# Thread: Obama Flunks Math

1. Obama Flunks Math

During a speech two weeks ago at the Daimler Truck manufacturing plant in Mount Holly, N.C., President Obama bantered with an audience member over his administration’s proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards:

President Obama: Now, because of these new standards for cars and trucks, they’re . . . all going to be able to go farther and use less fuel every year. And that means pretty soon you’ll be able to fill up your car every two weeks instead of every week — and, over time, that saves you, a typical family, about \$8,000 a year.

The president’s first CAFE proposal didn’t take effect until 2011. So, while these cars may save “American families and businesses money at the pump,” there is no way they have saved money on balance. Even under the rosiest projections, the amount these cars save customers on gas won’t surpass their higher prices — a result of complying with the fuel-efficiency standards — for several more years.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the compliance costs of CAFE standards from 2011 to 2025 will be about \$210 billion, or \$3,100 per vehicle by 2025. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that new cars under \$15,000 will be “regulated out of existence.” The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) further predicts that as a result, 6.8 million licensed drivers will be unable to qualify for the necessary loans to finance a new car.

Even for drivers who still qualify for loans or can afford to pay cash, it would take five years of driving a Ford Fusion 12,000 miles a year (the current average) with \$4-a-gallon gas for the driver to break even, according to an analysis by Edmunds that accepts the EPA’s estimated compliance costs. >>>

Under less rosy projections, however, a net savings may never occur for most owners. The EPA has a tendency to underestimate the cost of its regulations. For instance, according to an analysis of the EPA’s 2004–2010 heavy-truck emission standards performed by the NADA, the EPA estimated that the cost would be \$3,419 per vehicle, but the actual figure was between two and five times that amount, depending on make and model.

Nevertheless, as gas prices remain a preoccupation through the summer, the administration is certain to continue touting its CAFE standards as an important part of a long-term, all-of-the-above energy strategy. In reality, it will be a long time before the administration’s CAFE standards start saving anyone any money, let alone \$8,000 a year.

National Review Online

----------------------------

The price of gas will be MUCH higher thanks to BO's war on fossil fuel. And how many more people are killed because of CAFE standards than are killed by drunk drivers? So Zippy is supposed to be a hero for the low income worker? Mentioned in the article is that new rules will effectively regulate low price new cars out of existence.

When will people realize that he NEVER held a job in the real world and has ZERO experience? He flunked math, economics and ethics. WAKE UP AMERICA!

2. CAFE Standards

CAFE was enacted with the goal of reducing American dependence on foreign oil, controlling pollution, and meeting the needs of consumers at the time for more fuel efficient vehicles. Unfortunately, what was enacted served none of those purposes efficiently. In section three we evaluated the success of CAFE in addressing the issues for which it was designed, and it was shown that in many instances the benefits of increased fuel economy were either less than expected or completely nonexistent. The growth of vehicle miles in response to higher fuel economy would seem to have increased, rather than decreased, pollution. The effect on oil consumption is more complex, in that although the effect of increased fuel economy on number of miles driven is clear, whether or not this was in response exclusively to increased fuel economy is not definite. As Tietenberg points out, “Low transport cost encourages dispersed settlement patterns…. Once settlement patterns are dispersed it is difficult to justify high volume transportation alternatives….”[39] I do not believe any model will be able to tell us whether suburbanization was driven to its present level because of increased fuel economy. My personal belief is that consumption would have increased regardless, in which case CAFE has reduced oil consumption, and should be moved from the ‘costs’ column to the ‘benefits’ column. Were one to make the assumption CAFE had actually driven urban sprawl, however, then it would be responsible for increased, rather than decreased, consumption. The remaining factor, consumer demands for more fuel efficient vehicles, could most likely have been dealt with more effectively by letting market forces do their work. In addition, any increase in vehicle miles CAFE was responsible for exasperated already existent externalities. Specificity says that one should deal with problems at their source. In this case, legislation was enacted which attempted to deal with multiple problems and in doing so dealt with none of them. Although we did not develop exact numbers here for the costs and benefits of CAFE, it is quite clear that the costs were many and the benefits fewer than expected. In addition, by choosing a politically powerful industry to regulate, congress ensured that any legislation which could be enacted would be too little, too late, and would come at enormous cost to the taxpayers footing the bill for endless hearings, committee meetings, industry consultations, and so forth. Overall CAFE has not encouraged an efficient level of oil consumption, and does not appear destined to in the future.

3. CAFE Kills, and Then Some:
Six Reasons to Be Skeptical of Fuel Economy Standards

Writing in the Wall Street Journal in 2001, Kimberly A. Strassel observed, "[s]ince 1970, the United States has made cars almost 50% more efficient; in that period of time, the average number of miles a person drives has doubled."4

2) CAFE standards are dangerous. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences released a report, "Effectiveness and Impact of CAFE Standards 2002," concluding that since CAFE standards were imposed in the U.S. in 1975, an additional 2,000 deaths per year can be attributed to the downsizing of cars required to meet CAFE standards.

In 2001, Charli E. Coon, J.D. of the Heritage Foundation wrote:
The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards.5

4. Obama forgot to mention that his numbers work if your tires are properly inflated. Don't forget that part. Very important.

5. Obama flunks math? That's unpossible!

6. Did he finally release his school records?

7. Originally Posted by Odysseus
Did he finally release his school records?
Maybe we could ask the teacher from his home room.

8. Originally Posted by JB
Obama forgot to mention that his numbers work if your tires are properly inflated. Don't forget that part. Very important.
And a tune up! (Something the Idiot In Chief has never done).

9. Originally Posted by ralph wiggum
Obama flunks math? That's unpossible!

Me fail Math? Thats unpossible.

10. Well, that explains why he flunked the last three years of Economics.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules