McCain - No Federal Assistance for American Automakers
06-28-2008, 12:41 PM
#1
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McCain - No Federal Assistance for American Automakers He moves away from state-set emissions limits, rejects federal bailout of Big 3
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Saturday, June 28, 2008
WARREN, Ohio -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday he favors nationwide limits on carbon emissions from cars, a position that addresses one major worry of Detroit's automakers but could create new problems for them.
The presumptive GOP nominee also said he would oppose any federal bailout of domestic carmakers to keep them afloat -- an issue that took on new urgency this week as auto stocks plunged and Wall Street analysts suggested the companies may not have enough cash to last through the transition from trucks and SUVs to smaller cars.
McCain has supported a controversial request from California and other states to be allowed to set their own limits on greenhouse gasses from autos, a request automakers have said threatens their future. His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, supports the request as well. The Bush administration turned it down late last year. Asked about the issue Friday, before a visit to GM's Lordstown assembly plant here, McCain said he hoped as president to eliminate the need for state regulations.
Advertisement
"It seems to me the reason California went the way they did was because we, federally, failed to act to address greenhouse gas emissions," McCain told a small group of reporters on his campaign bus. "So my goal would be to see a federal standard that every state could embrace. ... I think we can achieve a status where that would go away."
Automakers have said the request by California and a dozen other states could cripple them, in part because a patchwork of state regulations would make compliance far too expensive. Troy Clarke, GM's president of North American operations, said Friday a single national standard would "be very helpful in our eyes."
But a federal standard at or near what California has proposed -- which would likely require automakers' fleets to average 43 miles per gallon by 2016 -- would almost certainly face opposition from automakers. Just last year, Congress passed legislation pushing fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020, a mark Clarke said Friday "isn't a chip shot. ... It's a difficult reach."
Environmental groups, too, could oppose any federal effort to limit states' ability to set their own standards. "We would always want the federal government to be a floor and not a ceiling" for such regulations, said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the National Resources Defense Council. Politically, she said, it's unlikely that Congress would approve rules that go as far as California wants.
On his campaign bus and in a later news conference at the Lordstown plant, McCain said he does not see the federal government rescuing any of the U.S. automakers, as happened in the 1970s with Chrysler.
"Frankly I just don't see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today," he said -- a comment Democrats may well contrast with the Federal Reserve's decision to partially finance the rescue of Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns.
Ohio Democrats and the Obama campaign panned McCain's visit even before he landed in northeastern Ohio on Friday. Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democrat who represents the area, and a United Auto Workers local president from the plant ripped McCain for his support of free-trade deals.
"It's sort of ironic for him to go to Canada, and now apparently to Colombia and Mexico, to talk about trade," said James Graham, president of UAW Local 1112. "He should go to Michigan and some of these other states that have been devastated by trade agreements."
McCain addressed the trade issue and others during a short question-and-answer session with plant employees. Asked by a worker about how to make trade deals "more fair," McCain answered with his familiar case: that erecting trade barriers would be bad for the economy, but that he wants to do more for workers who lose jobs to overseas competition, including giving them partial compensation for lost wages.
The campaign chose the Lordstown plant to end a weeklong campaign swing focused on energy policy because it makes the compact Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5. The plant will add a third production shift at the plant next month to keep up with demand for the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
"I am convinced that what is being done at the Lordstown assembly plant is the future of the American auto industry," McCain told workers here.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...38/1148/AUTO01
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Saturday, June 28, 2008
WARREN, Ohio -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday he favors nationwide limits on carbon emissions from cars, a position that addresses one major worry of Detroit's automakers but could create new problems for them.
The presumptive GOP nominee also said he would oppose any federal bailout of domestic carmakers to keep them afloat -- an issue that took on new urgency this week as auto stocks plunged and Wall Street analysts suggested the companies may not have enough cash to last through the transition from trucks and SUVs to smaller cars.
McCain has supported a controversial request from California and other states to be allowed to set their own limits on greenhouse gasses from autos, a request automakers have said threatens their future. His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, supports the request as well. The Bush administration turned it down late last year. Asked about the issue Friday, before a visit to GM's Lordstown assembly plant here, McCain said he hoped as president to eliminate the need for state regulations.
Advertisement
"It seems to me the reason California went the way they did was because we, federally, failed to act to address greenhouse gas emissions," McCain told a small group of reporters on his campaign bus. "So my goal would be to see a federal standard that every state could embrace. ... I think we can achieve a status where that would go away."
Automakers have said the request by California and a dozen other states could cripple them, in part because a patchwork of state regulations would make compliance far too expensive. Troy Clarke, GM's president of North American operations, said Friday a single national standard would "be very helpful in our eyes."
But a federal standard at or near what California has proposed -- which would likely require automakers' fleets to average 43 miles per gallon by 2016 -- would almost certainly face opposition from automakers. Just last year, Congress passed legislation pushing fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020, a mark Clarke said Friday "isn't a chip shot. ... It's a difficult reach."
Environmental groups, too, could oppose any federal effort to limit states' ability to set their own standards. "We would always want the federal government to be a floor and not a ceiling" for such regulations, said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the National Resources Defense Council. Politically, she said, it's unlikely that Congress would approve rules that go as far as California wants.
On his campaign bus and in a later news conference at the Lordstown plant, McCain said he does not see the federal government rescuing any of the U.S. automakers, as happened in the 1970s with Chrysler.
"Frankly I just don't see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today," he said -- a comment Democrats may well contrast with the Federal Reserve's decision to partially finance the rescue of Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns.
Ohio Democrats and the Obama campaign panned McCain's visit even before he landed in northeastern Ohio on Friday. Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democrat who represents the area, and a United Auto Workers local president from the plant ripped McCain for his support of free-trade deals.
"It's sort of ironic for him to go to Canada, and now apparently to Colombia and Mexico, to talk about trade," said James Graham, president of UAW Local 1112. "He should go to Michigan and some of these other states that have been devastated by trade agreements."
McCain addressed the trade issue and others during a short question-and-answer session with plant employees. Asked by a worker about how to make trade deals "more fair," McCain answered with his familiar case: that erecting trade barriers would be bad for the economy, but that he wants to do more for workers who lose jobs to overseas competition, including giving them partial compensation for lost wages.
The campaign chose the Lordstown plant to end a weeklong campaign swing focused on energy policy because it makes the compact Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5. The plant will add a third production shift at the plant next month to keep up with demand for the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
"I am convinced that what is being done at the Lordstown assembly plant is the future of the American auto industry," McCain told workers here.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...38/1148/AUTO01
06-28-2008, 02:33 PM
#5
He moves away from state-set emissions limits, rejects federal bailout of Big 3
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Saturday, June 28, 2008
WARREN, Ohio -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday he favors nationwide limits on carbon emissions from cars, a position that addresses one major worry of Detroit's automakers but could create new problems for them.
The presumptive GOP nominee also said he would oppose any federal bailout of domestic carmakers to keep them afloat -- an issue that took on new urgency this week as auto stocks plunged and Wall Street analysts suggested the companies may not have enough cash to last through the transition from trucks and SUVs to smaller cars.
McCain has supported a controversial request from California and other states to be allowed to set their own limits on greenhouse gasses from autos, a request automakers have said threatens their future. His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, supports the request as well. The Bush administration turned it down late last year. Asked about the issue Friday, before a visit to GM's Lordstown assembly plant here, McCain said he hoped as president to eliminate the need for state regulations.
Advertisement
"It seems to me the reason California went the way they did was because we, federally, failed to act to address greenhouse gas emissions," McCain told a small group of reporters on his campaign bus. "So my goal would be to see a federal standard that every state could embrace. ... I think we can achieve a status where that would go away."
Automakers have said the request by California and a dozen other states could cripple them, in part because a patchwork of state regulations would make compliance far too expensive. Troy Clarke, GM's president of North American operations, said Friday a single national standard would "be very helpful in our eyes."
But a federal standard at or near what California has proposed -- which would likely require automakers' fleets to average 43 miles per gallon by 2016 -- would almost certainly face opposition from automakers. Just last year, Congress passed legislation pushing fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020, a mark Clarke said Friday "isn't a chip shot. ... It's a difficult reach."
Environmental groups, too, could oppose any federal effort to limit states' ability to set their own standards. "We would always want the federal government to be a floor and not a ceiling" for such regulations, said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the National Resources Defense Council. Politically, she said, it's unlikely that Congress would approve rules that go as far as California wants.
On his campaign bus and in a later news conference at the Lordstown plant, McCain said he does not see the federal government rescuing any of the U.S. automakers, as happened in the 1970s with Chrysler.
"Frankly I just don't see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today," he said -- a comment Democrats may well contrast with the Federal Reserve's decision to partially finance the rescue of Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns.
Ohio Democrats and the Obama campaign panned McCain's visit even before he landed in northeastern Ohio on Friday. Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democrat who represents the area, and a United Auto Workers local president from the plant ripped McCain for his support of free-trade deals.
"It's sort of ironic for him to go to Canada, and now apparently to Colombia and Mexico, to talk about trade," said James Graham, president of UAW Local 1112. "He should go to Michigan and some of these other states that have been devastated by trade agreements."
McCain addressed the trade issue and others during a short question-and-answer session with plant employees. Asked by a worker about how to make trade deals "more fair," McCain answered with his familiar case: that erecting trade barriers would be bad for the economy, but that he wants to do more for workers who lose jobs to overseas competition, including giving them partial compensation for lost wages.
The campaign chose the Lordstown plant to end a weeklong campaign swing focused on energy policy because it makes the compact Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5. The plant will add a third production shift at the plant next month to keep up with demand for the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
"I am convinced that what is being done at the Lordstown assembly plant is the future of the American auto industry," McCain told workers here.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...38/1148/AUTO01
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Saturday, June 28, 2008
WARREN, Ohio -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday he favors nationwide limits on carbon emissions from cars, a position that addresses one major worry of Detroit's automakers but could create new problems for them.
The presumptive GOP nominee also said he would oppose any federal bailout of domestic carmakers to keep them afloat -- an issue that took on new urgency this week as auto stocks plunged and Wall Street analysts suggested the companies may not have enough cash to last through the transition from trucks and SUVs to smaller cars.
McCain has supported a controversial request from California and other states to be allowed to set their own limits on greenhouse gasses from autos, a request automakers have said threatens their future. His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, supports the request as well. The Bush administration turned it down late last year. Asked about the issue Friday, before a visit to GM's Lordstown assembly plant here, McCain said he hoped as president to eliminate the need for state regulations.
Advertisement
"It seems to me the reason California went the way they did was because we, federally, failed to act to address greenhouse gas emissions," McCain told a small group of reporters on his campaign bus. "So my goal would be to see a federal standard that every state could embrace. ... I think we can achieve a status where that would go away."
Automakers have said the request by California and a dozen other states could cripple them, in part because a patchwork of state regulations would make compliance far too expensive. Troy Clarke, GM's president of North American operations, said Friday a single national standard would "be very helpful in our eyes."
But a federal standard at or near what California has proposed -- which would likely require automakers' fleets to average 43 miles per gallon by 2016 -- would almost certainly face opposition from automakers. Just last year, Congress passed legislation pushing fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020, a mark Clarke said Friday "isn't a chip shot. ... It's a difficult reach."
Environmental groups, too, could oppose any federal effort to limit states' ability to set their own standards. "We would always want the federal government to be a floor and not a ceiling" for such regulations, said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the National Resources Defense Council. Politically, she said, it's unlikely that Congress would approve rules that go as far as California wants.
On his campaign bus and in a later news conference at the Lordstown plant, McCain said he does not see the federal government rescuing any of the U.S. automakers, as happened in the 1970s with Chrysler.
"Frankly I just don't see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today," he said -- a comment Democrats may well contrast with the Federal Reserve's decision to partially finance the rescue of Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns.
Ohio Democrats and the Obama campaign panned McCain's visit even before he landed in northeastern Ohio on Friday. Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democrat who represents the area, and a United Auto Workers local president from the plant ripped McCain for his support of free-trade deals.
"It's sort of ironic for him to go to Canada, and now apparently to Colombia and Mexico, to talk about trade," said James Graham, president of UAW Local 1112. "He should go to Michigan and some of these other states that have been devastated by trade agreements."
McCain addressed the trade issue and others during a short question-and-answer session with plant employees. Asked by a worker about how to make trade deals "more fair," McCain answered with his familiar case: that erecting trade barriers would be bad for the economy, but that he wants to do more for workers who lose jobs to overseas competition, including giving them partial compensation for lost wages.
The campaign chose the Lordstown plant to end a weeklong campaign swing focused on energy policy because it makes the compact Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5. The plant will add a third production shift at the plant next month to keep up with demand for the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
"I am convinced that what is being done at the Lordstown assembly plant is the future of the American auto industry," McCain told workers here.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...38/1148/AUTO01
06-28-2008, 02:51 PM
#7
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess they just can't wait until we have no choice than to buy the TOYZ they want us to, and support only other nation's industries??
Mods; Is that non-political enough? (I am seriously asking, NO sarcasm implied/intended!)
Trending Topics
06-30-2008, 06:44 PM
#8
This thread is too wild for the moderators....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFcws...eature=related
And now an unrelated video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFcws...eature=related
And now an unrelated video.
Last edited by 2002_Z28_Six_Speed; 06-30-2008 at 06:59 PM.
06-30-2008, 07:27 PM
#9
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also have to ask, IF it gets to this point (TOY the ONLY game in town);
WHY is a monopoly verboten in the telecommunications industry (and EVERY other one), but it is A OK in the auto industry (especially a foreign manufacturer at that!!)???!
WHY is a monopoly verboten in the telecommunications industry (and EVERY other one), but it is A OK in the auto industry (especially a foreign manufacturer at that!!)???!
06-30-2008, 07:32 PM
#10
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is too wild for the moderators....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFcws...eature=related
And now an unrelated video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFcws...eature=related
And now an unrelated video.
06-30-2008, 09:02 PM
#11
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes to bailing out the US automakers, he won't have a choice. That's not something he can just say no to. IF it get's that bad, he will do it or he will single handedly pull the plug on the US economy. No president wants that on their resume.
Also, they can mandate MPG all they want...that doesn't make it any more possible. At some point they are going to realize this, perhaps when they are fining EVERYONE for not making the grade?
Also, they can mandate MPG all they want...that doesn't make it any more possible. At some point they are going to realize this, perhaps when they are fining EVERYONE for not making the grade?
06-30-2008, 11:18 PM
#12
SO MUCH is dependent on the survival of the Big 3 (especially GM), so many suppliers, so many suppliers to those suppliers, so many that feed/transport/house/clothe those suppliers and employees, it just goes on and on.
Toyota/Honda/BMW/Nissan/Hyundai etc will NOT be able to take up that slack and the end result could ultimately end up making The Great Depression of 1929 appear to have been a properous time by comparison.
) and even for certain work/manufacturing environments/situations where fuel economy/emissions limitations just aren't practical. And that of course can lead to it's own set of accusations/problems/issues.
07-01-2008, 12:11 AM
#13
At this point it seems a time will tell, wait and watch attitude will be about the only thing we can do to see what is going to happen in the next few months to a year. We seem to be in uncharted territory to a point. However it does appear to be a remake of 1970 in the making. When the overall big picture is looked at.
07-01-2008, 12:58 AM
#14
We are. Things are really bad right now, all businesses are slow at the moment but even with these crazy fuel prices (that effects almost EVERYTHING) I don't believe that it's all over or that the world (economy) is coming to an end...in time, this too will pass.
As far as V8/V10 and factory supercharged/turbocharged engines and fast cars go, yes it might be EXACTLY like the early 1970s again unfortunately.
If you're considering a potent new car (Camaro/G8/Mustang/Challenger/Corvette etc.) at a much later date don't wait, buy it now or within the next year or two because it might be gone by 2013 or so.
I can only imagine how the guy who was considering a 1970 Chevelle SS 454 LS6 but decided to wait until the 1972/1973 models instead felt...don't be that guy!
If you're considering a potent new car (Camaro/G8/Mustang/Challenger/Corvette etc.) at a much later date don't wait, buy it now or within the next year or two because it might be gone by 2013 or so.
I can only imagine how the guy who was considering a 1970 Chevelle SS 454 LS6 but decided to wait until the 1972/1973 models instead felt...don't be that guy!
07-07-2008, 07:27 PM
#15
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pusan, ROK
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The government does not need to bail out any company. The fact that McCain will lower the Corp. Tax will not only boost the economy of the country in general but will help out the auto industry as well. Obama wants to increase the Corp. Tax even more which would mean he would have to use your tax money to bail out the auto industry because he will help with thier downfall.
There isn't any bad news on McCain in that article at all. The only negative thing I read in it is that the retarded masses think we need even more emission restrictions. This really blows for some states which don't have emission requirements.
There isn't any bad news on McCain in that article at all. The only negative thing I read in it is that the retarded masses think we need even more emission restrictions. This really blows for some states which don't have emission requirements.
07-07-2008, 07:31 PM
#16
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM is still the #1 auto producer in the US and Ford is #3. They dont need a bailout, they need to learn how to efficiently produce vehicles, ie.. more efficient production lines, lower overhead, inventory control, benefits. The union has a stranglehold on the American auto companies.
07-07-2008, 11:05 PM
#17
Define 'bailout'?
Everyone thinks the government bailed out Chrysler in the early '80s but they did no such thing.
They loaned them money, that's all.
And Chrysler paid it back, WITH INTEREST, in a VERY short period of time and a HUGE domestic corporation lived on and put food on the tables of hundreds of thousands of Americans as a result.
If a bank loans you money for a car they're not bailing you out of anything.
Mortgage lenders aren't bailing out home buyers either.
I don't see the problem in our government giving a loan (with revenue generating interest/payments that will benefit all of us!) in an attempt to save jobs for American citizens and maintain a solid TAX BASE.
GM and Ford are American icons and people are treating them as if they're disposable like some local hot dog stand ....they deserve to be saved.
Everyone thinks the government bailed out Chrysler in the early '80s but they did no such thing.
They loaned them money, that's all.
And Chrysler paid it back, WITH INTEREST, in a VERY short period of time and a HUGE domestic corporation lived on and put food on the tables of hundreds of thousands of Americans as a result.
If a bank loans you money for a car they're not bailing you out of anything.
Mortgage lenders aren't bailing out home buyers either.
I don't see the problem in our government giving a loan (with revenue generating interest/payments that will benefit all of us!) in an attempt to save jobs for American citizens and maintain a solid TAX BASE.
GM and Ford are American icons and people are treating them as if they're disposable like some local hot dog stand
....they deserve to be saved.
07-07-2008, 11:13 PM
#18
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pusan, ROK
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM and Ford are not going anywhere right now as it is and no company has the right to borrow my money and add to the national debt when the only thing needed to help them is the government to quit putting added restrictions and taxes on them in the first place along with proper management within the company.
It's also ironic that most of the people that agree with added restrictions, regulations and taxes are the same people that think it is a good idea to "bail out" companies when they would be helped much more by just reducing their burden in the first place.
It's also ironic that most of the people that agree with added restrictions, regulations and taxes are the same people that think it is a good idea to "bail out" companies when they would be helped much more by just reducing their burden in the first place.
07-07-2008, 11:27 PM
#19
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Define 'bailout'?
Everyone thinks the government bailed out Chrysler in the early '80s but they did no such thing.
They loaned them money, that's all.
And Chrysler paid it back, WITH INTEREST, in a VERY short period of time and a HUGE domestic corporation lived on and put food on the tables of hundreds of thousands of Americans as a result.
If a bank loans you money for a car they're not bailing you out of anything.
Mortgage lenders aren't bailing out home buyers either.
I don't see the problem in our government giving a loan (with revenue generating interest/payments that will benefit all of us!) in an attempt to save jobs for American citizens and maintain a solid TAX BASE.
GM and Ford are American icons and people are treating them as if they're disposable like some local hot dog stand ....they deserve to be saved.
Everyone thinks the government bailed out Chrysler in the early '80s but they did no such thing.
They loaned them money, that's all.
And Chrysler paid it back, WITH INTEREST, in a VERY short period of time and a HUGE domestic corporation lived on and put food on the tables of hundreds of thousands of Americans as a result.
If a bank loans you money for a car they're not bailing you out of anything.
Mortgage lenders aren't bailing out home buyers either.
I don't see the problem in our government giving a loan (with revenue generating interest/payments that will benefit all of us!) in an attempt to save jobs for American citizens and maintain a solid TAX BASE.
GM and Ford are American icons and people are treating them as if they're disposable like some local hot dog stand
....they deserve to be saved.I own a small business and there is no way in hell the small business association (a government entity) would loan my business money if they saw my business was doing shitty. Why should the automakers be any different, because they can bribe politicians??
The small business is the backbone of the economy in america, much more important than a so called icon so why cant small businesses get SBA loans when business gets rough? We have to have all kinds of bullshit business plans to present and all this other crap to get any loans yet the government thinks its ok to just step in and blindly loan money to failing corporations.
The american automakers would be doing fine if it wasnt for the union leaches that are bring down that industry. Before government even dare go and loan money they should break up the UAW union.
Last edited by brad8266; 07-07-2008 at 11:36 PM.
07-07-2008, 11:34 PM
#20
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The government does not need to bail out any company. The fact that McCain will lower the Corp. Tax will not only boost the economy of the country in general but will help out the auto industry as well. Obama wants to increase the Corp. Tax even more which would mean he would have to use your tax money to bail out the auto industry because he will help with thier downfall.
