Obama Says He’ll Save Average Family $8,000 in Gas

ZHawke wrote: Could it be? Might the POTUS actually have misspoken when he said "per year" and not "over the life of the vehicle"?

Could be Z - doubling the CAFE would save the typical family about $800/year in fuel costs - which the president could have misread off of his teleprompter as $8K - or he could have been talking about over a ten year vehicle life. Or it could have been an intentional statement intended to inculcate a feeling that the union really needs to reelect him so he and the federal government can protect the voters from the evil oil corporations to the tune of $8K a year - which could then later be retracted as a misstatement in which the president meant to say either $8K over the life of the vehicle or $800/year.

What is interesting is that the base priced Toyota Corolla starts at $16K and gets 34 mpg highway - a Toyota Prius which gets 51 mpg in the city starts out at $24K - an $8K difference. If the cost of a 55 mpg vehicle is $8-10K more than the cost of a 34 mpg vehicle, while true that the CAFE would save that family $8K in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle, the president failed to mention that they would be spending that $8K purchasing the vehicle itself, so they really are not saving anything at all over the life of the vehicle when the total cost of the vehicle is looked at. Magicians call that sleight of hand - getting you to look where they want your attention focused so that you fail to see the complete picture of how the trick is performed.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Could it be? Might the POTUS actually have misspoken when he said "per year" and not "over the life of the vehicle"?

Could be Z - doubling the CAFE would save the typical family about $800/year in fuel costs - which the president could have misread off of his teleprompter as $8K - or he could have been talking about over a ten year vehicle life. Or it could have been an intentional statement intended to inculcate a feeling that the union really needs to reelect him so he and the federal government can protect the voters from the evil oil corporations to the tune of $8K a year - which could then later be retracted as a misstatement in which the president meant to say either $8K over the life of the vehicle or $800/year.

What is interesting is that the base priced Toyota Corolla starts at $16K and gets 34 mpg highway - a Toyota Prius which gets 51 mpg in the city starts out at $24K - an $8K difference. If the cost of a 55 mpg vehicle is $8-10K more than the cost of a 34 mpg vehicle, while true that the CAFE would save that family $8K in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle, the president failed to mention that they would be spending that $8K purchasing the vehicle itself, so they really are not saving anything at all over the life of the vehicle when the total cost of the vehicle is looked at. Magicians call that sleight of hand - getting you to look where they want your attention focused so that you fail to see the complete picture of how the trick is performed.

PS - you're absolutely right. It could be any of those things you listed and an entire plethora of others as well. I believe that's the point I was trying to make in my post. The burden of proof isn't on someone calling the video a fake. Rather, it is on the OP to provide some proof that the POTUS' statement is, in fact, an intentional lie on his part. Until I see that proof, I'll take the video with a proverbial grain of salt.

You either missed, or chose not to comment, on the main point I was making. Obama's upping the CAFE Standards to 55 mpg isn't going to be saving the average family anything - any money that they save purchasing fuel is going into the purchasing of the vehicle. Thus the statement, regardless of whether he meant to say $8K a year, $8K over the life of the vehicle or $800 dollars a year, that his policies are going to be saving the average family anything are deceptive no matter which way one chooses to look at it.

At best it is no different from the sleight of hand used by a magician when performing one of his tricks. Obama is directing your attention on spending less money on fuel while remaining entirely silent regarding the additional expense that will be incurred to purchase that vehicle that will allow them to avoid spending those dollars on fuel. They won't be saving anything as a result of his policies, which isn't what he was hoping they would believe by the end of his speech.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Could it be? Might the POTUS actually have misspoken when he said "per year" and not "over the life of the vehicle"?

Could be Z - doubling the CAFE would save the typical family about $800/year in fuel costs - which the president could have misread off of his teleprompter as $8K - or he could have been talking about over a ten year vehicle life. Or it could have been an intentional statement intended to inculcate a feeling that the union really needs to reelect him so he and the federal government can protect the voters from the evil oil corporations to the tune of $8K a year - which could then later be retracted as a misstatement in which the president meant to say either $8K over the life of the vehicle or $800/year.

What is interesting is that the base priced Toyota Corolla starts at $16K and gets 34 mpg highway - a Toyota Prius which gets 51 mpg in the city starts out at $24K - an $8K difference. If the cost of a 55 mpg vehicle is $8-10K more than the cost of a 34 mpg vehicle, while true that the CAFE would save that family $8K in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle, the president failed to mention that they would be spending that $8K purchasing the vehicle itself, so they really are not saving anything at all over the life of the vehicle when the total cost of the vehicle is looked at. Magicians call that sleight of hand - getting you to look where they want your attention focused so that you fail to see the complete picture of how the trick is performed.

PS - you're absolutely right. It could be any of those things you listed and an entire plethora of others as well. I believe that's the point I was trying to make in my post. The burden of proof isn't on someone calling the video a fake. Rather, it is on the OP to provide some proof that the POTUS' statement is, in fact, an intentional lie on his part. Until I see that proof, I'll take the video with a proverbial grain of salt.

Do you also take his promises and other false assertions with that same grain of salt? How can someone who is supposed to be so brilliant continue to make mistakes that the average high school student could get right? Why was Bush seen as an idiot by the left because he mispronounces nuclear but when Obama says corpseman, it's no big deal, he just misspoke?

You know there are idiots who vote for Obama (or are considering it), who will say "ya, I'm all for saving $8,000 a year, I'm voting for this guy!". And do you think he'll make a public retraction of this idiot statement? I know he won't.

“If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” - Barack Obama, 2009

He says alot of stuff. I just hope that one is one he truly means, and follows thru on.

:thumbsup:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” - Barack Obama, 2009

Of course you took the quote out of context. He was talking about TARP. Here's a fact check:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... oposition/

JSG wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” - Barack Obama, 2009

Of course you took the quote out of context. He was talking about TARP. Here's a fact check:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... oposition/

Also from your link:


But the outcomes of TARP have not been entirely rosy. Efforts to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, for example, have fallen far short of their goals.

Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for TARP, called the Home Affordable Modification Program a “colossal failure” in a March 2011 op-ed.

“As the program flounders, foreclosures continue to mount,” he wrote at the time, “with 8 million to 13 million filings forecast over the program’s lifetime.” The program remains active with $45.6 billion still yet to be paid out.

Meanwhile, the broader debate between Republicans and the administration about whether the economy has “turned around” remains a subjective one, with existing economic indicators to support conclusions on both sides.

There is indeed still plenty of “pain out there” that Obama referred to three years ago, with the national unemployment rate at 8.5 percent in December and 13.1 million out of work.

Neptune, how dare you introduce facts! You are undermining the left's ability to cloud the issue with "we love Obama-isms."

PrintSmith wrote: You either missed, or chose not to comment, on the main point I was making. Obama's upping the CAFE Standards to 55 mpg isn't going to be saving the average family anything - any money that they save purchasing fuel is going into the purchasing of the vehicle. Thus the statement, regardless of whether he meant to say $8K a year, $8K over the life of the vehicle or $800 dollars a year, that his policies are going to be saving the average family anything are deceptive no matter which way one chooses to look at it.

At best it is no different from the sleight of hand used by a magician when performing one of his tricks. Obama is directing your attention on spending less money on fuel while remaining entirely silent regarding the additional expense that will be incurred to purchase that vehicle that will allow them to avoid spending those dollars on fuel. They won't be saving anything as a result of his policies, which isn't what he was hoping they would believe by the end of his speech.

PS - I didn't miss anything, thank you very much. Doesn't matter the main point YOU were trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that the OP posited his post giving the impression the POTUS was intentionally lying in the linked to video. That was what I was addressing, nothing more. If you want to take it into a deeper discussion of the CAFE Standards and try to make it into a much more "devious" POTUS plan to deceive everyone, that's your choice. Have at it. My belief, whether anyone agrees or not, is that CAFE Standards, while there will be obvious flaws (as there are with virtually ALL "standards" both the right and the left find fault with), upping the fuel economy standards is, again in my opinion, the "right" thing to do, especially for the environment on many different levels.

For far too long, our society has had a "want its cake and eat it, too" mentality. This goes for other "standards" and "programs", as well. Frankly, I'm tired of it. I believe we need to either put up or shut up when it comes to formulating standards and policies of governance. Discussions like this one really don't have any benefit in that direction other than to provide a venue for everyone to vent, whether liberal or conservative, and to ultimately have the opportunity to take pot shots at each other. I've stayed away from posting for quite some time for that very reason. It's just too easy to get caught up in the negative drama and rhetoric and to start slinging mud, and I don't like the feeling that gives me. I enjoy a good, decent, civil political discussion, just like anyone else. And, I realize gloves are often considered to be "off" in this forum, but that doesn't mean we must descend to that level ourselves. See ya!