Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (242366)	3/26/2002 4:40:30 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I am only mocking the suv mentality. The one that thinks a suv is so necessary for their survival. Who are these people? Have you met them? What did families drive before the suv? I think they were called station wagons. You mean like the one my parents drove and were lucky to get 9 miles to the gallon? Wasn't our choice then a V8 engine? But then again, unless you buy a corvette, even an escort has a back seat. I would hate to pack a family of 6 in an escort. I really don't care what anyone drives, but I hate to see people complaining about the price of gas when they are driving a vehicle that gets what..12 miles to the gallon?? People complained when the cost of gas was 99 cents. Some of them know they are getting ripped off, but we all have that choice to buy that escort don't we. M

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (242366)	3/26/2002 5:38:42 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 769670

dailynewslosangeles.com SUVs are testament to vanity and profit By Steve Vlasich Sales of SUVs have gunned ahead despite negative press surrounding their tendency to roll over as well as the ongoing feud between Ford and Firestone over the problem of tires losing their tread. (Firestone has maintained that the problem is not theirs but the design of some Ford SUVs.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in May of this year gave poor ratings to the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator and General Motors' Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon for their propensity to roll over. All four models were given only two stars (one star was the lowest rating with four stars the highest). Rollover problems and poor fuel economy are among documented criticisms of the light truck category. In addition, there is a feeling among thousands of ordinary drivers that men and women who drive the beefier vehicles tend to be more daring and aggressive and thus become an unfair match for smaller sedans, particularly in a collision. Their higher frame obscures the view of someone in a smaller sedan following behind them because the sedan driver is unable to see through the taller vehicle and is denied extra visibility of the road ahead. Wider than the average sedan, these bigger vehicles are barely able to fit in a conventional parking space, so door dents and dings are on the rise. Sedan drivers also complain that backing out of a parking space wedge between two SUVs requires an act of faith and a "Hail Mary"-- the same as backing out of a darkened tunnel. At a time when energy concerns loom once again on the horizon, the poor mileage of the light truck category has focused attention on the loophole in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set by the Congress in 1975 when Gerald Ford was president. Spurred on by the first shutoff of imported oil, CAFE standards mandated that passenger cars achieve an average of 27.5 miles per gallon but only 20.7 miles per gallon for light trucks. SUVs and minivans were exempt, with the result that fuel economy among new cars this year is only 24.5 mpg, tying 1999 for the lowest MPG since 1980. Automakers maintain that forcings SUVs and minivans, which represent 50 percent of passenger cars sold in the United States this year, to meet higher standards would add substantial cost to and reduce the performance of a class of vehicles that has gained runaway popularity during the past 10 years. Detroit's answer to the declining miles per gallon standard appears to be to jettison two of the longest-running luxury cars-- a move they hope will raise the fuel efficiency of their remaining passenger car line. As a result, the venerable Cadillac Eldorado and the Lincoln Continental will be phased out in the summer and early fall of 2002. Closing the SUV and minivan exemption would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day and prevent 187 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, according to environmental experts -- yet Congress appears unwilling to take on the Detroit establishment or the United Auto Workers union since the auto industry remains a vital cog in the U.S. economy. So the chance for CAFE reform appears unlikely. To their nonpartisan credit, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Vt., have sponsored a bill to close this glaring loophole, but few give it a chance of success. In fact, the House rejected a similar proposal Wednesday. Where do we go from here? Those who buy these oversized vehicles say they are buying only what automakers build and market; automakers say they only build what consumers buy. It is patently obvious that both sides need to reassess their needs and redefine their responsibilities to reach a moderate middle ground that will address the gut issues of safety and conservation rather than vanity and profit. Failure to accept a little less will mean that those who drive the big and high-powered machines will feel a sense of empowerment and those who drive the smaller sedans will feel a sense of endangerment so all will be driving in a confrontational environment akin to a demolition derby. Let's return to automotive reality where the car represents transportation. Then and only then will the adage, "pick on someone your own size" be once again a mother's admonishment. In the meantime, if you're driving a sedan please keep a wary eyeopen and don't get involved with a vehicle twice as big as yours -- you will be a sorry loser.

To: joseph krinsky who wrote (242366)	3/26/2002 6:42:35 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

the way to encourage conservation is not to ban suv's or anything of the sort. the simple solution is for the president to go pay another visit to mr fox down in mexico. make room, we have five million mexicans who somehow took a wrong turn so we are sending them back home. of course we all know what mr fox's agenda is, so he will surely threaten to publicly criticize bush for merely enforcing the law. at that point the president should remind mr fox that mexico conspired with opec to drive up the price of oil a few years back, even after americans put together a $50 billion bailout package for mexico. if mr fox doesn't agree to take back his compatriots who unlawfully broke into our country, the president should slap a 10% tariff on all mexican oil imports. let's see what mr fox has to say about that. of course our next visit will be to our pals over there in kuwait. the country who also conspires with opec to drive up oil prices even as their defense came at the cost of american blood and american tax dollars. by the time the president pays a visit to saudi arabia i think they will get the picture that we mean business. of course the president should make it clear to the public that all revenues generated from the import tariffs will be matched with corresponding income and corporate tax cuts across the board. the tariffs on foreign oil will encourage conservation and domestic exploration for oil, lessen our reliance on foreign sources, and demonstrate that america can play hardball with our trading partners too. if anyone over in europe or the middle east tries to squawk about retaliation or trade wars, so be it. if they want to play chicken, out come tens of thousands of US troops they rely on for defense. reassignment boys, we've got a job for you back here at home near the mexican border!