backtop


Print 229 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 12 at 12:57 PM


The Chevrolet Cruze Eco achieves a combined EPA rating of 33 mpg. New CAFE regulations would require vehicles the same size as the Cruze to have a combined EPA window sticker rating of at least 43 mpg by 2025.
Even a few Democrats are in on the action

California, the Obama administration, and the big three from Detroit have all agreed in spirit to the proposed fuel economy standards that will push fleet wide economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025. While states and automakers have agreed to the standard, there are still battles being waged in Washington in an attempt to get the rules overturned.
 
More than 60 Republicans in the House are working to bar the Obama administration from finalizing the fuel economy standards for the 2017 through 2025 model years. There were also three Democrats among those backing the bill to stop the fuel economy hikes.
 
The lawmakers are trying to convince the House to add a provision to a spending bill that would block the EPA and California from moving forward with fuel emissions limits. According to the proposal, the NHTSA would be able to set fuel economy standards, but only through 2021. 
 
"A one-year 'timeout' is necessary as EPA and (California) are setting national fuel economy standards without explicit authorization by Congress, under laws not designed to regulate fuel economy," said the letter signed by Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton; Joe Barton, R-Texas; Tim Walberg, R-Tipton; Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; and others."
 
The effort to bar the new fuel economy standards is strongly backed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). The NADA is lobbying congress to block the proposed fuel economy standards. The fear is that the new standards would regulate out of existence most new vehicles that sell for under $15,000.
 
However, there are a group of CEOs from eight different environmental, science, and public interest groups that are urging the NADA to stop its lobbying efforts.
 
"These standards are supported by major automakers, the United Auto Workers, California and other clean car states, and numerous consumer, environmental, business and national security organizations. By continuing to oppose these standards, NADA is trying to sell Congress, dealers and the American people a lemon," said the letter from leaders of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Environment America, the Safe Climate Campaign, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Purpose?
By mkrech on 10/21/2011 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 1
What is the purpose of CAFE standards?

The first step in deciding the merit of what the EPA is trying to do is to define the purpose. First of the CAFE standards, then eventually this will lead to the EPA overall since CAFE standards are at the core of the EPA's goals.

The EPA uses CAFE standards, as well as other programs, to implement restrictions. These restrictions are advertised as policies to protect citizens from harm caused by pollution of various types ultimately leading up to the all encompassing global warming. However, the real goal is the restriction of freedom and subjugation of the population to further a political ideal by creating a dependent class voting majority.

It is not a stretch to see this. Thus, simply voting down more restrictive CAFE standards is not the solution. It is a good start.




RE: Purpose?
By MozeeToby on 10/21/2011 2:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think sometimes people forget the road we were going down before the EPA was created. They like to imagine that every single thing the EPA does is frivolous or unnecissary. Lest we forget, at least take a look at the tipping point event that led to the creation of the EPA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_river#Environ...


RE: Purpose?
By Quadrillity on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: Purpose?
By SigmundEXactos on 10/21/2011 3:31:13 PM , Rating: 5
I agree -- we the people should improve the air quality. There are too many of us to discuss the problem at the same time, so let's set up a committee to come up with solutions and implement them. And to make sure the committee does what the people want, let's set up regular checks to either let the committee members stay on the committee or replace them. We'll need them to have some power to enforce these solutions though.

Oh wait, that's exactly what we have.

Maybe we should work to improve the quality and effectiveness of government, instead of assuming that government by definition is evil, shall we?


RE: Purpose?
By Dr of crap on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: Purpose?
By Quadrillity on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: Purpose?
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 4:24:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem here is that we shouldn't use the "government" to correct a wrong.
The Supreme Court said it was ok. That whole "General Welfare" thing.

quote:
the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds


RE: Purpose?
By ats on 10/21/2011 7:11:08 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize that the US Gov is we as society, right?

And walmart is as American as apple pie, to use a phase. In anything walmart is more friendly and lovable than many of the businesses and companies in America at its founding.

What you are arguing for isn't America, has never been America, wasn't even part of the discussion on the founding of
America.


RE: Purpose?
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 7:46:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And walmart is as American as apple pie

Are you drunk?


RE: Purpose?
By ats on 10/21/2011 7:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
Nope, not drunk. Walmart is the as american as it gets. For someone so hooked on the john birch society, you should realize that. They are taking the free market mantra and applying it. The only humorous thing is that you rail against them but then also rail against the regulation that reigned in companies that were taking the free market to even more extremes.


RE: Purpose?
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 8:54:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only humorous thing is that you rail against them but then also rail against the regulation that reigned in companies that were taking the free market to even more extremes.

Can you elaborate on this for us? I haven't said very much about economic regulation in this forum, yet here you are with a clear understanding of my stance on the matter. So, please, continue.


RE: Purpose?
By ats on 10/21/2011 10:15:51 PM , Rating: 3
you mean how walmart is the perfect modern day example of a free market at its finest?

Get labor and products for as low as possible.
Make as much profit as possible by eliminating waste that competitors have (aka mom and pops/small biz/etc).
Expand
repeat
win.

As far as economic regulation, considering you are parroting John Birch society every where, I inferred it.


RE: Purpose?
By jtesoro on 10/24/2011 10:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't posted here in a long time, but here I am.

I haven't thought of Walmart that way, but your point is spot on.


RE: Purpose?
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 3:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean the road we were going down?...We established the frickin' EPA. A lot of people cared about what was going on.

It is this short sightedness that always irks me. I once heard Eric Schlosser speak about how the "free market" is a myth. But it is precisely because of the existence of people like him that the free market will always balance itself out when things get out of hand. He is a necessary part of the free market. Freedom of the press. And I really like the guy other than his view on the free market. The same goes for Ralph Nader. He does some good stuff but then he wants to make it law. I disagree with that.

All this said, I am not necessarily against the existence of the EPA. I just want to stress the other side of this argument.


RE: Purpose?
By Samus on 10/24/2011 9:44:57 AM , Rating: 1
The purpose of CAFE is so we don't drive around a car the size of a Civic that gets 10MPG.

I'm sure many DT readers were not around in the 70's to remember 10MPG was considered good back then.

The environmental impact CAFE has had is obvious; CAFE is the primary reason every single vehicle has a catalytic convertor. CAFE was essentially the brainchild behind fixing the SMOG issue in Los Angeles, California during the 70's. 1 in 10 children born there develope some sort of breathing problem before their teenage years. If the study had been conducted in the 70's, it'd probably be on-par with Beijing and Singapore (1 in 4)

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article...


RE: Purpose?
By SoCalBoomer on 10/24/2011 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
I was around in the 70s, and 10mpg was NOT considered good. MPG just was not a big deal until the oil crisis of 1973.

It was at that time that MPG became a term that we all started paying attention to.

Remember, the Honda CVCC got exceptional gas mileage (upper 30s) until the cats dropped it to the upper 20s. There were other vehicles (pretty much all imports) that got great mileage in the 70s. My 70 Beetle got mid 30s.

What you're remembering is the muscle-cars and bloated American cars from the era.

The cars "the size of a Civic" (which is much bigger now, btw, than the Civics of the era) never got 10mpg in the 70s.


RE: Purpose?
By Samus on 10/25/2011 8:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
In the 70's, less than 1% of vehicles on the road were Japanese, so your entire point is completely irrelevent.

The only thing you got partially right is that catalysts reduce fuel economy, about 5%, not 35%. The only time a catalyst system reduces fuel economy is when more than one converter is used; many trucks and V8 sedans have three converters; example: two pre-cats and a primary catalytic converter before the X-pipe (or however their exhaust configuration implements it.)

Catalytic converters are virtually 100% efficient once up to operating temperature (~1100 F) and the precats reduce warmup time significantly. Average catalyst warmup time on a vehicle in 80F climate is ~5 minutes idle, ~1 minute 40 seconds highway speed.

Importantly, catalytic converters make cars quieter, often add torque (naturally asperated engines produce more torque as back pressure is increased) and make cars safer for the environment at the cost of negligible fuel economy. Every industrialized country in the world requires a catalyst system, and many are even more advanced than what even California offers. Most vehicles manufactured in the USA already meet SMOG emission requirements, anyway.

Don't be a redneck and chop off your cat, it's irresponsible, illegal, negatively impacts performance and noise, and has a negligible impact on fuel economy.


RE: Purpose?
By Iaiken on 10/21/2011 2:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the real goal is the restriction of freedom and subjugation of the population to further a political ideal by creating a dependent class voting majority.


Tinfoil hat much?

Travel to LA sometime and then try and tell me that you think that the air quality is satisfactory. Every time I go there I can't help but remark upon the disgusting brown haze that people there live under. If you are from LA and thus used to how disgusting the air is there, travel a while and you'll find out that the sky is supposed to be blue.

The time where it really gobsmacked me was when I visited the Grand Canyon and the accumulated smog from LA was so bad that you could barely see the far side, let alone any actual detail. It felt strange, it was as if someone had turned down the detail and draw distance on my reality. Having been there before, I knew that there was more out behind that grey-brown haze.

The degradation of air quality isn't going to go away on it's own and there needs to be at least some form of agreed upon standard. First it was lead that got cut, then it was nitrites/sulphites getting reduced, now they are working to reduce the remaining harmful emissions.


RE: Purpose?
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually LA's air quality is pretty good nowadays. I take it you haven't been out here for a few decades. San Bernardino on the other hand...


RE: Purpose?
By aepurniet on 10/21/2011 2:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree, but then california has its own emmisions standards that are separate from the EPA. they also did it to themselves by not instituting any sort of public transport infrastructure.

and 54.5 mpg? thats not a step in the right direction, thats a blind leap of faith (across a smoggy grand canyon if you will). every car maker will have to make a hybrid. the cost of developing and maintaining the production facilities for some of these hybrids (not all will sell well), will go to the consumer.


RE: Purpose?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/21/2011 2:58:03 PM , Rating: 3
LOL LA. Someone brings it up every time this conversation rears it's head. We cannot base an entire countries policies on ONE unique example in one city.

Besides LA doesn't even have LA smog anymore. It's time to move on Leftists. LA "smog" is a combination of natural weather conditions and poor road infrastructure, and yes, in the past cars sitting in traffic jams for 10+ hours polluted more than they do now.

quote:
The degradation of air quality


Degradation? There's no degradation, air has been getting steadily cleaner.

Besides what in the hell does air quality have to do with CAFE anyway? Fuel economy and emissions are two entirely different things. I'm all in favor of Government mandated emissions standards. However these new CAFE rules are oppressive and interfere too much.

And if you don't think a political agenda is behind Obama's push for these standards, you're just ignorant. Like he really cares how much MPG cars will get in 2025 just for the sake of it?

If we're wearing tin foil hats then you have a DUNCE cap on.


RE: Purpose?
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2011 3:14:43 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not because the air quality standards are so ridiculously high that its impacting fuel economy. I don't care if parts of California are in a bowl and it impacts their air quality. People who live there can pay the extra money themselves to fix their own problem or move.

Instead they're trying to force their problem on the rest of the country. That and the political climate there thinks the internal combustion engine is an evil work of the devil.


RE: Purpose?
By Iaiken on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: Purpose?
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Bulls***. Period.
Actually you would be FOS. LA smog is not anywhere what it used to be. I've LIVED out here for 14 years and my wife has lived here for 26 years. We don't even have air quality alerts anymore. I think you are mistaking marine layer for smog (which we DO have a lot of). Two different things.


RE: Purpose?
By rcc on 10/21/2011 6:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
LA air is much better than it was 20 years ago. As an easy rule of thumb, it used to be that you couldn't see the San Gabriel mountains from the North side of Azusa. Now you can. I was shocked in the 90s when that happened, I had no idea the mountains were that close.


RE: Purpose?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/21/2011 7:26:38 PM , Rating: 1
Iaiken you're wrong. I'll take the word of someone who lives there over you. Plus unlike you I'm not an idiot and can Google the difference between smog and LA fog. LA went from hundreds of smog alerts a year to a handful, damn right that's "better" by ANYONE'S metric.

But even if you were right, we're talking about ONE city in a country of over 350 million citizens. You seriously think we should make policies for the nation based on that?


RE: Purpose?
By Ryrod on 10/21/2011 11:16:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But even if you were right, we're talking about ONE city in a country of over 350 million citizens. You seriously think we should make policies for the nation based on that?


Well, it is a city with a population of almost 10 million in a country of 307 million people. That is a substantial number of people even if it it less than a third of a percent.

Furthermore, LA is not enclosed in a bubble. What happens in LA affects the surrounding area and the effects reverberate throughout the US since LA is one of the massive centers of commerce for the US, along with NYC. So saying that we should never base any policies on LA, NYC, Detroit, Chicago, etc. simply because it is only one city is somewhat shortsighted (no offense intended). A lot of these cities have larger effects on the economy or society as a whole, and sometimes policies are necessary to provide a solution or to improve a situation for these cities because it has a resounding affect throughout the US.

Lastly, the US is not making its policies regarding fuel economy based solely upon LA itself, or California for that matter. The CAFE standards were agreed upon by the UAW, auto makers, and the Obama Administration. It's not as though Obama woke up one day and said, "I think I'm going to up the CAFE standards to 54.5mpg." These were well thought out and involve a lot more than just 'sticking it to the oil companies, car companies, and consumers that like to drive hummers'. If California decides to increase the fuel standards further, it is their choice. The EPA is just providing a baseline for the rest of the nation based upon considerations outside of whether people want to all drive Hummers.


RE: Purpose?
By FITCamaro on 10/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Purpose?
By Ryrod on 10/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Purpose?
By FITCamaro on 10/23/2011 3:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
You did nothing in that long winded post to suggest why unions should any say in the fuel economy of vehicles. How are union executives who know nothing about engineering going to contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation? What caused the auto companies to bleed money IS the unions using threats and intimidation to push for ever higher pay and benefits for people with high school educations. That pay and benefits is what killed the automakers. And now the UAW has more power than ever to do it again.

And no. The EPA is long since been an arm of the government that just makes sure that companies aren't blindly destroying the environment. It has turned into an organization that pushes for ever higher standards without any basis of an actual threat to anything. Higher fuel economy standards, higher air quality standards. Nevermind we've gotten to the point where the improvements do nothing for health or just aren't possible without highly disrupting the marketplace resulting in companies having to spend massive amounts of money to meet the standards, which gets passed on to consumers. When he was a candidate, Obama said the kind of cap and trade system he wants would cause the cost of power to skyrocket. He can't get that system passed so he's doing it through regulations.

And it might not be all the way there yet, but how is the direction of things not towards a socialist model? The government effectively controlling banks, the government controlling auto companies, the government controlling the student loan market and pretty much the mortgage loan market since most loans are STILL being sold to Fannie and Freddie, and the government eventually controlling health care if the Obamacare stands. All either directly or through regulation. Hell you have the government limiting how much banks can charge in fees for debit card transactions. And then the same people who pushed that bill complaining that banks are now trying to pass that lost revenue on to consumers which banks said would happen in the first place.

I was not refuting my own assertion. California making its own rules definitely impacts the rest of the nation as far as cars are concerned. Just because LA's economy isn't big enough to really matter to the rest of the country doesn't take away from the fact that its a part of California which wants to make its own standards. Nor should FEDERAL standards be made with any one city in mind, regardless of how big or small it is. Or even an entire state.


RE: Purpose?
By Ryrod on 10/24/2011 6:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You did nothing in that long winded post to suggest why unions should any say in the fuel economy of vehicles. How are union executives who know nothing about engineering going to contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation?


Because those union executives are the ones that represent the people who build those cars. Just because an engineer designs a car doesn't mean that he's the one building it, and in GM's case, they have employees who design and employees who build. It's kinda like how you get construction bids and time estimates from construction companies rather than just listening to the architect who designed the building.

Having the union on board to listen and agree upon the standards is important because they are the ones who have to build the cars and will share a substantial portion of the burden that these regulations will have. The next union contract negotiated is likely to decrease wages for new workers, and benefits for current workers because these regulations will increase the costs associated with the automobile manufacturing. It's a hell of a lot better for GM to tell the union and everyone else the CAFE standards were known to and agreed upon by the union rather than telling the union "Tough sh** and sorry that we agreed upon a new CAFE standard without input from you. The regulations are forcing us to cut benefits to you guys because they are cutting into our profit margin." It makes collective bargaining agreement negotiations all around better by having the union on board with decisions that will ultimately affect the members.

quote:
What caused the auto companies to bleed money IS the unions using threats and intimidation to push for ever higher pay and benefits for people with high school educations. That pay and benefits is what killed the automakers. And now the UAW has more power than ever to do it again.


There seems to be an ill conceived perception of unions as all being out for "corporate blood." That is not necessarily the case as most CBAs are made without strikes, and without threats of violence or intimidation. Most unions can come to amicable agreements with their corporate counterparts that protect workers without killing the companies. However, it's often the most egregious acts by the union that make it on sensationalized cable news and is not indicative of how unions operate. It's very similar to the situation with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street crowd which are characterized by their most radical elements.

GM made a lot of concessions to unions during periods of massive economic prosperity and many of those concessions came back to hurt GM. Requiring cause to fire someone and high wages in the 80s and 90s meant that people who had been working since that time received salaries that were not in tune with the economic conditions of the 2000s. In the non-union world, companies don't cut the wages of individual employees. Instead of cutting wages, companies fire people and hire new people at a reduced wage. In GM's case, they couldn't do that because they agreed to a "for cause" firing requirement. Therefore, GM was stuck paying higher wages to individuals who had been there 10+ years while new employees received a substantially less wage because the union agreed to those reduced wages. That is why you saw a huge amount of severance packages being offered to GM employees. So blaming the UAW for everything is incorrect because it was just as much the fault of previous GM negotiators for making these concessions. The UAW was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing, looking out for the interests of the workers by forcing GM to uphold their end of the union contract just like any other private contract in the world. So saying the UAW is evil for adhering to contract law, and forcing GM to do the same, is the equivalent of saying that every consumer in the US is evil for returning a product under warranty to the manufacturer.

quote:
The EPA is long since been an arm of the government that just makes sure that companies aren't blindly destroying the environment. It has turned into an organization that pushes for ever higher standards without any basis of an actual threat to anything. Higher fuel economy standards, higher air quality standards. Nevermind we've gotten to the point where the improvements do nothing for health or just aren't possible without highly disrupting the marketplace resulting in companies having to spend massive amounts of money to meet the standards, which gets passed on to consumers.


Several three word phrases come to mind: lead in toys, computers in landfills, toxic harbor silt. These are all things that the EPA has made rules about. It's because these types of things affect individuals substantially and all of these rules have been created or amended within the past decade. Forcing companies to remove lead and lead paint from toys, to reduce toxic metals in computer components and to dispose of computers in a safe manner, and to prevent toxic silt buildup in harbors that kills marine life does not constitute a substantial hardship to companies when compared to the hardship suffered by taxpayers through increased medical costs or increased consumer prices due to a decrease in food supply.

As for the "we've gotten to the point" comment, the laws are taking into consideration factors beyond how much a certain 'thing' pollutes. We don't live in a world that is stagnant. If the EPA outlaws a certain type of practice, it's just as likely that a company or individual has come up with a similar practice not covered by the ban but equally harmful. In this case, the EPA is trying to increase fuel mileage because while the amount of pollutants per car may not have increased, there are substantially more cars on the road, which has increased the cumulative amount of pollutants in the air. By reducing the burning of fossil fuels per car, the EPA is also reducing the amount of pollutants that are released into the air.

Now the CAFE standards are likely more than just an attempt to improve air quality. Much of it probably comes from a desire to decrease foreign oil dependency. This can be accomplished one of two ways: (1) increase production or (2) cut consumption. The Obama Administration has chosen the latter while the Republicans choose the former. Personally, a gas tax would be the best to cut consumption, but no politician really wants to increase taxes during their tenure, but would rather create the legislation now and tax later. In this case, Obama is creating a faux tax by increasing the upfront cost of purchasing an automobile and combining that with the hope that increased efficiency will cause a decrease in oil consumption. You may disagree with the method, but the approach is theoretically sound (diminishing marginal utility and all that).


RE: Purpose?
By Ryrod on 10/24/2011 6:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And it might not be all the way there yet, but how is the direction of things not towards a socialist model? The government effectively controlling banks, the government controlling auto companies, the government controlling the student loan market and pretty much the mortgage loan market since most loans are STILL being sold to Fannie and Freddie, and the government eventually controlling health care if the Obamacare stands. All either directly or through regulation. Hell you have the government limiting how much banks can charge in fees for debit card transactions. And then the same people who pushed that bill complaining that banks are now trying to pass that lost revenue on to consumers which banks said would happen in the first place.


I'm sure the Federal government's ownership of .05% of private corporations is placing us on the brink of falling into a socialist regime. The problem with your statement isn't so much an issue inaccuracies in the types of markets you cite, but more an issue with how you phrase it. The government is not taking over/controlling banks, auto manufacturers, the student loan market, or the mortgage market.

We live in a mixed economy where the US relies upon a regulatory structure to mitigate the faults of a corporate system overlaid on the market system. In the instance of banks and auto manufacturers, these are corporations that are creatures of statute which enjoy the privilege of limited liability. Since corporations are entities with no real individual which is responsible, sometimes corporations act in a destructive manner, like the over leveraging of banks. In effect, the executives of these banks had all the incentives to engage in risky behavior because they were not at risk themselves. This also applies to situations where corporations effectively harm their own consumers (through bank fee increases), but no recourse is provided because the service the corporation provides is necessary and all other corporations in that field have also adopted the harmful behavior. In these types of cases, the market fails and government is the only real (i.e. legal and safe) option available to address these destructive tendencies. That being said, government doesn't always provide the best solutions, but in those situations the market hasn't either. This kind of regulation is far from the real socialism of countries like Venezuela and China.

As for the government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie Mae, they are engaged in assisting private corporations with providing loans to groups of people in need of financing, such as home purchasers and students. The government is not denying banks from providing loans to individuals for home purchases or education (or even occupying the field, so to speak). Instead, Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie provide a means for private lending companies to access these individuals while providing incentives for private individuals to seek the services of these private lenders. In effect, the government is aiding private companies in making money to give to shareholders. I see nothing socialistic about promoting the free market by adding incentives for the bargaining of services. Furthermore, the only reason that Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie have so much of the debt in these specific markets is because the private lenders sell these loans to Freddie, Fannie, and Sallie as a way to make money, which seems like capitalism at work.

As a side note: prior to 2008, Fannie and Freddie were publicly trade on the stock market and Sallie is still publicly traded.

quote:
I was not refuting my own assertion. California making its own rules definitely impacts the rest of the nation as far as cars are concerned. Just because LA's economy isn't big enough to really matter to the rest of the country doesn't take away from the fact that its a part of California which wants to make its own standards. Nor should FEDERAL standards be made with any one city in mind, regardless of how big or small it is. Or even an entire state.


To be clear, you said California effectively sets the standards for cars for the rest of the nation. Now I understand your normative argument that federal standards should not be made according to one city or state. However, I was merely noting your statement that LA economy shouldn't be taken into consideration which I thought was at odds with your prior statement that California sets the de facto standard. I'm not trying to start a flame war with you, but if California is setting the standard and the state is basing its standards around the LA economy, doesn't that effectively make it LA that is establishing the standard (by proxy of course)?

And I already know that I'm going to be modded down because I'm not expressing a far-right view with regard to the Obama Administration, but at the same time, I don't really care. I'm a political moderate and often find myself laughing at the ridiculousness of the theater involved in Federal government politics. I find it so interesting now that people would rather immediately dismiss a statement that does not conform to the narrative they have established in their head than to seriously consider an alternative statement or argument. FITCamaro, I'm not saying you are simplistic or anything of that nature. This is instead a simple musing about a larger issue with the dialogue between individuals that is made by me, as a detached person who isn't fiercely passionate about Republican or Democratic policies. It's sad that so many moderates feel exceeding displaced in this country by people advocating positions that appeal primarily to the far right or the far left with many of these appeals revolving around nothing but isms and ists which do nothing to advance important conversations that we should be having.


RE: Purpose?
By Paj on 10/24/11, Rating: 0
RE: Purpose?
By rcc on 10/24/2011 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They don't build two different cars. California having higher standards effects the rest of the country


Actually, they do. Any car you buy in CA has a line item on the invoice, CA emmissions package, and a price tag.

Further, you can't go out of state and just buy a car and take it to CA, you have to get the equivalent of the CA Emissions Package added before you can license it.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29...


RE: Purpose?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/22/2011 10:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
The UAW has been in the pocket of the Democratic party for longer than I've been alive. Hell study the details of the GM bailout, do you see a running theme here? The very idea that you hold them up as some kind of impartial party invalidates any point you're trying to make.


RE: Purpose?
By Ryrod on 10/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Purpose?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/22/2011 6:10:38 PM , Rating: 3
You are so ignorant about so many things I can't even bother anymore. You appear to be oblivious to the amount of power the Government wields and the fear that goes along with it. You're also completely ignorant about UAW's role in GM nearly going bankrupt. They most certainly were willing to bleed their "host" dry. GM executives pleaded with them on several occasions that the current UAW contracts were no longer sustainable, the UAW did NOT care.

I'm not sure if you're just totally ignorant or completely naive about key issues. There's simply no rational way to support these CAFE proposals and spin it as anything other than what it is.

quote:
It does nothing to address my valid argument that these standards were agreed upon by all the major parties that have a stake in this issue.


Statements like this. Are you taking stupid pills? Several key parties have expressed concerns or outright denouncement of these standards. You think there's an agreement? Even worst, you actually believe the people in Washington require or even CARE about an agreement. Ryrod, they will do WHATEVER they want regardless if there's an agreement or not. Is this how you actually think things work?

CEO's and UAW don't make policy. I can only hope those who do, our elected officials, succeed in blocking such ridiculous mandates and focus on much more important matters.


RE: Purpose?
By Ryrod on 10/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Purpose?
By callmeroy on 10/25/2011 1:47:10 PM , Rating: 2

You are WAAAAY off...The CITY of LA *barely* has 4 million people. Los Angeles COUNTY has 10 million. A county is a damn site bigger than a city. (NYC almost has 10 million)


RE: Purpose?
By Ryrod on 10/25/2011 2:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
You are right that the city proper has only around 4 million. I pulled my numbers from the 2000 census data counting the metropolitan area. I finally found the metro area population for 2010 census and it is around 12 million. I used metro instead of city proper due to the number of people living in the suburbs that work in the city itself. I probably should have been more clear on that.


RE: Purpose?
By SPOOFE on 10/24/2011 5:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, I only started going there 5 years ago, but if this is "much better" then I would hate to have seen what it was back then.

Yes, you would have hated it. It was bad in the '80s. It's been awesome for a long time, however... and here we have you admitting that you have a pathetically small sample size on which to judge, and a large number of people with a greater sample size telling you how inaccurate your statements are.

A smarter man would get the hint.


RE: Purpose?
By SoCalBoomer on 10/24/2011 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
I've lived in LA for 20-25 years and, honestly, it's NOT the condition you're trying to describe.

When I first moved here (to Duarte, literally at the foot of the foothills) the air was bad. I couldn't wear contacts, and could barely see the foothills.

In the past 20 years (I am still at the foot of the foothills) the air quality has DRAMATICALLY improved. My view of the foothills is dramatic and pretty darned clear. While I don't need contacts anymore (thank you lasers) breathing is clear.

The number of smog alerts has gone down dramatically, and the criteria for calling smog alerts has tightened as well. In fact, the thing that has caused most of our smog alerts has not been man-made pollution at all, but wild fires (although they may have been caused by man. . . argh. . .) and SHIPS. . . not cars.


RE: Purpose?
By SPOOFE on 10/24/2011 5:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Travel to LA sometime and then try and tell me that you think that the air quality is satisfactory.

I've lived in LA for 30 years. Air quality has never been better. You don't know what you're talking about.


One year "timeout" needed
By jnemesh on 10/21/2011 3:22:21 PM , Rating: 1
A one year "time out" is needed, but not for the reasons stated in the article. The "time out" is to allow the GOP to be cleansed from the ranks of our government. A VERY rude awakening is in store for them when it comes time to vote!




RE: One year "timeout" needed
By Expunge on 10/21/2011 3:45:08 PM , Rating: 4
They tried that in 2008. You had a Dem House a Dem Super Majority Senate and a Dem president for two years.. and what did that get us.. Over 9% unemployment, nearly 20% under employment, 1/6 of our nations populous on food stamps, a government takeover of health care that will do anything but lower the cost of health care, the Dodd/Frank finance reform named after two people who have caused the most financial harm to this country, (and who I feel personally should be tried for treason and shot) and Trillion dollar yearly defecits as far as the eye can see just to name a few.

So tell me why the hell should I want these miscreants in charge of anything more than a hot dog stand.

Yes change is coming in 2012, it is to remove the rest of the trash that was not removed in the 2010 election.


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By cruisin3style on 10/21/2011 4:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
i stopped reading your post after the part wher eyou blame the democrats that entered office in 2009 for the effects of a recession that started in 2007


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By Spuke on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: One year "timeout" needed
By Reclaimer77 on 10/22/2011 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 4
Umm do you remember the "Great Democratic Landslide" of 2008? Most of these Dems WERE in office when the recession was taking off. And contrary to their rhetoric, things didn't get better, they only got worst.

Anyway we're not blaming Obama for the recession. Recessions happen about every 12 years in this country historically. We're blaming him for making it worst. He took advantage of the recession to ram through massive spending bills like the "Stimulus" which did fu#$ all for the economy and unemployment.

So instead of a recession that would have ended, as they always do, we're now facing a lasting and permanent massive DEBT CRISIS! The numbers here are staggering. Combine that with unemployment and high inflation and you can plainly see the disaster Obama's economic policies have been.

You cannot borrow and tax your way to prosperity. It's impossible, Obama.


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By Targon on 10/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: One year "timeout" needed
By TSS on 10/22/2011 11:15:12 AM , Rating: 1
Funny thing is the tea party will be voted into power and destroy what's left of your economy. Not that the democrats shouldn't be removed from power, but when we are we all know what happens next and we also know what the dominant force in that party is at the present.

I've read their budget proposals around the time of the debt ceiling debates. It's total madness. They cut everything from discretionairy spending (including education!) but don't even touch mandatory spending like medicare and social security. They know even less about your economy then i do, a foreign highschool dropout.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: isn't there a 3rd party you guys can vote for? Or an independant? I suggested ron paul last time but since he's republican now... don't bet on him changing anything.

If you look at the 3 US presidents voted the greatest, you will find 1 democrat, 1 republican, and the only US president in history not to belong to a party: George Washington. If option 1 and 2 fail, why not go for 3?


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By Reclaimer77 on 10/22/2011 2:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Since you're foreign I'll let you in on a well known fact here. In America senior citizens are the highest voting demographic here, by far. Nobody can "cut" social security and medicare because it's political suicide. Often just accusing someone of wanting to do so has been enough to destroy the careers of people. Nobody who even touches it will ever be reelected, and everyone knows it.

quote:
I've read their budget proposals around the time of the debt ceiling debates. It's total madness.


The only madness is that we've gone so far the other way that such extreme cuts are even being talked about. But never mind that, keep slamming the only ones who at least HAVE a solution besides taxing and spending our way to prosperity; which is impossible.

The "tea party" isn't a party, by the way. Tea Party are just traditional Conservative Republicans. The economy already IS ruined and, thanks to Liberal Democrats, will be for quite some time. I fail to see how making budget cuts can "destroy what's left". Our economy isn't dependent on the Government being bigger. It's HURT by it.


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Both the R's and D's are responsible for the trouble we are in right now; as are the complacent/lazy citizens.

George Washington had the right idea about political parties literally hundreds of years before it was realized. They are ALL self serving and bad for this nation.


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2011 1:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
How'd that idea work out for you in the 2008 election? After 2 years of Obama literally being able to do ANYTHING he wanted. Did you get all your socialist utopian dreams? No. Why? Because the American people said no. He barely rammed through his disastrous health care bill that is now showing its true colors in how unsustainable and destructive it is. That and the Frank-Dodd bill that is also showing to be a complete flop that's doing nothing but causing banks to charge fees on consumers. Not to mention will ruin people's ability to borrow money after the end of this year when credit card interest rates skyrocket.

Who told me that? Someone working for their program that basically rewards the stupid who have racked up massive credit card bills while punishing those of us who did not. I was told anyone who didn't have massive bills on their credit cards and were able to secure a low rate is going to have their credit card rates go to around 35%. I was $1000 short of the necessary amount but could have paid $500 to secure a lower rate. I didn't because I refused to be a part of taxpayers bailing out stupid people. So now my credit cards are largely paid off. I have only $300 on one and that'll be paid off in the next two months.


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2011 1:39:19 AM , Rating: 1
2010 election*


RE: One year "timeout" needed
By SoCalBoomer on 10/24/2011 12:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
So, out of curiosity, what would you say to a Democrat controlled House, Democrat controlled Senate and Democrat controlled White-House - all of which existed for Pres. Obama's first two years and yet little of the improvement/change that was promised came to pass and much of that is being killed in the courts. . .

Would you like a one-party government? I can tell you that yours is not one I would like to have represent ME. While I don't agree that the Republicans represent me as I would like, they're far closer (in many aspects) than the Democrats (although, in technology, I do respect the Democrats' positions quite a bit more. . .)

And that "awakening" seems to have come about in 2010 when the Republicans made significant inroads on that triple-crown that the Democrats had - so their majority in the Senate is quite lessened and they lost the House.

Hmmmm. . .


Expensive
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 1:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
If NADA is even remotely close to being correct (IMO $15k is probably the extreme end), then car pricing is going to go up exponentially. Todays base Versa at $10k will be $15k or more tomorrow.




RE: Expensive
By Flunk on 10/21/2011 1:58:59 PM , Rating: 1
10 to 15 is hardly exponential, it works out to an eponent of less than 1.2. If it was an exponential increase cars would be 100k or 1000k.

Do you know what an exponential gain is?


RE: Expensive
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 2:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know what an exponential gain is?
Poor choice of words. My bad. Still car pricing will be pretty expensive. And this is just only the cost of the fuel economy portion.


RE: Expensive
By kjboughton on 10/21/2011 3:46:46 PM , Rating: 1
So, let me see if I understand you right: if you have a bank account that yields 1% per year (compounded yearly, let's say, for the sake of simple math), with a starting balance of $10.00, which provides for an end-of-year balance of $10.10, or a difference of just $0.10, that's not a exponential increase (because, I assume, according to what you've implied, the increase wasn't staggeringly large enough for you to label it as "exponential")?

Well, great job demonstrating to the whole world that you have no idea what is meant by "exponential" growth.

To make a blanket statement like "10 to 15 is hardly exponential" is undeniable idiotic.

How about this one?:

Mf = Mo x (1 + r/n)^n*t where 'r' is the rate of return (1% expressed as a decimal), 'n' is the number of compounding periods (per year), 't' is the total compounding time (in years), Mo is the starting balance ($10), and Mf is the ending balance

Mf = 10 x (1 + 0.01/1)^(1*1)

Mf = 10.10

which is to say that using periodic compounding for a period of one year, after one year your $10 will have grown to just $10.10, an increase of just 10 cents.

That's exponential; and it proves mathematically (using *shocker* exponents!) what I just stated above.

Here's what I suspect it is what you've failed to grasp (unfortunately, that which is the fundamental principle of exponential growth): that while exponential growth may show as small increases at first, over time, will result in increasingly larger and larger changes as a function of the starting "balance" (albeit at the same rate).

Here's what we do know: you're an internet tough guy that knows jack-shit about math (and exponents, apparently). But that doesn't stop you from spouting your dribble as if it's truth.

Thanks for playing. Don't forget to stay in school (or go back, if you've already passed 'Go').


RE: Expensive
By sigmatau on 10/21/2011 5:33:42 PM , Rating: 3
Going from 10 to 15 could be described as many different things. Since we only have two points to plot on the graph, this fits a linear function more accurately. I can describe this in probably over 20 different ways off the top of my head, but the first one would not be exponential.

Exponential should not have been used in that example. Saying something like increasing by 50%, being 150% of original, adding half the original cost, etc.

I guess next we will be describing our car trips in light years? That would also not be wrong.


Reduce dependence on.. oh wait.
By kraeper on 10/21/2011 2:59:26 PM , Rating: 4
This will be great. Higher CAFE standards reduce dependence on foreign oil, therefore increasing national security!! All we have to do is replace oil-burning cars with electric ones that just need a handful of rare-earth magnets, mined only in China, then we won't be dependent on foreign governments for our resources.

Oh wait.




RE: Reduce dependence on.. oh wait.
By Natch on 10/21/2011 3:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
The irony being that China has just cut the world off from its supply of rare earth minerals.

For sure, the remainder of the world can start mining rare earth elements again, but since they stopped due to China's dirt cheap (no pun intended) prices, it will drive up the price of these elements, and thus, the price of the vehicles.

I wonder what the tipping point will be, now that those prices are going up? At what point is it cheaper to buy a regular gas burning vehicle that gets decent gas mileage, over a hybrid??


RE: Reduce dependence on.. oh wait.
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 4:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
IMO, I don't think a month will make much difference. Now if they decided to go on for a few months...


By Keeir on 10/21/2011 4:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
The fundamental issue with CAFE is not that any particular CAFE rating is not acchievable. I could design a line of 2 seat/4 seat/6 seat/8 seat car capable of 80 mph, 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, and returned more than 50 MPG on the EPA cycle.

Of course, they would be expensive, significantly less safe, and your lucky to get speakers for your MP3 player let alone a radio or climate control. Oh and forget "command" seating.

Fundamentally the US car buying public is used to the type of cars that are available today. 50 MPG (EPA) is pushing the maximum theoritcal milage that can be acchieved using gasoline. Mandating that somehow the average of all autos meets this forces at least 1 of the following

1. Reduction in Safety/Features
2. Reduction in Size
3. Change in Fuel
4. Increase in Expense

Unfortunely, we can't legislate away the Laws of Physics.




By Spuke on 10/21/2011 4:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
That whole diminishing returns thing. Your first three points won't change but I see a significant increase in cost. I know quite a few people here don't think so but it will happen. Of course, in 14 years the politicos will be accusing the automakers of gouging and not cost of technology needed to increase mpg.


By DrBeg on 10/21/2011 11:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really care about these standards anyhow, seems like alot of BS.

I'm thinking any reasonable person can figure out that you don't need a 400HP V8 motor to shove a 200 lbs man down the road at 80 MPH. This can be achieved with a goosed up lawnmower engine. You do need that V8 motor, if you want to achieve 80MPH in 10 seconds. You do need that motor, if you want to have the driver's seat wrapped with a ton of metal, crumple zones, climate zones, comfort zones, 8 speaker booming sound system, etc.

The problem is not the vehicle, the problem is the culture and the current laws we have that counter innovation. I'm sure some people actually pride themselves over their MPG's. However when was the last time you saw someone polishing a Hybrid Corvette? Never, doesn't exist. When was the last time you saw a golf cart going down the road? since they are not "street legal" in most states, I would venture to guess if you did see one, there is a possibility it was followed by a police officer that DID have a 400HP V8 box on wheels.

At this point, I'm fairly fed up with this federal government sticking its nose in other people's tailpipes.

I'm of the sound mind to spend about $5k on a used car body (something made before EPA shoved its nose in my tailpipe), $15k on a Chevy bigblock crate motor, plus another $5k on a supercharger. So I would end up with something that produces over 1500 HP, weighs over 2 tons, made of real steel, gets less than 10 mpg, cost less than a Prius. I will survive impact with 5 Prius's and at least a dozen SmartCar's before it's time to repaint the body. But at least I can brag that I have a carbon footprint the size of Delaware. Don't tread of me. I will put treads all over you.


By pandemonium on 10/25/2011 5:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree that your interpretation of the community is correct, the assumptions you're making of the requirements for performance versus economy aren't. I polish my IMPORT because that's what I'm proud of. Who says you can't go 0-80 in under 10 seconds and still get 30+ mpg? Foreign automakers, that's who. American companies took forever to realize this and only just recently decided they better jump on that bandwagon because they're losing too much business. Sadly, the public is paying for their mistakes with the big bail-outs.

This whole, "don't trust your life in a light-weight, crumple-zone, tested and re-tested dinky frame vehicle" is ridiculous. NHTSA has tested plenty of these dinky vehicles with superior crushing resistance than your 19th century, full-steel framed vehicles. And just because you're bigger does NOT mean you are obligated to tread on others simply because you can. That's the most hypocritical argument one can make. "Don't tread on me[, but I'll tread on you]." ...Really?

And to pre-emptively retort the whole "you're shutting out American's from jobs by buying foreign" let me educate you:
-Do you really think that all of the many parts in "American" vehicles are made in America?
-"Foreign" automakers always expand to major countries that are consuming their products; there are TONS of foreign manufacturers and assembly lines in the U.S., which provides the same amount of American work that the "American-made" subjugated, foreign cheap labor policy American company molds have been denying and ultimately destroying this country's economy with, and eventually shifting economic power of the entire world


Where this ends up
By PaulZyZ on 10/21/2011 4:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Where this ends up is with the government telling you what color car you can drive. And what temperature you can set your home's thermostat to. And what you are to eat and not allowed to eat. And that the bullets in your guns have to be serialized. And you have to have an RFID imbedded in your forehead. OK I made that last one up but the state of California has attempted all those other things.

The government has slipped it's chains and put them upon its subjects. If you haven't noticed you're not paying enough attention.




RE: Where this ends up
By Kaleid on 10/22/2011 1:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
Color? Don't be silly, that's a choice everyone can make and it cannot be compared to emissions which effect not just nature but humans too.


RE: Where this ends up
By Calin on 10/24/2011 3:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard car companies can no longer sell black cars in California. Goes a long way from "any color you want, as long as it's black"


RE: Where this ends up
By rcc on 10/24/2011 4:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Which just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you hear.


Pure Insanity
By Beenthere on 10/21/2011 2:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for clean air and the auto industry has been working for decades to do their part be it lower emissions, special vehicles for CA and a few other nitwit states with their own regs, special fuel chemistry, etc. ALL of which consumers are paying for, but the proposed CAFE std. hike is just unrealistic, irrational and impossible for car makers to achieve without EVs and hybrids.




RE: Pure Insanity
By Philippine Mango on 10/23/2011 3:01:18 AM , Rating: 1
You're acting like as if hybrids are expensive... The hybrid premium is not, at least for the latest Camry Hybrids. If GM didn't make such an expensive hybrid, it could easily pay for itself but as it stands, it cannot. Just remember, even if obama got the congress to agree to the 62mpg standard, that would only be about 44mpg fleet average which is about the fuel efficiency of the 2004 Prius. These standards don't kick in for another decade so I wouldn't worry TOO much about them stifling the auto industry.


RE: Pure Insanity
By SoCalBoomer on 10/24/2011 1:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
For the Camry it's around $3K

Camry LE - 22,500 / Hybrid LE - 25,900
Camry XLE - 24,735 / Hybrid XLE - 27,400

But remember, the fleet average also extends to trucks. While I drive a Neon much of the time, I also drive a truck. I haul stuff, and tow a trailer; I'm popular with my friends when it's time to move; and it's pretty danged difficult to renovate an old home (1920s beat up but affordable) without a truck.

Small engines don't cut it in a truck. Trucks need torque, not HP (notwithstanding marketing BS) and small engines don't give torque.

It's just not valid comparing a fleet average to a Prius. Prius is one of the smallest cars in Toyota's fleet. It's not a valid comparison. It MIGHT be more valid to compare it to the Camry, which is more median.


Dont forget who we'ere dealing with here
By shin0bi272 on 10/21/2011 5:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
This is obama people... the guy who said he wants to bankrupt the coal industry and make everyone's electric bills "necessarily skyrocket" under a cap and trade system... the congress didnt like cap and trade so now we get the epa which is just cap and cap.

This is the man that gave over a billion dollars to FOREIGN green energy companies. FOREIGN COMPANIES... how is that going to help our job situation over here? how is that going to fix our debt problem? How is that going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Oh we get to use less of it because you are going to FORCE US TO DRIVE A HYBRID!

How's that hope and change working out for you liberals now? You know that hybrid pollutes 3x more than a hummer when you include the manufacturing of the car and driving it for 10 years right? Those electric engines and lithium ion batteries arent american made you jackasses... they are shipped in huge containers on even larger ships around the world about 3 times before they are made into a car... THAT'S a lot of co2. But hey chin up you watermellons (you know green outside red on the inside... ya commie bastards) no one believes co2 is causing global warming anymore except the government that's forcing us to buy their crappy cars and giving our money to "green power".




By Ryrod on 10/23/2011 6:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah all those stupid foreign green energy companies like A123 Systems. It's all their fault that they got DOE money to adapt their technology to build batteries that power automobiles like the Chevy Spark. It's all their fault that they are getting money to build batteries in China because the free market system and the US Congress (bunch of commies) have created incentives for them to build these batteries in China.

These kind of companies make me sick because they employ a few American workers to design these products and ship all the manufacturing jobs off to China because it is cheaper for them to build their products there. Stupid free market incentives! All these free market incentives and tax deductions are forcing us to ship all of these products to the US on boats that use tremendous amounts of fossil fuels.

It's even worse with all of these batteries used in hybrids because they can't be recycled, and we can't keep using these batteries for other purposes outside of automobiles like auxiliary power units for planes or power sources for boats. That's such a dumb idea to build a battery that we can't just toss away like we had been doing for decades with lead acid batteries! This is why everyone should hate green companies and the Obama administration for trying to innovate in the marketplace to create vehicles that are more efficient and smaller so that we consume less oil which is a infinite resource.


Extreme standards
By TheDoc9 on 10/21/2011 1:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
These efficiency standards seem a bit lofty. I've read a bit on how they will be calculated and it seems more like a cluster fuck. The great thing about these long plans though is that the administration creating it won't have to worry about implementing it.




Internet Cafes
By vol7ron on 10/21/2011 6:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was more upset when I thought they were trying to block a "54 Mbps Cafe standard".

I don't want rate restrictions in Starbucks.




Big Oil
By Gungel on 10/22/2011 9:03:16 AM , Rating: 2
And guess who is paying for the next election campaign for those 60 Repups and 3 Dems? I for one welcome the higher standards and I'm not alone since the 3 domestic car companies are also in.




By Targon on 10/22/2011 10:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Outlaw Ethanol, and we will see an increase in fuel economy of 3-7 miles per gallon right there. Easy solution since adding Ethanol to gas reduces fuel economy.




Saddened
By MartenKL on 10/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Saddened
By Kurz on 10/23/2011 9:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
Freedom is the ultimate Form of Progress.
What you entail is the continued destruction of that...


By BaronMatrix on 10/23/2011 2:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I can't describe it. A plan to get better fuel efficiency has turned into a 10 page argument that involves slavery. No wonder we're so fat (25% of 4 year olds obese), lazy(won't do the work that immigrants will) and stupid (35th in STEM).




This is easy to solve....
By croc on 10/24/2011 5:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
...Just tax the fuels to the average world level, and let the US 'market' decide what it wants. $8 / gal might change how people think about transportation...

As to the Rep. / Dem. argument, solve it once and for all. US has more guns than people, yeah? Use 'em. Last poor person standing gets to be the new 'leader of the free world'. They can then do anything that the rich people allow.




Lithium-ion Battery
By lxtbattery on 10/27/2011 7:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you.
http://www.lxt-group.com/02/en Lithium-ion Battery




Regret
By OAKside24 on 10/22/2011 11:29:38 PM , Rating: 1
One of my biggest regrets in life is that I (sometimes) read the DailyTech comments. Recommendations for alternatives to DailyTech are very welcome...




54mpg by 2025?
By Dtprodromos on 10/24/2011 11:27:13 AM , Rating: 1
So, I suppose 54mpg is considered a high goal to be accomplished after 14 years. I do not know, if there is an environmental problem with CO2(they say there is but I have not crosschecked the data myself), or if it is reasonable to have as many cars as the population of the earth.

Nevertheless, I will not argue about this. Let's accept that there is an evironmental problem and that it is good for eveyone to have his/her own vehicle. Cars that are able to achieve this kind of economy exist right now.The technology is present, but we pretend that somehow it is not and we "cry a lot" about our beloved mother earth that we can not yet have the right technology. We often see companies vowing to protect the environment and often advertise their "intent" with slogans such as "green", "blue" and every other color they think, is evironmentally friendly; yet their "eco" models are so expensive that you won't see a difference in your spending in less than a decade.

Then, the governments come and give some ridiculous motives, that do not cancel the cruel reality, which is, if you want to be eco-friendly you have to bleed financially.
... and as everyone has already guessed, when I say that clean technologies are here right now, I am not necessarily referring to electric cars.




...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Flunk on 10/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 2:29:17 PM , Rating: 1
For now I'm just piggybacking on the Tea Party movement; specifically focusing on their objective to return this nation back to small and limited government (as the constitution defines it's power). I still believe that the citizens know what is best for them, and that they don't need big brother to tell them what color underwear to put on each morning.

It makes me sick to think about how much government intervention has destroyed all of the good things that we had going for us. I would start a list, but I don't have several months to sit here any type.


RE: ...
By prophet001 on 10/21/2011 2:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree :)


RE: ...
By TheEinstein on 10/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By CountZero on 10/21/2011 2:57:50 PM , Rating: 5
How about a top ten list? I don't think government should be involved in everything but I think they have a role to play in regulation. So I am curious as to what someone that believes the government has "destroyed all the good things" thinks the top ten things they've destroyed are.


RE: ...
By twhittet on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By SigmundEXactos on 10/21/2011 3:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Besides, the vast majority of those "slaves" were actually indentured servants.


I really hope you're just trolling.....


RE: ...
By xti on 10/21/2011 3:29:44 PM , Rating: 1
I used to have this co-worker who said the confederate flag is just a battle flag and shouldnt have any meaning.

right.


RE: ...
By Black1969ta on 10/21/2011 10:17:02 PM , Rating: 1
If you would study Civil War timelines, the slavery wasn't a real issue until towards the end of the war. The emancipation proclamation, was used to drum up the faltering support of the North in order to continue the war.

The south wanted the right to cede the union, they believe in states right and wanted cede to limit the authority of the federal government.


RE: ...
By SDLeary on 10/21/2011 11:36:02 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, slavery was a big issue during the drafting of the Constitution. Compromises made there would be some of the contributing issues that caused the Civil War.


RE: ...
By Ryrod on 10/22/2011 12:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you would study Civil War timelines, the slavery wasn't a real issue until towards the end of the war. The emancipation proclamation, was used to drum up the faltering support of the North in order to continue the war.


With all due respect, I disagree. Slavery was the central issue from the very beginning, but not in the sense that most people think. Much of the labor to pick the cotton was provided by the slaves and without this labor, the South would have suffered. The southern states became increasingly worried that the US was trending toward making conditions better for slaves, such as ignoring Art. 4 Sec 2 and the fugitive slave act. Given the alarming thought of supporting slave freedom and losing a source of labor which provided the South with substantial income (cotton), the southern states decided to cede to protect their economic interests, which included the continuation of slavery.

Ironically enough, when the South lost and had to free the slaves, they found an even better source of labor through former slave sharecroppers who they did not have to pay or care for. So the South did lose the battle (Civil War), but they technically won the war (maintained a significant source of even cheaper labor).


RE: ...
By Dorkyman on 10/22/2011 11:07:13 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed.

I remember reading somewhere that Lincoln's purpose for the Proclamation was to break the South's labor back. At the same time he didn't want to overly antagonize several semi-sympathetic Southern states that bordered the Northern states, so he exempted the Proclamation from applying to those specific states.


RE: ...
By lagomorpha on 10/22/2011 2:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the South did lose the battle (Civil War), but they technically won the war (maintained a significant source of even cheaper labor).


As predicted by Adam Smith three quarters of a century earlier.

quote:
The experience of all ages and nations, I believe, demonstrates that the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any. A person who can acquire no property, can have no other interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little as possible.


RE: ...
By yomamafor1 on 10/21/2011 5:42:01 PM , Rating: 3
I think when he says "indentured", he meant forever in one's life; when he says "servants", he meant somebody who can be treated like animals.


RE: ...
By frobizzle on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Kurz on 10/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 3:50:11 PM , Rating: 1
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ”

AKA, you fail!


RE: ...
By Kurz on 10/21/2011 4:17:17 PM , Rating: 1
Opps my bad ;P


RE: ...
By nafhan on 10/21/2011 4:19:44 PM , Rating: 4
If you take portions of a document out of context, it's meaningless. For a more complete description see my statement below. TL;DR: the 3/5ths compromise was a way to limit the power of slaveholders, not a statement of how valuable a person is. Those in favor of slavery were opposed to this clause!


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 4:09:25 PM , Rating: 3
So what you are saying is that it was contrary to it but an integral part of it. Which is kinda like saying color is contrary to white just an integral part of it.

Slavery was in the constitution. It is the reality. And it was pretty fundamental and integral to the thing being one of the only reasons the thing actually became the US Constitution.


RE: ...
By rcc on 10/21/2011 6:02:18 PM , Rating: 1
And it was amended out.

See any amendments that say "all citizen's shall be required to purchase health insurance"?


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 7:47:58 PM , Rating: 3
General Welfare Clause
Commerce Clause

aka, a valid argument isn't that "the constitution doesn't explicitly say the government can purchase an M1 Abrams tank, therefore the government cannot purchase an M1 Abrams tank."

There are powers explicitly enumerated that grant great fields of ability and powers that are explicitly restricted that prevent great fields of ability. And there is a lot of grey fields in between. Much of the constitution is intentionally vague as it is not legislation but grants and restrictions of power that need to be nebulous enough so that a new constitutional amendment isn't needed for every minor action of the government.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 8:08:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"the constitution doesn't explicitly say the government can purchase an M1 Abrams tank, therefore the government cannot purchase an M1 Abrams tank."


quote:
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - Article. I., section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


Dude, you have lost every argument on all fronts in this forum. Just stop.


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 9:56:53 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, do you want to point out the part of the constitution that EXPLICITLY states the government can buy an M1 Abrams, a B2 Bomber, an F22, or an F35?

Cause what you quoted doesn't EXPLICITLY allow it.

So are you agreeing with my argument that things don't have to be EXPLICITLY state in the constitution to be constitutional uses of federal power...

Or are you arguing that an M1 Abrams, a B2 Bomber, an F22, or and F35 is an unconstitutional purchase by the federal government.


RE: ...
By Griffinhart on 10/22/2011 12:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
What a terrible arguement.

The constituion specifically gives the government the power to organize, and arm our military as well as proved and maintain a Navy.

The M1 Abrams, B2 Bomber, F22, and F35, while expensive, are just nothing more than modern arms.


RE: ...
By KPOM1 on 10/22/2011 4:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
The general welfare clause is a restriction of power, not a grant of it. It limits the power of the government to tax. The commerce clause arose to prevent states from imposing tariffs or unreasonable hindrances on interstate trade, which were real problems under the Articles of Confederation. Neither were intended to be broad grants of power.

On his last day in office James Madison (who wrote much of the Constitution and was called the "Father of the Constitution") vetoed an infrastructure bill (what we might call a "stimulus" bill today) that he actually supported on the grounds that it wasn't among the government's enumerated powers. He implored Congress for months to pass an enabling amendment to the Constitution, but when they didn't, he reluctantly vetoed the bill.


RE: ...
By nafhan on 10/21/2011 4:14:10 PM , Rating: 5
Hmm, for someone recommending the study of the constitution... you might do well to do a bit of it yourself...

The 3/5th's compromise was actually proposed by those against slavery as a way to limit the power of the states in which slavery was legal. It was not intended to mean that a slave was only worth 3/5th's of a free person. Rather it was put in place to limit the power of those who owned the slaves. Ironically, the slave states wanted the slaves to count as whole persons in this regard! It's essentially meaningless at this point anyway, as there's not really anyone in the US to whom the 3/5th's compromise would apply.

Could be wrong, but as far as women's suffrage goes... I think the Constitution says nothing specifically for or against it. Initially, I think that was mostly up to individual states.

When looking at something like the Constitution or any other document, for that matter, context is important!


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By SDLeary on 10/21/2011 11:50:15 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The 3/5th's compromise was actually proposed by those against slavery as a way to limit the power of the states in which slavery was legal. It was not intended to mean that a slave was only worth 3/5th's of a free person. Rather it was put in place to limit the power of those who owned the slaves. Ironically, the slave states wanted the slaves to count as whole persons in this regard! It's essentially meaningless at this point anyway, as there's not really anyone in the US to whom the 3/5th's compromise would apply.


Yes. Slave States wanted their slaves to count as a whole person in order to bolster their states' representation in the House. But beyond that they wanted to continue to consider them as chattel. The North rejected this on political grounds, and the Abolitionists specifically on humanitarian. They suggested (one would hope tongue-in-cheek, but it was another time) that if the South were able to prevail in this attitude, the the North should be able to count its cows, pigs, and other livestock.

The 3/5th's Compromise was thus a way to simultaneously placate the Southern governments (not the Slave Owners), while also mitigating their political influence in the proposed House, and getting the Constitution agreed upon and ratified, which they felt was the more important issue of the moment.

SDLeary


RE: ...
By nafhan on 10/24/2011 10:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
Very interesting about the livestock argument!


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 10/21/2011 3:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
If by "indentured servant" you mean someone who unwillingly entered a contract for little food and transportation to a place they didn't want to go in exchange for a lack of rights and a constant full-time workload serving the person who "bought" them, then wow, you're spot on!


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By inighthawki on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 4:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the contract, you sign it or I kill you or leave you locked up in this cage that I put you in until you die, or kill your neighbor, relatives, and friends. Or I could just give you a good sell job and convince you through lies and BS and guarantees that people will ignore that it would be a great idea to sign.

You sign contract.

I now own you, well not technically but you have to do everything I say and live where I tell you to live and do what I tell you to do. See, you are now my servant!

What you thing that is against the law? Perfectly legal. After all you signed a contract. But you say I lied to you or you were under duress? Go ahead and try to prove that! Oh and btw, everyone else here has done the same thing and gotten their own servants in the same way. Or someone got them in the same way and they bought the contract to the servant. So no luck there. Oh and the judge, yeah, he's got a servant as well.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 4:26:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Here's the contract, you sign it or I kill you or leave you locked up in this cage that I put you in until you die, or kill your neighbor, relatives, and friends.
LOL, that's not the definition of indentured servitude! Nice straw man argument you have there. I never advocated for such treatment, nor does the US Constitution. End of story.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 10/21/2011 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I missed his point, but I do believe he is referring to slavery as opposed to indentured servants, despite his use of the word "servant."


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 4:40:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Here's the contract, you sign it or I kill

No, I think it was pretty clear that he was distorting the definition of indentured servitude. Slavery would not need a contract; it's just slavery.


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 5:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually both. Many cases of indentured servants were virtually indistinguishable from those of slaves both in their entering into service and their treatment within the service itself. Many indentured servants had no other option but death/prison which were many times the same thing.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 6:39:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Actually both. Many cases of indentured servants were virtually indistinguishable from those of slaves

And I agree with that, however, there were also many farmers who treated their slaves/indentured servants with respect. You don't see many people talking about it, but it did happen. Was it that majority? Probably not; but that doesn't mean that the idea of indentured servitude can't work if you treat others how you want to be treated.

Don't let anyone tell you that ALL slaves were whipped and beat down. There were a lot of servants who loved their masters, vise-versa.


RE: ...
By twhittet on 10/21/2011 6:58:52 PM , Rating: 1
My dog loves me, and I it. That doesn't exactly make us equals though, does it.


RE: ...
By Keeir on 10/21/2011 7:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, besides the aweful nature of being chained to one place and forced to work

Most Indentured Servants and Slave in the US/British Colonies in North America were treated well. Native American Slaves were the worst off, but thier populations essentially disappeared.

This did not occur in the indented servant and african slave populations. These populations grew quickly. This is a strong indication that overal treatment was acceptable. Carribean Slave and indenter servant populations experienced death rates far far higher than USA areas.

Overall, USA Indentured Servants and Slaves were treated well for thier time (between 1600-1800) considering that both types of bondage were considered normal and acceptable essentially around the world. It was the issues of the 1800-1860 that is the issue as around western europe treatment of slaves, serfs, servants, etc improved/disappeared.

Not that I condone Slavery, but to expect a nation of Europeans to not follow European Social norms seems too high an expectation.


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 5:41:32 PM , Rating: 1
"you will come to find that farmers needed a vast amount of cheap easy labor,"

that cheap pool of labor wasn't indentured servants but slaves, fyi. Though my comment equally applies to a significant portion of the indentured servants in early america as well.


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Kurz on 10/21/2011 3:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the first Constitution...
Articles of Confederation


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 4:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, that is the US Constitution. Like the current one. Like the one all the ignorant "super" conservatives and the con artists who feed off them like to extol as being perfect.


RE: ...
By phatboye on 10/21/2011 5:26:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Besides, the vast majority of those "slaves" were actually indentured servants. You should know that, and what the difference is if you had a even a half decent teacher in high-school US history.

What the hell bullshit is this. Most of those "slaves" really were "slaves". There may have been a few white indentured servants on a farm. but almost all blacks were slaves. Please take your trolling some where else.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 6:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
If stating facts about the history of the United States is considered trolling, then my only rebuttal is: u mad bro?


RE: ...
By phatboye on 10/21/2011 10:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
source?


RE: ...
By phatboye on 10/22/2011 1:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
didn't think you had a source as what you are saying is totally false. Sure there were indentured servants but majority were slaves.


RE: ...
By twhittet on 10/21/2011 6:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It makes me sick to think about how much government intervention has destroyed all of the good things that we had going for us.


The end of slavery WAS government intervention.

quote:
if you had a even a half decent teacher in high-school US history.


You apparently need a better English teacher.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 3:37:38 PM , Rating: 5
I won't immediately go into detail about these, as most of them should be self explanatory, so I am hoping that others will fill in the details with their thoughts.

In no certain order of severity:

Education
Economy
Welfare
Retirement
Spending/budgeting
Energy and Environmental management
Health Care
Housing
Immigration
Taxes

That is only a list of ten, but lets take a look at the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you think that this amendment is obeyed now? No. In fact, it has been increasingly apparent that the governments sole purpose now is to gain more power/control.

In a nutshell, the government (specifically the federal gov) should only be allowed to keep the courts in check, regulate trade between states, coin money, keep the union together (although not with an iron fist), and maintain a well regulated militia (NOT a standing/indefinite army! there is a huge difference between the two). Of course I am leaving some out, but their limitations is notwithstanding.

just one resource for good reading:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0291c.asp


RE: ...
By CountZero on 10/21/2011 4:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I was asking for more detailed things not things like 'economy' and 'taxes' that are so hugely broad you might as well not even list other things. But perhaps this is not the forum for an in depth discussion of such details.

Am I understanding your point/belief is that the federal government shouldn't be involve in those things at all? But you would be ok with state governments being involved in these things?


RE: ...
By sigmatau on 10/21/2011 5:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Of course as they don't have a list! All they can do is count the pages of the health care bill.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 7:11:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But perhaps this is not the forum for an in depth discussion of such details.

Yeah, it is a very difficult outlet for such a complex discussion. If you ask about specific topics, I will elaborate.

quote:
Am I understanding your point/belief is that the federal government shouldn't be involve in those things at all? But you would be ok with state governments being involved in these things?

Yes, that's correct. Without writing a book about US history... the original idea of uniting our colonies under one government was that they would still be afforded the protection of foreign and domestic threats, but still be able to essentially govern themselves. Hypothethical example: You currently live in Virginia, where the laws on alcohol are very strict, and there is a very large tax on it. You have relative in North Carolina that tell you how relaxed the laws are, and that there are no heavy taxes on it. You love the booze, so you decide to move to N.C. Fictitious example, but you get the picture. The people of N.C. evidently decided that they can handle alcohol, where the people of V.A. though it was best to pretty much expunge it from their state. It was ALWAYS the idea of our founding fathers that the Governors of the states were supposed to hold the most power (but with checks/balances of course), not Congress or the President!

What we have now, is the total opposite of that view. The rules come from the Top down, instead of the bottom up. Just look at the simple fact that we have federal INCOME taxes! For the love of God, I can't understand how we have allowed the continuation of taxing OUR INCOME. Just as the healthcare bill is unconstitutional, so is federal income tax, and education laws.

So, to answer you question: Laws should start at the state level, and branch out to counties, cities, municipalities, etc; and the federal government should only stick to what they have explicitly be afforded (which is very clearly defined in the constitution). If you don't like the laws of the state/county you are in, then simply move!

Lobbying and self serving political parties (both R and D) have expedited the decline of this nation. If we have kept the federal government in check, lobbying wouldn't even exist. [You cant bribe someone for powers that they don't posses.] It about time that we return to our roots, force politicans to be an actual public servant position again, limit their powers, give them term limits, and work on fixing our corrupt judicial system. I can happen, we just have to turn the T.V's off from watching Jersey Shore, and take grassroots action.


RE: ...
By sigmatau on 10/21/2011 7:45:47 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry but that is just crazy. Your example is a perfect one as to why we need a centralized government. Are you telling me people in VA are no better than people in NC, so they should be subject to worse conditions than those in NC?

My example would be education. Take two states, same population, same spending on education. One decides to keep increasing spending, while the other decides to go into the opposite direction. It is safe to say, that the one reducing spending will also have to some point dumber kids than the one that is spending more if they both started out spending at a reasonable rate.

Are you telling me that the kids in the state that reduced spending should pay for decisions made my one subset of Americans while another subset of Americans will have smarter more educated kids?

There are always limits to the federal government. Just not crazy ones like what many interpret our forefathers would do today. Take for example Alaska. They have several differences in environment and culture than the rest of the US. Over 90% of all Alaskans own a gun. Should laws that ban guns in a densely populated area be implemented in Alaska? Of course not! It is still mostly a frontier country and they deal with things we never see in our lifetime.

All this limiting government is fine and dandy. I hope to hear it just as loudly when a Republican is sitting in office. Otherwise it's pretty much BS to me.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 8:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your example is a perfect one as to why we need a centralized government. Are you telling me people in VA are no better than people in NC, so they should be subject to worse conditions than those in NC?

If that's what you got out of my example, then I cannot help you, my friend.

Lets just agree to disagree.

quote:
It is safe to say, that the one reducing spending will also have to some point dumber kids than the one that is spending more if they both started out spending at a reasonable rate.

So, money = quality?
quote:
There are always limits to the federal government. Just not crazy ones like what many interpret our forefathers would do today.

Interpret? You really should go back and read what they had to say. The words out of their own mouths; they wanted VERY limited government. There is no "if" about it. Check out the youtube link that I posted earlier.

quote:
Should laws that ban guns in a densely populated area be implemented in Alaska? Of course not! It is still mostly a frontier country and they deal with things we never see in our lifetime.

Guns have several purposes; to keep out intruders, keep the government in check, and keep food on the table (well, back in the day). It seems like you think gun bans will be effective elsewhere?

This isn't about Republican or Democrat. It's about government in general. I am not affiliated with any of those crooked parties. I side with George Washing on that front.


RE: ...
By Ryrod on 10/21/2011 11:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we have now, is the total opposite of that view. The rules come from the Top down, instead of the bottom up. Just look at the simple fact that we have federal INCOME taxes! For the love of God, I can't understand how we have allowed the continuation of taxing OUR INCOME. Just as the healthcare bill is unconstitutional, so is federal income tax, and education laws.


The 16th Amendment allows federal taxation of income without apportionment among the states. Healthcare is based upon the substantial effect it has on interstate commerce under the commerce clause of Art. 1 Sec. 8. Education laws are promotion of general welfare supported by the necessary and proper clause.

quote:
Yes, that's correct. Without writing a book about US history... the original idea of uniting our colonies under one government was that they would still be afforded the protection of foreign and domestic threats, but still be able to essentially govern themselves.


Yeah, that's true, but it failed. The Articles of Confederation created a system much like what you are advocating: a neutered federal government that has no ability to support itself because the states refused to give money to the federal government to raise an army or conduct any type of substantial foreign relations. We have tried the severely limited government approach and found that it did not work because states didn't like to play nice with one another. It didn't work then and that is why we now have the US Constitution which sought to form a more perfect union than the one you propose.

We still provide states with plenty of power and rights. States are still allowed to govern themselves as they see fit, so long as the way they govern themselves does not negatively affect the other states. This was one of the biggest problems with placing the functions of the federal government at the hands of the states. In that situation, placing states above the federal government creates a free for all where states can harm other states with impunity. This is why we have Art. 1 Sec 10 in Constitution.

quote:
So, to answer you question: Laws should start at the state level, and branch out to counties, cities, municipalities, etc; and the federal government should only stick to what they have explicitly be afforded (which is very clearly defined in the constitution).


You must be forgetting about the necessary and proper clause in the Constitution. That clause is explicit in the Constitution and allows the Federal government: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." So what the Federal government can do is very explicitly set forth and they have the ability to make any law which is necessary and proper to execute that power. Your statement does little to support your argument that the Federal government is acting outside of its authority under the Constitution when it engages in regulation of interstate commerce or promotion of the general welfare.

quote:
It about time that we return to our roots, force politicans to be an actual public servant position again, limit their powers, give them term limits, and work on fixing our corrupt judicial system.


When you say return to our roots, are you talking about repealing the suffrage laws that allowed women (19th), former slaves (15th), and non-propertied individuals to vote? Or are you talking about the 18th Amendment which allowed 18 yr old adults to vote? Or are you talking about the time when US Senators were selected by state legislatures and not the general public (17th)?

Now, if you are talking about politicians being public servants by listening to their constituents and not big money interests, then you should be occupying wall street and not supporting the Tea Party. But I don't know exactly what you mean by that public servant comment and would also like clarification on that one as well.

I'd also like to know what you are talking about when you say we need to fix our corrupt judicial system. How is it corrupt? Is it because they making rulings that you do not agree with personally?


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/24/2011 11:44:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, if you are talking about politicians being public servants by listening to their constituents and not big money interests, then you should be occupying wall street and not supporting the Tea Party.

ROFL. You post slowly deteriorates as it progresses. Do you seriously think that the morons at occupy Wall Street have a clue how the government really works?

I have done a lot of research on this topic, and the founders of this nation wanted the true powers to stay with the states and the people (more importantly the people). It's people like you who misinterpret the Constitution and find out of context pieces to distort meaning.

The "necessary and proper" clause gives implied powers to congress. By that, it means implied powers that are EXPLICITLY stated within CONTEXT of their STATED power. For example, it says that congress can raise an army, therefor that implies that they can tax to fund it, purchase capitol for it, exercise power to use it etc. As some else said earlier, you cannot read something outside of it's context.

I saw no mention of healthcare and education in the U.S. Constitution. The document SPECIFICALLY says what powers the federal government has, and that everything else is up to the states.

quote:
I'd also like to know what you are talking about when you say we need to fix our corrupt judicial system. How is it corrupt? Is it because they making rulings that you do not agree with personally?

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but if you think the way our current judicial system works, then you have no idea what goes on in the real world. I am heavily involved in law enforcement research, and I see every single day why it's broken. Do some research, I don't have time to spell it all out.


RE: ...
By Ryrod on 10/24/2011 7:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ROFL. You post slowly deteriorates as it progresses. Do you seriously think that the morons at occupy Wall Street have a clue how the government really works?


Your assumption that everyone is a moron that is associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement is not only incorrect, but also extremely biased. If you think everybody associated with OWS is a moron, then you must think that everyone associated with the Tea Party is a racist bigot, right? Simply labeling a group of people as idiots or bigots does a disservice to the smart individuals who think about these issues, but are associated with a small group of individuals who choose to spread their message in an inappropriate manner which causes harm to the image of the larger movement. So to answer your question, yes I do think that a fair number of people associated with OWS have a clue how government works, but they aren't the ones being interviewed by Fox News.

quote:
I have done a lot of research on this topic, and the founders of this nation wanted the true powers to stay with the states and the people (more importantly the people). It's people like you who misinterpret the Constitution and find out of context pieces to distort meaning.


It doesn't matter what any of the founders wanted in terms of the Constitution. We have the document in its full text and can read the document just as well as any of them could. If we followed your principle, then the Supreme Court should uphold the Health Care bill and further impose a single payer system, because that is what some of the people who passed that bill wanted. If you are willing to accept your conclusion about what individuals wanted when they wrote a document, then you should be willing to accept the single payer system because that is what a small number of Democrat wanted.

quote:
The "necessary and proper" clause gives implied powers to congress. By that, it means implied powers that are EXPLICITLY stated within CONTEXT of their STATED power. For example, it says that congress can raise an army, therefor that implies that they can tax to fund it, purchase capitol for it, exercise power to use it etc. As some else said earlier, you cannot read something outside of it's context.


Once again, if you accept that the ability to raise an maintain an army and navy implies the ability to tax for it, purchase equipment for them, and the power to use the army for war, then you should be able to accept that the Constitution allows the Federal government to put conditions on the money they spend form taxation. This would include the government making a condition that the money it gives to states be used to fund education. As for healthcare, it affects interstate commerce. From the explicit statement that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, it is implied that anything which substantially affects interstate commerce is subject to Congressional regulation. Even Justice Scalia has stated in the past that "Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between 'what is truly national and what is truly local.'" Gonzales v. Raich, 542 US 1 (2005). If Justice Scalia says regulating noneconomic intrastate activities is ok when it undercuts regulation of interstate commerce, then I think it's ok for the federal government to regulate economic intrastate activies.

quote:
The document SPECIFICALLY says what powers the federal government has, and that everything else is up to the states.


Actually, you are speaking of the 10th Amendment, which was not originally part of the Constitution when ratified, but was intentionally left out to secure passage. It adds nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified, but merely reaffirms a statement that the enumerated powers are all of the powers Congress hold and that there are no non-enumerated powers which Congress holds. It does not act to restrict or limit the enumerated powers in Art 1 Sec 8, as you would suggest.

quote:
I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but if you think the way our current judicial system works, then you have no idea what goes on in the real world. I am heavily involved in law enforcement research, and I see every single day why it's broken. Do some research, I don't have time to spell it all out.


I am actually very interested in how you think the judicial system is defective. You say that you are involved in law enforcement research, and see every single day why it's broken. I would like to know how because I've worked with courts on a regular basis (state trial and appellate) and I don't see how they are broken. Granted, I have little experience with Federal courts, but I also don't understand what you believe is dysfunctional about them. Making broad statements and then telling a person to look it up themselves when they ask you to specify, doesn't really help the conversation. I could equally make the statement that the US is corrupt, but no one can address my complaint if I don't even specify as to what aspect I am talking about. The statement that the judicial system is corrupt could refer to any number of interpretations, including complaints about activist judges, complaints about the jury system, complaints about the laws being enforced by courts, etc.


RE: ...
By foolsgambit11 on 10/21/2011 7:08:44 PM , Rating: 1
So it's cool if California regulates the MPG for cars sold there, even though it means that it's the effective standard for the whole country.


RE: ...
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 3:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Oh top 10 list. Good idea. Let's demand that they adhere to the Bill of Rights!


RE: ...
By prophet001 on 10/21/2011 3:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
1. your economy


RE: ...
By shin0bi272 on 10/21/2011 5:05:25 PM , Rating: 3
regulation as defined by Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson in federalist papers 41 or 42 I forget which said that the commerce clause was there to allow the government to tax goods that went across state lines.

It doesnt mean that they can write any law that they want to write to "regulate" us into behavior that they would like us to have. The concept of our country is that the people who you were closest to were to have the most control over your life. The city or county you lived in first, then the state, and then the federal government was just there to protect you from invasion and insurrection and provide you with a uniform currency and establish post offices and postal roads and lay and collect taxes for the purposes of supporting the afore mentioned items...that's about it as far as citizens are concerned.

No where in there does it say that the government should be allowed to tax you for the purposes of a retirement package, or to give you housing or schooling or cell phones or food or a car or medical care. The federal government is not responsible for ANY OF THAT. Yet they've taken advantage of every down turn in the economy and every crisis to expand their power.

You need a diploma in this country to cut hair! You need a certification to arrange flowers and a degree be an interior decorator. THAT IS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT!


RE: ...
By Ryrod on 10/24/2011 2:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No where in there does it say that the government should be allowed to tax you for the purposes of a retirement package, or to give you housing or schooling or cell phones or food or a car or medical care. The federal government is not responsible for ANY OF THAT. Yet they've taken advantage of every down turn in the economy and every crisis to expand their power.


Art 1 Sec 8 specifically states that the government has the power to tax (as long as the tax is uniform) and regulate interstate commerce. In this day and age, companies are constitute a substantial portion of the economy and have a substantial and direct effect on interstate commerce. Taxing for social security, to provide a safety net is clearly permissible because it is indiscriminate and provides for the general welfare of the nation by removing elderly people from the workforce and preventing them from being destitute.

As for housing, schooling, and medical care those fall under the spending clause which is implicit in the taxation clause. As for food, car, and cell phone those are likely to be state administered plans that have little to do with the federal government.

quote:
You need a diploma in this country to cut hair! You need a certification to arrange flowers and a degree be an interior decorator. THAT IS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT!


Here you are equating restrictions placed upon you by the state with those placed upon you by the federal government. The states have plenary power, but the federal government does not (they have specific enumerated powers Art 1 Sec 8). In effect, the state, prior to the 14th Amendment, could do anything they wanted to you. The only thing that stopped them was their own constitutions which in most cases were severely lacking in personal liberties (especially in the criminal procedure aspect). So in effect, the federal constitution and courts have done more to limit state power than almost anything other force in history. If you still think your state exercises too much power by requiring certifications for certain occupations, then complain about your state to your state legislators, but don't unfairly blame it on the federal government.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/24/2011 11:49:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for housing, schooling, and medical care those fall under the spending clause

They absolutely do NOT. They might as well tear the document up now if people refuse to STUDY the Constitution before spreading misinformation. I really suggest you take a few classes on the U.S. Constitution and it's history. If you don't know the history behind it and the meaning of the document within context, then you essentially have no idea how to read/interpret it.

The document was written for two reasons:

1) define us as a "more perfect union"
2) LIMIT powers of federal regulation


RE: ...
By Ryrod on 10/24/2011 6:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They might as well tear the document up now if people refuse to STUDY the Constitution before spreading misinformation. I really suggest you take a few classes on the U.S. Constitution and it's history. If you don't know the history behind it and the meaning of the document within context, then you essentially have no idea how to read/interpret it.


You know, the sad part is that I probably have more education regarding the US Constitution than you do. I've read it multiple times and written multiple papers on it. I've also spent years and years studying it and I hold a degree in history with an emphasis in Jeffersonian and Jacksonian America.

Your desire to add context to the Constitution and limit it to what founders believed rather than what it says in the actual text shows your complete lack of understanding about Constitutional law. If the founders really intended for the US to adhere to the theories they professed, then those theories would have been explicitly stated in the Constitution. Furthermore, your desire to add the context of these founders specifically invites uncertainty in the field of Constitutional law. Many people were at the convention (55 to be exact) and expressed many different beliefs regarding the powers of the federal government. Simply picking one person to win out over all others is nothing more than applying your own personal interpretation on the Constitution, which is exactly what you are railing against.

The Constitution should be read in the plain text manner as it is set forth. Anything implied in the text should be allowed, but adding your own personal brand of history to limit the powers explicitly or implicitly allowed shouldn't be permitted.

quote:
The document was written for two reasons:
1) define us as a "more perfect union"
2) LIMIT powers of federal regulation


1) Because the Articles of Confederation made the Federal government too weak to function and the convention was called to make a stronger Federal government. A collection of states that control almost every aspect of government and a federal government that does nothing is not a union, but instead, a collection of independent nation-states akin to ancient Greece.
2) It was more of a focus on limiting the control the states had over the Federal government. That is why the Federal government has the ability to tax/spend, has control over the army, and makes laws superior to all state laws. Furthermore, Federal regulations were clearly assumed to be a permissible action when the government chose to regulate interstate commerce and to tax/spend.


RE: ...
By SpartanJet on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 3:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
Which tea party was that? Linky please.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 1
That is quite to opposite of what the Tea Party stands for. I've seen the article you are talking about, and I'm pretty sure we will find out soon that I was actually a facade group of progressives attempting to make the TP look bad. Kinda like how some people scream to the top of their lungs that the TP are a group of racists, yet no-one has provided such evidence.

A few bad apples never speak for an entire movement.


RE: ...
By sigmatau on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tea baggers make themselves look bad.
The only people I see making them look bad are their opponents. Also, site one instance of racism in the Tea Party.

PS - I am not for the Tea Party as they are only interested a slightly less brown color of the same sh!t.


RE: ...
By sigmatau on 10/21/2011 7:27:47 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party...

"Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress"

You really didn't just ask me that did you? Not only are they racist at their rallies, they will spew this crap at Congress as I would expect from a toddler.

Anyhow, they are the Republican's perfect pet: have a group that doesn't think for themselves but gets all their information from Fox News, let them spin and lie away the facts to twist it to their imaginary world, and all the while screw all of America with their help. Oh, and almost none of them get the tax break whose expiration they are desperately fighting.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 7:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
I stopped reading your post at: http://www.huffingtonpost


RE: ...
By sigmatau on 10/22/2011 1:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh you are a Fox News douche then. Good come back!


RE: ...
By Dorkyman on 10/22/2011 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
Not so. Didn't happen.


RE: ...
By sigmatau on 10/21/2011 7:32:48 PM , Rating: 5
Noway they could not possibly be racist. Teabaggers racist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 8:50:09 PM , Rating: 1
So.... you are saying that because there are a handful of racists in the Tea Party, then that makes the entire movement racist? Talk about stereotyping...

And for the record, that was no evidence for them being actual Tea Party affiliates. I have seen a few instances of racists being kicked out of TP rallies actually... Total crap video that you posted. At least half of it can't be considered racist; but I like the part where there start playing banjo music in attempts to connect that type of music with the "redneck hillbilly country retard backwoods inbred hick" stereotype. Nicely done!


RE: ...
By DanD85 on 10/22/2011 4:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still believe that the citizens know what is best for them, and that they don't need big brother to tell them what color underwear to put on each morning.


I am sorry but you are wrong. Clear and simple. Thinking like this drag us in this economic storm we have to endure right now. Until you accept the fact that you, me or anybody else only know at best several thing decently and that doesn't mean what you know is best for you.

That's a fact. Please stop this free-market nonsense that making everybody lives worse.


RE: ...
By Ringold on 10/22/2011 1:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thinking like this drag us in this economic storm we have to endure right now. Until you accept the fact that you, me or anybody else only know at best several thing decently and that doesn't mean what you know is best for you.


You've got no idea what you're talking about, so it's not wise to be so condescending.

The current "economic storm", if you're talking about the housing bust, was 100% government created. Extremely subsidized interest rates provided by government-backed insurance via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lowered the income bar to entry, federal income tax deductions for mortgage interest, a raft of low income housing policies and artificially low overall interest rates by the Federal Reserve all created an artificial environment that super-charged consumers incentives to pile in to the housing market as quickly as they could.

So, individuals followed the rational incentives, and piled in. Predictably, the government house of cards fell apart. Boom.

The MOST current "economic storm" is due to the fact that Europeans are paying the price for decades of having no spine. Their half-hearted undemocratic EU experiment doesn't have the legal authority to be decisive, and it needs to be decisive because weak-spined and weak-headed governments have followed awful economic policy for decades and now cant pay their bills.

In other words, educate yourself because you start talking about "facts."


RE: ...
By DanD85 on 10/23/2011 8:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
You know Ringold, I were actually talking about the fact that human beings always have a tendency to overestimate their ability to know what's best for them. It is a fact that people's awareness is very limited, so you DO NOT know what best for you every time. Maybe sometimes but not all the time.

Your blame of everything bad or wrong or evil entirely on the government is not correct. It's the government wrongdoing entirely only when the government direct every thing even to the miniscule detail like in a communist type government. Instead, we have a government that drive the economy using incentives and as any economist can tell you that incentives can be beaten, almost every time. The "economic storm" happened mostly because of people's greed and bank's greed. The notion that every thing wrong is the responsibility of the government is just plain wrong.

What we need now is not a smaller or weaker or less intervened government but a stronger and well-supervised government.

Please at least have a look at books like "Bad Samaritans The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" or "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" to have a better ideas of who is to blame in these dark economic time.


RE: ...
By Ringold on 10/23/2011 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not everything thats wrong is the fault of the government, no. You brought up the current economic mess, I simply pointed out that many of the incentives that super-charged the asset bubble were artificial government creations. When politicians are calm, and almost always when they're off the record, both parties politicians understand that.

Blaming the problems on "greed" also requires blaming the last 10, 15 years of economic growth thats lifted about a billion people in to what the OECD and others are defining as a global middle class on greed, because it was the introduction of free-market reforms in China and India thats led to it.

The key problem with your view is that government can know whats best for us better than we can. The idea a small group of central planners can keep up with the rapidly changing technological, commercial and social world is absurd.

As for your books, why read books that promote their bias right in their title? Besides, I've got an MA in Econ, "23 things they dont tell you about capitalism" sounds a little layman.


RE: ...
By DanD85 on 10/24/2011 4:49:06 AM , Rating: 2
You said you got an MA in Econ and then you judge a book by the way it's named. That's not a very scientific approach in my humble opinion. Please at least read the prologue before judging it. The title may sound a bit "laymen" but the content is not. And this is not anti-capitalism as the title suggests. Actually, right from the start it said "capitalism is still the best economic system that humanity has invented". It just oppose the idea that free-market is the "be all, end all" way of capitalism.

Maybe greed is a little bit too broad, I blame the lax in financial market regulation for this particular economic storm. If you have an MA in Econ then please clearly explain in "laymen" term those bastardized financial derivatives like MBSs, CDOs and CDSs and their roles in this economic mess we have yet to clean up fully. And why Warren Buffet, well-known for his down-to-earth approach to investment, called financial derivatives ‘weapons of financial mass destruction’ – well before the 2008 crisis proved their destructiveness ?

"Free-market reforms in China and India"! Please, it is not free-market that make them who they are today. In the case of China, strong government intervention is the real reason.

I did not said government can know what best for us. I just said we have a tendency to overestimate the ability to know what best for us. As I've said, our mental capability is limited, so when it comes to more sophisticated matter, we need a stronger, better-supervised and well-advised government to help us decide what best.


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 10/23/2011 5:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
That's the most bassackwards way of thinking that I've read in a long time.

If you don't want to make any decisions for yourself, THAT IS in itself a decision you made to concede control of your life to someone else.

So, you are essentially saying that some people do know what is best for you, which we should take to mean they also know what is best for themselves.

Instead what we have is corporations conspiring to buy politicians so that the few, the wealthy, prosper against the benefit of the majority.

Yes there are some downsides to capitalism but you cannot sanely list the negative while omitting the positives and then claim you have made a fair assessment.

In other words if you want to live in a different society, by all means do so and don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you have lived in such a society most of your life instead, making your opinion nothing more than abstract generalization rather than first hand experience, then possibly the opposite should happen.

What I think is most likely is that you have not financially prospered much in a capitalism based society and you want the government to take from others so you can have more for yourself... making you part of the problem.


RE: ...
By DanD85 on 10/24/2011 5:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think you've misread most of what I've said. Please have another look.

I did not in anyway said some people know what best for me, for you or for any one for that matter. I just simply said our mental capability is limited and we have a tendency to overestimate our ability to judge what best for us. Sure you can know what best for you in simple matter like what to eat or where to live but when it come to greater matters, you simply just unable to know without the help of others.

And I did not oppose capitalism. I believe capitalism is still the best economic system human beings has come up with till this point in history. I just oppose the free-market way of doing capitalism. In these pass several decades where free-market capitalism run rampant and unrestrained, it has wrecked major havocs that we can now see clearly through these messy events.


RE: ...
By hyvonen on 10/22/2011 6:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but you're apparently blind to how a "government" should be operating. A quick look towards northern europe paints a picture very different from our everyday corruption, all-for-the-wealthy, screw the stability attitude...

Small/Limited government is the fastest way to establishing the rule of the wealthy... which would suit a few greedy individuals fine, but isn't a solid, long term solution to the problems we're facing

Your imaginary "sickness" is stupid, as is your attitude towards "government intervention". Look beyond your current horizon. How should the whole society be handled? How should it be steered in global competition?

Pro-Status-Quo folks such as yourself are the main reason why this country is in a death spiral. You need to shut up and let smarter people lead the country out of this otherwise-unfixable mess. Give up your personal greed for the survival of the United States.


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 10/23/2011 5:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
False. The rule of the wealthy has occurred because legislation is backed based upon the influence of the wealthy over our legislators.

A more limited government would have less control over everything and by extension, the wealthy would have fewer laws in their favor.

In fact, the extensive actions of the US government have caused the "problems we're facing", at the very least a reduction in governance will reduce the damage done, and reduce government spending which is at an absurd level, we're going further and further into debt because of these actions.

Do you understand debt? It has to be turned around, nothing else matters if this doesn't happen. The wealthy are getting wealthier, this cannot be a sustainable future unless we reverse the actions of our ever growing government.

You wrote "how should the whole society be handled". EXACTLY WRONG AND FOOLISH THOUGHT. Government is not meant to steer society, it is meant to provide essential services and maintain the society that the majority chooses while allowing individuals their own choice in how to life it.

You make some ridiculous argument at the end about "the survival of the United States". This is not a biology class, it's not a live vs die scenario.

It's about quality of life, pursuit of the american dream through one's own choices. Yes greed can be counter productive but to claim personal greed is the problem is laughable. It is the collaborative greed of big business which sways the government to do things that harm the individual.

As for the idea that you feel fit to tell someone to "shut up", obviously you don't belong in the US if you can't even grasp the idea of free speech so as someone considered an outsider, your thoughts are better suited to some other society.


RE: ...
By Gungel on 10/22/2011 8:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
Actually imposing better fuel standards is part of our national security. Less fuel imports = higher independence from foreign countries. So yes, it can be part of the constitution.


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 10/23/2011 5:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly. You can't argue reasonably if you claim so long as the end is good, the means to get there is automatically acceptable.

Further, and this is a timely example, we are more dependent on particular countries for certain imports which would be necessary to achieve the higher fuel efficiency standards. Rare metals from China for example, we can't get in sufficient supply anywhere else while things like oil, we have under our own soil but mere politics prevents our use of it.


RE: ...
By Ryrod on 10/24/2011 1:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rare metals from China for example, we can't get in sufficient supply anywhere else while things like oil, we have under our own soil but mere politics prevents our use of it.


I disagree, we can get rare earth metals in the USA. They are underneath the ground just like the oil that some people feel we need to drill for. We even have a mine in place for these rare earth metals, which makes a lot more sense than setting up brand new oil derricks from scratch. A rash of new oil derricks makes even less sense when, if we completely cut our oil imports, we would only have about 40 years of worth of oil underneath us (assuming that consumption remains approximately the same, which it won't).

The only reason that China controls the rare earth metals market is because they are the only ones mining for rare earth metals. There are many other countries sitting on rare earth metals, some of which are much larger in quantity than what is in China. The problem is that none of the countries with rare earth metals want to mine for them because it is cheaper to have the Chinese do it for them. You gotta love how capitalism works when it creates all of these dependencies on other countries, and you gotta love it even more when people cry foul for putting national strategic interests above simple capitalistic desires.


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 11/12/2011 12:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
... but we can't actually get the RE metals anywhere else. To say there are "some" in the ground is a far cry from having them in hand, processed to use within a few years. An offline mine != RE metal ready to use in products, maybe someday we can but it means right now, we can't.

Right now we have the ability to change policy to let mines open, AND oil rigs get set up by corporations. Even if we suggest there is only 40 years worth there, it could be an important 40 years to aid in transition to alternative fuel and further other petroleum product replacement research.


RE: ...
By Targon on 10/22/2011 10:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you just attack the government paying too much for what they get? A government employee who is getting paid at or above the normal private sector rate should not get a pension(no sacrifice by the employee). How about cutting the number of government aides and making sure there is no excess spending on resources used by government offices?

This would be FAR FAR easier to go after than trying to debate which programs should be eliminated or downsized...just cut the pay to those government workers down to a normal level, and you save billions without really shrinking "government".

If I went out and paid $50 for breakfast daily, and then tried to claim I was broke and could not pay my bills, I would be laughed at, yet all areas of government are doing this. The Tea Party is a joke because not a single leader has a clue about what is really wrong with the government.


RE: ...
By BaronMatrix on 10/23/2011 2:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Is that why the Tea Party misspells signs and probably leads in our children being 25% percent OBESE? Sure, people know what's best for them. That's why we're 35th in STEM and a have a need for BOTH tech workers and laborers.


RE: ...
By lyeoh on 10/23/2011 3:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
focusing on their objective to return this nation back to small and limited government


It's amazing how many people think that the problem is quantity (and also think they're so smart). Fact is the problem is quality. Not quantity.

If you think reducing the size of a crappy Government somehow magically improves it, then you're pretty stupid. There are lots of places with small corrupt Governments that work together with powerful outsiders (other Govs, corporations) and screw the local population.

If you still think quantity is the problem, then maybe you should have fewer voters too. Since ultimately the voters are responsible for Government, and have they been doing a good job? No right? So by your logic reducing the number of voters should improve things.

If you think the voters have been doing a good job, then there's no problem right?

It's quality not quantity. If so many don't even know what the real problem is, don't be surprised if the problem doesn't get fixed.


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 10/23/2011 5:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with your argument is that if the government were higher quality, it would be more efficient and would NECESSARILY be a lower quantity.

Further, quantity in itself costs money. Quantity also means more people seeking ways to extend the power of their positions to spend more money. Everyone in government subjectively has ideas on how to best spend money which ultimately results in more money being spent.

Whether you agree or not, this is what is happening, now, today, in reality. Government grew while the quality didn't change much, and spending grew with it.


RE: ...
By augiem on 10/22/2011 1:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sick of people pulling the old "whining" and "ranting" garbage on every single comment they don't like. This is a freaking comment board. It exists for people to express their opinions (yes even the ones accusing of whining). It's nothing but a cheap and lazy way to kill a discussion without putting a whit of effort into debate. /rant


RE: ...
By Totally on 10/21/2011 2:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
well, I find it funny when it gov't takes a hands of approach those in a position of power, proceed to screw everything and every one.


RE: ...
By Kurz on 10/21/2011 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
Talking about Monopolies?
Nearly every single one was created by Government in one way or another.


RE: ...
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 2:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like how Toyota did with their gas-guzzling Prius?


RE: ...
By Spuke on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 3:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
It had nothing to do with gov't, which was exactly my point.
(see response on subsidies below)


RE: ...
By kjboughton on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Gungel on 10/22/2011 8:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
Only if you hit a tree or wall in a SUV. Sitting in a full size SUV is still saver than sitting in a Prius when it gets hit by that SUV.


RE: ...
By Smilin on 10/21/2011 3:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
...that was subsidized by a tax break to purchasers?

Yeah. Kinda like the opposite of that.


RE: ...
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 3:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well this is where it gets hairy.

For what it is worth I got $0 subsidy for my Corolla.

So you are right, no one would've bought a slightly pricier Prius to save on fuel costs. </sarcasm> A cheaper gas bill is a cheaper gas bill.

And thus it is hairy, since the gov't got involved. We won't know how things would've developed without gov't intervention and it is wrong for people to assume that Prius owners would all be driving Explorers without it.

If you do want to see what it would be like without the gov't intervention, look no further than my Corolla. One of the best selling cars in America due greatly to the fact that it gets great mpgs. No subsidy required.


RE: ...
By gorehound on 10/21/2011 2:25:02 PM , Rating: 1
2012 THE APOCALYPSE
Get as many folk as possible to March On Washington
Get Millions to do this
I would hitch-hike from Maine if I had to if there are others to join me.We need to stop this Corrupt F$CKEN Government now.


RE: ...
By The Raven on 10/21/2011 2:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what side of the issue you are on here. I think the people have spoken that they want the gov't out of the auto industry.

Are you talking about some alternate US Constitution that regulates fuel efficiency?


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 2:41:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you talking about some alternate US Constitution that regulates fuel efficiency?

I'm talking about government intervention in general. Doing things that the constitution specifically prohibits them from doing. For example: The government "bailouts" of GM. We absolutely can not have a free market economy (or a free society in general) if the "government" gets to decided who makes it and who doesn't.


RE: ...
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 2:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Where in the Constitution does it state that the government can't bail out companies? Also, if they violated the Constitution, why haven't you sued them? Why hasn't ANYONE in the Tea Party sued them? I'll give you an answer. It's because they have NOT violated the Constitution and it's well within their right to do so. Disagree? Sue them, vote them out of office, hold recall elections in your state, something, just quit whining!


RE: ...
By Dr of crap on 10/21/2011 3:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, like doing anyone of those things you mentioned would
1 -ever happen
2 -have anyone listen to you
3 -like I'd have a say as to WHO was elected
4 -if you think that YOUR vote counts - or you decide who the TWO asses are that are running for office - you do not understand MODERN politics

It's ALL about the money!


RE: ...
By Kurz on 10/21/2011 3:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
RE: ...
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 4:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.
Where in that is the part that says, "the government shalt not give bail outs to corporations." Here I'll help you. Have you heard of the lawsuits by the states and other groups on the constitutionality of the government mandating private citizens buy health insurance (again why isn't anyone suing over the bailouts)? See the following website on arguments using specifics (not talking points) of that portion of the laws constitutionality.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate...

This is what I'm looking for. Data, not rehashed, BS, political talking points.


RE: ...
By Kurz on 10/21/2011 4:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Basically Everything Not Said (Including Bailouts) shouldn't be done.


RE: ...
By Kurz on 10/21/2011 4:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Data? If the Government wants more power they'll write it into law. The constitution rarely comes into mind when laws are written.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 4:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have the right idea. Every power not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution is in the hand of the states (which in turn gives some of it's power to counties, local municipalities, etc). Unfortunately, a power hungry federal government and the complacent States have destroyed that entire idea.


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 7:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's not how the 10th amendment works nor how it has ever worked nor how it was intended to work nor how it has been interpreted by SCOTUS for over 200 years.

And FWIW, the bailouts relied on existing government power and did not give the government any new power.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 7:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the bailouts relied on existing government power and did not give the government any new power.

The "federal government" was created when the US constitution was signed, sealed, and approved. So please quote the document as to where it says that they have the power to intervene in the free market in that manor. GM got a bailout, so where is mine? What's the difference between them making it, and anyone else? If they have the power to give it, they also have the power to take it.

I eagerly await your answer :)


RE: ...
By ats on 10/21/2011 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
General Welfare Clause in Article 1 Section 8
And somewhat the commerce clause.

FYI, the power to take is explicit in the constitution as well as the power to give. It is a basic necessity of even the most narrow john birch society interpretation of the constitution.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 10/21/2011 7:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
So, let me get this right before you are rated into oblivion: You believe that the "general welfare clause" gives the government the power to step in a write a blank check for a business that has made enough bad decisions to bankrupt themselves? You cannot be serious...

quote:
FYI, the power to take is explicit in the constitution as well as the power to give.

wwhhhaaat?! hahaha! Did man-bear-pig tell you that?