cost to the automakers," said Ron Harbour, a Detroit-based auto industry analyst with the consulting firm Oliver Wyman. "At this time, when all the automakers are gasping for air -- particularly the domestic ones -- it's a tough time to force that down their throat."

California, followed by 13 other states -- Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- has sought to impose tougher tailpipe emission standards than the federal government had in place.

The Environmental Protection Agency, under former President George W. Bush's administration, blocked California from imposing the stricter standards.
Craig Fitzgerald, an auto analyst at Plante & Moran PLLC, said this measure "adds a new layer of cost and complexity to a period when a lot of [manufacturers] are struggling to figure out how they're going to meet current standards."

Fitzgerald said estimates of the new costs are between $50 billion to $100 billion.




http://abcnews.go.com/Business/CEOProfiles/story?id=6735315&page=1

[Mr. P]

only if they tried to make a dif car for a dif state. they need to make one car and then "attachments" or mods that they can sell to make the vehicle meet your state's standards. there yah go, money in the pocket hahaha

Sounds good but I doubt that would work. COST would be prohibitive both to the manufacturer and buyer. The companies will just produce for the least restrictive..the rest can walk.

[Classact]

Your premise is ONE STATE sets the standard for the Country which is false.
Each state could set their own standard which will be a disaster for the auto industry.The loss of sales to CA would kill any auto maker competing and to meet the standards of one large state the auto industry must re-tool which costs money and to make 50 different kinds of cars isn't efficient so you make one type that meets CA and the other 49. The auto makers, the big 3 have spent millions in litigation with CA and NY against these changes for a reason... they have to re-tool to meet the requirements.

[Mr. P]

The loss of sales to CA would kill any auto maker competing and to meet the standards of one large state the auto industry must re-tool which costs money and to make 50 different kinds of cars isn't efficient so you make one type that meets CA and the other 49. The auto makers, the big 3 have spent millions in litigation with CA and NY against these changes for a reason... they have to re-tool to meet the requirements.

True. That's why I said posts ago this would kill the industry deader than it already is.

[Psychoblues]

The auto industry would merely have to meet the standards of the most stringent state, pee. All others would gladly and responsibly accept the more environmentally conscience requirements if shown to be superior to their own.



Your premise is ONE STATE sets the standard for the Country which is false.
Each state could set their own standard which will be a disaster for the auto industry.

And your remark about the UAW earlier is completely erroneous. There is nothing that the UAW would appreciate more than to be assigned, equipped and able to build more automobiles that meet or exceed customer expectations and prove that by buying them. Our workers are the most productive in the world and jerks like you take every opportunity to denigrate and disparage them. Why do you hate America!??!?!?!?!?!????!?!?!?!?!?!?

Could I offer you a Phillipine counterpart to an otherwise good American beer?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Mr. P]

The auto industry would merely have to meet the standards of the most stringent state, pee. All others would gladly and responsibly accept the more environmentally conscience requirements if shown to be superior to their own.




And your remark about the UAW earlier is completely erroneous. There is nothing that the UAW would appreciate more than to be assigned, equipped and able to build more automobiles that meet or exceed customer expectations and prove that by buying them. Our workers are the most productive in the world and jerks like you take every opportunity to denigrate and disparage them. Why do you hate America!??!?!?!?!?!????!?!?!?!?!?!?

Could I offer you a Phillipine counterpart to an otherwise good American beer?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

You think or believe a major U.S. manufacturer will build a product to meet the MOST stringent requirements of one state???? Well, yer a loon and I hope ya don't hold any GM stock. They have failed to meet low end reliability and quality levels for 30 yrs. If "our workers" were the MOST productive in the world the Asian cars wouldn't be walking all over em...Wake up, their NOT! American cars SUCK!

Can I offer you a share or two of Nissan? Or some whine may help deal with the reality that the U.S. Auto makers are toast? :beer::laugh2::beer:

[Psychoblues]

You're so full of shit, pee, that I don't even know where to start with you.



You think or believe a major U.S. manufacturer will build a product to meet the MOST stringent requirements of one state???? Well, yer a loon and I hope ya don't hold any GM stock. They have failed to meet low end reliability and quality levels for 30 yrs. If "our workers" were the MOST productive in the world the Asian cars wouldn't be walking all over em...Wake up, their NOT! American cars SUCK!

Can I offer you a share or two of Nissan? Or some whine may help deal with the reality that the U.S. Auto makers are toast? :beer::laugh2::beer:

So, rather than wasting my time explaining anything to you about how you are completely wrong on everything you have said in that ridiculous post can I offer you something that might only dull your hatred for your country and your people?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[April15]

You think or believe a major U.S. manufacturer will build a product to meet the MOST stringent requirements of one state???? Well, yer a loon and I hope ya don't hold any GM stock. They have failed to meet low end reliability and quality levels for 30 yrs. If "our workers" were the MOST productive in the world the Asian cars wouldn't be walking all over em...Wake up, their NOT! American cars SUCK!

Can I offer you a share or two of Nissan? Or some whine may help deal with the reality that the U.S. Auto makers are toast? :beer::laugh2::beer:Let me butt in here for a moment and say that every auto manufacturer has met Californias requirements in the past led by the Japanese who usually had the cars ready years early. One more thing, I don't buy foreign products unless there are no American made ones.

[Mr. P]

Let me butt in here for a moment and say that every auto manufacturer has met Californias requirements in the past led by the Japanese who usually had the cars ready years early. One more thing, I don't buy foreign products unless there are no American made ones.

Buy what ya want, I do. I look for quality and reliability and it just ain't in American cars.

[April15]

Buy what ya want, I do. I look for quality and reliability and it just ain't in American cars.I find that foreign cars are inferior. I have a 94 Thunderbird and a 2001 F450. Both have had no problems outside of oil changes tires and the cost of fuel! Prior to that I owned a 41 Chevy 1 ton truck for 25 years with just brakes and a clutch or two besides normal replacement parts.

[Mr. P]

I find that foreign cars are inferior. I have a 94 Thunderbird and a 2001 F450. Both have had no problems outside of oil changes tires and the cost of fuel! Prior to that I owned a 41 Chevy 1 ton truck for 25 years with just brakes and a clutch or two besides normal replacement parts.

How many foreign cars have you owned?

[Yurt]

to be honest, i see a potential commerce clause issue arising here. state Y mandates certain safety on trucks...tires, axle length...that state is different than other states...and the scotus says, nope, can't do that, would impede commerce, because the truckers would have to pull over at the state line to make adjustments.

here, state Y says that cars manufactured in state X cannot be sold in state Y because of emmissions or safety if you will. for that one state, the manufacturer will be forced to adjust an entire assembly line etc...and thus, potentially impede commerce.

:coffee:

no, i don't start conversations at parties like this

[Mr. P]

to be honest, i see a potential commerce clause issue arising here. state Y mandates certain safety on trucks...tires, axle length...that state is different than other states...and the scotus says, nope, can't do that, would impede commerce, because the truckers would have to pull over at the state line to make adjustments.

here, state Y says that cars manufactured in state X cannot be sold in state Y because of emmissions or safety if you will. for that one state, the manufacturer will be forced to adjust an entire assembly line etc...and thus, potentially impede commerce.

:coffee:

no, i don't start conversations at parties like this

Yurt, this is exactly why this will kill the U.S. auto industry. IMO.

Even if they build to the strictest states standards without opposition, the cost will sky rocket and sales that are already poor will vanish.

What happens next yr when another state raises standards above the current? Retool?

It's a lose lose lose deal. America loses, workers lose and companies lose. Not to mention the taxes paid by the companies and employees the Gov will lose.

[crin63]

I guess everyone should just drive a new Porsche 911 GT2. It has a built in air scrubber so the air comes out cleaner than it does going in. Them nasty foreign cars.

[April15]

How many foreign cars have you owned?When I worked as an auto machinest I saw plenty! Why own something that needs work?

[Mr. P]

When I worked as an auto machinest I saw plenty! Why own something that needs work?

So, that would be zero. Got it, yer lack of ownership says it all. NO CLUE.

[Classact]

So, that would be zero. Got it, yer lack of ownership says it all. NO CLUE.Earlier I said it would cost $5,000 to bring the new autos to CA standards and I was wrong it will cost $10,000.00 and you are totally correct this is the death of US auto makers. The only way someone will be able to buy one of these jewels is if congress allows you to finance it with your house mortage and claim a tax rite off.

[crin63]

Glad I bought new Toyotas in 2007.

[April15]

So, that would be zero. Got it, yer lack of ownership says it all. NO CLUE.Do I need to own a cow to know I don't want one? Does it matter that my children used to own and some of my friends do own foreign cars? A turd in the toilet is a turd any way you look at it.

[April15]

Earlier I said it would cost $5,000 to bring the new autos to CA standards and I was wrong it will cost $10,000.00 and you are totally correct this is the death of US auto makers. The only way someone will be able to buy one of these jewels is if congress allows you to finance it with your house mortage and claim a tax rite off.
Do you have a link?

[Mr. P]

Do I need to own a cow to know I don't want one? Does it matter that my children used to own and some of my friends do own foreign cars? A turd in the toilet is a turd any way you look at it.

Yep it matters.

[emmett]

Yep it matters.

Indeed it does!

[April15]

Indeed it does!I'm sorry to inform you that it sure doesn't. I have driven the turds and that is enough. Give me American iron!

[Classact]

Do you have a link?Yes me watching fox news or me watching CSPAN. I honestly can't remember but I was surprised the retool costs that much on a new car to meet the CA standards.

[5stringJeff]

If I were Ford or GM, I'd consider not selling cars in CA. Or, at the very least, only selling the compacts and roller skates that meet CA emission standards. If you're going to lose money on every sale, why sell?

[Mr. P]

If I were Ford or GM, I'd consider not selling cars in CA. Or, at the very least, only selling the compacts and roller skates that meet CA emission standards. If you're going to lose money on every sale, why sell?

That was exactly my first thought. They can ride bikes or walk.

[April15]

If I were Ford or GM, I'd consider not selling cars in CA. Or, at the very least, only selling the compacts and roller skates that meet CA emission standards. If you're going to lose money on every sale, why sell?When the largest percentage of vehicles sold is in California it not only makes sense but is a must!
http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/powertrain/?Source=PaidSearch will give the specifics on the standards Classact.

[Mr. P]

When the largest percentage of vehicles sold is in California it not only makes sense but is a must!
http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/powertrain/?Source=PaidSearch will give the specifics on the standards Classact.

In California....


Fourth-quarter new-car sales plummeted 38.9 percent, compared to the same three-month period in 2007, more than double the 19.1 percent decline in third-quarter 2008. It’s the second-consecutive quarterly decline, and the fourth straight quarter with an 18 percent-plus drop.

So they ain't buyin why sell? On the other hand they are buyin "good" cars.


Toyota was the best-selling automaker in the state, with 319,803 vehicles — or more than the Chevrolet and Ford brands, combined. Honda finished in second place, with 173,329 vehicles.

The Toyota Camry was the best-selling car at 60,871, followed by the Honda Civic at 52,950.

[April15]

In California....



So they ain't buyin why sell? On the other hand they are buyin "good" cars.Your assertion that Toyota is a "good" car is just your opinion. That they are doing what American mfrs should have done shows how embedded the oil cos are in their thinking. This does not reflect a better vehicle but a better management!

[Mr. P]

Your assertion that Toyota is a "good" car is just your opinion. That they are doing what American mfrs should have done shows how embedded the oil cos are in their thinking. This does not reflect a better vehicle but a better management!

I've never said a word personally about Toyota. I have said the foreign manufacturers are kickin ass because they produce a better product. Hell, as far as a "good" car goes just check the reliability ratings..it ain't just me pal U.S. cars are shit and it shows in sales. BTW the German cars are takin a dive in quality too..ESPECIALLY the ones made in the U.S. See any connection?

[red states rule]

Yes me watching fox news or me watching CSPAN. I honestly can't remember but I was surprised the retool costs that much on a new car to meet the CA standards.

New Fuel-Efficiency Standards Could Add Up to $10,000 to Price of Cars
Green Car Rules Give Auto Industry a New Challenge
Monday, January 26, 2009
By Ken Thomas, Associated Press & Dan Strumpf, Associated Press

Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama wants automakers to make greener cars at a time when General Motors and Chrysler are hanging by the thread of a massive government loan and auto sales have plummeted to their lowest levels in more than two decades.

Obama's plans could bring smaller cars, more hybrids and advanced fuel-saving technologies to showrooms, but car shoppers will probably pay more upfront because the new rules are expected to cost the hamstrung industry billions of dollars.

"The consumer needs to understand that they will see significant increases in the cost of vehicles," said Rebecca Lindland, an auto analyst for the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Her firm estimated the upgrades could add $2,000 to $10,000 to the price of a vehicle.

Obama on Monday directed the Environmental Protection Agency to review whether California and more than a dozen states should be allowed to impose tougher auto emission standards on carmakers to fight greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush administration had blocked the efforts by the states, which account for about half of the nation's auto sales.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=42554

[DragonStryk72]

Earlier I said it would cost $5,000 to bring the new autos to CA standards and I was wrong it will cost $10,000.00 and you are totally correct this is the death of US auto makers. The only way someone will be able to buy one of these jewels is if congress allows you to finance it with your house mortage and claim a tax rite off.

or the CEOs might have to give up some of their 8-9 digit bonuses they keep getting. you know, one or the other.

[Psychoblues]

How about everybody just doing their own fair share about producing cars that are economically and environmentally responsible?!?!?!?!???!??!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

How about everybody just doing their own fair share about producing cars that are economically and environmentally responsible?!?!?!?!???!??!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Sure, what is an extra $50 to $100 billion expense to the auto makers. They are doing very well these days, right PB?

[Psychoblues]

No, that's not right, dumbo.



Sure, what is an extra $50 to $100 billion expense to the auto makers. They are doing very well these days, right PB?

But, maybe it is. What's your purview?!?!??!??!?!?!??!?!??!

Need more cheese with that whine?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

No, that's not right, dumbo.




But, maybe it is. What's your purview?!?!??!??!?!?!??!?!??!

Need more cheese with that whine?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

New Fuel-Efficiency Standards Could Add Up to $10,000 to Price of Cars
Green Car Rules Give Auto Industry a New Challenge
Monday, January 26, 2009
By Ken Thomas, Associated Press & Dan Strumpf, Associated Press

Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama wants automakers to make greener cars at a time when General Motors and Chrysler are hanging by the thread of a massive government loan and auto sales have plummeted to their lowest levels in more than two decades.

Obama's plans could bring smaller cars, more hybrids and advanced fuel-saving technologies to showrooms, but car shoppers will probably pay more upfront because the new rules are expected to cost the hamstrung industry billions of dollars.

"The consumer needs to understand that they will see significant increases in the cost of vehicles," said Rebecca Lindland, an auto analyst for the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Her firm estimated the upgrades could add $2,000 to $10,000 to the price of a vehicle.

Obama on Monday directed the Environmental Protection Agency to review whether California and more than a dozen states should be allowed to impose tougher auto emission standards on carmakers to fight greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush administration had blocked the efforts by the states, which account for about half of the nation's auto sales.

Industry officials anticipate the costs of the federal standards could surpass $100 billion by 2020 and California's rules could cost even more.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=42554

[Psychoblues]

Gooses and ganders philosophies just fucks your mind up don't they, dumbo?!?!????!?!??!?!?!?!?

No surprise to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Gooses and ganders philosophies just fucks your mind up don't they, dumbo?!?!????!?!??!?!?!?!?

No surprise to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Still here to flame and not debate I see

[Psychoblues]

And neg repping is still your only defense, dumbo.



Still here to flame and not debate I see

Kiss this: :pee: rsr

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

Actually, RSR, I have no idea why it is that you, the conservative, are having this big a problem with states rights being handed back to the states, or why PB, who has been very much liberal, is the one backing a reduction of governmental power.

To me, this seems like a perfect set up, conservatively speaking: The Californians will decide what they, the Californians want, and the big 3 will either dig their heads out of their asses, or fall over and die, and the market will simply create new auto companies that actually want to service their customers, not the other way around.

[Psychoblues]

I'm not so much a liberal as you might believe, DS'72, but that's another story. As far as states rights are concerned I believe they should have them except when their laws are nationally unconstitutional. That's why we have a national Constitution and a Federal Government.



Actually, RSR, I have no idea why it is that you, the conservative, are having this big a problem with states rights being handed back to the states, or why PB, who has been very much liberal, is the one backing a reduction of governmental power.

To me, this seems like a perfect set up, conservatively speaking: The Californians will decide what they, the Californians want, and the big 3 will either dig their heads out of their asses, or fall over and die, and the market will simply create new auto companies that actually want to service their customers, not the other way around.

On the other hand, I can see why some states might desire more or less stringent emmission and fuel efficiency standards. The automakers will figure it out or die trying and that includes the foreign and domestic makes. I am for the best that we can do in this respect and that includes the preservation by the people of our industries and our environment but that gets too complicated for shallow conservative lemming like minds to absorb.

How 'bout a cool one?!??!??!???!??!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Actually, RSR, I have no idea why it is that you, the conservative, are having this big a problem with states rights being handed back to the states, or why PB, who has been very much liberal, is the one backing a reduction of governmental power.

To me, this seems like a perfect set up, conservatively speaking: The Californians will decide what they, the Californians want, and the big 3 will either dig their heads out of their asses, or fall over and die, and the market will simply create new auto companies that actually want to service their customers, not the other way around.

So the Dems give the auto makers billions to keep them afloat - then want to impose rules that will cost them up to $100 billion

Or is it another example of the government taking over private sector business? Do you want cars/trucks designed by Barney Frank and Harry Reid?

[DragonStryk72]

So the Dems give the auto makers billions to keep them afloat - then want to impose rules that will cost them up to $100 billion

Or is it another example of the government taking over private sector business? Do you want cars/trucks designed by Barney Frank and Harry Reid?

They got close to a tillion dollars, I lack sympathy in this. And again, how is this not a conservative move, allowing States the right to determine their own regs? Currently, the feds determine it, having the states step up for themselves is actually a pro-small government move, so once more, why the hell are you bagging on this one?

[Psychoblues]

dumbo rsr appears to me to be a numbnuts agenda driven doofus, DS'72. I haven't figured out his agenda just yet other than she certainly demonstrates a strong propensity to be unilaterally stupid.

WTF?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues