backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Feb 26 at 5:50 PM


  (Source: carsdirect.com)
Twenty-nine of the U.S. senators were Democrats, including Carl Levin (D-Detroit)

The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal has won the support of 30 U.S. senators, who are now looking to put the final touches on the rules and have them completed by summer.

The CAFE proposal, which was introduced by the Obama administration, the state of California and major automakers, aims to increase the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The idea behind the proposal is to decrease both greenhouse gas emissions and the U.S.' dependency on foreign oil.

When the 54.5 mpg standard was initially proposed last year, its reception was back and forth. Republicans worked to block the standards last fall because they believed that it would regulate many new vehicles that sell for under $15,000 entirely out of existence. In addition, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) has strongly opposed the new standards, saying they could tack an extra $5,000 to the stick price of new vehicles in 2025.

While many major automakers have backed the new fuel rules, despite recently asking for changes last week, some have not. For instance, Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG have said that the new proposal offers no incentives for diesel cars.

Despite some criticism, the CAFE proposal pushed on and grabbed support from major automakers like Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Chrysler. Other supporters include the United Auto Workers (UAW) and environmental groups like the National Wildlife Federation.

Now, the list of supporters has grown much longer. Thirty U.S. senators have jumped on board with the CAFE proposal, and hope to have the rules finalized by summer.

The U.S. senators released a letter yesterday saying that the 2017-2025 requirements proposed under the CAFE standards are broadly supported by the industry. Of the 30 senators, 29 are Democrats.

"This proposal provides our industry both a single program moving forward, as well as regulatory framework that enables manufacturers to plan and invest for the future with confidence," said Sue Cischke, Ford Motor Co.'s vice president of sustainability, environment and safety engineering. "We are committed to working with you to finalize these regulations. The standards proposed are aggressive, but so are the demands from our customers for greater fuel efficiency."

The need to provide more fuel efficient vehicles is stronger than ever. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, U.S. gasoline prices have increased 38 cents a gallon to an average of $3.52 a gallon from over one year ago.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

What a crock...
By klstay on 2/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: What a crock...
By bobsmith1492 on 2/22/2012 9:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather conserve natural gas for home heating than burn it all off in. Replacing the infrastructure for heating homes would be a nightmare.


RE: What a crock...
By bobsmith1492 on 2/22/2012 9:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
... Burn it all off in autos .


RE: What a crock...
By MontagG on 2/22/2012 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 1
CAFE is a way to push increasing fuel economy while giving the politicians a pass for pushing the costs on to consumers.

What should be done, is impose a tax on fuel. Consumers and manufacturers will do the math and go with more fuel efficient vehicles while giving the government revenue. Maybe we could use the revenue to repair the infrastructure we keep hearing about?


RE: What a crock...
By Kurz on 2/22/2012 10:02:25 AM , Rating: 4
What actually should be done is remove the subsidies from these industries it would automatically raise the price of gasoline instead of pouring water on each side of the scale.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2012 10:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
What world are you people living in where gas needs to be MORE expensive?

These subsides the left cries about makes about a 2 cent impact on gas prices at the pump. While 35+ cents go to taxes. Hello?

The Government makes several times more off fuel taxes than they spend in subsidies. Remove them, fine. But what is that going to accomplish exactly except for hurting the consumer a little more?


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 11:07:36 AM , Rating: 3
I agree that increasing the price of gas would be devastating to our country's economy. The middle and lower class would be affected the most while the rich wouldn't care.

I bet that it'd also be more efficient if the government didn't give the 2 cent subsidy to oil and gas companies and taxed gas 33 cents instead of 35 cents. Prices would stay the same and the process would eliminate some unnecessary government positions.

Also, CAFE is a crock. Everyone know that gas prices aren't going down, there is no need for a government mandate for more fuel efficient vehicles, the gas prices will take care of that. Every car manufacturer is already trying to make their cars as efficient as they can and it's not because of CAFE, but because consumers want efficient vehicles.

Also LOL @ Santorum having a real shot at being the presidential candidate instead of being the 3-5% marginal candidate he should be, shows the sad state of GOP.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 3:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the GOP is in a sad state, this article is a perfect example of where the Democrats have their priorities. Gas prices, unemployment, and economic growth ALL terrible under their rule. And what do they waste their time doing? Crap like CAFE, de-funding social security with a payroll tax election year stunt, and trying to force Churches to provide birth control for free. Man those are REALLY important considering where our country is heading let me tell ya.

At least they are not incurring new large expenses that don't benefit anyone such as, you know, those two pesky wars that they inherited. We also know that any institution that spreads ignorance and discourages the use of reason should be paying property taxes like everyone else, and just because you're forced to work for such an institution should not mean you shouldn't have access to a basic medical necessity.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 4:11:36 PM , Rating: 1
They voted based on faulty manufactured evidence by Bush's cronies, especially that POS Karl Rove who should be given a small cut for each Iraqi civilian that was killed by the US armed forces. Remember the yellow cake uranium from Niger?

Obama would not have gone to war in Iraq were he in charge at the time. Plus, I doubt Bush himself came up with the pullout date, it was most likely the military commanders, who knew these things better.

Look, I'm not saying the democrats are all sunshine and flowers, but by far they're the lesser of the two evils.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 4:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
UN is basically US, so that doesn't mean anything. They were great liars.


RE: What a crock...
By Dorkyman on 2/22/2012 5:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another excellent example of the parallel universe the libs live in. Bush evil. Bad wars. Rove and Cheney devils. Oil VERY bad. Pipelines bad. Crony capitalism good (for the moment). People who go to certain churches bad. Public funding of abortion good.

It's going to take a revolution to clean all the parallel universe fools out. It's coming.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 5:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet another excellent example of the parallel universe the libs live in. Bush evil. Bad wars. Rove and Cheney devils. Oil VERY bad. Pipelines bad. Crony capitalism good (for the moment). People who go to certain churches bad. Public funding of abortion good.

Where did I say oil and pipelines were bad, and crony capitalism was good at the moment? We need them but it's also apparent that we need to look for other alternatives for our own national security.

I also don't discriminate between what churches or other religious buildings people go to, they're all unequivocally bad.

America is getting more liberal, because it's the right thing to do in more cases than the other option, accept it.


RE: What a crock...
By sunbear on 2/22/2012 10:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong. The UN didn't agree with US intelligence. The UN inspectors found no evidence of WMDs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/27/hans-blix...
.
And according to polls at the time in many European countries opposition to invading Iraq was around 90%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Ira...

After 9/11 there was initially so much sympathy and support for the US around the world because of what took place. It was heart-breaking to see America squander that brief unity by lashing out against a country (iraq) that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but civil war and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi people are a worse evil. And contrary to Bush's assertions the consensus seems to be that the Iraq war did not make us safer either
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq...

It was also a real eye-opener to watch US television coverage of the Iraq debate at this time and contrast it with the coverage on the BBC. In the US you would see politiicians being asked questions like "why did Osama Bin Laden attack us?". The standard repeated response was so flimsy - "He's against freedom". What a crock! You had to watch the BBC to learn that the CIA trained Bin Laden in his fight in Afganistan against the soviet union, and how he was against any foreign invaders on Arab soil (which is why he was against both Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait AND the US troops entering Kuwait and Iraq).

Most of my American friends have little to no idea of any of these facts so no wonder there is such a poor understanding of the whole subject in the US.


RE: What a crock...
By Paj on 2/23/2012 7:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
Er, no one was eager to go to war in Iraq apart from the UK, Poland and Australia. China, Russia, the majority of Europe, Asia, South America and Africa all opposed it.


RE: What a crock...
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2012 7:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
They voted based on the evidence that every fucking country in the world agreed with. And what Saddam Hussein himself wanted people to think. He testified to this after his capture.

You drones love to call Bush a dumbass yet then try to give him credit for pulling off one of the greatest "GOTCHA!"s in history.

Again. You drones get dumber by the day. You mom is calling you for dinner.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 7:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
country in the world agreed with.

Oh really? Why didn't France or Germany or Russia or China go in there?

Bush did nothing right besides the do not call list and history already paints him just a tiny bit better than Hitler or Stalin, and that's just fine with me.

In an ideal world, people voting for Bush would be forced to go through re-education on humanity and compassion so they would not repeat the same mistake again.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2012 8:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Considering how Russia, China, and France were the top sellers of military hardware to Iraq, it's hardly surprising they didn't go in there. France even agreed to sell Saddamn uranium! For peaceful nuclear power generation, of course *wink wink*

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html

Hundreds of other countries "didn't go in there". So what? Is a military action only justifiable if the ENTIRE world agrees? Not even the entire world could agree to fight the Axis Powers in WWII. By your logic that was an unjust war too.

Anyway you seem far more interested in trolling by spreading hate and bigoted comments about anyone on the others side than having a rational debate. Your comments are ridiculously hateful and ignorant. Grow up, kid.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 8:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hundreds of other countries "didn't go in there". So what? Is a military action only justifiable if the ENTIRE world agrees

They did not agree with it either, Iraq was a war of aggression and invasion that US had no right to go enter. It cost trillions and it's the biggest reason we have this huge deficit. The world is NOT any safer without Saddam in power, Iraq is mired in deep civil war, etc.

As I said before, there are just some people you can't have a rational debate with, like Nazis and many conservatives. We'd be better off if they did not exist.


RE: What a crock...
By Keeir on 2/22/2012 9:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
You claim to like facts and data.

What facts and data support the following points

A. US invasion of Iraq was a "war of aggression"
i. What is a "war of aggression"

B. US invasion of Iraq cost "Trillions"
i. What is Trillions? I will assume a number greater than 2.

BTW, The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates the costs of both Afganistan and Iraq at around 2.4 Trillion in 2017 accounting for interest on loans.

C. US invasion of Iraq spending is "biggest" reason

BTW. From 2003-2010, US spent more than 4 Trillion on Medicaid, Depart of Defense, and Social Security... each. One I think might successful argue instead that biggest reason is the Bush endorsed Tax cuts that were not accompied by fiscal disciple to keep government spending low when tax reciepts fell post 2001 and again post 2008.

I mean, in 2010-2011 alone, the Federal Deficiet was 1.56 Trillion (2011 Federal Year Budget). A cost roughly equal to the entire cost of Iraq and Afganistan. And ~.4 trillion less than -requested- originally by Obama.

D. The world is NOT any safer without Saddam in power.

E. Iraq is mired in deep civil war

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/opinion/how-to-s...

Iraqi opposition leaders don't describe the situation that way (even as they appeal for foriegn aid)

F. Is it impossible to have a rational discussion with all Nazis? Do you mean present day Nazis or Nazis from Nazi Germany? And then do you mean people in Germany, or members of the Nazi party?


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 10:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A. US invasion of Iraq was a "war of aggression

What did Iraq ever do to US? What business do we have there? US going to Iraq was the equivalent of a schoolyard bully beating up the weak kid...Almost the ENTIRE WORLD was against it because it wasn't right. That's a war of agression. The only time war is acceptable is in defense, and Iraq was NEVER a threat to the US.

B. 3 Trillion according to Nobel Economics Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, just for Iraq war and just for the US. So...trillions.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

C. It's a massive reason, since 3 trillion would go a long way in reducing our total debt.

D&E. Iraq is still no threat to the US or its neighbors, and the life expectancy in Iraq has gone down from 2000 to 2010, therefore no one is better off except for the evil Cheneys of this world.

F. Not relevant to this discussion, Nazis means what you think of first when you hear the word. I don't have to be that accurate when making a figure of speech. Replace "Nazis" with Adolf Hitler...


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 11:36:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only time war is acceptable is in defense


That is a statement of opinion, not fact, and it doesn't agree with mine therefore I reject it.

Iraq was very aggressive against Kuwait. There was a war. They lost the war and agreed to certain UN terms. They repeatedly broke those agreements, knowingly committed hostile acts like breaking the "No Fly Zone". A HOSTILE act. And other such violations.

A second war, given this behavior, was inevitable. When you don't comply with agreed on treaties and UN sanctions, eventually a military response happens. When you don't allow UN weapons inspectors do their job, one assumes you have something to hide.

Sorry but when you join us in the real world that's the way things work.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 11:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iraq was very aggressive against Kuwait. There was a war. They lost the war and agreed to certain UN terms. They repeatedly broke those agreements, knowingly committed hostile acts like breaking the "No Fly Zone". A HOSTILE act. And other such violations. A second war, given this behavior, was inevitable. When you don't comply with agreed on treaties and UN sanctions, eventually a military response happens. When you don't allow UN weapons inspectors do their job, one assumes you have something to hide.


1. Iraq was NEVER a threat to the US
2. If the US tried hard enough, they could get weapons inspections done without invading, Bush and his evil cronies were rushed.

We ALL know that most conservatives respect for human life ends when it transitions from being a fetus to a baby, thanks for proving it. You have no clue how horrible war is and how it should be avoided at all costs. Thank goodness likes of you will not have a say in our government for a LONG LONG time.

History and world opinion on Bush and his evil cronies proves that I am right, and only the dumb ignorant bible-thumping rednecks think otherwise.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 12:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Argh Libya. Not Kuwait.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 3:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you do. Please regale me with all your first hand experience.

I immigrated to the USA from Bosnia in 1995, does that count, you a-hole?

Tell me when the US "invaded" Libya? Sending some flights over the country to help the rebels in the civil war, backed by many European countries, is nowhere the same thing as Iraq invasion and occupation. We did not invade and occupy Libya and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and drew the hate and ridicule of the most of the first world like what Bush administration did.

Some positions are simply indefensible, I suggest you abandon them. Examples: slavery, Nazis, human rights, Iraq War, etc. You are objectively an idiot for defending any of that.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 4:14:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I immigrated to the USA from Bosnia in 1995, does that count, you a-hole?


That is perhaps the saddest thing you've ever said.

Not only do you have NOTHING but contempt for this nation and uphold it with every post you make. But that you actually chose to come here and live in a country you have absolutely no appreciation for and nothing but hate.

quote:
I suggest you abandon them.


You are in no position to offer suggestions to me or anyone else. Especially not to an America. Which you are certainly undeserving of the title. There are places in the world where if you spoke this way about the current Government, all manner of things would happen to you. Be thankful you live in a place where those baby-killers you so call them give the ultimate sacrifice for so you can sit here and say these things like the backstabbing coward you are.

The fact that you live and breath here is proof we need sweeping immigration reform ASAP. According the U.S census we took in 3,818 Bosnian refugees in 1995. I seriously doubt they're all half as retarded and bigoted as you. But if they are I think I might have to reverse my stance on ethnic cleansing. Maybe those Serbs had the right idea after all.

quote:
Sending some flights over the country to help the rebels in the civil war


Hypocrite. Was that civil war a threat to the US? You keep saying Iraq wasn't a threat. Neither was Libya and it's problems!

Obama's Libya war was ruled illegal and Unconstitutional by Congress. The total cost is somewhere in the tens of billions. You would NOT defend these circumstances if they happened under a Republican president and you know it.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you get that I hate this country? I love it and that's why I live here! Where do you get that i don't appreciate it? I do and I know it could be much much better than it currently is with the right choices.

quote:
Not only do you have NOTHING but contempt for this nation and uphold it with every post you make

I love this country more than you do bud. When I go to the supermarket, sometimes you see veterans asking for donations for their charities, and when I ask them what it is for, they say it's for soldiers suffering from PTSD after the Iraq war, because the government, specifically the Bush administration, not only sent them on a wild goose chase, but also refuses to take care of them when they're back. I always donate money to those.

You're the typical GOP parrot saying "libruls hate Amurica!!!", newsflash, the "liberals" not only like, but they also contribute MORE to America. Federal taxes collected from blue states like mine help out the red states.

I also have seen the US from the outside and know what I'm talking about and can be more objective than you can be.

P.S. I have the same rights as you in this country, and my vote counts as much as yours. Actually it won't count for anything since I don't live in a swing state. Unlike you, I have seen the horrors of war and what religion does.

quote:
Maybe those Serbs had the right idea after all.

There we go folks, all conservatives are Nazis and should not be compromised with on any subject. Can't wait for a couple more elections where we get enough delegates to pass a national healthcare mandate in the constitution because you fundies are going down down DOWN!


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 5:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love this country more than you do bud.


That's simply NOT possible. But very funny.

quote:
Where do you get that I hate this country?


You only post negatives about it? That's kind of a big clue. You speak about America as if it's horribly flawed, due to us terrible Conservatives, and everything will be great once you usher in your Liberal utopia. That is hate speech pure and simple. Also your religious comments are abhorrent given the fact that America was built on religious rights and freedoms as much as any other principle.

You don't "love" America. You love the idea of an America that never has, and hopefully never will, exist. You constantly compare America with Europe, with the negative being on America. You not ONCE acknowledge American exceptionalism. Quite the contrary, you attack the "rich" and successful every chance you get.

If you believe you've said ONE damn thing on Daily Tech that could possibly lead one to think you're Pro-American, you are sadly mistaken.

quote:
Unlike you, I have seen the horrors of war and what religion does.


No, you've seen the horrors of what morons and their false extremist take on Islam can do. Bosnia is not America, and what happened there could NEVER happen here.

You might have taken yourself out of Bosnia, but unfortunately, you carried the worst parts of that place with you to America. Time for some counseling buddy. Every post of yours is just dripping with bitterness, hate, and contempt. You can't even see it. It's really sad.

quote:
There we go folks, all conservatives are Nazis


LOL I was just trying to piss you off. Looks like it worked. You know, you probably use "Nazi" in the past few days more times than anyone in history. What is your deal with that?

More proof that you hate America; calling Conservatives "Nazis". News flash! Conservative principles FOUNDED America! Had you educated yourself on the Constitution, it would be alarmingly clear to you that you're on the wrong side of EVERY issue.

quote:
I do and I know it could be much much better than it currently is with the right choices.


See? Right there. America "could" be better if it only abandoned the Constitution, every principle that made us great, and followed Europe's lead. Yup, you SURE love America bud...

quote:
pass a national healthcare mandate in the constitution


....

Okay I'm going to let someone else run with this one. There's so much wrong with that statement, so anti-American in nature, it's too obvious to even bother countering.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 6:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also your religious comments are abhorrent given the fact that America was built on religious rights and freedoms as much as any other principle.

I never called for any government involvement in religion, so I don't see how it's against the principles of the constitution. Doesn't change the fact that a religious person is a mentally underdeveloped person.

I quite praise our armed forces and all the innovations we have accomplished despite being held back by conservatives. There are also many, MANY Americans that would wish their country would stop being a bully on the world stage and just focus on defending itself without "pre-emptive" strikes on other countries.

quote:
No, you've seen the horrors of what morons and their false extremist take on Islam can do. Bosnia is not America, and what happened there could NEVER happen here.

Wasn't there a civil war 150 years ago? So it could still happen here.

I'd also like to know why it's OK for the government to be responsible for the security of it's citizens but not for their healthcare, which is a much bigger killer of its citizens than any external threat has ever been.


RE: What a crock...
By FITCamaro on 2/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 7:40:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No one is denying anyone birth control for fucks sake. Anyone with a brain just is saying that employers shouldn't be REQUIRED to pay for it 100%!

Well, if you look at it that way, I don't think employers should have to pay for any healthcare for anyone. It should be just like Europe and Canada, but since we don't have that, the next best thing is employer provided coverage.

I understand that you're not happy about bible-thumping right-wing racist bigots not being the majority or a significant voter base in elections. Tough luck, deal with it!


RE: What a crock...
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2012 10:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
bible-thumping right-wing racist bigots


Thank you for proving that you have no critical thinking skills. Just mindless rhetoric from liberal professors. Or you are one yourself.


RE: What a crock...
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2012 10:53:27 PM , Rating: 1
And we are NOT Europe or Canada! We have our own god damn system of government. A government bound by the Constitution as to what it can and cannot do. A national health care plan is not legal under that Constitution. Hence why they are doing everything they can to prove it doesn't create one (no it doesn't immediately but in the long run it does).

If you like Canada and Europe so much, move there.

Employer provided coverage is not a right. It is a benefit. If your job doesn't offer coverage, you can get it on your own or go get a better job. If you want to complain about not being able to afford it, show me that you have no a) cell phone bill, b) cable bill, c) high speed internet bill, d) expensive car note, and more.

Once you prove you truly can't afford it, you can legitimately complain. And even then, the FEDERAL government has no business getting involved. It is the authority of the states to create government run health care systems if they so choose.

It has nothing to do with race, religion, or any other factor. It has to do with rule of law. Something idiots like you do not respect. Worst is you don't even try to change the law. You just try to weasel around it or ignore it all together. You want a national health care system? Create an amendment to the Constitution giving the federal government the authority to create it. But the vast majority of people oppose it so the amendment would never pass. So you instead make up the authority under the commerce clause.

Nevermind that clause in no way says the federal government can regulate all commerce. It says the federal government can stop the states from putting up barriers to commerce. Forcing someone to buy something and forcing insurance companies to sell plans you approve of is in no way preventing a barrier to commerce.

Then there's the matter of these exemptions for companies. Now we're breaking another facet of the constitution since Congress can't pass a law that only applies to some. Wait Congress isn't doing the exemptions. The executive branch is. So now we have the executive branch bypassing law that Congress passed for certain individuals(companies).

You idiots madness never ends. We don't even need to get started on how regulatory agencies are bypassing the legislative powers of Congress and forcing laws in the form of regulations on the population without them being approved by Congress. Sure you can try to claim Congress legislated that power to said regulatory agencies, but to anyone with a brain, it violates the Constitution. A regulation that can fine me or send me to jail for breaking it is a law. And only Congress has the power to pass laws. Of course don't tell this idiot or the golden boy in the White House that.

With regulatory agencies, executive orders, and departments run by the executive branch, they don't need Congress to do what they want.


RE: What a crock...
By JediJeb on 2/23/2012 10:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, if you look at it that way, I don't think employers should have to pay for any healthcare for anyone. It should be just like Europe and Canada, but since we don't have that, the next best thing is employer provided coverage.


I don't think employers or the government should HAVE to pay for healthcare for anyone. Europe and Canada have it wrong, people should be paying for their own healthcare not government. When the government pays for someone's health care what really is happening is everyone who pays taxes is paying for that healthcare. Now when we get to the point that every single person is paying the same percentage in taxes then I would say OK to government paid healthcare since everyone would be paying into it.

People whine and complain that government has to pay for healthcare because it is too expensive, but guess what, before the government got their hands into healthcare up to their shoulders healthcare was far more affordable. When Medicare/Medicaid was first mandated the cost of an overnight hospital stay increased 300% in the first year alone. Get the government out of it and the prices will drop simply because if they don't, then healthcare as a business will die. It would probably weed out the people who want to be doctors because they want to be rich and leave behind those who want to be doctors because they want to heal people, which would automatically increase the quality of care.

People need to once again learn to save money and plan ahead for the unforeseen circumstances that our past generations did instead of living in a state of continually squandering our entire paychecks on trivial pleasures. We get by with such behavior simply because our governments wholeheartedly support it because that in turn gives them more and more power. That power comes from us becoming increasingly dependent on the government for our daily lives and once we can not live without the government we will be once again ruled by the government instead of served by it.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 11:55:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Europe and Canada have it wrong, people should be paying for their own healthcare not government.

Statistics such as life expectancy, infant mortality rate, money spent on healthcare per capita ALL are against you on this. Europe and Canada are better off than US in this area. Where is your objective proof that it's better this way?


RE: What a crock...
By MrBungle123 on 2/23/2012 12:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
Do these statistics take into account the lifestyle choices made by these populations in general or are they just operating under the assumption that people in Europe live under the exact same conditions as Americans? A lot of these factors probably also have their roots in diet, activitiy levels, and living/working conditions.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 12:28:51 PM , Rating: 1
I don't care. The leftist position that Europeans live a few years longer than American's, so therefore we must adopt their system of Government and healthcare, is fundamentally bankrupt. And is nothing more than a talking point.


RE: What a crock...
By MrBungle123 on 2/23/2012 12:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
Wait I have an idea! How about all the people that want *free* Universal Health Care paid for by the government get together and pay a ta... er... nominal fee to buy into a distributed risk plan that covers the majority of their health care costs!

Oh wait they can do that already its called buy into a health insurance plan, and instead of paying more taxes and having less disposable income you can just pay your premiums and have less disposable income. At the end of the day the effect is the same except by paying for it yourself you get to opt out if you don't like it instead of going to jail for tax evasion if the government writes the checks to send your money to the doctors.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 12:56:18 PM , Rating: 3
Not only they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates, they pay less for their healthcare as a percentage of their GDP as well...but anything government is evil you say as you type on the internet which was funded by the government...


RE: What a crock...
By MrBungle123 on 2/23/2012 1:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Government is a necessary evil. There are things that we all need, someone must maintain law and order since entire regions living under anarchy is of no benifit to anyone. We need someone to ensure that we are not invaded by foreign powers or cheated out of what is due to us in trade/commerce.

What we don't need is government trying to regulate every facet of our lives, trying to fix every manner of personal problem we may have, or wasting the taxes they take from us chasing the impossible goal of creating some utopia where no one gets sick, goes broke, or ever has to be uncomfortable.

They need to do the bare minimum necessary to ensure that each of us is secure in our posessions and our ability to choose our own path and thats it! Make sure that someone doesn't steal my stuff while Im at work, make sure that I don't wake up one day to find that we've been invaded by some other country, and make sure that my money is worth something and that anyone conducting business plays fair, then leave me alone!


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 4:17:34 PM , Rating: 1
Then go live there, please.

Oh that's right, they weren't talking Bosnian refugees were they? As usual America, this country you hate, steps up to the plate in all things when others wont.

quote:
.but anything government is evil you say


We're NOT saying that, and never have. Nice try.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 4:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me how I hate America please? Because I vote Democrat? because I was against the Iraq war along with millions of Americans?

Typical POS fundie mudslinging, if you don't support wars you must hate America logic...Thank goodness your kind is getting older and dying off. We're the new guard.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 5:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
1. You put the rule of law over individuals freedoms
2. You extoll the virtues of Socialism
3. You outright called for a ban on all religion which directly goes against the founding principle of religious freedom in this nation

4. You don't believe in Democracy
5. You don't respect the Constitution or flat out seem to be ignorant of it's significance

6. You don't think we should "let" people get rich, or think you should have a say in how successful others are

7. You call Conservatives Nazis. Or just anyone who doesn't agree with you. Hello?

Honestly I could go on and one. It has nothing to do with wars, or what party you vote for. You are inherently un-American in your beliefs and the absurd and hateful bullcrap you spew on a daily basis.

To you America is just another country where you happen to live. Nothing special and significant in it's founding or Constitution at all.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 5:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
1. Rule of law is what makes this country great, and I'm glad it prevents your kind from having slaves unlike 150 years ago when there was no law banning it.
2. There are millions of Americans who do the same. Every bit a citizen as you or me.
3. I didn't call for a government legislated ban on religion. I called for people who have the brains to ban it from their lives like they did in the UK where the majority is nonreligious.
4. BS...I believe in democracy, especially when we crush the likes of you in elections.
5. The constitution was not a perfect document, and it still isn't. There is room on it for more amendments.
6. That mindset is expanding among America, deal with it.
7. You defend genocide just like Hitler, and you're a typical conservative, so I don't see how that is any far off. Last I checked, the constitution guarantees my right to call you that.

You're a hypocritical conservative person of dubious intelligence and moral values, no different than McCarthy in the 50's. Accusing me of un-American thoughts, really? Last I checked, being American means having the freedom to think and speak your thoughts, whatever they may be.

I see America as a nation with great potential as the number of people like you sufficiently decrease over time and religion loses its influence.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 6:15:16 PM , Rating: 1
You can defend each one individually, fine. But when added all up, they prove you're classically anti-American in nature. You can't claim to love a country and staunchly be against every principle it was founded on that you don't personally agree with.

quote:
I see America as a nation with great potential as the number of people like you sufficiently decrease over time and religion loses its influence.


What does that even mean? Great potential? First off, you have no idea what people "like me" are, you simply call us names as if it were facts. Secondly our best times are clearly behind us, and you see potential? Potential for what, I shudder to even think. Where we're heading right now, there's no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.

You're so backwards it's insane.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/23/2012 6:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does that even mean? Great potential?

Great national resources, great innovation, people still want to live here more than other places most of the time.

quote:
First off, you have no idea what people "like me" are, you simply call us names as if it were facts.

Less intelligent, less evolved, more violent people.

quote:

Secondly our best times are clearly behind us,

B.S. We are living better than our parents and our kids will live better than us. All we need to do is skim some from the top and supplant the bottom. For that I mean not just give them money like we do now, but to give them training and jobs. I hate freeloaders as much as you do.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2012 8:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
I can't think of anything so valuable, that's so stupidly affordable, as birth control. I mean come on Liberals, I was buying condoms by the truckload when I had a minimum wage job flipping burgers!

And these are the people who are first to point at our "failing" Healthcare system on one hand, while on the other forcing insurance companies to cover 100% of birth control, plastic surgeries, boobjobs and other elective procedures.

Next they'll categorize tattoo's and body piercings as "medical procedures" and force them to cover those too!


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 8:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And these are the people who are first to point at our "failing" Healthcare system on one hand, while on the other forcing insurance companies to cover 100% of birth control, plastic surgeries, boobjobs and other elective procedures.

I don't know who those people are, but it's definitely not me, except for contraceptives. My college's health center had free condoms out in bowls like candy...


RE: What a crock...
By Keeir on 2/22/2012 9:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
Use of contraceptives is

A. Voluntary
B. Not health related
C. Not cost-prohibitive
D. Magnitude of use is personal life choice

If it can be shown that Contraceptive coverage by Medical Plans increases usage of Contraceptive significantly then you may have a point. But given that currently a box of condoms costs a few dollars and is available essentially everywhere... its hard to see how having your medical plan pay ~15 dollars a month for the item is going to make a person much more willing to get them. Time/embarassment/education are probably more meaningful blocks to contraceptive usage.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 10:54:28 PM , Rating: 3
Contraceptive usage is health related, you never heard of STD's?


RE: What a crock...
By MrBungle123 on 2/23/2012 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
In that context everything is health related.

People CHOOSE to have sex which can potentially lead to STDs. Just like you can CHOOSE to eat raw chicken which can lead to you getting salmonella poisoning, however no one is arguing that eating chicken is "health related". I can come up with 18 millionm more examples if you need them.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2012 12:33:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In that context everything is health related.


And this is why so many of us are against Universal Healthcare in America. Because everything can be construed as to being a health issue, which basically gives the Government carte blanche to regulate EVERYTHING under the guise of healthcare. What you eat, what you drink, what you buy, what you cook with, what you can bring to schools, what you can eat in Government buildings. Everything!

Look what's happening in the UK and all the loss of freedoms and privacy those people have endured because of the healthcare system. I shudder to think living under such a system of rule in my own country.


RE: What a crock...
By MrBungle123 on 2/23/2012 12:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
All of this is a symptom, the real problem is that a large number of people seem to think that the government is the answer to all our woes.


RE: What a crock...
By lagomorpha on 2/26/2012 3:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, in theory everyone could choose to die a virgin but in the real world (outside your mom's basement) that is not practical. In the real world, birth control pills are prescription drugs requiring a doctor to proscribe and are thus a medical expense. Doctors visits are a medical expense, I don't know how to make it more simple than that. If birth control pills came in big cheap boxes in the grocery store like breakfast cereal (a scheme I am not entirely opposed to) you might have a point.


RE: What a crock...
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 10:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a study that shows cost does matter in contraceptive use:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sou...


RE: What a crock...
By Dan Banana on 2/23/2012 7:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean come on Liberals, I was buying condoms by the truckload when I had a minimum wage job flipping burgers!


What were you using then for? Hairnets?


RE: What a crock...
By lagomorpha on 2/26/2012 5:50:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So now birth control is a basic medical necessity? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!


Tell you what, let's fund it with crime prevention dollars. Each $1 spent on contraception means savings of $1000 in incarceration 18 years down the line. Hard to get returns like that from any other sort of crime reduction measures.

The return rate looks even better if we start using RISUG as part of the mandatory vaccinations.


RE: What a crock...
By lagomorpha on 2/26/2012 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
trying to force Churches to provide birth control for free.


If I may comment on this point.

quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


At present, medical insurance includes birth control as it is a legitimate medical expense. Allowing churches to opt out would mean giving churches special privileges which could be construed as "establishing a religion" at least as much as requiring them to provide the same services to employees as every other company could be construed as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".


RE: What a crock...
By Keeir on 2/22/2012 2:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet that it'd also be more efficient if the government didn't give the 2 cent subsidy to oil and gas companies and taxed gas 33 cents instead of 35 cents. Prices would stay the same and the process would eliminate some unnecessary government positions.


Most of that "2 cent" subsidy comes in the form of the Foriegn Oil Tax Credit. This credit is open to all corporate and private citizens and is intended to raise American Corporation and Investor compeditiveness abroad by preventing double taxation. Outside of that subsidy, its fractions of a cent per gallon, which of these subsidies many are granted from real and practical reasons that it's hard to argue with...

The line "Oil Companies receive billions in subsidies" is a great talking point,

but according to the Enviromental Law Institue, if you add up ALL the subsidies and tax credits given to ALL Fossil Fuel Companies you talking about less than 11 Billion a year (For ALL Oil, Gas, and Coal Companies). The Subsidy portion is less than 3 Billion a year of which less than 1 Billion is directly given to Oil Companies (not GASOLINE, but OIL).

quote:
Everyone know that gas prices aren't going down, there is no need for a government mandate for more fuel efficient vehicles, the gas prices will take care of that.


Even if gas prices did go down, there is no need for a government mandate. People should be allowed to maximize the happiness in thier life given a full set of costs. If people value cars that get more MPG, they will pay for them, and manufacturers will build them. No sure why the people should support a directive that forces people to sell them cars they don't want to buy...


RE: What a crock...
By drycrust3 on 2/22/2012 3:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While 35+ cents go to taxes.

If only 35 cents per gallon goes to the government in the USA, then I really don't think you have a lot to complain about. In New Zealand 59.129 cents per litre of petrol goes to our government. From what I've heard, it is worse in Europe.


RE: What a crock...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2012 3:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
In other places there's aren't State taxes. You always need to remember this. Americans pay Federal AND State taxes on gasoline.


RE: What a crock...
By Keeir on 2/22/2012 4:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If only 35 cents per gallon goes to the government in the USA, then I really don't think you have a lot to complain about. In New Zealand 59.129 cents per litre of petrol goes to our government. From what I've heard, it is worse in Europe.


Your taking the infomation out of context.

Typical Arguement

US Government Subsidizes Gasoline
therefore
US Government should subsidy Renewables more

Problem. US Government direct taxes per gallon of gasoline is a minimum of 18 cents per gallon. On top of this there are State Taxes and of course Oil and Gas companies pay ~20-30% income tax rate as well. US Government provides less than 2 cents per gallon subsidy, most of which is due to taxes those same oil and gas companies pay other countries. Thus, US does not subsidize Gasoline. In fact, the US overwhelmingly taxes gasoline.

Now New Zealand is free to tax gasoline at whatever rate the local voting population decides as effective to acchieve funding and or social goals.

I am unaware of any moral or ethical impertive that asserts energy taxes worldwide need to be similiar in measure. Though, economically this would be good.


RE: What a crock...
By Rukkian on 2/22/2012 2:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
In theory, I understand where you are coming from, but that unjustly effects people that cannot afford a brand new car. There are many people that won't be buying new cars for awhile, and the prices of used cars would potentially drop, making it even harder to afford to move to newer, more expensive cars.


RE: What a crock...
By sigmatau on 2/22/2012 9:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Getting your energy from nuclear power produces the same emissions as getting it from solar power.


We have cars that do that now..
By quiksilvr on 2/22/2012 9:04:56 AM , Rating: 3
I don't see this as an impossible goal for the car industry to get this done in THIRTEEN YEARS given that we have a number of cars that get over 50 MPG now.




RE: We have cars that do that now..
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2012 9:24:09 AM , Rating: 4
Yes we have cars that do it now. But it is far from a fleetwide average. Do you not understand what the term average is? That means there are vehicles with higher mileage than this and vehicles with lower mileage than this. The HIGHEST mileage vehicles right now hit these numbers. If you have a truck or SUV that gets 20 mpg that means you need a vehicle that gets 90 mpg to get an average of 55 mpg.

Yes I understand these standards don't work quite that simply (why make things clear and easy to understand after all), but it still creates huge burdens on auto manufacturers. As the article makes note, cheap vehicles will disappear (what ever happened to liberals caring about the poor?). Affordable vehicles now will become less affordable. Performance cars will likely disappear since otherwise they'll upset the average which means manufacturers have to put the penalties into the price of them, making them even less affordable, thus more impractical, thus no longer offered due to low sales.

This is nothing short of government regulation deciding what vehicles will be built. Because in a world of these standards, large vehicles either don't exist or are too expensive for most to afford. And sorry but families of more than 4 don't fit into a Camry. Even then its tight for long trips.


RE: We have cars that do that now..
By abzillah on 2/22/2012 1:27:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
sorry but families of more than 4 don't fit into a Camry. Even then its tight for long trips.


That right there is bullshit. Last year 4 adult friends of mine and I drove from San Diego to Mammoth Lakes(400 miles) in my Honda Accord with all of our snowboarding and ski gear in comfort.
I recommend buying your Truck or SUV now and when the new standards take effect, you don't have to buy anything new.

quote:
As the article makes note, cheap vehicles will disappear


Do cheap cars exist now? I cannot afford any new car and all my friends who own new cars currently are making payments, just like they will in the future.


By espaghetti on 2/22/2012 3:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
You guys must be close or very skinny...lol
But seriously, your recommendation doesn't make any sense.


By FITCamaro on 2/22/2012 7:29:51 PM , Rating: 1
Either you're all 120 pound asians or you're full of shit.

And "affordable" doesn't mean you can necessarily pay cash. You can afford a down payment and the monthly payments.


By Dan Banana on 2/23/2012 7:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is nothing short of government regulation deciding what vehicles will be built. Because in a world of these standards, large vehicles either don't exist or are too expensive for most to afford. And sorry but families of more than 4 don't fit into a Camry. Even then its tight for long trips.


No it's actually not. It may be about being slightly less able to afford a big fuel inefficient boat of a car or a truck or not but it's certainly not "government regulation deciding what vehicles will be built". The marketplace will handle that just fine.


RE: We have cars that do that now..
By Kurz on 2/22/2012 9:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
Not everyone uses their car just to commute. Sometimes you need to be able to carry a load.


RE: We have cars that do that now..
By Schrag4 on 2/22/2012 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
The "Just rent a truck" crowd will come along shortly. They don't understand that not everyone lives in an apartment a mile or two from the grocery store. If they only need to haul something once a year, why on earth would you need a truck?


RE: We have cars that do that now..
By Kurz on 2/22/2012 3:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
I am all for Renting a Truck. I spoken to my family plenty of times get rid of the minivan and trade it in for a Honda fit. Rent a Minivan whenever we plan to travel, since we never have a need for the minivan and it honestly is used to carry one person most of the time.

Though I also realize there is a need for people who renting a truck will become uneconomical after so many rentals.


RE: We have cars that do that now..
By Schrag4 on 2/23/2012 1:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the rental option for very rarely needed hauling capacity absolutely should be an option.

It's a freedom thing, really. I don't mind if you try to persuade me to buy a smaller vehicle. I have a problem when you legislate that I buy a smaller vehicle.


CAFE is a sham
By Colin1497 on 2/22/2012 9:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
CAFE has always been a joke, but the new standards are straight out of "we're from the government and we're here to help you" idiot land.

If your car is bigger (track x wheelbase), the requirement is lower, if it's smaller, it's higher. So, driving a car that gets 30mpg but is small is considered WORSE than driving a car that gets 25mpg but is larger. Seriously.

Additionally, drive a hybrid that gets 30mpg and the government will call it a 60mpg car in 2017 (only 45 by 2021). That on top of the fact that hybrids already game the CAFE driving cycle by getting to start fully charged and finish fully discharged, so they ALREADY report higher CAFE numbers than they actually get.

So, to meet the requirements, expect cars to get larger tracks and wheelbases and expect some amount of hybridization in many cars, even if the actual gains are marginal.

I'm an engineer and I love the technology we're seeing to make things more efficient, but the fact of the matter is that we need to be driving smaller cars to get better fuel efficiency, not larger cars that are allowed to get worse fuel efficiency jut because they're larger. Hybridization of vehicles is really cool for a lot of reasons, but it should stand on its own merits within the fuel economy calculations, not receive bonus points just because we want to lie to people and say we're requiring really high standards without telling the people that we're not actually meeting them.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numb...




RE: CAFE is a sham
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2012 9:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
To me the truly stupid part of this is that in 3-4 years they're just going to say that these rules aren't tough enough and need to be even more stringent. We're getting to the point of where any emissions at all out of a tailpipe are bad.


RE: CAFE is a sham
By Dan Banana on 2/25/2012 10:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
We can only hope so. Enjoy this video about the environmental devastation being caused by the Canadian oil sands industry.

http://youtu.be/YkwoRivP17A


RE: CAFE is a sham
By Hulk on 2/22/2012 9:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
You are exactly 100% correct in your analysis. Furthermore, SUV's are considered to be trucks and are in a different classification from passenger cars altogether.

Fuel economy doesn't increase because of CAFE regulations, it increases for the same reason everything gets better and cheaper...COMPETITION among manufacturers.

The ONLY good thing that comes out of this is standardized fuel economy ratings.


RE: CAFE is a sham
By Dr of crap on 2/22/2012 10:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct.
And I see this "loop hole" as a way to get the SUV up and selling in big numbers again.
The only way they won't is if gas is $5 gallon, which is on the way.

This is typical govt crap laws. Never is it black and white. They make sure there are gray areas to cover their lobbiers a$$. Don't want to loose that flow of cash - right!


free market?
By laweijfmvo on 2/22/2012 10:42:47 AM , Rating: 1
if consumers wanted (on average) 55 m.p.g., auto makers would produce (on average) 55 m.p.g.

clearly (on average), we don't. what this law really does is make it illegal for the consumer to buy a car.




RE: free market?
By Gungel on 2/22/2012 1:04:19 PM , Rating: 3
The consumers will be asking for cars that can go 50 or more miles per gallon in 15 to 20 years from now. Gas prices are expected to double by 2025 and double again by 2030. We have to start developing more fuel efficient cars now or we will be fighting many more wars to protect our oil resources.


RE: free market?
By MrBungle123 on 2/23/2012 12:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be asking for a vehicle that fits my lifestyle.

1. It needs to be able to carry myself and 1 or 2 adult passengers comfortably.
2. I need to be able to haul reasonably large amounts of material for the occasional home improvement project.
3. I like to fish/camp so it needs enough ground clearance to navigate poorly/unmaintained dirt/gravel roads/trails is a must.
4. I intend to purchase a boat in the not too distant future so the ability to tow a few thousand pounds is also required.
5. It needs to be able to do all this in less than optimal weather conditions since I live in the mountians.

Can anything that gets 50+ MPG do this? I have my doubts.


RE: free market?
By Schrag4 on 2/22/2012 1:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree entirely. I want my minivan to get our family of 5 around town and occassionally out of the state (with all our luggage) while getting a billion MPG. But I understand that there's only so much energy in a gallon of gas, and with our requirement for hauling around a bunch of people and/or stuff regularly, the vehicle we need simply won't get that kind of gas mileage. Not to mention the weight of the safety equipment that's required by law. Am I saying I'd rather be driving a death trap? Of course not. But I'm also not going to cry about how much fuel I'm using.

I can understand how someone living on their own or just with their significant other in an apartment (meaning no need to make improvements or repairs to their home) would want a tiny car that gets good mileage, I'm all for that option. But a lot of us want (and in many cases need ) a larger vehicle to haul people or stuff around. They should have that option, too. How many people, after all, who publicly speak out against "Global Warming" and "CO2 emissions" own huge homes, fleets of vehicles that include large SUVs, and private jets? It's not that I envy their posessions. I'm just tired of them saying it's evil for you or I to own a large vehicle (because of emissions or at least dependence on foreign oil) but they personally burn fuel at a rate that's 10, 100, or even 1000 times higher than the rate that my family burns fuel while preaching to me about what I should be driving.


RE: free market?
By FITCamaro on 2/23/2012 7:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but they buy "carbon credits". So their impact is less than yours.

/sarcasm


Once again......
By Ristogod on 2/22/2012 9:12:03 AM , Rating: 1
The government, who is not an expert in the automobile industry, is dictating what goes on in the automobile industry. Much like they do in agriculture, medical and pretty much anything else.




RE: Once again......
By Connoisseur on 2/22/2012 9:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
Um you're against the FDA? Granted, there's always ways to cheat/skirt a bureaucracy but i'd much rather have SOME checks and balances to at least TRY and ensure some standards. Otherwise, we might as well be China and approve any poorly developed poison.


RE: Once again......
By AEvangel on 2/22/2012 10:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um you're against the FDA?


YES!! Look at the state of health in America, it's declining in the last 30 years with the increased role Govt has taken, obesity is on the rise the food pyramid is joke, and drugs are approved based on how much money you have not the actual net benefit. The FDA, like Interior, Education, Environment, and Energy are all jokes.

The idea that some faceless bureaucrat that the public has no choice in electing or hiring is going to protect your interests, when the politician you voted for are crooked and on the take is laughable at best and insane in actual belief.


RE: Once again......
By Kurz on 2/22/2012 3:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
Ever hear of UL?


RE: Once again......
By AEvangel on 2/22/2012 5:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Private sector companies like UL would do a much better job then the FDA.

Really all the FDA does now is to masquerades as protection for the public, but in truth it protects the large corporate food and drug companies from competition and civil liability.


By carczarconsulting.com on 2/25/2012 3:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent blog. In our view, the US presidential candidate that offers voters a tangible fix for the high prices at the pump will be the winner.

Thus, your readers may want to know about fuel savings developments from Absolute Business Solutions, LLC, ("ABS"), an Oregon corporation, has two much needed auto and commercial vehicle fuel (gas and CNG) savings solutions further expanded on below.

1. ABS' Vapor Fuel Technology multi-national patent protected fuel system solution http://mpgleader.com helps automotive OEM's and their franchised dealers solve the 54.5mpg CAFE requirement, and consumers and fleet managers enjoy up to 30.1% CAB and EPA lab certified increases in fuel economy. Aftermarket consumer and fleet vehicle retrofits (gas and CNG) are initially estimated at over 1m (US) alone.

2. ABS' new Absolute Safety Tire patented design solution http://tirestud.com/ extends and retract studs to enhance winter traction, produce compressed air to maintain correct pressure within the tires and provide a visual and audible indication of tire wear beyond the recommended limit. It also represents another 3.3% EPA estimated fuel savings v. all other tire designs. This is a tire industry and another energy industry game-changer.

Your contact in welcomed.

Andrew Gross
Managing Member
Absolute Business Solutions, LLC
503-891-8985
agross6325@aol.com

Raymond Bushnell
Managing Member of Technology
Absolute Business Solutions, LLC
503-351-2401
Bushnell@teleport.com




By Dan Banana on 2/25/2012 10:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
What manner of snake oil are you guys selling? Your website tells us nothing about your product but it does show Bill Underriner spouting a cacophony of old worn out conservative accusations, generalities, cliches and general nonsense before the NADA convention. Your website by the way looks like something a teenager built in 1997. Try to catch up to the 21st century mmmkay.


By Beenthere on 2/22/2012 10:17:28 AM , Rating: 3
The criminals in DC should be hung by their balls. What a bunch of clueless scumbags.




MPG
By emcleod on 2/22/2012 9:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
If the auto industry would have been putting as much effort into improving MPG as they did safety over the past decades. This wouldn't be an issue.




Clunkers
By KFZ on 2/22/2012 12:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
I guess in another ten years we better relight the cash-for-clunkers oven and burn all the 20-30MPG "guzzlers" we're driving right now.




By Dan Banana on 2/23/2012 9:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
...is that manufacturers are now using technology to increase fuel economy that they have never used in widespread production before. Integrated Starter/Generator (ISG) Systems to automatically turn the engine on/off when the vehicle is stopped to reduce fuel consumed during idling, low friction transmissions, direct fuel injection, better aerodynamics, better engine designs, better 6-7-8 speed electronically controlled auto transmissions, lighter materials, turbocharging of small displacement lighter engines and so on.

Most of these things would not be implemented on current model cars if they didn't get a push to level the playing field by the government (us citizens). ALL the car makers have to hit the same standards. Now that these fuel savings technologies are implemented and in mass production on a global basis the price for such items will continually be lessened while even better things are developed.

We went through all the exact same wailing and gnashing of conservative teeth when seat belts, safety glass, airbags, crash and emissions standards and every other safety and environmental improvement had to be mandated because the manufacturers would not do it by themselves. These things all turned out pretty great.




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki