gm pushing for higher gas tax

[themossman]

Originally Posted by 2ss-booya

http://money.cnn.com/rssclick/2011/0...n=money_latest

Why on earth would he do this? I mean..I understand that it might increase sales of high mpg cars...but come on..that's a pretty dismal method to increase sales if you ask me.

If this gets approval...it could be a slippery slope from here...and might cut into my opportunity of using a ZL-1 as a daily driver

Why did he ask for it? To lay the groundwork for future SUBSIDIES to GM and their development of alternative fuel autos...guess they don't think they should have to pay for their own R&D to remain competitive in the marketplace. I'm not sure why they're worried...when they fall behind the competition the taxpayers could just bail them out...again.

If you think the 'truth' is found in his words...you better keep looking.

[bthomp01]

Originally Posted by Shurenuff

This new CEO Akerson does not seem to be a car guy at all, and that concerns me as a GM fan and enthusiast.

Quote from Detroit News:
"Akerson, who became CEO Sept. 1 and board chairman Jan. 1, already is weighing in on new vehicles. He recently greenlighted the next generation of the compact Chevrolet Cruze, but vetoed a new engine for a sports car set for production in 18 months."

http://detnews.com/article/20110606/...#ixzz1OVCSwJ6h

Sure it doesn't specify what type of engine he vetoed and what direction he prefers, but reading the comments below has me concerned as a Corvette and Camaro fan and for us as performance enthusiasts.

Another comment from the CEO:
"In a recent meeting with engineers, for example, Akerson pressed them to explain the logic behind putting a big 6.2-liter engine in an unspecified car whose competitor has a 4.4-liter turbocharged engine. The engineers replied: "Well, we want to be able to beat the other guy."

Akerson responded: "I don't think the average buyer is going to buy an eight-cylinder, 530-horsepower (car)." His point: Decisions must be supported by a solid business case, and not just for bragging rights or as a marketing tool."

http://detnews.com/article/20110606/AUTO01/106060339/Akerson’s-battle-plan-for-GM#ixzz1OV89SLS4

Newsflash, people who buy these type of cars are not your "average buyer" and care about performance and bragging rights within the segment! This isn't the a Toyota Corolla demographic.

I think we just have to accept that in our lifetime there may not be a market for sports cars. It may literally cease to exist.

I'll have my fun while I can.

[fielderLS3]

Not surprising. It is a win-win for those involved. GM's largest shareholder (the Treasury) gets more revenue. GM would find it easier to sell the cars (at probably inflated prices) the government is forcing them to build that people would really rather not have if they had a real choice. And if consumers revolt and stop spending their money on GM cars, they can just make up the difference by taking even more from the taxpayer with force.

All interests win but the people's. Welcome to 21st Century America. More taxes, less freedom.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by themossman

Why did he ask for it? To lay the groundwork for future SUBSIDIES to GM and their development of alternative fuel autos...guess they don't think they should have to pay for their own R&D to remain competitive in the marketplace. I'm not sure why they're worried...when they fall behind the competition the taxpayers could just bail them out...again.

If you think the 'truth' is found in his words...you better keep looking.

I agree with this. I thought that as well.

I've made a lot of freinds on both sides here, but will not abandon my veiws and opinions for nothing. The longer we spend, the harder we fall. We are building a house of cards on top of a house of cards on water.

To me, if they fail, they fail. (anyone) Someone picks back up from scratch. Lots of unemployment and really hard times. REALLY hard times. But the longer we wait, the harder it will be. Should have done it last time.

Ask not what your country could do for you.

[ShnOmac]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

And this site's well-deserved reputation for freakouts over nothing continues.

[PQ]

IBTClean-Up

[MG]

I am thoroughly disgusted

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

That's certainly one way to look at it, but it's a very cynical view of our country's intelligence.

Have you been to Wal-mart lately?

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Originally Posted by E.T.

That is the problem, and GM is not the only large company guilty of this—they all do it. Problem is, these companies don't want to be burdened with anything; they just pass it on to the consumer. As consumers, we don't have that luxury. Similar thing happened with electric rates around here. People were getting more energy efficient and using less energy. This led to lower profits by the utility company. So what do they do? Raise elec. rates of course. Then again, this is nothing new. It'
s just greed. Plain & simple.

They COULD just decide to discontinue the huge heavy (and popular) gas guzzlers themselves, but they don't want to lose their market share to the companies which do not - at least not as soon as whoever decides to go first does. So Ford and GM (I'm sure Chrysler isn't far behind) instead want to do a you said - push it off on the consumer and burden us with driving less or trading in for a more fuel efficient car.

The thing is, it's not really their fault. They're not developing all these green technologies out of some misplaced sense of environmental philanthropy, they're being forced into it by the government. They'll protect their profit margin, sure, but expecting them to take hit after hit for all these new regulations is pretty unrealistic - and, if you put aside the difference in their income from ours, very unfair as well. The problem is in DC, not in the corporate offices in Detroit. "Greed" may result from the direction being forced upon these execs, but it's something much different and more sinister (despite all the allegedly good intentions) making this greedy response happen.

And as for gas prices, the factor driving that which gets no attention (probably because those causing it don't want you to think about it) is the gradual devaluing of the dollar in the last few years. That's also a "made in DC" problem.

[motorhead]

They need to sell enough volts to get it paid for so they can start making money on them.

[HKEY_]

the new GM CEO is calling for a $1 tax on gas to help his car sales. what a joke putting a phone company CEO in charge of a car company.

[StreetStrip]

Originally Posted by HKEY_

the new GM CEO is calling for a $1 tax on gas to help his car sales. what a joke putting a phone company CEO in charge of a car company.

There was a thread on this earlier today, seems it was whacked by resident GM loyalists.

[OldJedi]

Originally Posted by anthonyj9h

site broken possible spam or virus at least thats what my gov computer is saying

Anthony, I am sorry to be off topic, but what model Ferrari is that in your signature? It has beautiful lines.

[Number 3]

Have to keep in mind, the gas tax is purely in response to CAFE. The government we've been electing for years and placating California has put all of the OEMs in a tight spot. The cars and trucks you guys and gals actually want, even with $4/gallon gas don't meet CAFE. All he (and so did others including the beloved Bob Lutz) suggested was that if the government wants to get Americans to use less gas you have to do it on the demand side.

I've suggested many times our government should pass a law that no drug company will be allowed to sell drugs unless they have a cure for cancer by 2016. It's the equivalent. Just legislate technology.

Again, in a perfect world, a world the OEMs would choose, it would be a free market. Our government in it's infinite wisdom took that away.

And as for my bosses, bosses, bosses boss, he is doing the right things, asking the right questions and driving the right behaviors. He listens to his people and if you haven't noticed, the President of GMNA is a car guy. I've met Reuss, talked with him and heard his ideas. He is a car guy. So the CEO only has to be a CEO of a major international business and trust his people. So far from what I hear, he does. But he also doesn't take much to "well that's the way we've always done it" either. No one slammed Mullaly for coming from an airplane company so what's the beef with telecommunications?