Obama raising car prices and killing people is just for starters

posted at 2:40 pm on May 19, 2009 by Karl

Michelle Malkin correctly notes that Pres. Obama’s planned standards for tailpipe emissions from new automobiles will raise the cost of a new car by $600 to $1,300 and continue a regulatory regime that kills motorists. That is more than can be said for the Associated Press, which is trying to bury the increased upfront cost down the memory hole.

As for the increased motorist deaths, which the National Academy of Sciences once estimated at 1,300 to 2,600 in 1993 alone, even a less lethal estimate of 800 excess deaths annually is roughly the number of US troops killed annually during the peak years of the Iraq war. Indeed, the estimated cumulative death toll of 46,000 in 2001 suggests that CAFE standards inflict casualties on the magnitude of Vietnam. The lapdog media, however, does not devote time to reporting the grim milestones when people die in fuel-efficient cars.

The supposed benefits of this regulation are explained by the Washington Post:

The measures are significant steps forward for the administration’s energy agenda by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change and by easing U.S. dependence on oil, most of which is imported.

However, increasing fuel-efficiency reduces the per-mile cost of operating vehicles, which increases the number of miles driven, thus reducing or eliminating any CAFE benefit. Between 1970-2001, the US made cars almost 50% more efficient, but the average number of miles a person drives doubled.

Environmentalists claim the new standards should cut carbon dioxide from tailpipes by 30 percent by 2016. Though that is unlikely, for the reason just stated, the fact remains that cars and light trucks subject to fuel economy standards make up only 1.5 percent of all global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, Americans will be paying more for cars and continuing to die in ever-greater numbers on the road, all for less than one-half of one percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. It is almost as though hardcore greens want to save the planet by killing people, but are only accomplishing the killing part.

Finally, one of the entirely predictable “unintended consequences” of raising the price of new cars will be to keep poorer people driving their old, greenhouse gas-spewing cars. Thus, it should surprise no one that Congress is already considering a “cash for clunkers” program designed to encourage trade-ins. This proposal is a twofer: not only does it attempt to patch a glaring flaw in today’s plan, but it would help save the jobs of all those UAW workers Obama and the Democrats rely upon every other November. Pushing the poor into these new Obamamobiles will also kill more people at the margins, but dead people tend to vote Democratic, so there is no net loss for the Democrats.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m agin’ all this government bailout and buying GM and tyranny and such, don’t get me wrong, but this argument is not entirely accurate. Lighter cars are often more maneuverable, and can stop quicker.

So although they don’t stand a chance against an Expedition, they do have some safety benefits.

Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM

catmman on May 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM

But without all that excess CO2 all my 200+ cedar trees will die. That’s right the greenies don’t understand the “Law of Unintended Consequences”

chemman on May 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM

This shouldn’t even be happening. Fuel efficiency, maybe. Savings? Doubtful. Safety? Iffy at best….but the true bottom line here is, we’re expected to just roll over, and lose more, and more of our freedoms, and liberties. Forcing something on the people, by the government….is what they do in socialist, and communist countries. Since there is denial that this is happening here…what do we call this?

capejasmine on May 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM

bullseye on May 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM

LOL. Great post.

You can add a question about the Sahara for the idiot messiah, too, which was mostly green just 10,000 years ago. Of course, Man started moving in there and … Whammo! It’s a friggin’ desert now.

progressoverpeace on May 19, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Less gas usage = Less gas purchased = Lower taxes collected = Greater Deficiets = Democrats pushing higher tax % on gasoline.

PappaMac on May 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM

SO Jugears, what the hell caused all that ice to melt before humans even existed????

bullseye on May 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Well, DUH. With 2 mile thick ice, those dinosaurs must have burned a LOT of coal to keep warm.

Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

The earth will be a great place to live, once we kill off all the humans!

GarandFan on May 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM

The environmentalists are always telling us that the earth, and the US in particular, is overcrowded.

So from their eyes, the fact that these cars kill more people is a fringe benefit.

Besides, more dead people means fewer people driving.

MarkTheGreat on May 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Besides, more dead people means fewer people driving.

MarkTheGreat on May 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM

And more Soylent Green to feed the third world.

progressoverpeace on May 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Thus, it should surprise no one that Congress is already considering a “cash for clunkers” program designed to encourage trade-ins.

Which also encourages poor people to live beyond their means. Also, a few years ago when California was trying to do another tax grab, they tried to raise the yearly car registration tax significantly.

I remember some radio show having the local politician on trying to justify this. A woman called up and said she bought a moderately priced sedan that her family could fit in and she had carefully budgeted the monthly payments, insurance, and yearly tax but could not afford it if they raised the taxes. His reply was tough luck. You should learn to budget better. HELLO!!! It’s because the state can’t budget and is addicted to overspending that we keep getting into these messes and he has the nerve to criticize the poor working stiff? Pure arrogance.

Blake on May 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM

here is the Heritage Foundation’s break down on the additional Cap & Trade. It’s absolutely ghastly.

vapig on May 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM

And more Soylent Green to feed the third world.

progressoverpeace on May 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Will bring a whole new definiton to “Road Kill Diner”.

Romeo13 on May 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I ordered my new camaro a month ago. I’m just hoping it gets delivered real soon, the dealer says mid June. As far as keeping an older car around longer are you kidding me, when was the last time they made cars to last longer than their payments? The ultimate green car would be one that normal folk could work on and could be rebuilt a few times, some of you might not be old enough to remember, it used to be that way.

aceinstall on May 19, 2009 at 3:56 PM

It will be a privilege to be the human sacrifice to Gaia. My family, despite being left without a breadwinner, will be honored that I died so that the polar bears won’t have to swim so much.

mr.blacksheep on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

It is almost as though hardcore greens want to save the planet by killing people, but are only accomplishing the killing part.

Depopulation has always been the goal of many Leftists. Society can’t support but X number of people, we can’t grow enough food for everybody, we’re going to overrun all available land, etc. Now our tailpipes are going to destroy the planet. Whatever.

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Romeo13 on May 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Heh.

progressoverpeace on May 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Will Charlie Rangel be obliged to scale back to one of these Klown Karz as his “perk” for being a representative?

onlineanalyst on May 19, 2009 at 4:02 PM

I’m agin’ all this government bailout and buying GM and tyranny and such, don’t get me wrong, but this argument is not entirely accurate. Lighter cars are often more maneuverable, and can stop quicker.

Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM

That’s only a benefit if the driver is both skilled and attentive.

That leaves out about 99.9% of drivers.

Consider that the largest percentage of crashes are when a single car hits a fixed object.

MarkTheGreat on May 19, 2009 at 4:07 PM

The Question we need to ask the President…

Based on the statistics… are you going to let your DAUGHTERs drive one of these Smart Clown Cars?

Romeo13 on May 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Well they can increase the fleet average MPG, but if no one BUYS the higher MPG cars and all buy the bigger cars built, what will government motors do next? Outlaw SUVs? Over my dead body am I giving up my Yukon sized car. I have a 2003, 128K miles, still rolling strong. No expensive repair bills, I do the ongoing maintenance, etc. I guess I will just roll with this car another 128K miles and save $45K by not buying another car anytime soon.

2010 can not get here soon enough. Dayum.

karenhasfreedom on May 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Pushing the poor into these new Obamamobiles will also kill more people at the margins, but dead people tend to vote Democratic, so there is no net loss for the Democrats.

When are the Republicans going to get smart and start catering to the zombie constituency?

Socratease on May 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Agree entirely. I was merely objecting to associating the 46k total number with CAFE standards.

CDeb on May 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM

For the record, CDeb must be missing the point. The 46K excess deaths accumulated over a number of years since the CAFE standards were originally introduced. And the studies account — as best as one can — for the other variables. Over that entire span of time, 46K is not an unreasonable estimate.

Karl on May 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Depopulation has always been the goal of many Leftists. Society can’t support but X number of people, we can’t grow enough food for everybody, we’re going to overrun all available land, etc. Now our tailpipes are going to destroy the planet. Whatever.

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Why don’t they go first?

Sam Adams on May 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM

What percentge of human greenhouse gas emissions is contributed by exhalation? See, CAFE standards and higher rates of traffic death are entirely consistent! And of course, the larger you are the more breathing you do. Someday soon I hope to see the State address this whole “Ugly American” problem. Provide a final solution, if you will.

Blacklake on May 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Great news; Gubmit Motors indeed:

GM bankruptcy plan eyes quick sale to government
NEW YORK (Reuters) – If General Motors Corp files for bankruptcy, as widely expected, plans include a quick sale of the automaker’s healthy assets to a new company owned by the U.S. government, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

The source, who was not cleared to speak with the media and would not be identified, said the plan also called for the government to forgive the bulk of $15.4 billion emergency loans that the U.S. has already provided to GM.

Brat on May 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM

And today’s new cars all come with Onstar, GPS, built-in DVD players w/screens (two of ‘em in minivans), backup sensor/alerts, automatic on/off headlights, separate climate controls for driver-side/passenger-side, etc. A whole lot of extras that I am not at all interested in and could happily live without, but I have to pay for anyway. These are standard items that all add up to a good deal more than $1,300. The automakers have been adding on all these gadgets and gizmos, unit by unit, over the years, while resisting improvements in gas mileage because (so they say) it would make their cars too expensive.

Now, an additional 5 mpg to 8 mpg better gas mileage IS something that I would be interested in, but that is not something that the automakers offer. The car companies add gizmos and gadgets galore, and charge for them without a second thought. But to actually improve the car’s gas mileage performance – Oh, Heavens; oh dear, OH MY, that would be too expensive – why, why, er, the customer would never stand for it, (they say/they moan).

And I call major BS on all of them. Obama’s pet car czar doesn’t have a clue, but neither do the automakers. I am curious to find out who, in the end, is actually worse at running the car companies: Obama’s car czar, or current management?

ss396 on May 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Auto didactic.

Autocratic.

jgapinoy on May 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM

My parents have always told me that the USA will become communist without a shot being fired. I always thought that couldn’t happen.

Now, not so much.

PappaMac on May 19, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Why don’t they go first?

Sam Adams on May 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Funny how that ends up working. They happily support euthenasia, and abortion, but when it’s time for THEM to kick off, there’s always some compelling argument to keep them alive.

But abortion works as a natural selection. That’s why the Dems have to keep buying new voters.

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM

But without all that excess CO2 all my 200+ cedar trees will die.

Trees and plants “breathe in” CO2. They “breathe out” oxygen. People breathe out CO2. We breathe in oxygen. The more CO2 we breathe out, the more enthusiastically plants “breathe in”. It’s a marvelously designed system, it’s self-adjusting. It works beautifully without humans thinking about it, or interfering with it. That’s just one of the reasons liberals hate it: Liberals want to be God.

oldleprechaun on May 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM

And today’s new cars all come with Onstar, GPS, built-in DVD players w/screens (two of ‘em in minivans), backup sensor/alerts, automatic on/off headlights, separate climate controls for driver-side/passenger-side, etc.
ss396 on May 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM

You can get stripped down versions of most cars; you don’t have to get all the gizmos. My last new car didn’t even have power windows. Also, why do you think carmakers put gizmos in cars? Gizmos result in a net increase of sales. People started out installing their own in-car DVD, then the makers started adding it from the factory. People liked it so much they added more DVD players.

Same with GPS – people add it to cars, when looking for a new car, they look for cars that already have it. Same with radios – I bought a stereo with MP3 capability, I’ll look for that in my next new car.

The point – gizmos are a reflection of aggregate demand. CAFE is not.

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Well they can increase the fleet average MPG, but if no one BUYS the higher MPG cars and all buy the bigger cars built, what will government motors do next? Outlaw SUVs?
karenhasfreedom on May 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Once again, the hypocrisy of government is at work. Does the presidential motorcade use a bunch of hybrids? Nope – it uses an overweight limo and a bunch of SUVs. Why? Safety and convenience. Something the average American can live with out, I guess.

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM

When I was a kid, my Dad owned an auto repair business. I used to go to work with him on the weekends. I’d have a great time looking at all the wrecked cars. The ones that had scalp, blood and hair embedded in the windshield were really kewl!!! And oh yeah, those cars were the fuel-efficient small pieces of crap. The big Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Mercurys, rarely had the police death marks (chalk outlines and accident report numbers on the windows). My Dad always said, he had more than 40 years in the business, if you wanna survive an accident, drive American iron, not the foreign tin cans. He was right then and he is right now. I’m glad he doesn’t have to see what has happened to the American automobile industry today.

Andy in Agoura Hills on May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Here’s a story on the motorcade circa 2006. What would that look like today?

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM

And here’s a video – how much CO2 do they generate from this?

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM

They want us all to be collective obamabots in clown cars. Reminds me of this commercial I saw last night:

“The hybrid for everyone is here. Designed and priced for us all.”

Brat on May 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Stay tuned for a plan to have gasoline prices individually-tailored to be proportional to one’s income.

MaxPower on May 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OBAMA”S DISINGENUOUS TORTURE OF FACTS

Paraphrasing a point in his teleprompter read today -
This action will save more oil than all the oil the US imported from Saudi Arabia, Lybia and Venezuala.

In reality, the US gets relatively no oil from these 3 countries. Most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico.

gonnjos on May 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Ben Stein on Beck: “They’ll take away my Cadillac when they pry it from my cold dead hand.”

BuckeyeSam on May 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM

The Question we need to ask the President…

Based on the statistics… are you going to let your DAUGHTERs drive one of these Smart Clown Cars?

Romeo13 on May 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

None of this crap will ever affect the Obamas’ life. After he leaves office, Barry will cash in with a lucrative book deal (as will Michelle), and both will be able to command high speaking fees as they tour the lecture circuit. They’ll probably make the Clintons’ take (over $100 million) look like small potatoes. None of the Obamas will ever have to worry about the price of gas, or whether they can afford to purchase a safe car.

No matter how badly Barry screws up our country, he and his family will have enough money to be able to escape living with the consequences of what he’s done.

AZCoyote on May 19, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Stay tuned for a plan to have gasoline prices individually-tailored to be proportional to one’s income.

MaxPower on May 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Your behind the times… thats already been talked about in “Progresive” circles… it will take the form of a Tax Rebate for poor folks to compensate for “High Energy Prices”…

Romeo13 on May 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM

I’m sure someone must have mentioned this already, but if people buy less gas, aren’t the oil companies going to raise the costs to offset their losses?

Talk about subsidies, when they wanted to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, they also wanted the taxpayer to subsidize their car insurance because they wouldn’t be able to buy it.

Blake on May 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM

I’m sure someone must have mentioned this already, but if people buy less gas, aren’t the oil companies going to raise the costs to offset their losses?

Blake on May 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM

You need to go back to Econ 101, when demand falls the price goes with it. Oil is pretty inelastic, but as the world showed last year we all have our limits. The price got too high and demand plummeted which then sent the price down with it.

Regardless, if we were able to stop importing oil from enemy states that would be a great thing. I know I know, start drilling here you say. Fine, but do it with CAFE so that our supplies go farther. It seems silly to needlessly burn through a vital non-renewable resource.

jonknee on May 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM

The point – gizmos are a reflection of aggregate demand. CAFE is not.

hawksruleva on May 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM

True enough; you just have to order the car specially without all that stuff on it. And, yes, I have done so. I am not convinced, however, that aggregate demand drives all of the add-ons. The profit is not in the new car sales; it’s in the markup on these add-ons (and on the after-sales market, the shop, and the used cars). If I don’t want a DVD player, the dealer will knock $125 off the sales price, since that is what it cost him (he says). But he doesn’t knock the $250 profit that he was making on the unit in the first place, unless I, the buyer, know to insist on that, too. The American public is not generally a society of bargainers; we are not (generally) practiced in knowing how to drive the “hidden charges” out of the deal. So the manufacturers load up the vehicles with all this profit-generating stuff, and wait for you to know how to nickle-and-dime it all back out. When you’re looking at $25k and up for a vehicle, what’s a couple hundred bucks here and there?

I don’t begrudge them their profit, and any additional charges that they manage to get. All that I’m saying is that I don’t care to hear their BS about how increased gas mileage in the absence of government mandate would have made cars too expensive for the American consumer.

There is a big market for books on how to buy cars without getting taken, too.

ss396 on May 19, 2009 at 6:27 PM

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OBAMA”S DISINGENUOUS TORTURE OF FACTS

Paraphrasing a point in his teleprompter read today -
This action will save more oil than all the oil the US imported from Saudi Arabia, Lybia and Venezuala.

In reality, the US gets relatively no oil from these 3 countries. Most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico.

gonnjos on May 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM

You’re letting your partisan blinders get in the way. We get massive amounts of oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (about a million barrels a day from each). Saudi Arabia and Mexico are about even, depending on the quarter one is more than the other.

jonknee on May 19, 2009 at 6:33 PM

I wanna see where would I put my giant breed dog, along with the family, luggage and so forth when we get out of town; when we have to haul or stuff the car up (pile up wood) for the winter, and all those hunters that have to somehow put a whole buck on top of a Yaris. Not to mention mooses/sarc

ProudPalinFan on May 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM

I’m all for going back to cheap leaded gasoline. All the trouble started when THEY changed to unleaded. Not to mention all the damage unleaded ethenol goes to small and marine engines.

Friendly21 on May 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM

I’m all for going back to cheap leaded gasoline. All the trouble started when THEY changed to unleaded. Not to mention all the damage unleaded ethenol goes to small and marine engines.

Friendly21 on May 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM

Seriously? Lead in gas doesn’t make it cheaper and it would actually do damage to your car these days (it bunks the catalytic converter and oxygen sensors). Lead is a powerful neurotoxin and not releasing thousands of tons of it into our air every year is a very good thing. If you think CAFE “kills” people, leaded gasoline is a veritable slaughter.

jonknee on May 19, 2009 at 10:51 PM

The measures are significant steps forward for the administration’s energy agenda to get everyone to ride the trains…

Remember the $1Billion in the Stimulus for Amtract and Harry Reids (Smelly Tourist) $Billion Train??

TN Mom on May 19, 2009 at 10:57 PM

It’s a marvelously designedevolved system,

oldleprechaun on May 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM

There. Fixed.

I wonder though. Will the system continue to “evolve” or just “die” from man and his immoral c02?

DWB on May 19, 2009 at 11:00 PM

“Milady”, my 2003 Lincoln Continental will graciously and happily transport me for a long time. Gas prices and O be damned. God forbid, I am crashed into..I will survive.
Those in “death traps’ will not, therefore, my darling Milady will not be replaced in the future

YankeeinCA on May 20, 2009 at 12:30 AM

I think obama is trying to reach all those people who he was not able to abort by making cars smaller.

DieHippieDie on May 20, 2009 at 12:33 AM

And today’s new cars all come with Onstar, GPS, built-in DVD players w/screens (two of ‘em in minivans), backup sensor/alerts, automatic on/off headlights, separate climate controls for driver-side/passenger-side, etc. A whole lot of extras that I am not at all interested in and could happily live without, but I have to pay for anyway. These are standard items that all add up to a good deal more than $1,300. The automakers have been adding on all these gadgets and gizmos, unit by unit, over the years, while resisting improvements in gas mileage because (so they say) it would make their cars too expensive.

Now, an additional 5 mpg to 8 mpg better gas mileage IS something that I would be interested in, but that is not something that the automakers offer. The car companies add gizmos and gadgets galore, and charge for them without a second thought. But to actually improve the car’s gas mileage performance – Oh, Heavens; oh dear, OH MY, that would be too expensive – why, why, er, the customer would never stand for it, (they say/they moan).

And I call major BS on all of them. Obama’s pet car czar doesn’t have a clue, but neither do the automakers. I am curious to find out who, in the end, is actually worse at running the car companies: Obama’s car czar, or current management?

ss396 on May 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM

While I’m with you on the unneeded auto options (my pet peeve is with sunroofs, it is virtually impossible to buy the type of car I want without one of those damn useless holes in the roof)-I don’t recall any car makers (even American) claiming that increasing fuel efficiency per se would cause their costs to rise.

What they do claim is that the vehicles won’t sell. Modern engines are so much more efficient than engines from 20 or even 10 years ago (and much cleaner I might add) but that efficiency has been put to use to add more power to fairly large engines, rather than creating the same amount of horsepower that was common in large engines a couple of decades ago, in smaller more fuel efficient engines.

Because that is what sells.

A 1987 Buick Regal with a Buick 3.8 liter 6 cylinder engine put out 110 horsepower. A 2009 Cadillac CTS with a 3.6 liter 6 cylinder creates 270 horsepower-an Infiniti G37 with a 3.7 liter produces 330 horsepower-the same size 2009 engine produces triple the power of the 1987 engine.

Dreadnought on May 20, 2009 at 1:22 AM

I’m surprised more people aren’t up in arms about the pending Cash for Clunkers legislation, which amounts to another bailout for auto companies (through your tax dollars) and which will increase car prices for non-subsidized individuals (by increasing demand through government subsidy to select individuals).

Also Cash for Clunkers creates yet another moral hazard by bailing out individuals who bought gas guzzling cars and trucks at the expense of those who bought more efficient vehicles. More nice going by Chuck Schumer and the usual gang of idiots.

Dreadnought on May 20, 2009 at 1:33 AM

You’re letting your partisan blinders get in the way. We get massive amounts of oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (about a million barrels a day from each). Saudi Arabia and Mexico are about even, depending on the quarter one is more than the other.

This is not an issue of “political blinders”, whatever that is. The issue is that this administration CONSTANTLY uses hot button rhetoric to press their agenda. This is an excellent example. Why use Libya in the mention of savings? US imports from Libya are virtually nothing. Why use Venezuela? Mexico, as you aptly point out, exports to us almost the same amount of oil as Venezuela. Reading the transcription of the remarks, Obama also mentions Nigeria, the nearly rogue, problematic African state, in the Saudi- Venezuela-Libya content. Why them? And, of course there is the evil Saudi Arabia, whose leader the One felt compelled to let see the top of his head.
Using these 4 countries draws harsh, negative connotations of oil production. I am quite surprised that Obama did not use the names Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Oxy and BP in his statement, but I am sure he has his reasons. Using principles of critical evaluation of speech, everything that Obama reads off the teleprompter is EXACTLY what his speechwriters want us to hear. He probably is saving those remarks for a latter date.
My point goes further in that Obama uses 1.8 BBO as the savings over the life of these cars, without mentioning the timeframe. If we are to assume 7 years as the useful lifetime of an Obamamobile, then the net savings of oil in 2016 will be around 700,000 barrels of oil per day, about what we import from the unheralded Angola now.
But the statement of, “we will save more oil than what we currently import from Angola” just doesn’t have the same cache, does it? I am thinking that the 1.8 BBO savings is rectally extracted anyway, like so many of his numbers (i.e., “saving” 5 million jobs with the “Stimulus ” package).

He routinely twists facts to spin his story to make weak minded American stand back in awe of his “magical powers”.

Sorry, I am not one of them, and I am not going to sing “Kumbaya”.

gonnjos on May 20, 2009 at 9:31 AM

And another thing.

This program is going to cost the American consumer tens of billions of dollars, and reduce US oil consumption by 3.5%, using their numbers. This doesn’t even cover the run-off projected from domestic production in 2016, which is on the order of 15%.

IT DOES NOT REDUCE US DEPENDENCY ON OIL IMPORTS!!!

gonnjos on May 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Hey more deaths = less mouths to feed, less healthcare to give..less carbon footprint….less population to worry about

Socialists love this stuff

Dpet on May 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Not to mention that more expensive cars drive people further into debt – - they’re spending but then they’ll need to bailed out later because they can’t make the payments?

kens on May 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Wonder Boy is on a roll; How about Whoopte Goldberg for Supreme Court?

Cybergeezer on May 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2