RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit?

RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 7:51:50 AM)
...BUT "now is not a good time" doesnt wash. now is never a good time. the final say in the matter is the market- people are not buying SUVs like they used to. when gas went up many got stingy with the $. ...I owned a 89 which got better mileage then 1998. same model. they had ample time to get with it. and now every car they make is....as good as an Edsel. lol

Cagey18 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 9:06:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub quote: ORIGINAL: Cagey18 quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Once banks had the ability to package and sell MBS they could not keep up with the global demand for investment returns and it was downhill from there. True. Mortgage-backed securities (and the fake "insurance policies" sold with them) are the root of the financial crisis (not FreddieMac/Fannie Mae, which were less than 10% of the problem). They caused the downfall of Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., and the subsequent collapse of the bank credit market. Who's responsible for this legislation allowing these? None other than John McCain's economic advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas). (a Republican helping out his banking buddies...what a shocker) Excuse me, but the relaxation of regulation of FNM and FRE by the democrat Congressperson Barney Frank and HUD head Andrew Cuomo is what took the 1977 Carter legislation to the level of irresponsibility. Combined with a total disintererst in over-sight of these two GSE's the dye was cast for todays financial debacle. "Excuse me", but as I pointed out, that was less than 10% of the problem. quote: As far as Lehman and the other investment bankers, why were they allowed, where was the oversight, when they took their balance sheets to 30-35X debt to equity? Yea...those guys were greedy, but it was the liberalization of requlation that nurtured the destruction of their balance sheets. . You've got it backwards. It was Sen. Phil Gramm's legislation that prevented the oversight. This lack of regulation allowed Lehman, AIG, etc. to write bad policies that guaranteed the financial collapse, when the investors called in their chips. quote: As far as Phil Graham goes, you are absolutely correct in his contribution to the mess we are in today. But if we are to have an honest dialogue here...you must also admit that there is enough and specific name responsibility on the democrat side of the aisle. Considering that Gramm (R-Texas)'s legislation was responsible for over 90% of the problem, okay fine, that leaves less than 10% on the Democratic side. I'll accept that. I for one would be much happier with a <$70 billion bailout than a $700 billion one.

Owner59 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 9:51:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 so now its the JOB of Government to care for business?! its alwayws been wrong that GOV gets involved in pvt affairs It`s a partnership. It takes a village.....[:D] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are some who feel that society serves the economy. And there are those who feel the economy,should serve society. That`s one of the differences between liberals and conservatives.

Owner59 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 10:07:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy ...BUT "now is not a good time" doesnt wash. now is never a good time. the final say in the matter is the market- people are not buying SUVs like they used to. when gas went up many got stingy with the $. ...I owned a 89 which got better mileage then 1998. same model. they had ample time to get with it. and now every car they make is....as good as an Edsel. lol Actually,now is the best time.There isn`t a better time to make alterations and improvements. For example,when`s the best time to renovate a house? After the fire(Detroit now)when when everything`s lined up to rebuild the fire damage(money,energy,opportunity)? Or later,after you piddled away the insurance money and the families moved out b/c of the fire? If they want our bailout/loan money,then they`re going to do what best for the most. They said now`s not the time when leaded gas was outlawed. They will never say the time is right,if it means less money for corporate America. To quote President Obama,"We are the we we`ve been waiting for".

hlen5 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 11:38:33 AM)
I think now is the perfect time for Detroit to get innovative and go greener. Could they think to the future and retool for mass transportation manufacture (in addition to greener cars)? I've been told the median strip between lanes on freeways was originally intended for light rail. Why not try that? New work for the engineers to do, new work for the union people to do, new infrastructure for construction to do, where's the negative here??? And let management EARN their ridiculous salaries by coming up with the most innovative ideas.

corysub -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 4:12:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Well I guess it's time for me, on page three to get the topic somewhere near on track if possible. While I fully agree that this is not a good time for stricter controls on emissions, ignoring problems forever is what got us here, so consider the folowing. Those standards apply to all cars sold in the US, therefore all must comply. That includes the foreign firms. CA has had stricter than federal standards for decades, look an car manuals back to the 1970s, there is a US version and a CA version of the emission control system at the very least. The laws really got out of hand, I mean to the point that enthusiasts could get street legal headers and oversized exhaust, but only if they used certain camshafts. It didn't matter if they actually lowered the emissions on their own car, the part design had to be tested independently to assure that it inherently lowered, or at the very least would not increase emissions. That is not good, because the net effect was probably to stifle individual creativity and innovation in the field. However on the flipside of course is the fact that CA actually needs to be a bit stricter because of the population density and the lay of the land. I can accept that, but the red tape they created for such people was an overall negative. People would actually buy a different new car because they found that they could buy more street legal aftermarket performance parts for it. In Infernoland, which is a paperback adaptation of Dante's Inferno, hell is described as "too much too late". Perhaps this applies here. Now let's forget about market rules for now, and focus for a moment on market LAWS. Let's say the government imposes restrictions that no auto manufacturer can currently meet. What would happen ? There would be no cars for sale. Any bailout, bankruptcy or anything else that works has to be achievable. The idea is to get the auto industry moving again, even in light of the fact that foreign makers are having alot less trouble with dealing here. For the auto industry to get moving, there has to be some cars for sale, that people can afford. Market LAW might just make the gov back off a bit. And none of this solves the problem, but alas we can't expect them to really think can we ? Put it this way, you reduce emissions to zero from cars, that does nothing about factories, pickling and other chemical based processing plants, nothing of the sort. Add to that the fact that even if there are a bunch of cars on the road that meet current standards, one car with one bad spark plug puts out more pollution than at least ten cars running right. And that's even if you take all the catalytic converters off and things like that. Also, from one who has dabbled quite a bit in performance/emissions issues for a long time, the converter does nothing for a perfectly tuned engine. Now they actually have to detune the engine to fuel the convetrter. That costs efficiency, so where's the logic in that ? I would say that the impetus for this stricter emission control is (at best) to make it behoove them to advance in hybrid and electric technology. However even if the intentions are the best, the government will almost always apply it the worst way. T Thank you for the post. California represents the template for what is going to happen to the rest of the country under Obama's EPA probably giving "States Rights" to their regulation of gasoline emissions standards. People on the West Coast pay more for gasoline than the rest of the country since the State has stricter gasoline standards that can't be filled by usual refiners. We could wind up literally with dozens of grades of gasoline being mandated by the States and the consumer will be paying the bill. Politicians who are pushing the scam of "Green" could care less about us all paying higher prices for energy/gasoline since it justifies the subsidized cost of their pet windmill and alternative energy schemes. Look at the disaster in ethanol and you have a picture of the future with politicans in Washington dictating what the auto companies have to produce for a consumer that might not be there, to State and municipal governments dictating emission standards that will increase the price of cars that people don't want anyway. I guess we are between Barack and a hard place with no solution in sight.

rulemylife -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 4:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Decent wages are different than over paid. When someone standing or sitting in an ergonomically correct work station running an ergonomically correct tool, and can miss 100+ days of work a year and not get fired, and is making 3 times more than a teacher. Not to mention have way better benefits. Then yes, they are greedy bastards that are looking for more money than they are worth. Sorry, you will soooo not sell me a sob story on union employees in this country. I've seen far too much to buy to that pitch. Far too much. As far as I am concerned, they priced themselves out of a job and are now reaping what they sowed. Three times more than a teacher with better benefits. Interesting though that instead of wondering why teachers are so underpaid you make the argument that the autoworkers are overpaid.

Coldwarrior57 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 4:21:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 so now its the JOB of Government to care for business?! its alwayws been wrong that GOV gets involved in pvt affairs It`s a partnership. It takes a village.....[:D] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are some who feel that society serves the economy. And there are those who feel the economy,should serve society. That`s one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - -- Ronald Reagan Keep drinking the kool aide.

corysub -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 4:31:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cagey18 quote: ORIGINAL: corysub quote: ORIGINAL: Cagey18 quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Once banks had the ability to package and sell MBS they could not keep up with the global demand for investment returns and it was downhill from there. True. Mortgage-backed securities (and the fake "insurance policies" sold with them) are the root of the financial crisis (not FreddieMac/Fannie Mae, which were less than 10% of the problem). They caused the downfall of Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., and the subsequent collapse of the bank credit market. Who's responsible for this legislation allowing these? None other than John McCain's economic advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas). (a Republican helping out his banking buddies...what a shocker) Excuse me, but the relaxation of regulation of FNM and FRE by the democrat Congressperson Barney Frank and HUD head Andrew Cuomo is what took the 1977 Carter legislation to the level of irresponsibility. Combined with a total disintererst in over-sight of these two GSE's the dye was cast for todays financial debacle. "Excuse me", but as I pointed out, that was less than 10% of the problem. quote: As far as Lehman and the other investment bankers, why were they allowed, where was the oversight, when they took their balance sheets to 30-35X debt to equity? Yea...those guys were greedy, but it was the liberalization of requlation that nurtured the destruction of their balance sheets. . You've got it backwards. It was Sen. Phil Gramm's legislation that prevented the oversight. This lack of regulation allowed Lehman, AIG, etc. to write bad policies that guaranteed the financial collapse, when the investors called in their chips. quote: As far as Phil Graham goes, you are absolutely correct in his contribution to the mess we are in today. But if we are to have an honest dialogue here...you must also admit that there is enough and specific name responsibility on the democrat side of the aisle. Considering that Gramm (R-Texas)'s legislation was responsible for over 90% of the problem, okay fine, that leaves less than 10% on the Democratic side. I'll accept that. I for one would be much happier with a <$70 billion bailout than a $700 billion one. I'm a little slow on this....could you explain to me or show me a link to anything that show Phil Graham had legislation approved by Congress and signed by the President that eliminated any need for oversight? You are sayting that the the SEC, SIPC, Federal Reserve, OFEA, and other government agencies had no responsibility to report to Congress...(as they did)...and Congress had no obligation to conduct oversight hearings (As the did). Was it a "secret" that investment banks, the banking industry in general and FNM and FRE had leveraged their balance sheets with sub-prime loans?? I don't think so...not if you read comments from David Walker, former Comptroller of the Currency, John McCain, former republican candidate for President, and George Bush, the 43rd President of the United States. Net....you can believe whatever you care to believe...but I don't see any facts that support the lack of responsibility by democrats in a major way for the dabacle we are in today... And, based on what I saw today on the "Stimulus Package" in the House, there is more to come...a lot more. edit last sentence.

pahunkboy -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 5:22:02 PM)
lets not forget- we just gave them 25 bln for this purpose. to retool. this was before the bail out- the one that failed at 25 bn, then passed at 38 bln.

Cagey18 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 5:58:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub I'm a little slow on this....could you explain to me or show me a link to anything that show Phil Graham had legislation approved by Congress and signed by the President that eliminated any need for oversight? You are sayting that the the SEC, SIPC, Federal Reserve, OFEA, and other government agencies had no responsibility to report to Congress...(as they did)...and Congress had no obligation to conduct oversight hearings (As the did). Was it a "secret" that investment banks, the banking industry in general and FNM and FRE had leveraged their balance sheets with sub-prime loans?? Sure, no problem, but you're still missing the point. It's not FNM, FRE, or the sub-prime loans (<10%) that were the problem (or that lacked oversight), but rather the insurance policies (90%) tied to the mortgage portfolios. The demand for these policies was so great, that the pressure on lenders was to get more and more loans (including the disastrous "declared value" loans), because everybody on Wall Street wanted in on this sure deal of MBS and the insurance policies that guaranteed them. (If housing prices went up, your mortgage portfolio went up, and you made money. If down, then you swapped your portfolio (redeemed your policy), so at least you broke even. No wonder everyone wanted in on it.) It was Sen. Phil Gramm's 200+ page amendment, tacked on last-minute (ie the Friday afternoon before the Christmas holidays) to a 11,000 page Federal spending bill, without which the Federal government would shut down (remember those?), that created these insurance policies (aka credit default swaps). Nobody had time to read or discuss his amendment, which (a) meant no oversight for credit default swaps (aka the MBS insurance policies) and (b) since they weren't called insurance policies, little capital was required to back them up (since they weren't affected by insurance regulations). Since the Federal spending bill was so critical, the GOP-controlled Congress passed it and Clinton signed it. Buried within it was Gramm's gift to banks, the acorn that grew into the diseased oak. (said gift also created the "Enron loophole" Nice, huh?) So companies like Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., not only sold almost-worthless insurance policies, they sold them several times over on the same portfolio. Example from below: Here's how it works. Let's say there's a guy named Frank and he has a life insurance policy. When he dies, the beneficiary gets a million dollars. Now imagine a whole bunch of other people saying, "I want a million dollars if he dies, too." And so they take out life insurance policies on Frank. Now imagine Frank dies, and all those people bought their policies from the same company. That company, more or less, was AIG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96333239 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94748529 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96395271 http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2008/09/whats_the_deal_with_credit_def.html

slvemike4u -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 6:50:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 so now its the JOB of Government to care for business?! its alwayws been wrong that GOV gets involved in pvt affairs It`s a partnership. It takes a village.....[:D] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are some who feel that society serves the economy. And there are those who feel the economy,should serve society. That`s one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - -- Ronald Reagan Keep drinking the kool aide. You obviously prefer this flavor.....it's still just kool-ade

thishereboi -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 7:40:23 PM)
And which freeway would this be?

Owner59 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/28/2009 9:04:12 PM)
That would be the ones with medians..... So I`ve been told.....[:D]

thishereboi -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/29/2009 5:09:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 That would be the ones with medians..... So I`ve been told.....[:D] The poster I was asking stated "I think now is the perfect time for Detroit to get innovative and go greener. Could they think to the future and retool for mass transportation manufacture (in addition to greener cars)? I've been told the median strip between lanes on freeways was originally intended for light rail. Why not try that? So I am going to ask again, which freeways were build with a median strip for light rail?

Owner59 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/29/2009 6:06:45 AM)
[sm=alien.gif]

hlen5 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/29/2009 8:34:52 AM)
thishereboi, I was talking about that grassy strip that separates the opposing lanes of traffic on pretty much every freeway you are on.

cjan -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/29/2009 9:05:56 AM)
I don't believe in controling my emissions. I'm agin' it !

hlen5 -> RE: New Emissions Rules: Is Mr. Obama Killing Detroit? (1/29/2009 11:11:13 AM)
cjan, Better out than in! Back to the topic - I don't think that decreasing emissions in our cars has to be a hindrance. Detroit probably spent more money on lawyers to fight the changes needed than investigating how it could work and make US cars better and more marketable. People have been interested in walking more softly upon the earth at least since the seventies. Think how much farther along (greener) we would all be if these changes hadn't been relegated to "tree-hugger" status.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625