Democrats want Big Three spending plan

[OokiiMamoru]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...out/index.html

Ok, who are they and what happen to our real Congress? To actually ask for a plan, hopefully well put together. Pinch me, I must be dreaming. I had given up hope of this happening from either party in the near future.

[bowtieguy]

i was wondering when someone was going to bring up this subject. i don't know what to think except to say that companies MUST seek ways to improve efficiency(their own and their products in this case) in order to survive. cut spending and super salaries would help as well.

i suppose since the $700 billion has already been approved, i wouldn't mind helping them with THAT money as long as they plan to help themselves. afterall, at least they actually produce a product, unlike the banking/investment industry.

but i must say NO MORE approved bailout dollars! it could lead to proliferation. who will be next to ask for a bailout?

interesting, on the same page...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/20/hon...l?iref=topnews

[OokiiMamoru]

I was wondering why the subject has not been brought up either. This could have huge ratifications on the auto industry and fuel efficiency if the cards are played right.

Sorry I have to disagree on the banks. They provide a service, and considering it was our wonderful out of control, bull in china shop, congress that help generate the problem....... I do expect heavy oversight of that money.

[jadziasman]

I have driven a VX for 13 of the past 16 years and even though I drive quite a few miles every year, at least I maintain a 44 mpg year round average while doing it. I have hated watching huge SUV's and trucks carrying one passenger to work in my 25 mile commute to work. I hate it because it wastes a non-renewable resource, contributes heavily to global warming and results in the transfer of much of our country's wealth to other ones.

But this is America, people. I strongly believe that the government should not dictate what type of vehicle citizens should drive. Government blew the chance to shape what people want to drive by not taxing fuel heavily to discourage people from driving Hummers, Yukons, and F-250's etc. The government is doing it again by letting the gas price fall. It should be a minimum of $4 per gallon for the average consumer with tax rebates for companies that rely heavily on autos and trucks that cannot be served by the railroads.

The California wing of the Democratic party is attempting to force automakers to produce vehicles that many people don't want at a price they won't want to pay. It's a big mistake if it comes to pass.

I'd like to see the Detroit 3 go bankrupt just so these smug Congresspeople can watch Toyota build a bunch of Tundras, Tacomas, Highlanders, FJ Cruisers, Sequoias, Land Cruisers, 4 Runners and Siennas and laugh all the way to the Bank of Japan when they have cornered the SUV and truck market and watch the Yen roll in. There will always be a market for trucks and SUV's. The D3 used to dominate it. The Asians got in on it. Now there's overcapacity in this market segment. I place the blame squarely on the government for this because if the fuel tax had been increased steadily - the Asians wouldn't have been tempted to challenge this market segment as strongly as they did.

Let the people decide what they want to drive. Just make it very painful in the pocketbook when they decide on a gas guzzler.

[GasSavers_bobski]

Originally Posted by jadziasman

if the fuel tax had been increased steadily - the Asians wouldn't have been tempted to challenge this market segment as strongly as they did.

Let the people decide what they want to drive. Just make it very painful in the pocketbook when they decide on a gas guzzler.

A heavy gas tax might have reduced the number of import SUVs in a round-about way... That is, reduced demand for SUVs in general. But that would have reduced the number of domestically manufactured SUVs and trucks as well. I think the SUV market became so popular due to the large profit margins it represented (particularly with luxury models) for automakers, and a perception among the buying public that they are safer and more functional than say a minivan.

I'm hesitant to jump on the gas tax bandwagon. Yes, it makes trucks and SUVs less affordable, but it takes a crap on everyone else at the same time. The result being general economic hardship with some bias against large/inefficient vehicle drivers.
Given the additional safety concerns surrounding larger vehicles, I would like to see what effect a general light truck license requirement would have... A licensing requirement that would cover vehicles over 5000 lbs. or so. Make it easier to lose the light truck certification... 1/2 or maybe 1/3 of the points needed to lose your license all together. If you really need a large vehicle (for work or whatever), then drive it responsibly. If you lose your certification, sucks to be you, good riddance.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Our Gov't is totally to blame for the SUV's. It all started when they tried to make the safety, emissions, and fuel economy regulations for new passenger vehicles more strict. What that did was raise the costs of making station wagons to the point that people weren't buying them. The loophole around this is to make SUV's and minivans. They are classified by the EPA as light trucks, not passenger vehicles. They are exempt from the stricter regulations so they are less complicated, cheaper to build, less red tape for the automakers. So, when faced with a truckload of lemons, they made lemonade. The automakers pushed the SUV's. The SUV's go anywhere , do anything freedom appealed to the American psyche. yes, I could drive a Honda VX, but then I'm limited to paved roads... Gee, I could buy this Ford Explorer, have more room, and be able to go off road when I need to (but you probably never will). The Gov't also made SUV's more popular by making it much easier to write off an SUV as a business expense than a car. This made more people choose SUV's.

The SUV's were profitable vehicles to make, so of course they made more. GM discontinued their full size production line (Caprice, Roadmaster, Fleetwood) and converted it to trucks & SUV's. The demand was there.

There are people such as myself that own their own businesses, and we need trucks on a regular basis. My truck makes almost daily supply runs, and with the 4wd I can make it to my business no matter what the weather conditions are. As much as I'd love to have 5 or 6 vehicles, and be able to always take the "perfect" vehicle I do not have the funds to have that many vehicles, nor do I have the room to park that many. I made a choice to buy a pickup truck as my daily driver.

Under an ideal situation I'd have my 81 Buick (Never selling that one), a Volvo 240 diesel wagon w/ a 5 speed, a full size 4x4 pickup, A big old land yacht like a Fleetwood, Roadmaster, or Caprice for roadtrips, and a Ford Focus 5 speed. Of course purchasing all those vehicles, and paying for insurance on a fleet of that size... well its cheaper to just drive one or 2 vehicles that maybe don't get the mileage that I would like to get at all times.

-Jay

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

Our Gov't is totally to blame for the SUV's. It all started when they tried to make the safety, emissions, and fuel economy regulations for new passenger vehicles more strict.

I specifically blame CAFE. I think if it wasn't for CAFE, the whole chain reaction may never have happened.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Chrysler was the only one that met CAFE requirements for the longest time, but then again for the longest time they were selling nothing but rehashed K cars. Even the first generation Dodge Caravan was nothing but a K car underneath the hood. It shared many common parts with the K cars so it was cheap to design & build.

-Jay

[theholycow]

Is that why Caravans had a reputation for transmission failure? Too much weight for the K-car tranny?

[Jay2TheRescue]

My dad had a 1st gen caravan (Well a Plymouth Voyager actually). It was a company car. By the time the lease was up a year later the thing could barely move (He kept a lot of weight in his cars). I can't remember right now, but I think it had a 2.2 Liter 4 cyl and it would barely move. The same engine in my mom's Plymouth Caravelle was very peppy.

Yeah, it was a K car tranny though. They tried to beef it up, but not well. The 2nd gen caravans and later were a lot better.

-Jay