Next gen Legacy rendering

[dtmenace]

You mean all the GM and Toyota vehicles we BUILD?

 

right back @ ya & fixed for accuracy

[Ken S]

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop-460x342/legacy-1_dw.jpg

 

looks much better than this:

 

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/5145/l12pd6.jpg

 

I don't know if anyone knew, but that magazine cover mentions a hybrid Legacy.

[MJ in PA]

I like the lower pic better. I'd rather it looks like the Impreza, with a normal sized grille, than have an ugly oversized grille that looks as bad as the first generation Tribeca!

[johnAWD]

Looks like a ford taurus.

[SLegacy99]

I don't know if anyone knew, but that magazine cover mentions a hybrid Legacy.

 

Sounds like a good move. MMMMMmmmm direct injected, 200 HP, 2.5L, AWD hybrid. Think of the torquiness. One can dream.

[ArcTec34]

that mag rendering looks like POOP

[Magnetdropout]

It's weaksauce. The huge grille and squinty taillights make the front end look lame.

[TRSCobra]

It looks like the current generation camry...

 

Camry doppelganger syndrome all over again!

[JonLGT]

I guess subarus new trend is to ruin the styling of their whole lineup.

[PLTek]

thats an awful rendering, it looks like a beginner photoshop user did this, they even reused the old, old style LGT mirrors,

 

i think that it might be a rendering of a rendering

[Metal2You]

From the article:

 

Under the hood Subaru will place the newly developed 2.0-liter and 2.5-liter naturally aspirated four-cylinder engines, that will develop 200 and 300 hp.

 

I call BS. Since when does Subaru have a 2.5L NA making 300HP?

[BigInALegacy]

That's the one thing I noticed too...

 

what's up with that???

[LegGTLT]

 

[SubieDriver]

From the article:

 

 

 

I call BS. Since when does Subaru have a 2.5L NA making 300HP?

 

They're just mangling the original rumor which stated 2.0 making 200 hp and the 2.5 turbo making 300 hp. Some people just can't even quote a rumor correctly! (referring to the author, of course)

[twisted]

my dealer just told me y'day that the next gen leggie is being kept real secret by subaru as big changes are in the works, however the rumor mill has it that there will be more interior/rear seat leg-room a-la new forester.

However with fuel price trends expect the turbo version to not make obscene amounts. Of course he has no proof of any of the above. But more legroom will be a welcome change.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Those renderings are hideous.

 

Damn CAFE and their abomination fleet averages. Let people buy what they want to buy.

 

If you have a 4cyl, and a turbo 4cyl, and a 6cyl... why would you care about high MPG on the turbocharged engine?

 

the other two engines are better on fuel anyway. The turbo is for performance in such an instance. But lets dial back on performance for MPG's sake despite the decision process... gag me.

 

Big changes I am not sure is a great thing. I like the Legacy as is, and drastic changes could be negative ones, even if a bit more rear legroom might be somewhat better.

[lkjohnson1950]

I think The Leggy is a nearly perfect size, I don't really need more rear legroom. Bigger is definitely not better.

[SLegacy99]

You can't sit around and curse CAFE standards. They worked the first time, the automakers can do it again. And the ones that can't can be weeded out. In the 1970s the Lincoln Continental put out 300 HP and averaged a whopping 9 MPG. 9! Where would we be today if there had been no CAFE standards imposed? Thankfully, today there are 300 HP cars like the GS350 that averages 24 MPG, almost 3 times as much.

 

I think The Leggy is a nearly perfect size, I don't really need more rear legroom. Bigger is definitely not better.

It needs to be larger in order to remain competitive as Subaru has no plans to make a larger sedan.

[IwannaSportSedan]

You can't sit around and curse CAFE standards. They worked the first time, the automakers can do it again. And the ones that can't can be weeded out. In the 1970s the Lincoln Continental put out 300 HP and averaged a whopping 9 MPG. 9! Where would we be today if there had been no CAFE standards imposed? Thankfully, today there are 300 HP cars like the GS350 that averages 24 MPG, almost 3 times as much.

 

I can curse whatever I want.

 

Correlation does not prove causation. Cars have gotten more efficient, but not necessarily because government regulation made that happen. If the Big 3 had been more focused on competing with the asian import breakthrough in the 70s and 80s, instead of focusing on meeting government CAFE regulations, they probably could have made BETTER products in the 80s and 90s than they did. If they had that history of better products in those decades, they would have been able to build on that in the 21st century, and they would likey ALL be in better positions.

 

The fact that CAFE focused more on cars than on light trucks pretty much de-facto caused the SUV craze, as they were cheaper and less regulated for the Big 3 to build. So they were built in mass numbers, with more options, variety, and more attractive prices than cars. How much of that can be extrapolated to the demise of the station wagon, and the pathetic state of the Big 3's small and medium sized car market since the Japanese took over and defined those segments in the 70s and 80s.

 

IF CAFE can be credited with improving efficiency by restricting free practice of business, it can also be credited with helping severely handicap the domestic automakers, rather than letting them more freely compete and forge better products over the last 30 years or more.

 

Competition made the efficiency improvements happen, and unfettered competition would have made it happen EASIER. Just as it would now. Imagine if the Big 3 had been unfettered all this time, and actually would have taken the opportunity of that to build better products, and respond quicker to customers than to government regulations...

 

If the "Big 3" didn't have to spend BILLIONS of dollars complying with government bureaucratic game-playing, and paying fines when they don't comply, their bottom line would be healthier.

 

Corporate management either succeeds or fails. Government regulation doesn't change that, it just hinders progress, and adds cost.

 

Treating government like a beneficial overlord and a 536-part fractional micromanaging king is a great disservice to freedom. The government REALLY has no business doing anything more than protecting the populace from criminally fraudulent practices. Everything else, in commercial terms, is supposed to be a matter of a free market of free participants, to succeed or fail as they can.

 

Safety, emissions, and efficiency progress would be made, and made more effectively through free enterprise, and legitimate profit motive. (people have to eat, and put a roof over their heads...) Those advancements didn't need, and don't currently need government oversight causing impedance.

 

It needs to be larger in order to remain competitive as Subaru has no plans to make a larger sedan.

 

A bit larger inside, based on Exiga or Forester's floor pan dimensions is not the end of the world... but drastic changes in the intent or execution of the car could be less than attractive.

 

And sacrificing the sportiness of the GT turbocharged model to the "greenies" for a bit more MPG, when the 2.5i and 3.0R are better inherent MPG choices is one of those things that could be less than attractive.

 

Build cars to be CARS, and performance cars to perform. Building them to meet government regulations is a disservice, and never truly benefits anyone as much as delivering what customers want, and competing for the customer's hard earned money.

[lkjohnson1950]

I agree. Wait, did I say that? WOW! The market is already putting defacto CAFE standards into effect. The best selling vehicle in the US is not the Ford F-150 for the first time in 25-26 years. It is now the Honda Civic with the Toyota Corolla right behind. If Subaru has to meet a strict Cafe standard as currently proposed you may be kissing any new GTs, Spec Bs, and STIs good-bye. That what you want? How about a Legacy hybrid? Not for me.

[Fivspeed]

I can curse whatever I want.

 

Correlation does not prove causation. Cars have gotten more efficient, but not necessarily because government regulation made that happen. If the Big 3 had been more focused on competing with the asian import breakthrough in the 70s and 80s, instead of focusing on meeting government CAFE regulations, they probably could have made BETTER products in the 80s and 90s than they did. If they had that history of better products in those decades, they would have been able to build on that in the 21st century, and they would likey ALL be in better positions.

 

Those Asian imports being high quality, low priced, and fuel efficient apparently had nothing to do with it. Not to mention they had to fight the stigma of being Japanese made and they still sold.

 

The fact that CAFE focused more on cars than on light trucks pretty much de-facto caused the SUV craze, as they were cheaper and less regulated for the Big 3 to build. So they were built in mass numbers, with more options, variety, and more attractive prices than cars. How much of that can be extrapolated to the demise of the station wagon, and the pathetic state of the Big 3's small and medium sized car market since the Japanese took over and defined those segments in the 70s and 80s.

 

Not having CAFE standards for trucks gave the domestic automakers an ADVANTAGE since the import manufacters weren't selling large trucks here. How many years later is it and the domestic automaker is still dependent on those gas guzzlers for their profits? They've only had 30+ years to improve their cars to a level that would compete with the imports...and yet...they did too little, too late and are near bankruptcy.

 

 

IF CAFE can be credited with improving efficiency by restricting free practice of business, it can also be credited with helping severely handicap the domestic automakers, rather than letting them more freely compete and forge better products over the last 30 years or more.

 

How did CAFE kept the domestic automaker from competing? Auto manufactures play by the same CAFE rules, and you admitted domestic automakers had a huge advantage with their truck programs. If you can't compete in 30 years time, you don't belong in the business.

 

Competition made the efficiency improvements happen, and unfettered competition would have made it happen EASIER. Just as it would now. Imagine if the Big 3 had been unfettered all this time, and actually would have taken the opportunity of that to build better products, and respond quicker to customers than to government regulations...

 

You still fail to explain what government regulations handicapped the domestic automakers that didn't apply to imports. The big 3 had 30 years to "build better products". They all play by the same rules. Nothing stopped them from competing.

 

If the "Big 3" didn't have to spend BILLIONS of dollars complying with government bureaucratic game-playing, and paying fines when they don't comply, their bottom line would be healthier.

 

All manufactures have to meet the same regs, all would face a fine if they did not comply. Sounds pretty fair to me.

 

Corporate management either succeeds or fails. Government regulation doesn't change that, it just hinders progress, and adds cost.

 

Treating government like a beneficial overlord and a 536-part fractional micromanaging king is a great disservice to freedom. The government REALLY has no business doing anything more than protecting the populace from criminally fraudulent practices. Everything else, in commercial terms, is supposed to be a matter of a free market of free participants, to succeed or fail as they can.

 

Ron Paul...is that you? I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but humans are selfish overall and consumers of everything they can get their hands on. The current housing crisis is proof of that. The rates of obesity is proof of that. The size of credit card debt is proof of that.

 

Safety, emissions, and efficiency progress would be made, and made more effectively through free enterprise, and legitimate profit motive. (people have to eat, and put a roof over their heads...) Those advancements didn't need, and don't currently need government oversight causing impedance.

 

Profit breeds corruption. Which doesn't mean profit = corruption (in case you're going to go there) Profit doesn't come from increased emissions and safety. They complicate and add expense to the automobile manufacturing process. If not required by law, we'd still be driving '64 impala's with horrendous gas mileage and pathetic stopping distances while the big 3 roll in the dough. On the bright side, parts would be cheap and I could flip a couple switches and 3-wheel around town...sippin on gin and juice...laid back.

 

A bit larger inside, based on Exiga or Forester's floor pan dimensions is not the end of the world... but drastic changes in the intent or execution of the car could be less than attractive.

 

And sacrificing the sportiness of the GT turbocharged model to the "greenies" for a bit more MPG, when the 2.5i and 3.0R are better inherent MPG choices is one of those things that could be less than attractive.

 

Build cars to be CARS, and performance cars to perform. Building them to meet government regulations is a disservice, and never truly benefits anyone as much as delivering what customers want, and competing for the customer's hard earned money.

 

CAFE standards don't dissallow performance cars, and performance cars need much of that safety equipment that is gov't regulated. People do want safety.

 

 

Back to the rendition, if you lengthen the grill to the lower lip, you'd have a nice looking Audi at a great price.

[SubieDriver]

Ya got some good points there. I still remember clearly in the '80s I was a Honda motorcycle fan (owned 5). Harley Davidson was still peddling WWII technology in their bikes and saw their market share undercut by the better quality and lower prices of the Japanese bike manufacturers, so, rather than compete by building better stuff, they convinced the gov to impose a 5-year import tariff on all the Jap bikes 750cc and up to give them time to catch up. (That's why we saw a rash of 700cc bikes come out in the '80s.)

 

Anyway, the point is that H-D never bothered to do much R&D, and kept selling ancient technology and raking in the profits until they were basically forced to upgrade. Large corporations love to maximize profits at the expense of safety, modernity, fuel mileage, etc. unless some outside force drives them to change.

 

Whether that change is driven by some new, up-and-coming competitor, or government-influenced regulation, or market-induced changes (e.g.:fuel prices), it's usually an outside influence, not an innate desire.

 

 

Though this seems to be more an American malady than Japanese. I remember reading a story some years ago that displayed the differences in philosophy. This was during the '70s & '80s when the Big-3 were designing disposable cars. The article said that the Big-3 engineers would scour the junkyards and determine which parts of their cars lasted the longest, then make those parts more cheaply, while the Japanese would scour the junkyards to see which parts had failed, and make those parts better.

 

The Big-3 were maximizing profits, while the Asian makes were building a better mousetrap. The only reason the Big-3 are making better cars now is because the Japanese were eating their lunch and taking their market share.

 

It's somewhat still the case. The Big-3 are only as good as they have to be (due to regulation and competition), while the Japanese are as good as they *can* be.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Those Asian imports being high quality, low priced, and fuel efficient apparently had nothing to do with it. Not to mention they had to fight the stigma of being Japanese made and they still sold.

 

They sold because they were solid products. The Big 3's quality took a nosedive in the 70's and didn't come back up to par with the mainstream japanese midsize and compact cars until much more recently. It has been a long slow attempt to rebuild, and they are still trying to get back to parity, let alone being better than the japanese offerings.

 

CAFE hindered the Big 3, by confusing them as to whether they needed to pay more attention to government regulations, or customer demands. Government regulations are law, and there are penalties for not meeting those standards, which costs money. So the regulations became the goal, not appealing to customers.

 

How did CAFE kept the domestic automaker from competing? Auto manufactures play by the same CAFE rules, and you admitted domestic automakers had a huge advantage with their truck programs. If you can't compete in 30 years time, you don't belong in the business.

 

I just related a bit of that.

 

The US companies had a history of HUGE vehicles throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and into the 1970s. That is what they were accustomed to building.

 

The Japanese live on a tiny island with compact cities and small villages. Small cars were a given for them, and when they started exporting to the US, they were ALREADY at a fuel efficiency advantage during the gas crisis, and economic downturn. (which we may be repeating if our GOVERNMENT doesn't get the heck out of the way AGAIN.)

 

Instead of focusing on building GOOD small cars and changing their direction from the big cars of the past, they had to divert resources to make sure that they were compliant with the government. The japanese did not need to divert resources, they already met them with tiny cars like the CVCC, predecessor to the Civic.

 

The Big 3 were trying to make a big change, and instead of navigating that change by the desire of the consumers, they navigated by the regulations of the government, missed the mark with the consumers, and they started to buy japanese anyway.

 

You still fail to explain what government regulations handicapped the domestic automakers that didn't apply to imports. The big 3 had 30 years to "build better products". They all play by the same rules. Nothing stopped them from competing.

 

I said it before:

If the "Big 3" didn't have to spend BILLIONS of dollars complying with government bureaucratic game-playing, and paying fines when they don't comply, their bottom line would be healthier.

 

Corporate management either succeeds or fails. Government regulation doesn't change that, it just hinders progress, and adds cost.

I am not forgiving the management, they screwed it up, and the DO deserve to reap the consequences of bad decisions. But the GOVERNMENT is a needless hurdle, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any of the three branches of government should be micromanaging business standards and practices. Prosecution of fraud and making interstate commerce as easy as possible is ALL that the federal government should need to do.

 

My point is that GOVERNMENT is an impediment to business, not a benefit.

 

Ron Paul...is that you? I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but humans are selfish overall and consumers of everything they can get their hands on. The current housing crisis is proof of that. The rates of obesity is proof of that. The size of credit card debt is proof of that.

 

You are WRONG. People are self interested, that doesn't necessarily make them greedy or corrupt. You have a profit motive to work, and provide for your family, it is as SIMPLE as that. If you WERE a libertarian or a conservative, you would KNOW that, and you wouldn't be making the incorrect points you are trying to make.

 

This country is FREE. People are free to buy what they can afford, get as much credit as someone is willing to lend them, and eat as much as they can afford to buy.

 

Granted that is STUPID to be indebted, greedy or slothful, but people are free to be morons in this country. The minute that is not true, we ALL lose freedom to tyranny. People should be free to make their own choices and bear their own consequences. Government CANNOT protect you from yourself, and maintain any sort of freedom or liberty.

 

I am not about to relinquish that freedom.

 

I have had debt, It taught me how hard it is to live with, and how important it is to get out of. A VERY VALUABLE LESSON LEARNED. Now I have no debt besides the house and a student loan. No credit card, no debt, and after only 4 years, I have about 35% equity on my house, and paying it off ahead of schedule. I bought a house that I can afford, and that my wife and I have done enough to improve that we could sell it NOW for more than we paid for it. Even in this market.

 

I am not a thin person. I know that. but that doesn't mean that I eat a whole rack of ribs whenever I sit down. I actually don't eat substantially more than anyone else normally does. And frankly, that is my business, and has absolutely nothing to do with you. Sedentary technical work also does me no favors, but it is what I am good at performing. If there are consequences, they are mine to bear.

 

But my point is, that consequences teach lessons. people are allowed to accrue debt, and are allowed to not be physically fit. There are consequences to that. It isn't the government's job to legislate that, either.

 

You operate on the premise that the government has the right to micromanage anyone or anything it wants to. The government has no rights, they have limits, which they are IGNORING, because there have been no consequences for THEM. They keep getting elected, despite 7% approval ratings.

 

The people have the rights, including to do what they want, and to do business and build or sell what cars they want. Without the government's over-reaching regulation.

 

Profit breeds corruption. Which doesn't mean profit = corruption (in case you're going to go there) Profit doesn't come from increased emissions and safety. They complicate and add expense to the automobile manufacturing process. If not required by law, we'd still be driving '64 impala's with horrendous gas mileage and pathetic stopping distances while the big 3 roll in the dough. On the bright side, parts would be cheap and I could flip a couple switches and 3-wheel around town...sippin on gin and juice...laid back.

 

Again, you assume things wrongly. Profit does not even breed corruption. Immorality breeds corruption. A moral person has NO PROBLEM with profit, and is not greed. An immoral person has lots of problems, not just greed, and that doesn't diminish the legitimacy of the profit motive as an economic principle.

 

To eliminate the profit motive is to institute communism. Communism NEVER works, because people are not the same, and don't work well with equality of result with disparity of input.

 

Do you believe "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability."? That is Marxist, and completely antithetical to human nature and healthy interaction.

 

IF you are smarter or more motivated than person B, and work harder, smarter, and better, you want more compensation, right? How is that wrong? It is profit motive, and it ISN'T wrong, and it isn't corrupt. It is reasonable and commensurate.

 

 

Profit CAN come from increased safety and emissions controls. If the public were expected to know what is going on, rather than coddled into somewhat innocent ignorance of all sorts of topics, they would ask for safer vehicles, and buy them. Other companies would have to compete for those sales by raising those bars. that is the WHOLE POINT.

 

If Ford were to make a really safe car, that is a better solution than the GM, then GM would lose sales, and Ford would gain them, as people purchased the better option.

 

This country is full of shoppers who are sharper at finding a good deal than just about any other market in the world. How does that not apply to cars?

 

Better features for the same or less money sells EVERY kind of product or service. Then the competition comes up with a way to raise the bar, and get sales back. That is the way it is supposed to work.

 

EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY WORKS THAT WAY, or at least tries to, despite government regulation. Government regulation and protections make companies stagnant, competition fights that.

 

You even said that the companies should be allowed to fail if they don't perform, how is that not what I am saying? How does government impedance not insulate companies from those consequences? Those consequences make those companies hungry to stay alive and stay competitive. Insulation from those consequences, from government regulation, and then requisite government bail-out, keeps companies innefficient, and lazy in their business practices.

 

CAFE standards don't dissallow performance cars, and performance cars need much of that safety equipment that is gov't regulated. People do want safety.

 

When the regulations are broad, and grade companies on average economy, and have NO stipulations for customer demands, vehicle weight, or performance, how does it NOT encourage companies to build only economy cars? Customer demand has to overcome that pre-disposition from government regulation for "efficiency."

 

MY decision to buy a car is more complex than looking at the MPG number, so I have to find a car that I like that will survive the regulatory hurdles that only take average MPG into effect. That is going to get more difficult as we move into the 201# years, and the CAFE laws take more and more effect.

 

IF the people en masse want efficiency, they will buy efficiency, and companies with compete for efficiency. MANDATING it just makes BUSINESS less efficient. Less efficient business makes compromised products and services.

 

Back to the rendition, if you lengthen the grill to the lower lip, you'd have a nice looking Audi at a great price.

 

I don't think there is anything you can do to that grille to make it look good, and Audi would not stand by to let Subaru ape their trademark, and I wouldn't want Subaru to do that anyway. Subaru has mucked with grilles too much already, the last thing they need is to copy someone else's trademark grille.

[Fivspeed]

CAFE hindered the Big 3, by confusing them as to whether they needed to pay more attention to government regulations, or customer demands. Government regulations are law, and there are penalties for not meeting those standards, which costs money. So the regulations became the goal, not appealing to customers.

 

At the time of CAFE, what people wanted and what the goverment was demanding was the same thing...better fuel economy. The gov't setting a time frame may have caused additional expenses, but I doubt it was more than marginal.

 

The US companies had a history of HUGE vehicles throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and into the 1970s. That is what they were accustomed to building.

 

Yes, a stuck in the rut, wasteful, non-competive, lazy company who proved themselves unable to compete.

 

The Japanese live on a tiny island with compact cities and small villages. Small cars were a given for them, and when they started exporting to the US, they were ALREADY at a fuel efficiency advantage during the gas crisis, and economic downturn. (which we may be repeating if our GOVERNMENT doesn't get the heck out of the way AGAIN.)

 

Agreed, but the big 3 surely knew/knows of the limited supply of oil, but has not made a large effort to import fuel efficient cars. Which, I don't blame so much on the big 3 as I do overconsuming Americas who purchased them in abundance.

 

Instead of focusing on building GOOD small cars and changing their direction from the big cars of the past, they had to divert resources to make sure that they were compliant with the government. The japanese did not need to divert resources, they already met them with tiny cars like the CVCC, predecessor to the Civic.

 

Good small cars would mean good fuel efficient cars, which is exactly what the gov't was trying to encourage. My mom had one of those Civic CVCC's.

 

The Big 3 were trying to make a big change, and instead of navigating that change by the desire of the consumers, they navigated by the regulations of the government, missed the mark with the consumers, and they started to buy japanese anyway.

 

 

I said it before:

If the "Big 3" didn't have to spend BILLIONS of dollars complying with government bureaucratic game-playing, and paying fines when they don't comply, their bottom line would be healthier.

 

Corporate management either succeeds or fails. Government regulation doesn't change that, it just hinders progress, and adds cost.

 

I am not forgiving the management, they screwed it up, and the DO deserve to reap the consequences of bad decisions. But the GOVERNMENT is a needless hurdle, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any of the three branches of government should be micromanaging business standards and practices. Prosecution of fraud and making interstate commerce as easy as possible is ALL that the federal government should need to do.

 

You can mention the constitution if you want, but its not reality. And its never going to change.

 

 

My point is that GOVERNMENT is an impediment to business, not a benefit.

 

 

 

You are WRONG. People are self interested, that doesn't necessarily make them greedy or corrupt.

 

I don't believe I claimed either of those, but I do believe that if you dropped a $20 on the street, and no one was looking, the majority of people would pocket it and not turn it over to the authorities. You could call that "self-interested", or greedy, or corrupt.

 

You have a profit motive to work, and provide for your family, it is as SIMPLE as that. If you WERE a libertarian or a conservative, you would KNOW that, and you wouldn't be making the incorrect points you are trying to make.

 

You're obviously heavy into politics, but I really don't classify myself as libertarian or conservative or liberal as my beliefs do not fit into any one group.

 

This country is FREE. People are free to buy what they can afford, get as much credit as someone is willing to lend them, and eat as much as they can afford to buy.

 

Granted that is STUPID to be indebted, greedy or slothful, but people are free to be morons in this country. The minute that is not true, we ALL lose freedom to tyranny. People should be free to make their own choices and bear their own consequences. Government CANNOT protect you from yourself, and maintain any sort of freedom or liberty.

 

I am not about to relinquish that freedom.

 

It would be great if peole only bought what they could afford, but you and I both know that far too many people buy more than they can afford. The mortgage crisis is a great example of what results under your idealistic view of "freedom". People bought more house than they could afford simply because lenders, full of "people with a profit motive to work to put a roof over there heads and support their familes", were too busy chasing profits. Who gets to bail out the banks? Everyone else who was responsible with their money and who didn't overspend. For example, if you have money in a savings account, you say your interest rate drop (reduced your income) when the Fed tried to save the shmucks who overborrowed for their houses. If you're looking to sell your house, you lost value in your hosue, again, because of the shmuchs who overborrowed. And you're taxes will go up to help bail out...you guessed it, those same shmucks who overborrowed that you consider "freedom" You're idea of how freedom in business should work, could never work.

 

I have had debt, It taught me how hard it is to live with, and how important it is to get out of. A VERY VALUABLE LESSON LEARNED. Now I have no debt besides the house and a student loan. No credit card, no debt, and after only 4 years, I have about 35% equity on my house, and paying it off ahead of schedule. I bought a house that I can afford, and that my wife and I have done enough to improve that we could sell it NOW for more than we paid for it. Even in this market.

 

Sounds like you realize how rare you're awareness of financial responsibility is (or else you wouldn't have mentioned it). You then also realize that the average citizen is not as responsible as you are. So, you understand the financial mess the country is in is because the majority of people cannot be left unregulated.

 

I am not a thin person. I know that. but that doesn't mean that I eat a whole rack of ribs whenever I sit down. I actually don't eat substantially more than anyone else normally does. And frankly, that is my business, and has absolutely nothing to do with you. Sedentary technical work also does me no favors, but it is what I am good at performing. If there are consequences, they are mine to bear.

 

You know I had no idea of your size, so you know nothing was directed at you, right? Back on topic, surely you believe the research that proves obese people have more health problems than healthy sized people. Those health problems cost money to fix, or treat. That money comes from the insurance company, which gets its money from whom it insures, who pay the money out of their income from their job. The more money the insurance company has to pay out, the more every insured person has to pay in. So while people are free to eat as much as they want, it DOES cost additional expense to be placed on others. And even worse, if someone gets too obese to work, or has too many health problems, they tend to end up on gov't support. Then, lucky for me, I get to pay more in taxes to cover their costs. So the size of the person affects their health, which affects how much I pay, so I'd like to see some gov't regulation in this area. An individuals freedom to become obese goes completely against my freedom from overtaxation. Now, I'm fine with letting someone eat themselves to death, but if I have to pay to support them until that day happens, then I'm going to care how fat people get.

 

But my point is, that consequences teach lessons. people are allowed to accrue debt, and are allowed to not be physically fit. There are consequences to that. It isn't the government's job to legislate that, either.

 

You operate on the premise that the government has the right to micromanage anyone or anything it wants to. The government has no rights, they have limits, which they are IGNORING, because there have been no consequences for THEM. They keep getting elected, despite 7% approval ratings.

 

So true. I'm not pro govt growth, but this IS the world we live in. And it came about because people cannot take care of themselves.

 

The people have the rights, including to do what they want, and to do business and build or sell what cars they want. Without the government's over-reaching regulation.

 

On paper, maybe. But in reality, no. The gov't controls these things.

 

Again, you assume things wrongly. Profit does not even breed corruption. Immorality breeds corruption. A moral person has NO PROBLEM with profit, and is not greed. An immoral person has lots of problems, not just greed, and that doesn't diminish the legitimacy of the profit motive as an economic principle.

 

How can you say profit does not breed corruption, when you see it in the gov't, in the stock market, in society in general. Your view is again too pure, too idealistic. We don't have a perfected way of predicting whether a person will be moral or not, so the gov't regulates everyone.

 

To eliminate the profit motive is to institute communism. Communism NEVER works, because people are not the same, and don't work well with equality of result with disparity of input.

 

Do you believe "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability."? That is Marxist, and completely antithetical to human nature and healthy interaction.

 

IF you are smarter or more motivated than person B, and work harder, smarter, and better, you want more compensation, right? How is that wrong? It is profit motive, and it ISN'T wrong, and it isn't corrupt. It is reasonable and commensurate.

 

I'm not preaching communism, far from it. I'm preaching the reality that people do whats in their best interests with little regard for others. The result is a need for gov't regulation.

 

Profit CAN come from increased safety and emissions controls. If the public were expected to know what is going on, rather than coddled into somewhat innocent ignorance of all sorts of topics, they would ask for safer vehicles, and buy them. Other companies would have to compete for those sales by raising those bars. that is the WHOLE POINT.

 

If Ford were to make a really safe car, that is a better solution than the GM, then GM would lose sales, and Ford would gain them, as people purchased the better option.

 

This country is full of shoppers who are sharper at finding a good deal than just about any other market in the world. How does that not apply to cars?

 

Better features for the same or less money sells EVERY kind of product or service. Then the competition comes up with a way to raise the bar, and get sales back. That is the way it is supposed to work.

 

EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY WORKS THAT WAY, or at least tries to, despite government regulation. Government regulation and protections make companies stagnant, competition fights that.

 

I very much agree, I'm mostly a free-market, capitalist person when it comes to finances. But sometimes, when it comes to something that benefits everyone, it should be regulated. For example...say a pharm co invents a pill that cures cancer that only costs them $1. Under your total freedom theology, the pharm co could charge $10 million per pill and the gov't shouldn't be allowed to change that. I believe that the gov't should step in and force them to charge a fair price.

 

You even said that the companies should be allowed to fail if they don't perform, how is that not what I am saying? How does government impedance not insulate companies from those consequences? Those consequences make those companies hungry to stay alive and stay competitive. Insulation from those consequences, from government regulation, and then requisite government bail-out, keeps companies innefficient, and lazy in their business practices.

 

We agree.

 

When the regulations are broad, and grade companies on average economy, and have NO stipulations for customer demands, vehicle weight, or performance, how does it NOT encourage companies to build only economy cars? Customer demand has to overcome that pre-disposition from government regulation for "efficiency."

 

CAFE doesn't encourage companies to build ONLY small cars, but they have to allocate a majority of their fuel economy allocation in that direction. There's still room for sports cars. I admit, they'll end up more expensive. I'm looking forward to a day of smaller cars where we don't have to spend so much on road infrastructure and we can reduce our fuel consumption, raw material consumption and traffic congestion. With smaller cars there will be less use of other resources that are limited in supply.

 

MY decision to buy a car is more complex than looking at the MPG number, so I have to find a car that I like that will survive the regulatory hurdles that only take average MPG into effect. That is going to get more difficult as we move into the 201# years, and the CAFE laws take more and more effect.

 

IF the people en masse want efficiency, they will buy efficiency, and companies with compete for efficiency. MANDATING it just makes BUSINESS less efficient. Less efficient business makes compromised products and services.

 

We agree up to that point where I believe the big 3 have had plenty of time to build smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and that gov't regulation of a limited supply of a natural resource is justified. I believe they would have been building smaller cars if that what people wanted, but people wanted the biggest, latest model of gas guzzler so they could have status. Just because you want something, doesn't mean you should have it.

 

I pay more per gallon of gas BECAUSE of the overconsuming American who buys that gas guzzler (usually for shallow reasons) which increases fuel demand. Its not like I'm nosing into someone elses business regarding an issue that doesn't affect me. I am affected and as someone who does live a moderate lifestyle, I'm glad to see CAFE is going to HELP more than its going to hurt.

 

I don't think there is anything you can do to that grille to make it look good, and Audi would not stand by to let Subaru ape their trademark, and I wouldn't want Subaru to do that anyway. Subaru has mucked with grilles too much already, the last thing they need is to copy someone else's trademark grille.

 

I know Audi would not be okay with that, obviously, but my point is that its a good looking car that will look right at home with its competitors. (considering its a 2-d picture from a beat up magazine.)

[IwannaSportSedan]

Man, if you can work the "BOLD" tag, learn how to quote properly and respond OUTSIDE of the quote box, this is getting tedious to re-format in order to respond.

 

At the time of CAFE, what people wanted and what the goverment was demanding was the same thing...better fuel economy. The gov't setting a time frame may have caused additional expenses, but I doubt it was more than marginal.

 

If the market is asking for fuel economy, the government doesn't need to. Only self-aggrandizing politicians insert themselves where they are not really needed. NOTHING the government ever does is "marginal". Congressmen have too high an opinion of themselves to pass "marginal" legislation. They aim to "fix" things, usually by creating new problems to fix later.

 

Yes, a stuck in the rut, wasteful, non-competive, lazy company who proved themselves unable to compete.

 

Then the government should have let them die in the 70s, instead of the first CAFE standards. If they had died, maybe more efficient businesses would have risen in their place, to compete properly, if they couldn't have made that transition.

 

The Government STILL shouldn't have gotten involved.

 

Agreed, but the big 3 surely knew/knows of the limited supply of oil, but has not made a large effort to import fuel efficient cars. Which, I don't blame so much on the big 3 as I do overconsuming Americas who purchased them in abundance.

 

I am getting quite sick of this. Is this Bad, horrible business' fault, or is it bad horrible overconsuming American citizens' fault?

 

But yet politicians are somehow all about doing good deeds to help business and help citizens live better?

 

What dilusion are you under? Businesses try to stay in business, and american citizens are NOT the slothful people you describe.

 

Are YOU that slothful? I know I am not. It is just a generalization that you've heard other people repeat, isn't it? Easy emotional response to blame a group you probably belong to, but you don't actually blame YOURSELF. If you don't behave so irresponsibly, chances are most other people don't either.

 

Give the guilt trip a rest.

 

Good small cars would mean good fuel efficient cars, which is exactly what the gov't was trying to encourage. My mom had one of those Civic CVCC's.

 

Sure, and good for her. She had reasons for doing that, as lots of people did. She was a responsible consumer at that time. How is it so hard to believe that EVERYONE ELSE WASN'T!!????

 

The management of the Big 3 should have adapted better, and the government should have never been in their way. That has been my whole point, this WHOLE TIME.

 

You can mention the constitution if you want, but its not reality. And its never going to change.

 

The Constitution most certainly IS reality, and "it" had better change, or our country as we know it will be lost. I guarantee we won't like the power structure that rises to take it's place, if our government bankrupts and completely undermines OUR country.

 

IF you keep blaming american business, AND blaming american people, and dismissing the negative trend our country is on, then of course you think "it" will never change.

 

Change is the only certainty. Things WILL change. It is a matter of how things change, for the better or for the worse.

 

You are WRONG. People are self interested, that doesn't necessarily make them greedy or corrupt.

 

I don't believe I claimed either of those, but I do believe that if you dropped a $20 on the street, and no one was looking, the majority of people would pocket it and not turn it over to the authorities. You could call that "self-interested", or greedy, or corrupt.

 

You used negative connotations for corrupt and selfish.

 

Morality is the crux of the problem. No one can practice self government without morality. No society can be free without morality. If morality is eroded and lost, people lose their sense of right and wrong, and everything becomes relative.

 

In that circumstance people no longer control themselves, and people start asking for authoritarians to take control. It is easier to trust someone else to be responsible for you, than for you to take responsibility for yourself. Whether that be paying for your own bills, rather than expecting tax payers to pay your bills FOR you, or returning lost cash that you find on the street.

 

You're obviously heavy into politics, but I really don't classify myself as libertarian or conservative or liberal as my beliefs do not fit into any one group.

 

This is probably not going to sit well with you. I will warn you of that up front.

 

Political ideology gets classified in certain ways for very long standing reasons. Conservatives are conservative. Liberals are liberal, Libertarians are libertarian. Socialists are socialist, but call themselves liberal sometimes, but deny labels if someone ELSE calls them a liberal.

 

There may be a slight bit of variation, but most political ideology is quite easily classified by evaluating what people say they believe, and the premises on which those statements are made. Like you generalizing about overconsuming americans, as if you know how every american consumes.

 

The fact of the matter is, that based on what you have said, and most certainly based on your comment about your beliefs not fitting any one group...

 

You sir, are a liberal. Maybe a slightly moderate liberal, but a liberal none the less. Only liberals are so very quick to disavow political classification, from liberal presidents all the way down. No democrat president, politician or candidate will admit to being a liberal if someone else calls them one, even if they have called themselves a liberal in the past.

 

I add moderate there, because moderates are nothing more than people who stick a moistened finger in the air, to see which way the politically correct wind happens to be blowing, and then they go with that flow. NOT based on conviction of principle, but based on ease and conformity.

 

As you can tell, I am not so easy going, and not so ungrounded from my principles, which inform my politics.

 

It would be great if peole only bought what they could afford, but you and I both know that far too many people buy more than they can afford. The mortgage crisis is a great example of what results under your idealistic view of "freedom". People bought more house than they could afford simply because lenders, full of "people with a profit motive to work to put a roof over there heads and support their familes", were too busy chasing profits. Who gets to bail out the banks? Everyone else who was responsible with their money and who didn't overspend. For example, if you have money in a savings account, you say your interest rate drop (reduced your income) when the Fed tried to save the shmucks who overborrowed for their houses. If you're looking to sell your house, you lost value in your hosue, again, because of the shmuchs who overborrowed. And you're taxes will go up to help bail out...you guessed it, those same shmucks who overborrowed that you consider "freedom" You're idea of how freedom in business should work, could never work.

 

You misunderstand again! It is not the government's place to bail out ANYONE. Not people stupid enough to overleverage themselves, and not bankers who lent out to high risks, hoping to get the interest money.

 

You are absolutely right that the responsible ones are the ones that will pay the bill through taxes. That is why government spending the way they are is absolutely immoral, and tantamount to armed robbery of the taxpayers.

 

The government should be nowhere NEAR this. But the government, especially Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton were the ones pushing the banking industry to lend to minorities and low income people, especially in inner cities (where now deflation of home values is hitting the hardest.), even knowing that people in those economic circumstances were not in a position to leverage themselves with mortgage debt.

 

The government help MAKE this problem in the first place.

 

This Banking economic effect is the market NATURALLY CORRECTING ITSELF.

 

The government is poised to make this problem a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT WORSE, by bailing them out.

 

Let Countrywide fail. Let fanny and freddy fail. Let better lenders learn the lessons, and rise up in their place. With the government's grubby mitts OFF!

 

Sounds like you realize how rare you're awareness of financial responsibility is (or else you wouldn't have mentioned it). You then also realize that the average citizen is not as responsible as you are. So, you understand the financial mess the country is in is because the majority of people cannot be left unregulated.

 

This is probably the most dangerous comment you've made yet.

 

EVERYONE SHOULD BE EXPECTED to be as responsible as I am, and probably as you are, as well. IF *I* can be that responsible, ANYONE can be that responsible.

 

BTW, the percentage of people being foreclosed on is less than 10% of all mortgages in this country. That leaves OUT everyone smart enough to keep renting until they can really afford to buy.

 

Of that 7-8% of foreclosures, only about 3% of the total number of mortgages are actually "homesteads." The other 4-5% are real-estate speculators, trying to skim some cheap rental properties that they can't afford to leverage, or house flippers, hoping to make the quick buck, and now the housing MARKET CORRECTION, caught them with their pants down.

 

The 3% actually losing their home should never have been lent a mortgage to in the first place, OR they falsified application data. And those people will have fiscal consequences, and will go back to renting until the mess is cleaned up, and they figure out how to buy a house properly. Hardly the end of the world, and they learn to be responsible, as they should have learned before hand.

 

The compassion is in the lesson that teaches, even if it teaches the hard way. Bailouts only prolong the problem without teaching the lesson.

 

This assumption that people need to be regulated shows your contempt and condemnation of other people you don't know, again. Being regulated is much more tyrannical than being prosecuted when a demonstrable crime happens. Even NON criminals are subject to "regulation" without having proven to be irresponsible.

 

You and I could be completely responsible, and still be hindered by "regulation." If we stay out of trouble, chances are we'll never have to be prosecuted. Do you see the difference?

 

You automatically blame everyone else and blanket them as irresponsible. Most Americans are as responsible as you or I. And those that AREN'T, should be held to their responsibilities through proper consequences for irresponsibility, either in the free market, or criminal acts being prosecuted under the law. General irresponsibility is not illegal, though. It should be corrected by consequence, just as any parent should teach their child to begin with. Misbehavior has consequences, but misbehavior isn't necessarily criminal.

 

If you think that "the majority of people cannot be unregulated" then you might as well deny your US Citizenship right now, if you are one. That is ABSOLUTELY opposite of the declaration of independence, and the premise of self government set out by the US constitution.

 

The Financial mess that the country is in right now is the fault of only one group of people, and it is a SMALL group.

 

The US Congress. An untenable Energy policy for more than 30 years, Rampant special interest influence, GROSS overspending and overtaxation, and a sense of unaccountability to the american people.

 

The US Congress has a 7% approval rating for a REASON, and it is not because the american people are stupid, it is because the US congress has stopped listening to the american people.

 

You know I had no idea of your size, so you know nothing was directed at you, right? Back on topic, surely you believe the research that proves obese people have more health problems than healthy sized people. Those health problems cost money to fix, or treat. That money comes from the insurance company, which gets its money from whom it insures, who pay the money out of their income from their job. The more money the insurance company has to pay out, the more every insured person has to pay in. So while people are free to eat as much as they want, it DOES cost additional expense to be placed on others. And even worse, if someone gets too obese to work, or has too many health problems, they tend to end up on gov't support. Then, lucky for me, I get to pay more in taxes to cover their costs. So the size of the person affects their health, which affects how much I pay, so I'd like to see some gov't regulation in this area. An individuals freedom to become obese goes completely against my freedom from overtaxation. Now, I'm fine with letting someone eat themselves to death, but if I have to pay to support them until that day happens, then I'm going to care how fat people get.

 

I agree with you. I don't want to pay more taxes either. But socializing medicine will make that WORSE, not better.

 

Does someone else having an accident, in a city far from you, that you are in NO WAY involved... but happen to have the same car insurance company... does their accident drastically raise your insurance premium?

 

No, not appreciably. Insurance companies insure YOU. And they compete for your business. That is why there are so many lizards and freaky ladys on TV commercials. They bring their prices DOWN to compete, which more than offsets the aggregate risk of other people having car accidents.

 

WHy should health insurance be any different? And the government should stay the hell out of that business, the same as they should stay out of the auto industry.

 

Then other people's health problems, obese or not, are their problems, not yours, and not taxed AT ALL.

 

That is FREE MARKET ECONOMICS, not socialism. More government control puts MORE TAX BURDEN ON YOU!!!! (and me.) It is really that simple.

 

So true. I'm not pro govt growth, but this IS the world we live in. And it came about because people cannot take care of themselves.

 

On paper, maybe. But in reality, no. The gov't controls these things.

 

AGAIN, you sell your fellow citizens FAR short, and give the govenment WAY too much credit, and therefore way too much power.

 

How can you say profit does not breed corruption, when you see it in the gov't, in the stock market, in society in general. Your view is again too pure, too idealistic. We don't have a perfected way of predicting whether a person will be moral or not, so the gov't regulates everyone.

 

The government doesn't control whether people are moral or not. That is the premise of self government that you have completely backwards.

 

The people have to be moral, and other people have to EXPECT morality from each other, before self government to work.

 

Anything other than self government is on a short road to tyranny. FASCISM, TOTALITARIANISM. THAT kind of tyranny.

 

The government has FAR too much power, and the Constitution was expressly written to LIMIT that power, due to the tendency for corruption.

 

But in the market, stock market, business of selling and buying goods and services, the market regulates itself. Customers look for good honest deals, and if they get burned by corruption, they change who and how they do business, and unscrupulous people get dealt with.

 

If it is a CRIMINAL matter, then they get prosecuted in the judicial branch by laws passed by representatives of the people. That is how it is supposed to work. The laws passed by representatives cannot prevent immorality, they can only punish provable cases of criminal behavior.

 

This is the precept of being innocent until PROVEN guilty. The Legislature cannot survive by assuming the population is guilty, any more than the judicial branch can do that. That is the purpose of due process.

 

I'm not preaching communism, far from it. I'm preaching the reality that people do whats in their best interests with little regard for others. The result is a need for gov't regulation.

 

No, it isn't!!! re-read the comments above. Self interest tends to keep people honest, because people want others to deal honestly with them.

 

If I were going to interact with you to buy something, I would not try to steal from you, because I in turn don't want to be ripped off.

 

If I steal something from you without paying for it, OR if you shortchange me by committing fraud, either one of us has committed a crime, and if proven, is punishable.

 

THAT is what the government role is, not trying to overlegislate the two of us, making it harder for us to have a transaction in the first place.

 

I very much agree, I'm mostly a free-market, capitalist person when it comes to finances. But sometimes, when it comes to something that benefits everyone, it should be regulated. For example...say a pharm co invents a pill that cures cancer that only costs them $1. Under your total freedom theology, the pharm co could charge $10 million per pill and the gov't shouldn't be allowed to change that. I believe that the gov't should step in and force them to charge a fair price.

 

Be VERY CAREFUL. Theology is not the right word to use. Economics and political science are academic studies, and are reproduceable with analytical and some scientific methods. They are NOT religions.

 

"RX" pharmaceutical company could charge 10 million dollars a pill. And the government has NO authority to do anything about it. If they were to seize that authority, they could tell you that you can only do your job for $1 in pay, too.

 

Back to "RX", they would sell maybe 10 pills. People would hear about it, and form an opinion about "RX", a very negative one. Bad PR. Lost sales of other RX products for their competitors. "RX" would employ someone who understands that if you sell more than 100 million pills for 1$ each, you make more money than selling 10 pills at 10 million each.

 

But then they would also realize that it took millions of man hours, and the most sophisticated chemistry research to create those pills. They would also know that 'x' number of people this year, next year, and projected out into the future, would be likely to need that cancer pill. They know how much it cost to develop, they know how much it costs to produce, and how quickly the variable costs go down, and the fixed costs get amortized. They do the math, and they find the price that "x" number of pills need to be sold, in order to pay the expenses, and return on the investment that people have made into "RX" company.

 

Businesses don't usually charge exhorbitant amounts of money for the fun of it, at least not for very long, before they have to compete, or before they are analyzed by stock brokers, and other analysts, and peer reviewed by other chemists and doctors. IF they are gouging, they get caught pretty effectively.

 

But somebody has to pay for the expense of development. And when countries like Canada force price controls, or if the US government were to regulate price controls... the expenses have to be shifted elsewhere, or the drug gets pulled off the market, being too much of an economic loss. OR the company goes bankrupt absorbing those losses.

 

 

You even said that the companies should be allowed to fail if they don't perform, how is that not what I am saying? How does government impedance not insulate companies from those consequences? Those consequences make those companies hungry to stay alive and stay competitive. Insulation from those consequences, from government regulation, and then requisite government bail-out, keeps companies innefficient, and lazy in their business practices.

 

We agree.

 

Yes, we do agree. But you have to take these economic and political theories to their logical ends, and think more than skin deep.

 

CAFE doesn't encourage companies to build ONLY small cars, but they have to allocate a majority of their fuel economy allocation in that direction. There's still room for sports cars. I admit, they'll end up more expensive. I'm looking forward to a day of smaller cars where we don't have to spend so much on road infrastructure and we can reduce our fuel consumption, raw material consumption and traffic congestion. With smaller cars there will be less use of other resources that are limited in supply.

 

How does fleet average MPG not encourage car companies to convert as much of their fleet as possible to economy cars.

 

How does it not encourage companies like Subaru to drop fuel-drinking turbocharged engines from their lineups, when their non-turbo counterparts get better mileage?

 

 

I pay more per gallon of gas BECAUSE of the overconsuming American who buys that gas guzzler (usually for shallow reasons) which increases fuel demand. Its not like I'm nosing into someone elses business regarding an issue that doesn't affect me. I am affected and as someone who does live a moderate lifestyle, I'm glad to see CAFE is going to HELP more than its going to hurt.

 

You pay more per gallon because the US dollar is falling, and the US government refuses to drill, or do anything else about energy policy. They make platitudes about alternative energy, but they won't release red tape on Nuclear, wind in certain places, hydroelectric, geothermal, or any other form of electric power generation.

 

The environmentalist lobby hates them all, including coal, but they won't approve of anything.

 

No nuclear power facility has been built in 30 years. Yet we give technology to the NORTH Koreans, and sit by and watch the Iranians spin up centerfuges, saying that they need nuclear power. Iran is one of the most oil-rich countries on earth, and their domestic oil production costs them FAR less than nuclear development. Yet we let them say they are developing nuclear technology for power generation, not for weapons. YEAH RIGHT!!

 

But WE can't have new nuclear power. or oil drilling, or oil refineries. WE have to send our president as a beggar to Saudi Arabia, on his hands and knees, begging for their oil, at 140$ a barrel. That is a great moment in US foreign policy. The world's remaining superpower crawling to a country that still behaves culturally as if it is still the 16th century, and has nothing other than oil and lots of sand. All the while we have resources that we are told that we cannot use under any circumstance.

 

You pay more because the democrat controlled congress doesn't give a crap if you pay more. They haven't lowered barriers, taxes, or anything regarding energy, while the whole country puts on the economic brakes under inflation that the government won't report.

 

They kinda like the high gas price, as it appeals to their environmental lobbyist pals. Obama said that the only problem is that the price rose too fast, not that it rose too high. What he didn't have to say is that it was fast enough for the media to HAVE to report on it, rather than for the government and media to be able to continue to distract some folks with socialized bread and steroid sport circuses. Why the heck do you think the congress cares about baseball players? So they don't have to pay attention to real hard problems that the American people demand them to address, and get out of the way of.

 

Our fun Democrat congress is actually entertaining legislation to ADD $.10 per gallon TO THE GASOLINE TAX, not to cut the gasoline tax. What sense on what alien planet does that make at this point in time, let alone at ANY time?

 

There is not a shortage of oil, only a shortage of government accountability to the people.

 

I know Audi would not be okay with that, obviously, but my point is that its a good looking car that will look right at home with its competitors. (considering its a 2-d picture from a beat up magazine.)

 

Personally I think the magazine rendering is an 04-07 Legacy with an 01-04 Legacy grille, and squinty headlights. I like my '05 the way it is far better. I'll have to disagree that the rendering is good looking. I think it is kind of atrocious compared to what they are already building even now.