"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:47:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Answer: The CAFE standards don't change.

You obviously haven't a clue as to how the CAFE standards work.


Obviously, you don't like the answer.

"Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel
economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of
passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any
given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by
an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel)
consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol
set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:05:20 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You obviously haven't a clue as to how the CAFE standards work.


Obviously, you don't like the answer.

"Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel
economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of
passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
of
8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any
given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled
by
an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel)
consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation
protocol
set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search
terms
and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my
question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue.


I stand by my answer. So far, you haven't answered my very simple question,
which is typical of your obstructionist behavior.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search
terms
and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my
question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a
clue.


I stand by my answer.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water.....

The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic
content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE
requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted
at
the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers
couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by
more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they
have
to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the
low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell
those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job
protection
boondoggle.

Smackdown!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search
terms
and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my
question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a
clue.


I stand by my answer.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water.....

The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic
content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE
requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted
at
the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers
couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by
more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they
have
to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the
low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell
those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job
protection
boondoggle.


Bzzzzt. Wrong again Dave. You can try to reason with a right-wingnut,
but.....

So, you're trying to claim that Toyota doesn't have at least that percentage
in it's US sold cars??? Think again dude. As I said, I stand by my original
answer.

For example, "Toyota Tundra's solid domestic-parts content rating, up to 80
percent for 2008 from 75 percent for 2007."

"The '08 Ford Focus dropped to 65 percent from 75 percent in domestic-parts
content."

Why don't you try and blame the UAW again, if it makes you feel better. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:08:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, you're trying to claim that Toyota doesn't have at least that
percentage
in it's US sold cars???

Another red herring thrown out. You must have quite a supply.

They used to say in law school that if you can't answer the question asked
on the exam, answer some other question that you can answer. Looks like
you
took that as your motto.


Dude... I did answer the question. You have refused. Not sure what they
would say in law school about that. Did you take the 5th?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search
terms
and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my
question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue.

I stand by my answer.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water.....

The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic
content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE
requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted at
the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers
couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by
more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they have
to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the
low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell
those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job protection
boondoggle.

What hogwash; it's the UAW's fault that Ford can't engineer a vehicle to
get a decent milage? Honda, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, Nissan, to name just a
few have no problem?

How many of those engineers are members of the UAW?

Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food....

Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search
terms
and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer
my
question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a
clue.

I stand by my answer.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water.....

The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic
content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE
requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted
at
the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers
couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by
more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they
have
to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the
low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell
those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job
protection
boondoggle.

What hogwash; it's the UAW's fault that Ford can't engineer a vehicle to
get a decent milage? Honda, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, Nissan, to name just a few
have no problem?

How many of those engineers are members of the UAW?

Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still had
12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for barely
enough compensation to pay for their own food....

Martin


Thank you sir. I'll take another....


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:24:02 -0500, Marty said:

Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food....

I haven't visited those plants in SC, Alabama, etc. where the Japanese
companies are beating the pants off Detroit using non-union labor. Is the
above an accurate description of the workforce in those plants?


Whoooosh.......
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:32:54 -0500, said:

I haven't visited those plants in SC, Alabama, etc. where the Japanese
companies are beating the pants off Detroit using non-union labor. Is the
above an accurate description of the workforce in those plants?

[Gratuitous nonsense snipped]

Personally, I think it should be a matter of national pride that we
have the best wages, health care, and other services for our citizens
available anywhere in the world. The United States should always be
MORE in all ways. Unfortunately, anti-American miscreants such as Dave
will always want to tear it down and make it less.

What was your answer to the above question again, Not At All? Was Marty's
description of those downtrodden child laborers in the domestic Toyota
plants accurate?

Did you get somebody else to take the Bar exam for you? Given the
reading comprehension, or rather lack thereof that you continue to
exhibit I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:35:04 -0500, Marty said:

What was your answer to the above question again, Not At All? Was Marty's
description of those downtrodden child laborers in the domestic Toyota
plants accurate?
Did you get somebody else to take the Bar exam for you? Given the
reading comprehension, or rather lack thereof that you continue to
exhibit I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Ah, so you do believe that labor in the Japanese companies' U.S. plants are
"12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food....?" If not, what is
the message you intended to convey in using that phrase?

I should have thought it quite clear, but since you insist on behaving
in such a disingenuous manner I'll endeavor to edify you.


Try reading the whole sentence again:

"Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still
had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for
barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... "

It is a statement of what I believe to be your sentiments, not a
reflection of current employment practices of Toyota. In fact if you
remembered my earlier post, I specifically said that Toyota pays it's
employees well, but you chose to ignore that and make up some stuff
about how Ford's benefit plan was killing them, while they were selling
cars for less than Toyota, albeit, with limited success.

Cheers
Martin