gm pushing for higher gas tax

[hot_rod]

CNN Money carried the same article... comments now over 1000....

same general summary as here - "....what a duma$$ ....SOB....."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news...#disqus_thread

[CamaroSkooter]

Awe, all my posts got deleted

This thread makes me chuckle. An automotive CEO has a discussion with someone about what would have to happen for the entire market to move towards these hyper fuel efficient vehicles, and the sheeple go ape-shi.....bonkers.

Everyone can agree our federal government wants Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The debate, however, should be over whether that's their decision to make or not.

I don't think it's the government's role to dictate what features a private company's product has, but I guess I'm a bit more libertarian in that respect.

But regardless, David Akerson never said GM wants the government to impose more gas taxes. He merely stated that if the government's end game is to have everyone driving super fuel efficient vehicles, then a gas tax would work a lot more "efficiently" than merely imposing restrictions on the auto makers. However, Akerson should know that nothing the government does ever works efficiently.

[anthonyj9h]

how about we just take this approach....this will save on gas

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Awe, all my posts got deleted

This thread makes me chuckle. An automotive CEO has a discussion with someone about what would have to happen for the entire market to move towards these hyper fuel efficient vehicles, and the sheeple go ape-shi.....bonkers.

Everyone can agree our federal government wants Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The debate, however, should be over whether that's their decision to make or not.

I don't think it's the government's role to dictate what features a private company's product has, but I guess I'm a bit more libertarian in that respect.

But regardless, David Akerson never said GM wants the government to impose more gas taxes. He merely stated that if the government's end game is to have everyone driving super fuel efficient vehicles, then a gas tax would work a lot more "efficiently" than merely imposing restrictions on the auto makers. However, Akerson should know that nothing the government does ever works efficiently.

This is the core of my rant earlier... Whether or not the Gov should be involved.

CAFE = my wood burning stove example... there are better ways to motivate industry to find alternatives and increase fuel economy... I would argue that the fact that oil is a limited resource is motivation enough for the automotive industry... but things like CAFE constrain the development by placing a ridiculous requirement existing technology instead of supporting IRAD.

[Russo]

it's quite obvious that the guy is an idiot... he didnt even work to get to the position he's in, the government put him there... it would be like Iran back in the 60s when we put the Shah in power then expected them to do everything we told them...

and no, we should not raise the debt limit... our government defaults every time they print money..

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, here is the first item that comes up if you simply search on "Mullaly gas tax"

http://green.autoblog.com/2007/08/09...y-regulations/

Circa 2007.

But I'm confused are you guys upset that Akerson said this NOW but it's ok that all the other leaders said it earlier? I'm pretty sure everyone was upset when Bill Ford said it and when Mullaly said it. That's my recollection. Read the posts in the link. Not a lot of support then either.

So everyone on here that wants to run buy a Ford to spite GM for Akerson's comments is going to do so not because Ford and Mullaly didn't say the same thing, just that they didn't say it yesterday?

The reasons Mullaly said it then are the same reasons Akerson said it this week.

And CAFE doesn't make sense from any logical perspective, but it's the world the auto companies are forced into. Wait and see what this does to our automotive future and how much it's going to cost us. So you can pay at the pump or you can pay for the technology mandated by CAFE to get 62 mpg................regardless of the price of gas.

Hmm, you must have missed this part of my post - "Even so, who said Bill Ford Jr. was correct then?"

I don't agree with it at ANY time from anyone, however, when will gas prices be high enough in his eyes? Even since Mullaly said it in 2007, gas prices have risen over 30% and sales of compact, fuel efficient vehicles have exploded. We may as well just match gold prices, then we can all invest in Huffy bikes and make billions. Oh, by the way, we did already pay for the technology mandated by CAFE (which is not yet decided to be 62mpg by 2025, but nice cherry-picking to make your point) or did you forget about the $49 billion USD we all just gave to GM?

Now, even if you don't agree at all with anything I just said, let me ask you something very serious: Do you honestly think raising gas taxes by a DOLLAR is remotely sane? Since 1932 the fed gas tax has been increased 17.4c/gal, but this guy thinks it would be a good idea to increase the tax by $1/gal. That's absolute insanity. What happens to all the families that can't afford to buy a new vehicle and instantly have to pay 25% more to commute to and from work and school every day? Why not simply increase the gas-guzzler tax on a new vehicle with low-efficiency rather than screwing EVERYBODY?

[hot_rod]

Originally Posted by StreetStrip

It's stunning how our government run education system has dumbed down most people's understanding of basic civics.

Pure democracy is mob rule, there's a reason the founders made America
a republic. Although when your representatives fail to represent your interests we have neither a republic or a democracy, you have an oligarchy. That's where we find ourselves today

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Awe, all my posts got deleted

This thread makes me chuckle. An automotive CEO has a discussion with someone about what would have to happen for the entire market to move towards these hyper fuel efficient vehicles, and the sheeple go ape-shi.....bonkers.

Everyone can agree our federal government wants Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The debate, however, should be over whether that's their decision to make or not.

I don't think it's the government's role to dictate what features a private company's product has, but I guess I'm a bit more libertarian in that respect.

But regardless, David Akerson never said GM wants the government to impose more gas taxes. He merely stated that if the government's end game is to have everyone driving super fuel efficient vehicles, then a gas tax would work a lot more "efficiently" than merely imposing restrictions on the auto makers. However, Akerson should know that nothing the government does ever works efficiently.

Post # 48 StreetStrip nailed it - oligarchy - The fed knows best as they are the "gifted ones" and they don't need anyone's input.

The word "government" and "efficiently" should never be used in the same sentence/paragraph...maybe page together!

[cmore]

Originally Posted by hot_rod

Post # 48 StreetStrip nailed it - oligarchy - The fed knows best as they are the "gifted ones" and they don't need anyone's input.

The word "government" and "efficiently" should never be used in the same sentence/paragraph...maybe page together!

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

This is the core of my rant earlier... Whether or not the Gov should be involved.

CAFE = my wood burning stove example... there are better ways to motivate industry to find alternatives and increase fuel economy... I would argue that the fact that oil is a limited resource is motivation enough for the automotive industry... but things like CAFE constrain the development by placing a ridiculous requirement existing technology instead of supporting IRAD.

I think you're agreeing with me...

I don't think oil being a "limited" resource is motivation for the auto industry at all.

The auto industry should cater to their consumers, just like any other industry does. You build what the people want, and they'll buy it, en masse. So, until gas hits $10+ per gallon, the auto industry shouldn't have to worry about ultra-high fuel efficient vehicles until the consumers demand it.

And that's the basic principal that Akerson was touching on. If gas prices were at $10 or $15 per gallon, probably 90% of the American people would be demanding that the vehicles they buy should be ultra efficient. And the auto industry would be doing everything they could to meet that demand, otherwise they would be out of business.

But instead, the government is going to implement an arbitrary standard that all automobiles meet these rediculous efficiency ratings. So, now the consumer is going to be demanding a product that the industry will be unable to provide because it can't meet these restrictions. In effect, the government will indirectly put every car manufacturer out of business.

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Hmm, you must have missed this part of my post - "Even so, who said Bill Ford Jr. was correct then?"

I don't agree with it at ANY time from anyone, however, when will gas prices be high enough in his eyes? Even since Mullaly said it in 2007, gas prices have risen over 30% and sales of compact, fuel efficient vehicles have exploded. We may as well just match gold prices, then we can all invest in Huffy bikes and make billions. Oh, by the way, we did already pay for the technology mandated by CAFE (which is not yet decided to be 62mpg, but nice cherry-picking to make your point) or did you forget about the $49 billion USD we all just gave to GM?

Now, even if you don't agree at all with anything I just said, let me ask you something very serious: Do you honestly think raising gas taxes by a DOLLAR is remotely sane? Since 1932 the fed gas tax has been increased 17.4c/gal, but this guy wants to increase the tax by $1/gal. That's absolute insanity. What happens to all the families that can't afford to buy a new vehicle and instantly have to pay 25% more to commute to and from work and school every day?

8cd03gro missed the point. No one is pushing for an added gas tax. This is just a theoretical debate on how an entire consumer base could be moved to demand only fuel efficient vehicles.

[Viral]

Originally Posted by Russell James

Who cares if the Ford CEO said the same thing. Then they are both out of touch with what the general public wants.

Then that comment wasn't directed at you. The point of telling that Ford Jr., Mullaly and others have also backed a gas tax increase were directed at the people in this thread who said "I'm never buying a GM product again. I'm taking my money to Ford or Chrysler!" The point is, they ALL feel the same, and for the same reasons. Taking your business to Ford doesn't make sense if you disagree with the comments Akerson said.

Want to know a secret? Despite your arguments to the contrary in here, YOU would have the exact same opinion if you were the CEO of GM or Ford. If you were faced with the CAFE restrictions on one hand and a gas tax on the other, you, too, would be arguing for a gas tax raise, the lesser of two evils, and everyone here would have the same knee-jerk reaction to you, calling you an idiot.

[Russo]

maybe i missed it, but does anyone have a quote from Ford Jr. about wanting to increase the cost of gas?

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

However, Akerson should know that nothing the government does ever works efficiently.

Akerson doesn't care about that, he was installed as CEO by the government. Do you expect him to take us, the performance automobile enthusiast's side, or the Government's side?

As for effiency, the US Government (us taxpayers) lost $14 billion bailing out GM and Chrysler. And now one of the GM's of those companies has turned his back on us. I wasn't mad at GM before, I felt they deserved a second chance, but now I'm not so sure. Guys like Akerson will be the types who get cars like the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger de facto banned via Gov't intervention. Let the free market decide.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I think you're agreeing with me...

I don't think oil being a "limited" resource is motivation for the auto industry at all.

The auto industry should cater to their consumers, just like any other industry does. You build what the people want, and they'll buy it, en masse. So, until gas hits $10+ per gallon, the auto industry shouldn't have to worry about ultra-high fuel efficient vehicles until the consumers demand it.

And that's the basic principal that Akerson was touching on. If gas prices were at $10 or $15 per gallon, probably 90% of the American people would be demanding that the vehicles they buy should be ultra efficient. And the auto industry would be doing everything they could to meet that demand, otherwise they would be out of business.

But instead, the government is going to implement an arbitrary standard that all automobiles meet these rediculous efficiency ratings. So, now the consumer is going to be demanding a product that the industry will be unable to provide because it can't meet these restrictions. In effect, the government will indirectly put every car manufacturer out of business.



8cd03gro missed the point. No one is pushing for an added gas tax. This is just a theoretical debate on how an entire consumer base could be moved to demand only fuel efficient vehicles.

Yes I am agreeing with you.. I do think it was a foolish thing for the CEO to say. But only because it is such a volatile topic he should have predicted he'd get flamed for it.

And yes, whatever the motivation is for the auto industry to find alternatives/efficiency, it should NOT come from the government.

[Viral]

Originally Posted by Russo

maybe i missed it, but does anyone have a quote from Ford Jr. about wanting to increase the cost of gas?

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/22...eased-gas-tax/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...carbon-tax.php
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/why-bill...-gas-tax-hike/

And Ford CEO Allan Mulally:
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/08/09...y-regulations/
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...-gallon-53203/

And former CEO Wagoner:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...h-considering/
http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-ceo-r...d-gas-tax.html

Proposed gas tax hike endorsed by all CEOs of the big three in 1992:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/2...E-GAS-TAX.html

Point is, once again, this has NOTHING to do with Obama or "government motors" or how Akerson came to be CEO. This is a rehash of the EXACT same lamentation that American Automotive CEOs have been making for decades. With the EXACT same backlash from knee-jerk forum readers every single time. Calm down people, this is the way the world operates. Welcome to it.