and the noose is tightening

[macattak1]

The vehicle license fee - which, for two years, has doubled to 1.15% - is still one of the lowest in the nation.

 

I don't complain because I'm not blinded by partisan rhetoric into thinking that a few bucks will ruin my life. I'd rather live in a state with excellent universities, generous higher education grants, a strong healthcare safety net, and insurance for genetically handicapped than save a few bucks on my car registration.

 

And combining "let them die" rhetoric with "peace and blessings"? Sounds more like '"pestilence and famine" to me.

 

BOLD

 

Did I say any of that? Did I imply any of that? NO.

 

I use Peace and Blessing for a number of reasons. I don't hate or want to hate anyone on this board. But there are always those that try to push that envelope. But I do my best not to turn to what you so easily resort to. By signing with something nice it forces me to filter what I said and go back and make it less personal, less attacking, less mean, etc. And no. I am not perfect at it.

 

But you should really give it a try. Filtering your thoughts to text that is. It forces you to actually stop and think about what you wrote and if that really represents you accurately. Because if you reread your posts they are not that nice.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

You don't even live here, what makes you think you're an expert on what goes on in California? What is your basis for believing that DMV fees are 5x what other states charge? It's certainly not any sort of research; our DMV fees are lower than your home state, even after we temporarily doubled them this year!

 

California ranks 20th in the country for total state and local taxes, as a percentage of income, at 10.3%. That puts us squarely in the middle 3rd. (By comparison, Minnesota, at 10.7%, ranked 10th).

 

The IOUs aren't from budget shortfalls, they're from an inability to pass a budget (because of our insane 2/3rds majority requirement for budgets).

 

I moved from MN to CA in 87. I bought my F250 in Dec of 04 at Elk Grove Ford. $36k. Reg fee about $850. Half of what it would have been if fees were at full price. 3 years ago before I moved they were over $450 in CA. The next year in MN they were about $95. My 96 Tahoe was over $150 when I left. $36 in MN. My $8k little pop up camper was $60 for 'two' years? in CA. In MN my $20k 30' TT is $20 a year.

 

So yea. 4x+ in fees.

 

Yes. Imagine a state that does not settle its budget year after year, decade after decade for months past going into the next fiscal year. Unable to hire teachers because there is no money for it until a certain time. So the good teachers slowly leave and do not come because they are taking jobs in other states teaching because they have their budgets done, and budget bleed does not affect the schools so horribly as it does in CA. Where my best friend is a teacher in Lodi.

 

In MN there are two seasons. Winter and road construction. In CA Winter and IOU seasons.

 

Peace and Blessings

[mettech]

The number one reason that State and Local taxes are at the current level is because of labor and insurance cost.

 

It's all about employees labor overhead.

[RangerM]

I, for one, congratulate Obama for getting California, Detroit and Washington on board the same plan.

 

Given that Uncle Sugar has two of them over a barrel, I don't.

[Mackintire]

OK lets get back on the topic of the thread...

 

 

The administration signed a deal for 35 MPG CAFE by 2015 and the big three went along.

 

The fully part is most insiders know that 35 MPG CAFE is about 26 MPG EPA.

 

Once you realize that this is a numbers game and understand how its played you can get a little perspective.

 

[macattak1]

OK lets get back on the topic of the thread...

 

 

The administration signed a deal for 35 MPG CAFE by 2015 and the big three went along.

 

The fully part is most insiders know that 35 MPG CAFE is about 26 MPG EPA.

 

Once you realize that this is a numbers game and understand how its played you can get a little perspective.

 

 

Soooo, did CA get less then they wanted then???

 

Peace and Blessings

[jpd80]

OK lets get back on the topic of the thread...

 

 

The administration signed a deal for 35 MPG CAFE by 2015 and the big three went along.

 

The fully part is most insiders know that 35 MPG CAFE is about 26 MPG EPA.

 

Once you realize that this is a numbers game and understand how its played you can get a little perspective.

 

This is what I've been trying to tell everyone for the past couple of weeks.

The F150 actually gets EPA 21mpg or CAFE 26 mpg now - it already complies with the truck limit.

Edited May 27, 2009 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

The F150 actually gets EPA 21mpg or CAFE 26 mpg now - it already complies with the truck limit.

 

Only in one trim line that most people aren't going to buy. There's still much room for improvement.

[jpd80]

Only in one trim line that most people aren't going to buy. There's still much room for improvement.

Individual vehicle types don't have to comply with the fuel averages but

I'm getting the idea that product mix is increasingly important,

maybe Ford needs the EB engines in Trucks and CUVs to seal the deal......

[xr7g428]

This is what I've been trying to tell everyone for the past couple of weeks.

The F150 actually gets EPA 21mpg or CAFE 26 mpg now - it already complies with the truck limit.

 

 

You have been telling them wrong.

 

The new CAFE standard for 2016 is 30 mpg for trucks. This is equivalent to the EPA standard of 23 mpg in combined city highway mileage.

 

The F150 you describe gets 21mpg HIGHWAY. not combined. It gets 17mpg combined.

 

To meet the standard of 30 combined, it needs to get 23 mpg combined. So no this truck doesn't meet the standard. And it has been discontinued for 2010.

[RangerM]

You have been telling them wrong.

 

The new CAFE standard for 2016 is 30 mpg for trucks. This is equivalent to the EPA standard of 23 mpg in combined city highway mileage.

 

The F150 you describe gets 21mpg HIGHWAY. not combined. It gets 17mpg combined.

 

To meet the standard of 30 combined, it needs to get 23 mpg combined. So no this truck doesn't meet the standard. And it has been discontinued for 2010.

Without getting into HOW these values are calculated, why are they both necessary?

[Imawhosure]

I think we should all look at a microcosim of how these policys work. Where is all this stuff already in place? California of course! And what is happening there?

 

I do not know if Michigan is losing residents overall, but the number 1 state in loss of population is CALIFORNIA. They have lost over 1 million residents the last 2 years as taxes rise, freedoms are lost, and insanity takes hold. And what we also have to remember is this------>while they loose 1 million residents on paper, how many are they actually losing when you consider that this states loss is offset dramatically by imigration from South of the border!?!?!?! What if this state was in the Midwest? They would be losing many, many, many more, and statistics would be much bleaker than the 1 million they admit to.

 

What these statistics show is that you don't even have to look into history to see the failure of these types of policys, you have a state in this union that tries them, and it is a mess; so much so that taxpayers are fleeing in droves.

 

Don't like that example? Try Chicago then, and Cook County as a whole where Chicago resides. The highest taxing authority in this country, and they can't even make ends come close to meeting as people flee. Highest gas taxes too, save then enviroment, etc. And everyone is heading for the hills.

 

Is this what you want your country to look like? After seeing many local municipalities, and the ever wonderous California fail miserably, are you SURE this is the way to go?

 

It is bad enough that government is allowed to over regulate some industrys. But when the government owns some of the biggest players in said industry, you really have a problem.

 

Why did Obama back up the CAFE standards to 2016? Well, we can all speculate, and my opinion is as good as anyone elses on here, so let me try-------->since Japan and Korea build small cars except for the Lexus brand which most normal folk will not afford, they were no threat to government motors. But Obama knowing that if he forced GM and Chrysler to build crackerboxes, Ford not being under Government control could build mid size cars and have their lunch. Ford brands are built for the middle class remember, that is what Henry Ford did.

 

That would not do!!!!!!!!

 

So, eventhough it would cost billions upon billions to put the standards up to 2016 for the domestics instead of the original date since most auto companys plan that far ahead, he knows that after taxpayers pour another 30 to 50 billion into GM, they will not flinch at 8 or 9 more to make them compatable for the 2016 standards. So, GM and Chrysler will be bankrolled by taxpayers for the GOOD of the country. (actually, to pay off the enviro lobby, but 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other, makes no difference) In fact, some of YOUR taxdollars will help them convert. But folks, who is gonna bankroll Ford? Remember, NOTHING in government makes a profit, nothing, nada, zilch. Therefore, your competitors in the domestic arena will be allowed to run at a LOSS!!!!!! And the government money will flow from the treasury, to their balance sheets!!!!!!

 

Are any of you silly enough to go to economic war with the government of the United States of America? With their vehicles backed of course, by the full faith and credit of this country!!!!!!

 

And some of you think these new standards are a wonderful idea. Enter my web said the spider to the fly!!!!!!!

 

Preliminary gains from the bankruptcy filings...........I agree. Even mid term gains, FORGET ABOUT IT, long term.......total loss!!!!! (with long term being 10yrs)

[nelsonlu]

You have been telling them wrong.

 

The new CAFE standard for 2016 is 30 mpg for trucks. This is equivalent to the EPA standard of 23 mpg in combined city highway mileage.

 

The F150 you describe gets 21mpg HIGHWAY. not combined. It gets 17mpg combined.

 

To meet the standard of 30 combined, it needs to get 23 mpg combined. So no this truck doesn't meet the standard. And it has been discontinued for 2010.

 

However, the Transit Connect beats the CAFE requirement easily, and obviously, even more so will the Transit Connect EV when it becomes available.

[jpd80]

You have been telling them wrong.

 

The new CAFE standard for 2016 is 30 mpg for trucks. This is equivalent to the EPA standard of 23 mpg in combined city highway mileage.

 

The F150 you describe gets 21mpg HIGHWAY. not combined. It gets 17mpg combined.

 

To meet the standard of 30 combined, it needs to get 23 mpg combined. So no this truck doesn't meet the standard. And it has been discontinued for 2010.

Well you are misinformed because nowhere does the legislation say combined city highway mileage.

The combined mileage is merely the combination of truck highway mileage and Car highway mileage.

[xr7g428]

Well you are misinformed because nowhere does the legislation say combined city highway mileage.

The combined mileage is merely the combination of truck highway mileage and Car highway mileage.

 

Well, that is just wishful thinking...

 

I can see how confusing this can be. The actual testing performed by the EPA is a measurement of CO2 emissions. Since CO2 emissions are a direct measure of fuel consumption, they interpret from the number of grams per mile of CO2 being emitted to arrive at the EPA gross mpg result. The test is conducted in two parts, one to simulate city driving, and another to simulate highway driving. These two results are then weighted at 55% city, and 45% highway to arrive at the combined number for the purpose of calculating CAFE compliance.

 

The numbers show on window stickers were "corrected" downward twice to attempt to more accurately depict what consumers might expect in the real world. The first set of corrections reduced the Highway rating by 22% and the city rating by 10%. These numbers were still perceived as overly optimistic, and a further reduction of 10% was applied to both ratings.

 

So to get from the current window sticker number to the EPA number, you have to gross up the number twice, once by 10% and a second time by a weighted 15.4% (10% x 55% + 22% x 45%).

 

So for the F150SFE in the example, the CAFE number, based on 15 city, 21 highway, 17 combined would gross up to be 23.6 for the purpose of CAFE. And that is well short of the 30 mandated by the regulation.

Edited May 28, 2009 by xr7g428

[jpd80]

You really need to check out what Tom Cackette Deputy Director CARB says about that.

He basically said that a vehicle like F150 with 21 highway sticker = 26 mpg on their rating.

LINK

 

Sure this is pre national regulations but is still valid. I think you are really over reading the

regulations big time and I submit that Cakette's judgement is more accurate than yours.

Edited May 29, 2009 by jpd80

[fmccap]

It is really a shame. The young people who peruse these boards don't even understand how they have lost freedoms. They don't know that their country has one of the largest energy reserves in the world known as coal, but that due to political posturing, they aren't allowed to use it. Eventually, each of you will come to the conclusion you have been sold a faulty premise. By that time, the lone domestic auto company that could survive will also be a ward of the state, and you will be left to also do the governments bidding. The government needs you under its thumb so as their companies which they control, can build little cars made out of tiki-taki and sell them.

You work for what might be the last company who can build something that America is willing to drive, and damn if some of you don't want to get in the government fold as a government worker, for government security. Guess I can't blame you for thinking that way though. If we build cars nobody wants to buy cause they are to small..........screw them, they will have to; cause the government will insure they have no choice if they want a new car.

And we thought we fought wars to stop dictators; silly us. We actually fought wars to decide who the dictators were, we elected them, and now we all should be happy as pigs in sh##.

Lunch is served fellas!!!!!! How many of you are hungry?

This is an interesting comment I seen.

Many, many years ago, in a land far, far away, there were a few people who lived off of the fruit of other people's labor. The other people were compassionate and provided them with charity. Things were very good. Many years later, some of the people thought it would be better to organize the charity and have the government provide for those who lived off of the others. To spread the pain around, the government started to tax the productive people and companies. Things were still very good. As time went on, people from other lands, as well as people already part of this wonderful land far, far away, found out that they could live quit comfortably off of the government. Things were still good. As the numbers increased so did the taxes. As taxes increased there were fewer jobs in this wonderful land. Slowly people who were responsible hard working people couldn't find a job. All of these people and other compassionate people increased the taxes to help those less fortunate. Slowly the people paying the taxes were called rich people. As the number of non-rich people increased, as incentives and ambition decreased, and rich people either left this wonderful land or send their money to other new wonderful lands, things were not so good. But the government had a wonderful plan. They would spend a lot of money to create new jobs and reward bad behavior and inefficiency. But without capital and efficiency, the plan was doomed to failure. The land could no longer compete with the rest of the world. 'Fairness' was now the basis of the new economic order rather than efficiency and equality became the social objective. That son, is how America lost its freedom, drive, incentive, ambition, personal responsibility, and why we no longer live there.

 

Sometime in the not too distant future

[xr7g428]

You really need to check out what Tom Cackette Deputy Director CARB says about that.

He basically said that a vehicle like F150 with 21 highway sticker = 26 mpg on their rating.

LINK

 

Sure this is pre national regulations but is still valid. I think you are really over reading the

regulations big time and I submit that Cakette's judgement is more accurate than yours.

 

Nowhere in the video does he say that highway mileage will be used to calculate CAFE.

 

He was saying that there was a "truck" that met the standard proposed by California. In the US, many small SUV's are classified as trucks.

 

I know the facts are harder to grasp than what you want to believe, but the real standard is measured in grams per mile of CO2, not MPG. The real standard begins with the notion that the fleet average shall be the equivalent of 35.5 mpg. The Fleet average number is weighted 60% cars, and 40% trucks. Mathematically, that means: [35.5 fleet mpg = 60% car MPG + 40% Truck MPG]. This equation can be solved for a variety of different combination's of car and truck MPG. The California standard was calling for cars to be at 42MPG, and Trucks to be at 26mpg, to achieve the weighted fleet 35.5 MPG. The US standard calls for progressive improvements from the current standard of 27.5 for cars and 24 for trucks, not so heavily weighted towards cars. (keep in mind that you have to use the gross up procedure I described in an earlier post). If you start form the current US base line, the requirement for cars works out to be 39MPG and trucks 30MPG, to achieve the same weighted fleet average of 35.5 MPG. What has been adopted is not the California weighting, but rather the California fleet average. This is why the 26 mpg number used in the pre national regulations story is irrelevant.

 

Now to make all of this even more confusing, the new rule as proposed will consider the foot print of the vehicle, rather than weight. The idea is the the old weight scale served to promote the manufacture of heavier vehicles to allow them to be classified as trucks. The new rule proposal will multiply wheel base by width to determine vehicle size. The final rule has not been established, but the delineation of cars and trucks will probably be eliminated altogether. the replacement standard may well be grams per mile of square foot of vehicle foot print, of course translated back to MPG.

 

You are free to believe what ever you chose about the likely effects of all of this. My opinion is that we will adopt the standards and pay what ever economic consequence occurs. We will never know the true cost of the program because there will be no way to compare the course taken with the alternatives. Global warming will turn out to be not an issue, but the high priests will claim victory non the less, and move on to the next big thing. Artificially raising the cost of a resource for one group creates the greatest benefit for those not effected. I suspect that India and China will be very grateful that we have lessened our demand for oil. and allowed them to buy at reduced cost. Just as we in the US have benefited from European governments taxing the bejesus out of fuel for their countrymen.

Edited May 29, 2009 by xr7g428

[jpd80]

Now to make all of this even more confusing, the new rule as proposed will consider the foot print of the vehicle, rather than weight. The idea is the the old weight scale served to promote the manufacture of heavier vehicles to allow them to be classified as trucks. The new rule proposal will multiply wheel base by width to determine vehicle size. The final rule has not been established, but the delineation of cars and trucks will probably be eliminated altogether. the replacement standard may well be grams per mile of square foot of vehicle foot print, of course translated back to MPG.

Thank you for that explanation and boy, what a confusing web!

So it looks like vehicle emissions are even more CO2 centered now and CAFE limits calculated from that.

I wonder if post 2016, there is some sort of harmonization with European CO2 limits in gm/klm,

converted to gm/mile for US regs. That would make more sense for Auto makers selling cars globally.

 

I still don't think it's a major issue achieving the limits, it's just the way it's done. Some of us remember how all the good cars went away forever in 1980 only to find performance returned by 1985.

As bleak as these regulations seem, they force all of us to be more efficient in our vehicle selections

and even though we will pay more for vehicles, the new engine alternatives could be quite exciting.

 

The thought of less petro dollars flowing out of the US also says that this is the right thing to do,

smashing OPECs hold over the US and Europe has to be the focus of all future governments.

Edited May 29, 2009 by jpd80

[xr7g428]

The thought of less petro dollars flowing out of the US also says that this is the right thing to do,

smashing OPECs hold over the US and Europe has to be the focus of all future governments.

 

I could not agree more with the statement that we need to stop sending money to OPEC. I just think we are going about solving an energy crisis by spending more money on things that don't get to the heart of the problem. I believe we should be developing technologies to store solar, wind and hydro electric power by using it to transform CO2 and hydrogen into gasoline. The raw materials, CO2 and hydrogen from waste water are essentially free (CO2 is cheaper than free, they will pay you to take it!). Wind power generated in excess of what is needed at the time is nearly free. The same holds true for solar and hydro. The end result is carbon neutral. In fact, the more fuel you make, the more carbon you put into sequestration.

[jpd80]

I could not agree more with the statement that we need to stop sending money to OPEC. I just think we are going about solving an energy crisis by spending more money on things that don't get to the heart of the problem. I believe we should be developing technologies to store solar, wind and hydro electric power by using it to transform CO2 and hydrogen into gasoline. The raw materials, CO2 and hydrogen from waste water are essentially free (CO2 is cheaper than free, they will pay you to take it!). Wind power generated in excess of what is needed at the time is nearly free. The same holds true for solar and hydro. The end result is carbon neutral. In fact, the more fuel you make, the more carbon you put into sequestration.

Exactly, do all the things you've suggested.

Vehicles are the easy targets because there's millions of them around the globe but

their effect on CO and emissions is but a fraction of the real villains - coal fired power plants.

 

Australia alone exports close to 260 million tons of Coal to China and Japan each year,

what do we care about vehicle emissions when those nations are going to spew CO2 everywhere.

Edited May 29, 2009 by jpd80

[xr7g428]

The funny thing is that CO2 is not the reason to do it. In simple mathematical terms, it took humanity a few hundred years to burn all of the easy to get to hydrocarbons. In the process the CO2 level moved from about 345 to 375 parts per million. We are on the downside slope of what is available. Unless we start supplying all of our energy needs by burning coal, the CO2 problem is taken care of all of its own accord. We are not moving toward a future characterized by global warming, we are moving toward a future of energy shortages. If we develop electric cars that are recharged by using coal, we will extend the period before we run out, but if we can move to renewable energy, we don't have to ever run out. The middle of the road course is to use CO2 captured from coal fired power plants, in combination with hydrogen from waste water, to make hydrocarbons like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

[jpd80]

Clearly the problems lie with developing a sustainable supply of renewable fuels.

If scientists can come up with a way of recycling carbon from fuel to CO2 and back again

the earth will come back into balance and the greenies will be out of a job.

 

 

It may require novel use of nuclear and solar power but ultimately a non-polluting

energy source will be needed to make the reversal of CO2 economically viable.

Carbon would then become an energy battery that gets used over and over.

[xr7g428]

YES! You get it! It is entirely technically feasible today to recycle carbon in exactly the same way we use carbon based fuels today.

[jpd80]

YES! You get it! It is entirely technically feasible today to recycle carbon in exactly the same way we use carbon based fuels today.

It just takes the will to do it and gosh, the trillions they loaned in the economic melt down,

when they come back it may be worth siphoning off a few 100 billion to make the thing work.

Something future generations will thank us for and the Arabs/OPEC no longer hold the world to ransom.

The dirty bastards are at it again, all in collusion trying to pump the price of oil up again.

Edited May 30, 2009 by jpd80