By on January 7, 2015

factoryx-large

“I would strongly advise American consumers to continue to think about how you save money at the pump because it is good for the environment, it’s good for family pocketbooks and if you go back to old habits and suddenly gas is back at $3.50, you are going to not be real happy,” 

-President Barack Obama, speaking to the Detroit News before a visit to a Ford plant in Wayne, Michigan. The plant has recently been idled due to low demand for products built at the plant, like the Focus and C-Max Hybrid. Low gas prices are being blamed for slumping demand for small, fuel-efficient vehicles.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

188 Comments on “Quote Of The Day: Obama – “Enjoy Cheap Gas, It Won’t Last”...”


  • avatar

    It still is 7 USD per gallon where I live, so do enjoy your cheap gas, you people on the other side of the big pond.

    • 0 avatar
      darkwing

      Your *gas* is roughly the same price; your *taxes* aren’t. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.

      • 0 avatar

        You’re right, of course. Still, the result is the same. I believe people in Venezuela pay less for their gas than in the U.S.

        • 0 avatar
          darkwing

          To a certain extent, yes, because we both pay gas + tax when we fill up. At that point, it diverges: I’m interested in knowing how that price breaks down, whereas you’re apparently content to pay whatever price your technocratic betters have decided is appropriate for you to pay. (And then weirdly proclaiming your over-taxation as a point of pride — though there’s an interesting parallel to the luxury car quality thread.)

          Venezuela in particular is a bad example, because not only is the domestic market getting gas from the national oil company, they’re also directly subsidizing the price to keep a damper on civil unrest. (I guess toilet paper shortages are more bearable when you’re paying US$0.25 a gallon.)

        • 0 avatar
          redliner

          Hmm… $2.30 gasoline and affordable V8 cars or $0.25 gasoline and no ice cream or toilet paper in a “crappy” (pun intended) country? Decisions, decisions…

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      I don’t understand why Europeans put up with the high levels of taxation on gas. There would be open revolt in the streets of the U.S. at those prices.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The money subsidizes mass transit that’s more efficient than our government agency run bus system. They also don’t travel as much or as far as Americans have to.

        I think there was a story in TTAC, where a German flew from Berlin to London, and overnight to NYC, and planned to rent a car there in the morning and drive to Chicago for a 1PM meeting. He didn’t realize it was 800 miles away.

      • 0 avatar
        bosozoku

        They “put up with” those taxes because they partially fund the public transport systems that the majority of people rely upon in many European countries. And it artificially limits the number of vehicles on the roads; were the UK or Germany to have car ownership and use rates on par with the US, they’d be in perpetual gridlock (more so).

        • 0 avatar
          darkwing

          Actually, car ownership rates in the US are significantly lower than in Western Europe.

          http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/its-official-western-europeans-have-more-cars-per-person-than-americans/261108/

  • avatar

    (My posting won’t stick. Let’s try again…)
    It still is 7 USD per gallon where I live, so do enjoy your cheap gas, you people on the other side of the big pond.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Don’t worry, Obama. The money I’m saving on gas is going straight to pay for my new, better, more expensive, higher deductible insurance plan.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      COTD.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Son of a…

      Do you suppose this whole Affordable Care Act was meant to get us all so pissed about how high our health insurance costs are that we just say, f it, and demand universal health care?

      Can I at least get a price list or menu for outpatient surgery?

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        “Hold off on all those stitches doc! I see the glue you use is today’s special.” “Ez on the pain meds as well… I’m a man, I’ll suck it up.”

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Ha.

          All I’m saying is that there needs to be some more price transparency in health care. We took our daughter to the ER. Because they gave her an oral antibiotic, it raised the cost of the ER visit by $500. I would have happily paid the “level one” ER visit fee. If I would have waited for the prescription they called in, my bill would have been $500 less. I eventually got them to drop the price, after five weeks of phone calls.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            This is why I am opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Our problem is that health care costs too much, not that insufficient numbers are covered. The ACA is impotent to bring down or even control health care costs, so it will not yield the promised benefits. Conversely, if the legislation instead directly tackled why health care is too expensive (and transparency of price is one of those reasons), then I’d back it in a heartbeat.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            @redav

            You are missing some of the point of the ACA. Getting more people insured lowers the cost for everyone. Uninsured people are the sickest and most costly people. And everyone ends up paying for them, because they can’t afford to pay our of pocket when they finally end up in the ER.

            I completely agree that our healthcare system in the US is an overpriced mess. But you have to start somewhere. The ACA is not a great law, but it is a law that could get through Congress and become law! And it is a decent start. In particular, the couple self-employed people I know who shop in the individual health plan market are saving a ton of money and have much better coverage now. That is HUGE. Most plans that either disappeared or got radically expensive where not worth the paper they were printed on anyway.

            I got my professional start at a Health Insurance provider, and some of the things that I saw going on there on a daily basis were deeply offensive, and many of them were outlawed by the ACA. And that was a “non-profit” company!

            Ultimately, the only rational way to provide health care coverage is for the entire population of the country to be the “pool” that is paying in and then receiving benefits out. Basic coverage should be no different than police or fire protection – you generally do not get billed individually for using those services, and you should not have to pay individually if you get sick. And only by having a single, large payer can the costs be brought under control. Medicare is basically there now – they cover so many people they can nearly dictate prices to providers.

            But we have a bought and paid for Congress, and 50% of the country refuses to vote in their own best interest for philosophical reasons, so I am not holding by breath for rationality.

      • 0 avatar

        No, it was a b’rer patch deal for the insurance cos. They got mandatory participation at the point of IRS coercion. The plans they sell are garbage…the deductables are above most encounters, most small ER visits…the percentage they pay is such that a big disease/heart/cancer will still bankrupt you.

        I had an ACA plan for a year…and ran screaming at higher price to my professional organization plan…..it really is illusory, and if you live in a high price area, most docs don’t want to see any ACA patients.

        Keeping us all in the dark as to pricing is a crucial element of this scam. If you don’t know what it costs, you cannot plan rationally, and it only takes a few $5,000 ER room trip stories for stitches or a bee sting to scare all of us…just the way they like it.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          The whole point that gets missed by those that are free market types when it comes to health care is the fact that a free market only works well when there is competition and the one looking at purchasing services has the ability to decline the service and look elsewhere.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Ssshhhh…Lou. Don’t tell them that the ACA actually enforces a modest form of free market competition. Since the plans are generally more equatable to each other the competition is actually an honest measurement of services. But again, the right-wing ‘insurance is too expensive!’ meme is being trotted out even though industry measurements have shown premiums have gone down in recent times and only now starting to climb with inflation. We’re still paying less for healthcare than we did 5 years ago.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Xeranar-

            I am not, non are any of my 50+ employees paying less for insurance than five years ago. Premiums haven’t gone up much, but my deductibles have. I don’t mind the ACA, and I agree with the basic idea. My biggest issue isn’t even with the ACA. It’s the lack of transparent pricing by health care providers. My daughter had a Myringotomy (ear tubes) recently, and it was borderline impossible to get a price range or estimate from anyone but the ENT. He’s also the cheapest part of the surgery. It’s incredibly frustrating and something needs to change.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “We’re still paying less for healthcare than we did 5 years ago.”

            Where do you get your legal weed? No seriously, you must be sky high to have typed that. Is it Green Dragon?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @bball40dtw – transparency in healthcare pricing would show just how overpriced services are. The US system is 1.45 times more expensive than the Canadian system.

            A comparison of the 2 show a USA advantage with quick turn around procedures like knee and hip replacements but a very poor record with long term chronic illness.

            The reasons are simple, high turn over i.e. hips and knees make the system huge profits. Long term chronic illness is a money loser.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            BB – I’m sorry that it deductibles went up. If anything that is a hidden ‘cost’ of the insurance itself. Something we can address and I appreciate the honesty in accepting that it isn’t some secret devil trying to destroy America. The lack of transparency in pricing is a serious issue but that’s also due to the insurance itself and the coalition of hospitals that make up the majority of regional insurance carriers now. You’re paying Hospital HMO to use Hospital services all the while they’re double dipping.

            Jkross – As a percentage of the GDP it has fallen. Simply put, healthcare is cheaper per capita. Your experience may vary, sorry.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I agree is there is no secret devil and I am not blaming the president or those who proposed the ACA. I can afford the increased deductibles in my insurance, and my employees, especially those who make under $50K, have had lower increase in premiums/deductibles. I’m worried that many of them won’t be able to afford the deductibles as time goes on.

            I also agree with your assessment on why there is no transparency in pricing. Unfortunetly for me, the insurance company we currently have doesn’t negotiate with hospitals or doctors on costs. I’ve had insurance in the past that did that. With a HDHP, they don’t seem to give a crap what a hospital charges for the first $5000.

            Even after all of that, I should be able to call the place where my daughter is having surgery (one that takes less than an hour from start to discharge) to get a price range of what they bill the insurance company. The outpatient surgery facility acted like no one had ever asked them that question before.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    So, this must mean that gas prices will remain low indefinitely, good news

  • avatar
    multicam

    I went through about six smart *** thoughts in my head when I read this headline but it’s just too early in the morning here. Don’t have the energy

  • avatar
    EAF

    Hybrid primary benefit = Fuel cost savings $$$.
    Hybrid secondary benefit = Earth.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Obama is right on this. Just as the politico doesn’t control oil prices (outs!de of standard regulations that impact production, distribution, taxation, and safety regulation) when prices go up, they don’t when prices go down. The United States’ consumption doesn’t have the same impact on the global markets as it did say 30 or 40 years ago. There are other markets sucking up the available supply.

    Simplistically, we have more supply than demand. There are many complex global reasons on why that is.

    But Obama is right – this is not going to last forever. The multi-billion dollar question is when the party will be over. I see nothing to stop oil from dropping to $30 to $35 a barrel, and a growing chorus of experts is starting to agree with that. Most don’t see any meaningful recovery for 12 to 18 months, with a trading range of $35 to $55 through the year, and probably beyond. I generally agree with that.

    Eventually producers are going to blink and cut back. There is already layoff and cost cutting impacts on a global scale. What is fascinating is that although everyone now is trying to cut costs any way they can, actually production globally is still increasing and the glut is growing accordingly.

    But if you’re thinking this is the time to buy that Hummer H1 build it yourself shell because cheap gas is here to stay – you are very mistaken.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnnyFirebird

      A good time to invest in oil futures, I guess? Yeah. This isn’t going to last forever, but it’s a good time to go on some long drives. Not flights though. They’re still imposing a fuel surcharge.

    • 0 avatar
      Loki

      Production will cut back once the oil alternative markets are given a sufficient sweating (or possibly shut down for the most part). US oil production became too competitive with oil over $100 per barrel… The Saudis are hoping cheap oil will kill that competition, at which point the price will go back up. It’s sacrificing X profit over the next few years to gain 10X profit over the next couple decades.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I don’t really drive the H1 much, but the diesel MPG averages about 17, depending how I drive 18 is possible and 15-16 is normal under heavy driving.

      Quite bearable cost wise.
      Also anyone potentially impacted by a $1.50 fuel increase probably can’t afford a 9-22 year old truck that costs $35,000-200,000.

      Just a thought..

  • avatar
    ajla

    Pffft. If $3.50/gal is the future number used to scare us then I really should go get a V10 Ram.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      That’s what I’m thinking. I’ve paid quite a bit more than $3.50 before, and lived with it. So if that’s all you can do I’ll be fine. No behavioral adjustment necessary.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I wonder if people will be more happy with Hilary when she takes over – cause that’s what’s happening next.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      I went to the same High School as her, my older sister knows her, you don’t want this

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      If McCain or Romney were in the WHITE House right now, not a damn thing would be different economically. It’s just easier to take jabs when the punching bag is someone a high percentage of Americans are predispositioned to dislike regardless of his policy.

      The veil lifted and the bubble burst before January 2009, but just like $2 gas is the best time to buy a Surburban, all of America’s problems are the fault of one man that no one outside of Illinois even heard of before 2008.

      I actually hope we get elephants controlling the White House, House and Senate in 2016. I can’t wait for the magical instant prosperity that will follow. Of course when nothing changes (or gets worse) it’ll still somehow be Obama’s fault, even though Obama’s mess isn’t Bush’s fault.

      Disclaimer: I hate all politicians, they are all scum, so hypocrisy gets on my nerves.

      • 0 avatar
        darkwing

        The typical American “independent” — actually highly partisan, but ashamed to admit it.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          Nah, he sees politics for what they are, not what he would like them to be. I suppose that idea is troubling and offensive for committed party loyalists. It must kill the party firsters to know that the brainwashing they’ve bought into has contributed to the very problems they find so abhorrent.

          • 0 avatar
            darkwing

            Correct — which is why increasing numbers of them self-identify as independents. Glad we agree on that, at least.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        Wait, but he’s been blaming Bush for 6 years.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        Please run for office. Any office.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        If McCain had won in 2008, the US would have probably pursued a failed austerity policy instead of having a stimulus. It’s also possible that he may not have reappointed Ben Bernanke.

        Obama also pushed the envelope when the US raided Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. The GOP has long had a more conciliatory policy toward Pakistan than have the Democrats, so it’s quite possible that Bin Laden would still be alive today in order to avoid offense. (Presuming that the Pakistanis didn’t know about the plan, the US effectively committed an act of war by going in as it did.)

        Those decisions would have been a disaster. There are times when there is a difference between the two political parties, and I would say that higher unemployment, an even slower recovery and a breathing Bin Laden would be differences that I could live without.

      • 0 avatar
        Yak

        @kvndoom
        Your first sentence sums up most democratic governments quite nicely. It pretty much doesn’t matter who’s in charge.

        And, Obama’s statement (the actual topic of this thread) is also quite accurate. Enjoy the cheap fuel while it lasts and don’t delude yourself into purchasing a gas hog now, just because fuel is temporarily cheap.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “I wonder if people will be more happy with Hilary when she takes over – cause that’s what’s happening next.”

      That unlikable harpy won’t even get the nomination, let alone win.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        It’s hard to imagine that she would not get the nomination. I agree with your assessment on her lack of likability, but she has a vagina, her last name is Clinton, and she yelled at some old white guys when she was the SOS.

        Doesn’t that make her a shoe-in for the nomination? Plus, she’s recovered nicely from those bankrupt days after her and Bill left the WH without a pot to tinkle in, and now has some rubles to spend on a campaign.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      @Corey

      Soon it will be time to flee this place, but to where is my question?

      • 0 avatar

        “Soon it will be time to flee this place, but to where is my question?”

        I am not Corey, but if you are Muslim the best place would be Europe and France in particular. Will enjoy nice wine and food (France is similar to Napa Valley – minus Muslims and high CA taxes of course) and will be in romantic mood and not the last it is a welfare state – Obama’s dream come true. If you are Christian though – you are doomed – nowhere to run unless you want to go to Russia which is not recommended – it is better to meet your maker in America then.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Perhaps Puerto Rico, or somewhere Carribean where the majority language is English.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Pretty much. They’ll just complain because she’s a woman and use veiled sexism instead of veiled racism instead. If she wins the nomination (and it seems likely) the blue wall with the shift in Virginia makes her victory an inevitability. Unless the Republicans can turn every blue state into an equally divided electoral college state and keep all red ones the same they have no path to victory left. They would have to sweep all 7 swing states and get a blue state. It just isn’t going to happen, never mind that all those tea party senators in 2010 will be ousted in 2016 (I’m looking at you Toomey…).

      But by then Gas will be $3-5 a gallon again. This is all short-term fighting with the Saudis masquerading as ‘market shifts’.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Going from AfricanAmerican Commander In Chief to one with a Virginia will have those old boys wetting themselves. Fox news will have to change their name (on the subject of veiled sexism). LOL

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Well the math is in and the victory in 2014 in Virginia pretty much sealed the deal. The massive amount of Federal government workers who live in VA and the shift in buildings/services to the outer-DC ring made the state much more viable. The Presidency is pretty much a Democratic job now. I’m not sure even how a modern Republican could peel off the necessary non-whites to win it without seriously changing their line of argument.

          It’s kind of intriguing because most of the Republican and Conservative analysts accept this in private but they have no public exit for the current strategy because it would cost them massively in their primary donors to find a way back to the White House. Pretty much this generation of Republican leadership has conceded national control for a chance at holding the states hostage for another generation by using convoluted gerrymandering in the rural states.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        You assume the game is not rigged in key areas and levels, which it certainly has become. I’m surprised even a political stalwart such as yourself is not concerned about the fact you may see one of the same two political families potentially ruling the Anglo American empire for the FOURTH time in only twenty five years. Oligarchy much? Not at all concerned the sheep are so beaten down that none of them question the facts of the case on both sides of the false paradigm, nor the fact Secy Clinton was *the single most incompetent State Department chief* since at least the war; but I guess in the loony land of D.C. you fail upwards. How the f*** did such a thing happen in what used to be this country? Mubarak. Iran 2009. Gadaffi. Benghazi. The failed Syria operation. Unmitigated disasters all. How many people had to die? What was even accomplished? How does a complete inbred out of touch fool like John Kerry actually look *competent* in her former role despite the fact his masters now poke the NUCLEAR ARMED bear in an illegal coup of Ukraine? How many people have died there so far and for what? Petrodollar dominance? The grand chessboard? Because Kissinger felt like it? You think this is a good thing? An “election” cycle 2000 to present where the chiefs actually get *worse* every changing of the guard only serves to conclude the country is lost and the f***wads with dual citizenships and blood stained Petrodollars have permanently seized control. You think populism is a good thing? Its just an “ism” like fascism, or communism, or capitalism all of which have one thing in common: the psychotic oligarchy of sociopaths is running the show and they don’t even hide it anymore. Where is your bleeding heart now?

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          First off…..The United States is not ‘Anglo-American’ as a minority of people are of Anglo-Saxon decent. It is an empire, but a democratic Republic as well. Second of all, you weren’t frothing at the mouth when Bush won in 2000 after his father had been president 8 years prior. It isn’t particularly my favorite choice (I prefer Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Bernie Sanders) but she isn’t a horrid choice and frankly you should be in love with her husband who was a center-left Democrat that let the Republicans get away with murder because he couldn’t stop getting BJs.

          As for the ‘Worst Sec. of state’ remarks, I don’t know in what land you’re living. In general she’s been deemed pretty effective in that role and while the right is going to try to make hay with Benghazi after it was completely debunked because their base eats it up they really don’t have much to attack her on. I’m not a major Hillary defender though, I think she has plenty of issues in foreign and domestic policy that don’t go far enough. But that’s about it, I merely pointed out the practical realities of winning elections for her not that I prefer her.

          Also, I’m not sure what you’re raging against. You think Clinton is inherently part of some mass conspiracy to control society? The president as powerful a position as it is is still stymied by the congress at many turns (see our current president). So it isn’t exactly a cruise to world domination and if Hillary does get 8 years that will more or less end the reign of either family as their children have no real political ambition or acumen to speak of.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Would they be any happier with yet another freakin’ Bush instead, Corey?

      I’m seriously beginning to think the parties WANT people to get turned off and just not participate, so they can maintain the status quo.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Of course the low prices won’t last indefinitely. Does anyone actually believe otherwise? The dumbest and least informed are the most cynical about it and believe prices will shoot back up to the highest peaks next week.

    Blaming waning demand of the most fuel efficient cars on the recent dip in fuel prices is lazy. The trend back toward less fuel efficent vehicles was in place as conusmer confidence steadily improved over the past few years.

    • 0 avatar
      akatsuki

      So the question is – are fuel guzzlers sales up? If fuel-efficient car numbers are slumping, but aren’t being replaced with gas guzzlers, then the premise doesn’t make sense.

      • 0 avatar

        Just another sign (CAFE, CARB, Cash for Clunkers) that the powers-that-be are truly out of touch with the real automotive marketplace.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “So the question is – are fuel guzzlers sales up?”

        Yes. The market expanded this year, primarily due to growth in the pickup and SUV/CUV segments.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I keep picturing building another 2-car garage, and parked next to whatever 70’s iron I get is either a J100 Land Cruiser, or an Expedition of high specification.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Oooooo. Two tone Expedition.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Well I knew what YOUR vote would be!

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Hey, I dig the Land Cruiser too. I must admit that I don’t know a ton about them except for the fact that I want an old one..

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Well it’s really a tough conundrum.

            -Both are reliable.
            -Both carry two-tone paint perfectly.
            -Both seat 7.
            -Both can use up all the fuel you put in them.

            But the LC holds value better; costs more to buy.
            The LC has a better image, certainly, and is probably more comfortable day to day, and definitely has a nicer interior.

            But when an equivalent one costs $15K more than an Expedition (used), that’s a big obstacle.

            Edit: Never really liked the quad GS headlamps they put on the LX version, and the Lincoln is unacceptable in appearance any time after 2006. So both those would be out of the running.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            I do believe you’re seriously SUV shopping

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            These are the kinds of thoughts which fill my head when there is excess space during work. Which there’s always excess space.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            Expedition is a Prius compared to any Land Cruiser I’ve ever driven.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I cannot possibly thing of a larger gap in quality and durability than comparing a 1st gen Expedition to a LC100 landcruiser.

            One is known for blowing sparkplugs out of heads, cracked exhaust manifolds and loose balljoints, amongst a litany of other issues… the other is not. Resale values reflect that accordingly.

            Anyone care to take any guesses?

            For the DIYer on a budget that needs a cheap family hauler/camping/weekend towing rig the Expedition would be an excellent choice however, 98-02 trucks go for peanuts. Parts are in every autozone and junkyard. Landcruisers as they age will also need repairs and obviously maintenance, they just do it much more gracefully IMO.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            As the former owner of one I’d have to disagree. My 80 series was bolted together well out of magnificent materials. But cost per mile was exponentially high compared to any Ford truck I’ve ever owned and I have never found myself standing in the vacated engine bay of my Fords. Perhaps the old F series motors in the pre 93 cruisers are different. But the 1FZ-FE 6 was not up to that standard and was full of parts made from unobtanium. I would have been happier with a TBI 350 under the hood, another motor I have had that outlasted the 1FZ.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            @gtemnykh

            No no, not comparing 1st gen Expedition! I was comparing a J100 to like an 08+ Expedition. I’m not interested in the first gen at all, those are strictly the BHPH inner-city type now.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            mkirk wasn’t yours terribly abused/neglected before you got it? There’s only so much that even a Landcruiser can endure in terms of missed oil changes!

            The 100s here in the US all have a 4.7L V8, a much more common powerplant than the DOHC straight 6, and doesn’t seem to have any headgasket woes (or rather, undertorqued headbolts).

            A well maintained Expedition will no doubt be a better truck than a Landcruiser that’s had every single issue ignored.

        • 0 avatar
          baconator

          Yup. 16.9M cars sold in 2014, says Automotive News. That’s a new record, higher than prior to the Great Recession.

          I’ve never quite understood how people make a decision to buy a car they’ll keep for 5 or 10 years based on a 1-month drop or rise in gas prices. But the sales numbers always say they do.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            Perhaps it’s closer to a pent-up demand condition. People want/need the larger vehicle but don’t buy it for whatever reason. However, when gas prices stabilize or drop–combined with more confidence about their income situation–they finally feel secure enough to finally make the purchase. Sure, they know that prices will go up eventually, but recent trends convince them that they won’t go up as soon or as fast as the doomsdayers are wont to suggest.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            16.9M units is still not as high as the totals seen in the early to mid 2000s.

            “I’ve never quite understood how people make a decision to buy a car they’ll keep for 5 or 10 years based on a 1-month drop or rise in gas prices. But the sales numbers always say they do.”

            Again, consumers aren’t basing decisions on a 1 month trend. The trend back towards larger, more consumptive vehicles was in place when the average fuel price was still over $3/gal.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      The current dip in gasoline prices isn’t likely to last, but someone who bet in 1983 that gasoline prices would return to the Iran Hostage Crisis level peaks would have been wrong. Gasoline prices stayed low for almost 2 decades.

      http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp

      I think we have evidence that oil supply can expand enough at high crude oil prices to keep gasoline prices constrained to the roughly $3/gallon range for several years. Makes sense to buy a relatively fuel efficient car if a replacement is needed in 2015, but paying thousands extra for a diesel or hybrid may never pay for itself over the life of the car.

    • 0 avatar
      mikedt

      “Of course the low prices won’t last indefinitely. Does anyone actually believe otherwise?”

      If I’m to judge the average american by car sales then yes, quite few of them do think low prices will last. How else can you explain the sudden sales drop in hybrids/fuel efficient vehicles and the sudden surge in full size truck/suv sales?

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      “The trend back toward less fuel efficent vehicles was in place as conusmer confidence steadily improved over the past few years.”

      How many gas-guzzlers are there actually left the people realistically want to buy?

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Well, the top-selling vehicles in the land – pickups – definitely qualify as gas guzzlers if viewed as daily commuters and not work vehicles.

        I paid a guzzler tax on my G8 and it averages about 16-17 mpg in mixed driving with a gentle foot. That’s exactly what owners of typically configured pickups report on average.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Ok, compare those mpgs to the last go around and you’ll see it’s not that big of a deal. Even I had to unload a Jeep GC with the HO engine because of 11-12mpg. That SUV with that mpg no longer exists

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            When the median personal vehicle is up around 30 mpg combined, 16 mpg starts to look real guzzly. Expectations aren’t standing still.

            I wouldn’t drive a 16 mpg car if I drove it more than 5000 miles/year…

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            The point is with mpgs up appox 25%, when gas goes back up the wallop and ensuing panic just won’t be there

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          Also, how gas guzzling are today’s trucks compared to those from a few years ago? If people were willing to buy trucks then they certainly wouldn’t be dissuaded now even if the price of gas didn’t fall.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        It’s relative. Pickups are gas guzzlers in comparison to compact cars that employ the same fuel economy-improving technologies.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Of course the low prices won’t last indefinitely. Does anyone actually believe otherwise?”

      The implication of the president’s point is that the price of oil is driven more by demand than by supply.

      The supply story is very popular among the right wing, but they’re wrong. This is more about sluggish demand growth, recession fears abroad and a strengthening dollar (which is the predictable result of the US being weaned off of QE).

      And those who do rush out to buy gas guzzlers will be the first to whine when gas prices do eventually climb again. However, I do suspect that it will be many years before that happens, so this president and the next one are probably safe from the blowback.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Of course the low prices won’t last indefinitely. Does anyone actually believe otherwise?”

      The implication of the pres1dent’s point is that the price of oil is driven more by demand than by supply.

      The supply story is very popular among the right wing, but they’re wrong. This is more about sluggish demand growth, recession fears abroad and a strengthening dollar (which is the predictable result of the US being weaned off of QE).

      And those who do rush out to buy gas guzzlers will be the first to whine when gas prices do eventually climb again. However, I do suspect that it will be many years before that happens, so this pres1dent and the next one are probably safe from the blowback.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        The recent sudden drop in prices is definitely most attributable to supply implications. Demand didn’t suddenly halve in the last few months.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The traders are bailing out of the long position on their contracts. $100+ oil was always a bubble price that had no basis in fundamentals, and the traders have a real contango problem on their hands.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Actually a better explanation is that the gas guzzler types simply didn’t buy a new vehicle unto the market recovered. Those that were forced by economic changes bought better MPG. The idea that a corolla driver traded in on a F-250 is how we like to picture it, the reality is that the Corolla driver traded in when gas was high for even better return, the F-250 driver replaced their’s when the market made it feasible to invest in a new vehicle.

  • avatar
    probert

    It’s tough when the president speaks to us like we’re actually adults. Time to call the whaaaaa – mbulance for the cognitively disabled.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    No one has yet informed Obama that the 3 best selling vehicles in the U.S. are p/u trucks, and that the quad cab, full size p/u truck IS the new American Family Sedan.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      So how do you explain the quote above? It seems that he is addressing exactly that.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        What I said was just as true when gasoline was $3.50 a gallon, so I don’t “get” the relevance nor timing of his comments.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          What he’s saying is just common sense.

          I realize that people will automatically add a layer of fantasy to the quote based on their own political leanings, but you are smarter than that DW.

          Go back and read the quote, but imagine Smokey the Bear, or Dean Martin, or Marylin Monroe, or a Big Oil spokesperson saying it. Doesn’t change the meaning or relevance, does it?

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          2005 – 3.2 million units, 19.0% market share
          2014 – 2.1 million units, 12.5% market share

          Not quite the same market. Cheaper gas may bring back those who were lost during the oil bubble, and those new/returning buyers will probably be the ones who can least afford a substantial increase in the price of gas.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The crew-cab truck is the new Rural American Family Sedan. The CUV, which in most forms gets better mileage than the old boats, is the new Urban and Suburban American Family Sedan.

    • 0 avatar
      210delray

      Not quite true in regard to the 3 largest selling vehicles, at least through November (I don’t have the full-year numbers yet). Camry outsold the Ram pickup.

      Still the reason the large pickups sell in such huge numbers is that there are only 5 basic models: F-Series, Silverado/Sierra, Ram, Tundra, and Titan vs. the plethora of cars and SUV models available.

      More importantly, just consider the F-Series alone: it includes the 150 all the way up to the 350 Super Duty, plus 3 cab types, at least 3 bed lengths, and I lost track of the number of wheelbase lengths. Everything from basic work truck to loaded-to-the-gills luxury truck.

      The consider today’s Chevy Impala — one body style (4-door sedan), 2 basic engines, and 1 transmission. Compare that with the 1965 version: 3 engines (6-cyl, small- and big-block V8s) not counting all the displacement and horsepower permutations, 3- and 4-speed manuals, Powerglide and Turbo Hydramatic. All of these body styles: 2- and 4-door hardtops, convertible, 4-door sedan, 6- and 9-passenger wagons. Even more variation if you include the different “models,” which compare to today’s trim levels: Caprice, Bel Air, and Biscayne.

      That’s how 1 million+ were sold in ’65, and that’s how about 3/4 million F-series were sold in ’14!

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Have you ever seen the gauge cluster on a F-150? Pure garbage.

      But I digress.

      Your argument makes as much sense as always, which is to say, zero. Even assuming all full size pickup sales were quad cabs, the total sales for all these vehicles (F-series, Silverado/Sierra, Ram, Tundra and Titan) was about 2 million last year.

      The total sales for all midsize family sedans – we’re talking the Camry/Accord/Fusion/Altima type vehicles – was well over 2.5 million. Add in the sales for compact sedans – which are also definitely family transportation for many folks – and you’re at 4 million units.

      And we’re not even including the CUVs here.

      You’re way off base.

  • avatar
    jimbob457

    Duhhhh. Did the price of oil fall so much and so fast because of lack of demand?

    Well no! Gee kids, then it must have been because of a surge of supply.

    This has significant long term implications.

    The Saudis, at least for a while, have the luxury of gauging the cost structure of their ‘fracking’ competition. They are doing so as we speak.

    Will oil prices rebound from their current lows? Probably, but this remains to be seen.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Demand has actually fallen as supply has risen. It’s both.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Demand is rising, but at below average rates.

        Furthermore, the economies of Asia and Europe are on a course that suggests that demand growth may weaken even more.

        Adding to this, US demand growth has been essentially flat, which suggests that Americans aren’t going to take up the slack when prices are above $70-80/bbl.

        Middle East tensions often contribute to higher oil prices. But since ISIS is in the business of producing oil rather than detonating it, they aren’t a problem for the oil markets.

        All of that combined with a stronger dollar leads to lower prices. Who produces the oil that is out there is almost irrelevant.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Right now is an excellent time to increase fuel taxes in the US. Even a modest increase of around 30c a gallon is reasonable.

    The revenue collected should be placed into a road transport infrastructure fund. The money should only be used to repair and increase road infrastructure, not cycle ways, sidewalks and pubic transport.

    I do know we will hear some whine that fuel taxes are already collected, but they don’t fulfill requirements to maintain existing infrastructure.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Right now is an excellent time to increase fuel taxes in the US. Even a modest increase of around 30c a gallon is reasonable.

    The revenue collected should be placed into a road transport infrastructure fund. The money should only be used to repair and increase road infrastructure, not cycle ways, s!dewalks and pubic transport.

    I do know we will hear some whine that fuel taxes are already collected, but they don’t fulfill requirements to maintain existing infrastructure.

    I see the “s!d” gremlin has yet to be found!

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      It’s an even better time to get rid of the gas tax and replace it with something better.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        I’d go the other way. Get rid of all the attempts to be “better” (CAFE in particular) and replace them with a higher gas tax. The gas tax is dead simple to administer, not prone to fraud or manipulation, allows people to drive what they want, and aligns everyone’s incentives in a very good way.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I hate the gas tax so much though. I want it dead.

          It is also manipulated constantly by government. You think all that gas tax money goes to fixing roads? Hellz no. It balances budgets, pays teachers, gets cops some MRAPs, etc.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            Ironically, as far as I know, the *Federal* fuel tax really does end up supporting the Interstates.

            It’s the States that treat fuel taxes like a slush fund.

            (Ironic because the incentive structures should suggest the inverse behavior.)

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I’d be fine if it went into the general fund.

            It’s the best, simplest way to account for the externalities of driving and preserve freedom at the same time. No need to force automakers to build unwanted Chevy Sparks, no need to put Big Brother GPS trackers in anyone’s vehicle, easy for people to reduce their tax liability if that’s important to them by getting a more efficient vehicle, using alternative transportation, or consolidating trips.

            For my money, the best way to manage transportation externalities is a fuel tax, electronic tolls on seriously supply-constrained stretches of road, vehicular inspections, emissions/safety regs, and nothing else. Get rid of CAFE, a significant amount of the certification process, silly things like the 25-year import rule, and any/all driving taxes other than the gas tax and a registration fee to pay for the inspection.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Sigvald-

            I was referring to the State of Michigan’s gas tax when talking about waste. We have a gas tax AND pay sales tax on gas.

            dal-

            I agree that it’s the most simple way to collect funds of roads and such. I usually like the idea of a consumption tax too. I really wish there was a better way.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            dal20402, your comments are exactly right.

            CAFE was conceived in part with a view to advantage the high-end (and high-profit) offerings of the Big 3 against foreign competition from smaller-range producers like Mercedes, Jaguar and BMW. Gas-guzzling Cadillacs and Lincolns could avoid the tax because their ratings would be offset by GM’s and Ford’s subcompact models – sectors in which their principal foreign competitors had no US presence.

            Given the huge numbers of Fleetwoods, DeVilles and Town Cars that GM and Ford sell compared to the competitive models of their foreign-based competition, it obviously worked.

            Oh, wait a minute…..

            In any event, if the policy objective is to promote lower hydrocarbon consumptions, the policies you mention would be much more effective, and reduce the administrative burden.

        • 0 avatar
          darkwing

          That’s why the Feds require that all the money goes through Washington — otherwise there would be insufficient opportunities for fraud and graft.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        If you have an idea for something better, bball40dtw, I’m all ears.

        I think gas taxes – if properly levied – are probably the fairest way to pay for roads. The people who use the roads more, and get the most benefit, pay more taxes for them.

        Of course, the catch is that they have to be properly levied, which I think is more of a problem on the state than federal level.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          They aren’t the fairest way to pay for the roads. My C-Max is heavier than the Focus ST it replaced. It also gets almost double the MPG. I use more road for less money with my C-Max. As people drive more fuel efficient vehicles, the gas tax will have to go up to get the same revenue. It’s a vicious cycle. What happens if BEVs become a significant part of the market? No funding for road projects?

          The other solutions for collecting revenue end up getting to big brother like, or are too complicated. State’s like Michigan have an even bigger problem collecting gas taxes. Many of our roads are damaged by large trucks that come from other states or Canada. Because our interstates can’t be converted to toll roads, if those big rigs don’t fill up here (they won’t, they’ll fill up in Ohio or Indiana if at all possible), then the state isn’t earning any revenue.

          The fairest was is for all vehicles to be GPS tracked and pay by the mile based on weight. I don’t want that to happen, and it’s never going to, but technically it’s the most fair.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            As you explain, gas taxes aren’t the “fairest” way to pay for roads if you’re thinking narrowly in terms of who damages the road infrastructure.

            But the costs of driving to society encompass far more than just damage to road infrastructure.

            There’s the geopolitical cost of higher oil usage, the cost of dealing with the consequences of carbon emissions (just ask the mayor of Miami or homeowners on the Outer Banks if you don’t think this is a thing), the public health cost of more time spent sitting in traffic, and increased housing costs both from sprawlier development that roads enable and directly from land that could have been housing being used instead for highways. The gas tax is a very fair response to all of these externalities, and is much easier and cheaper to administer and collect than any other solution that directly taxes transportation.

            Yes, BEVs and to a lesser extent PHEVs will get a free ride. The solution is a tax on electricity usage proportional to the amount of grid electricity used for transportation. Right now that amount is so minuscule that it’s not worth levying the tax. But if BEVs and PHEVs start making up 10% or 15% of the overall vehicle fleet, then we’d need to act.

            I’m not too bothered by the idea that the tax will have to be increased over time as cars become more efficient. Those gains are slow enough that the increases really won’t make much difference. And if EVs really do start threatening the tax base in any substantial way, then (as outlined above) we need to tax them on usage too.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “if those big rigs don’t fill up here (they won’t, they’ll fill up in Ohio or Indiana if at all possible), then the state isn’t earning any revenue.”

            The majority (70%) of the costs to maintain the Interstate Hwy Sys. come the Feds through the Federal portion of the gas tax. It doesn’t really matter where those semis fill up they’re still paying federal taxes

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Lie2Me-

            Unless they are filling up at the duty free statition at the border…

            Dal-

            The federal gas tax isn’t high enough to alter consumption. 18.4 cents per gallon ain’t $hit. I understand that is is cheap to collect and administer, but it’s never going to be enough, and the federal and state governements are going to be scrambling every few years to raise enough funds. We’ll just keep finding ourselves in this spot again. I want the country to get ahead of this problem, instead of being in the position of trying to catch up.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Why can’t Michigan make the Interstates toll roads? Plenty of states do. Especially when you are a pass-through state, it only makes sense. Maine makes major bank on the tourists coming into the state. If you are a resident, there is a frequent user program to lower the cost if you use the turnpike every day.

            GPS tracking is just silly added complexity, you don’t even need humans for tolls anymore – TX and CO just send you a bill in the mail if you don’t have one of their transponders. No toll booths in many places.

  • avatar
    slance66

    I plan to be very careful and buy a new 4Runner. Yes a new BOF SUV is the ticket. But since I drive 7000 miles a year, and even my 328 gets only 20 MPG on my 3 mile commute, it won’t matter. Regular vs premium will make up the difference easy.

    But for those who drive a lot, gas will be back up. It’s inevitable.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    I hope gas prices go back up so no one is out on the lake that I used my gas sucking V8 to tow another gas sucking V6 to drive around in circles in the water.

    Why else would I go to the gym? Impressive gains? How else am I supposed to use the 1000 USD stereo in the boat? I need to amortize each listening cost to 50 USD by the end of next summer! LOOK AT THE SAVINGS. I SHOULD SELL THE BOAT, TRUCK AND STEREO AND BUY 1000 SUBARU BRATS. CHICKEN TAX.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      HELLCAT! Yeah!

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Doesn’t you boat just burn cash instead of gasoline anyway? That’s how mine works.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Isn’t there just a hole in the water where you pour all your money?

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I purchased my boat, two Jet Skis, and sail boat used. The Jet Skis had only 8 hours on them and someone needed to sell them because they were having a child. Expensive mistake for them. I hope that $8000 loss made at least one fun summer.

          I am lucky enough to know someone that works at Four Winns, and I can get parts cheap for my boat. It’s been pretty darn reliable though.

          My sailboat has cost me $179 over the six years I have owned it. A 16 foot fiberglass catermaran isn’t typically a money pit.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Well, you have enough toys to keep you busy all the time

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I rarely use the Jet Skis. Everyone else seems to love them, but I got all that out of my system when I was under 25.

            The watercraft that gives me the most pleasure is my Hobie 16. It’s pure sailing. I could spend most of my weekends sailing around. However, I have a toddler now, and I don’t have the time I used to.

            I love the water and would spend all summer in Northern Michigan if I could. I need to get one more promotion in order to work remotely like that.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        “If it floats, flies or …. ” something.

        It was hilarious to see 6 and even 7 figure “boats” wash ashore, after being tragically “lost” at sea, with perfectly symmetrical holes drilled through their hulls, off the gulf coast, back in the “wake” of the 2008-2009 economic meltdown.

        Good thing most were insured!

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        If I cared about it’s cosmetic condition, it would burn more cash than gas, plus I love getting drunk and buffing gel coat.

        It’s a nineties Crown. I wear a fake American flag bandana / dew rag, 1980’s short trunks and giant aviators while operating it. It’s cheaper to dress down to the era / style of your boat than to keep the boat up to date with culture.

        I seem to be the only boater under 35 that isn’t operating their parents’ boat on the lake so I keep on keepin’ on.

        Any inboard / outboard with a GM powertrain and good transom, stringers and has an electronic ignition will be reliable. So long as my gimbal bearing doesn’t fail, I’ll avoid being an Army Corps of Engineers / EPA issue.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I rock the American flag bandana too, It’s mostly because male pattern baldness is a b!tch that gets my head sunburned.

          I had an 80s deck boat in high school. It was tan, brown, and burgandy. I think I bought it for $800 including the trailer. It always ran, and high school chicks at the time just cared that it was a boat. God I miss that 4Winns. Having fun on the lake is always better than trying to show off on the lake.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          tres, it sounds like you’ve got the whole nautical hipster thing covered

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Best deal ever. Buddy with boat, but nothing to tow it with. Krhodes1 with Jeep GJC, then Range Rover, but no boat. Tow boat as needed, use boat whenever mood strikes. Profit! Boat mostly stays on big lake, but tow to ocean occasionally.

      As for the price of gas, meh, I don’t really care if it is $1 or $5. Though I will say, $12 in Europe in 2011 definitely made me think about what my transportation choices would be. I am with those who would prefer a MUCH higher gas tax and remove all the other BS.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    So, does this mean I should cancel my order for my ’15 Chevy Silverado Crew Cab High Country with the 6.2 liter EcoTec3 engine?

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    I bought an F-250 when gas was over $3.50 a gallon, so…

    What am I gonna regret, again, *if* fuel prices spike back up?

  • avatar
    smartascii

    If $1.50/gal price difference in gasoline is the determining factor in the financial solvency of the average American family, we have bigger problems.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      2/3rds of the American population couldn’t pay for an emergency expense of $2,500 if they had to rely on their savings.

      All hail credit cards, HELOCs, title loans, payday “advances,” etc.

      • 0 avatar
        smartascii

        Sure, people have no savings, mostly because they’re shortsighted. But we’re not talking about $2,500. At an average of 12,000 miles per year and 20 MPG, we’re talking about $75 per month savings for a $1.50 price drop. I’m not saying $75 is nothing. I’m saying that if that’s the difference between America paying its bills or not, we have a problem.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      It is, and I suspect most people will spend the money instead of reducing their debt load.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Either way, it’s a good thing, even if it is temporary. There are a a lot of other companies I’d rather spend my money with than Big Oil.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        It’s not so simple as a correlation between savings, debt, and what the typical American family can afford.

        I agree that many (most?) people spend nearly everything they earn and thus save very little and have sustained debt. However, much of their spending goes into perpetual expenses: cable, clothes, dining out, etc. If their fuel bills go up $75/month–no, they don’t have that much extra cash in the budget, but they do have that much room to squeeze other things. Their savings & debt habits won’t significantly change.

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    “you are going to not be real happy”

    Correct, they will all be fake happy.

  • avatar
    50merc

    So Obama says cheap gas won’t last. Well, that’s his hope. And objective.

    Basically, he doesn’t want the peasantry to have the freedom to drive what and where we want.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      I have to ask, do you actually hear yourself? I seriously just have to wonder because I know in Peoria that sounds amazing but here in reality that sounds like crazy satire of a right-wing talk radio pundit…

      • 0 avatar
        darkwing

        It’s so cute to hear people repeat phrases with absolutely no idea of their historical context.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Especially when you know word for word where they came from. Polly wanna cracker?

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Well I’m sorry that I can’t be that person. Peoria represents the idea of ‘mainstream’ in the olden days, now it means largely will it play to ‘middle America’ which is different from the mainstream. Thus I appreciate you thinking that I meant the original meaning from almost 120 years ago when I meant the current meaning from about 30 years ago.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Right, which is why he keeps proposing more money for highway expansion and propping up automakers.

      It’s amazing how the political echo chamber can arrive at conclusions without the slightest regard for contrary facts.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      Is there a roll eyes emoticon on TTAC? He’s merely giving sound financial advice.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Yeah, I’m sure Obama wants higher gas prices. That’ll do great things for his party come next November.

      Seriously, do you read over what you write before you hit the “submit” button?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I agree Big Al, increase the gas tax and limit the increase to road and bridge maintenance and infrastructure with none of it going for walking trails, bike paths, and parking lots. The Lawrence Welk and Greyhound Bus museum are not appropriate places to put fuel tax money into.

  • avatar
    shaker

    The Prez is calling it right – the price is already going up in PA (increased gas tax), and the Feds are mulling raising it as well (1st time since the early 90’s).

    But (minus graft and corruption already mentioned), more money will be spent domestically as a result, giving a boost to the economy, so it’s a good thing in the short term.

    I hope that the Feds do modestly increase the gas tax, especially if it slows the calls for fuel-wasting toll roads and privatization of our highways (which would return broken roads to the gov’t once the private companies go “bankrupt”).

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dantes_inferno: FCA motto: Dodge testing. RAM into production.
  • Schurkey: A few years back, I treated myself to a Challenger 5.7 Hemi rental car for several days when vacationing on...
  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber