I know this is a bit old ( Sunday, July, 19, 2009), but I never saw it until today. Its a newspaper clipping from when the Administration was "advising" the auto industry on how it needs to improve the cars. It came to me as a .pdf file, so I was unable to cut/ paste ot post it here. Instead, I have retyped a portion of the original article. I am quoting verbatim--unless I make a typo)

Mr. Cole's favorite story ( Mr. Cole is David E. Cole, Chairman, Center of Automotive Research ((CAR), and a Professor at the University of Michigan.) is as follows:
There was a team of Obama people speaking to Mr. Cole. They were explaining to Mr. Cole that the auto companies needed to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas (LNG) with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles so we wouldn't "need" so many gas stations ( a whole other topic). They were quoting BTUs of LNG and battery life that they had looked up on some web site.
Mr. Cole explained that they would need a TRUNK FULL of batteries, and a LNG tank as big as the car to make that happen, and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from.....
The Obama person interupted and said, ( and I am quoting here): These Laws of Physics? Whose rules are those? We need to change that." (Some of the others wrote down the law name so they could look it up.) "We have the congress and the administration. We can repeal that law, ammend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem. That;'s why we are here--to fix these sorts of issues."


That is the end of the article.
What hubris, or rather ignorance!!
(Have you noticed how often ignorance is combined with arrogance? I call it the fateful combination.)

How in the world can these people help solve anything if they are so woefully ignorant? I only hope this is atypcial of the administration's "experts".
Lets repeal the laws of physics!
Sort of explains their approach to health care. They must have repelaed the laws of supply and demand.

Just a reminder that the republicans do not have a monopoly on stupidity, ( although, sometimes it sure seems like it.)

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Here is a pre production prototype of the new Chevy "VOLT"

It looks so ugly, it must have been designed by the same commitee that designed the camel.

I overheard someone say right now, it can go 85 miles on a full charge of electricity. I guess that's a start.







*THIS* HOWEVER, was much more to my liking though. I even convinced her to strike a pose for me, and for the benefit of a close friend that owns a twin to this '56 ("The 400").

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

I don't believe a word of that, unless the "Obama person" was joking or being facetious in order to make a point.

On the other hand, I agree that the government should avoid telling industry how to achieve goals. The government should set certain goals, but the odds are low that the government will figure out the best way to achieve them. Government-mandated ethanol production is a good example of the government making a bad guess on which is the best technical solution to a problem.

Don't believe everything you hear. That 85 miles(and it's closer to 40+) is solely based on battery power.

DETROIT (CNNMoney.com) -- The Chevrolet Volt, GM's electric car that's expected to go on sale in late 2010, is projected to get an estimated 230 miles per gallon, the automaker announced Tuesday.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

snopes baby snopes !!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/physics.asp

"Dr Cole has never met with the Obama auto task force"

Rich,
Thanks for posting that.
There is enough stuff to argue about; we don't need fabricated stories.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

While I do not believe the story- who is checking snopes? Factcheck.org? Backed by the Annenburg foundation? The one who had BHO on it's board of directors and who gave grants to William Ayers and other left leaning figures? Wanna tell me how that is a non political leaning group? Isn't that the fox guarding the hen house regarding right of center "rumors"?

While it seems the story was not true (if you believe Snopes) I seem to recall some very stupid/ignorant things coming out of peoples mouths.

The first one that comes to mind is when Dana Perino had no idea what the Cuban missile crisis was. So it would not surprise me had someone out of the current administration really thought the laws of physics could be repealed by Congress.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

That sounds so much like something a marketing person would say. My wife is a scientist, and in fact, she has to explain the limits of the material world to marketing people all the time.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Anneburg was one of Ronald Reagan's top supporters. He also contributed a lot of money to education, which is what allows you to play your guilt by association games. The snopes article asserts facts which I am sure you can check.

Yes, Wally Anneburg, what a commie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg

I wonder why Reagan himself awarded that old William Ayers commie pal the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award given in this country?

Lord knows that because something is named after someone it's always controlled by him, even after death. And the lord also knows that money has nothing to do with politics and why folks get awards from those that get the money. Sheesh.

The lord knows nothing.

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).

Speaking of Chevrolet, any of you seen the commercial with Howie Long and the little red headed girl?

Near the end of the commercial, she's standing next to Long and points her finger across his crotch area as she (or he, I forget who) says "and that's a big girl's car"

Watch for it!.
Subliminal message for sure. Question is, what's the message?

....More government money to repay the govt. loan????? What a charade?

AP
DETROIT - General Motors, its river of red ink stemmed by a trip through bankruptcy court, reported a narrower quarterly loss and said it would start repaying billions of dollars in government loans that helped keep it alive.

GM lost $1.2 billion for the third quarter — far less than the $6 billion it lost in the first three months of the year, before GM was transformed by a stay in bankruptcy protection. The company credited a sharp reduction in debt and sales of new models.

In what it called a sign of progress, GM also pledged to start paying back $6.7 billion in U.S. loans. But the money will come from a contingency account full of government cash, leading critics to question just how healthy the automaker really is. .......

The repayment of government loans will begin with a $1.2 billion installment in December. GM said it plans to repay the debt over the next two years and possibly as early as next year.

That money will come from a $16.4 billion contingency fund set up by the U.S. government in case sales worsened or other problems cropped up. The seemingly circular payment plan was already stirring controversy in Congress.

What is the logic in repaying government loans with taxpayer dollars?" asked Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Republican Sen. John McCain

A sign of progress!!! HA HA HA. That's hillarious.

******

"That's because they went from an astounding $95 billion in debt pre-bankruptcy to $17 billion under the "New" GM. Here's the full press release. Items to note:

● GM Q3 earnings: EBIT loss before special items of $261 million and managerial net loss of $1.2 billion.'
● Cash reserves increased by $3.3 billion to $42.6 billion.
● GM posted revenue of $28 billion in the third quarter of 2009 (July 1-Sept. 30, 2009), which was up approximately $4.9 billion in Q2
● GM will burn $8.3 billion in cash this next quarter on debt repayments, Delphi and restructuring so expect the 4th quarter to look worse than this quarter.
● GM "anticipates modest growth, with total industry volumes estimated at 62 to 65 million." Expects US SAAR at a rose-colored 11-12 million units sold in 2010.
● GM spent $320 million for cull of 2,042 U.S. dealers.
● These aren't "real" financial results. All these numbers are not provided using GAAP principles. So, you know, if you're an accountant, prepare to vomit a little bit before you go any further. (I'll be right back...)

http://jalopnik.com/5405538/new-gm-drops-totally-useless-financial-results
***********
GM to announce 3rd-quarter earnings on Monday

General Motors Co. said Tuesday that it will release its preliminary third-quarter earnings on Monday morning, the automaker's first earnings release since emerging from bankruptcy this summer.

The company is not expected to make a profit but has hinted that its results for the quarter will show a big improvement over the same period last year. (1)

.... GM last released a quarterly earnings statement in May, when it reported losing $6 billion in the first quarter of 2009. At the time, it was trying to stave off collapse and was staying afloat from infusions of government aid.

GM lost $2.5 billion in the third quarter of 2008 and a huge $30.9 billion for the entire year.

The company says the numbers it releases Monday cannot be compared with other quarters because they do not comply with U.S. accounting principles. (2) The period also is not a full quarter (3) as it covers only the period from its emergence from bankruptcy to Sept. 30.

.... As a private company, GM is not required to file financial updates, (4) but company officials have said they plan to continue to make regular disclosures. (5)


Following the footnoted bolds:

(1) and (2) -- How can a company get away with telling the world that its number will be better when they've admitted they won't be comparable? Answer: They can't, except in Government/General Motors Land. Shoot, there isn't even a "same period as last year" to discuss in the first place.

(3) -- How can AP headline its story as being about "3rd-quarter earnings" when the article content says the report isn't for a full quarter? Answer: It can't, and doesn't, unless it's taking stenography in Government/General Motors Land.

(4) and (5) -- Since when is it acceptable that the full-blown "financial statements" required of any company in which the investing public has an ownership interest are allowed to turn into mere "financial updates" and "regular disclosures," even though the entire taxpaying public has a vested interest in its government's majority ownership? Answer: Since we've arrived in Government/General Motors Land.

Other questions logically arise:

When, if ever, will we see financial results for the period GM was in bankruptcy? Will Motors Liquidation Company, the shell of old GM, file a report for April 1 - July 9 with the SEC, or will those financial results be buried in oblivion forever?
Will GM even attempt to tell us how its "accounting" differs from GAAP and roughly what GAAP income or loss would have been, or will we just forced to go "uh-huh" at whatever level of incomplete information the company and its government owners are willing to give us about its balance sheet, income and expense, and cash flow?
Are outside Big Four or other auditors involved at GM in looking over whatever passes for financial statements (oops, I meant "financial updates") to see if they're even reasonable or credible? If they are, what is their level of involvement, and do they have an opinion to issue on the financials? Oh, and when's the outside audit going to take place?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/11/15/ap-parrots-gms-comparative-tease-not-comparable-financials-coming-monday