backtop


Print 116 comment(s) - last by overlandpark4m.. on Sep 2 at 12:14 AM

The move looks to cut oil consumption/dependency, greenhouse gas emissions and encourage green vehicle adoption

The long-discussed 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standards were finalized by the White House today, which will boost fuel economy in cars and light trucks by the year 2025. 
 
The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards aim to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, cut U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the course of the program, and encourage the adoption of autos like electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids. 
 
"These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said U.S. President Barack Obama. "This historic agreement builds on the progress we've already made to save families money at the pump and cut our oil consumption. By the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle class families and it will help create an economy built to last."
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOTs) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) created the new CAFE standards. The DOT and EPA issued the rules today. 
 
"Simply put, this groundbreaking program will result in vehicles that use less gas, travel farther and provide more efficiency for consumers than ever before -- all while protecting the air we breathe and giving automakers the regulatory certainty to build the cars of the future here in America," said Ray LaHood, Transportation Secretary. "Today, automakers are seeing their more fuel-efficient vehicles climb in sales, while families already saving money under the Administration's first fuel economy efforts will save even more in the future, making this announcement a victory for everyone."

 President Obama admires a Chevrolet Volt

The Obama Administration's first standards raised average fuel efficiency to 35.5 mpg by 2016. It was intended for cars and light trucks during model years 2011-2016. The aim for these standards was similar to those for 2017-2025 standards, where cutting oil consumption/dependence, greenhouse gas emissions and increasing green auto adoption were key. 
 
"The fuel efficiency standards the administration finalized today are another example of how we protect the environment and strengthen the economy at the same time," said Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator. "Innovation and economic growth are already reinvigorating the auto industry and the thousands of businesses that supply automakers as they create and produce the efficient vehicles of tomorrow. Clean, efficient vehicles are also cutting pollution and saving drivers money at the pump."
 
The 54.5 mpg CAFE standards have been debated for over a year now, with many opposing the idea. Some of those that fought the new standards were Republicans, some automakers and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). Why? Mainly because they all feared that the standards would regulate most new vehicles that sell for under $15,000 out of existence. NADA even went as far as to say that the 54.5 mpg standard would tack on another $5,000 to new 2025 model prices and boot 7 million Americans from the new car market. 
 
But in July 2011, 13 automakers, which make up more than 90 percent of vehicles sold in the U.S., combined, agreed to the new CAFE rules. The 13 automakers were Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Honda, BMW, Jaguar/Land Rover, Hyundai, Mazda, Kia, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Volvo and Toyota. 

Source: The White House



Comments     Threshold


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

Owning a car is not a right
By lightfoot on 8/28/2012 3:43:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
NADA even went as far as to say that the 54.5 mpg standard would tack on another $5,000 to new 2025 model prices and boot 7 million Americans from the new car market.

Let me be clear: owning a car has never been a right. If we want to reduce emissions we will need to increase efficiency AND reduce the number of cars on the road. I find it very funny how it is the Republicans in this case sticking up for the poor of our nation. Face it, the higher CAFE averages will have no impact on the behavior of the rich. The only people harmed by this regulation will be the poor and middle class.




RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Spuke on 8/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By lightfoot on 8/28/2012 3:51:49 PM , Rating: 3
Buying a car is NOT a right. If it was, it would not matter if you could afford it or not. If you cannot afford a car, you have no right to one.

Property is not like freedom, you are not entitled to it just because you exist.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Spuke on 8/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Manch on 8/28/2012 4:15:31 PM , Rating: 3
Think you're getting muddles with the words a bit bro. You do have a right to buy a car if you choose to. You do not have a right to own one, nor do you have the right to afford one.



RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wookie1 on 8/28/2012 9:52:08 PM , Rating: 1
How free are you if you're not allowed to own property? You're not entitled to own anything because you exist, but you have the right to own things. Entitled means that it is provided for you by others, which is the opposite of freedom because something is forcibly taken away from someone else to give to you. You do have the right to own things, and you can freely trade (well, sort of anyway) with others to acquire what you want and need.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2012 9:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you have the right to your personal property. But you don't have the right to buy personal property regardless of your circumstances. ie. if you don't have the money.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 10:44:37 AM , Rating: 3
There are property rights and property rules/laws. The rights are inherent and the rules are what the government makes of them.

Right are something that I have which do infringe on other people's rights:

The right to life and liberty.

The right to my personal property that I legally obtain. (i.e. It cannot legally be stolen from me.)

Rules/laws regulate those specific things that can be owned legally: (I don't want to turn this into a gun ban discussion and I'm just using these as examples.)

There's the obvious things to inhibit personal ownership of like WMDs.

There's the questionable things like full-auto machine guns with large ammo clips.

Finally, there's the everyday things allowed like pistols, hunting rifles and cars.

The government may encourage or discourage (or outright ban) personal ownership of virtually anything through the course of law. The catch is, they do it at their own risk. Prohibition is a good example of government product bans gone amok, repealed by demand of the people.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By lightfoot on 8/29/2012 11:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right are something that I have which do not infringe on other people's rights

You left out a critical word... Fixed it for you.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 12:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks you!! One word means a lot in that context. :)

I like this discussion because it requires people to think about what rights are. The main notion in the US is that, all things being equal, everyone has the same rights. What we can do with those rights are defined by rules/laws.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Paj on 8/29/2012 7:18:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Entitled means that it is provided for you by others, which is the opposite of freedom because something is forcibly taken away from someone else to give to you.


So under this definition, freedom is not an entitlement, as it would mean someone's freedom is being taken away to give to you?

Doesnt really make sense. Are you talking about taxation?


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wookie1 on 8/29/2012 3:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, freedom is a natural right, not an entitlement, but not because it is being taken from someone else (since it isn't an entitlement). Entitlements are things like social security and medicare, food stamps, etc. You're "entitled" to these things because you fit criteria for them. Since you're entitled, the government removes money from the pockets of those that aren't entitled, and gives it to you.

Taxation is the main method of providing entitlements.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By FITCamaro on 8/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2012 4:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me be clear: owning a car has never been a right.


This is false. The ownership of cars has never been restricted. Driving them on public roads is, though.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By lightfoot on 8/28/2012 5:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ownership of property is a right. Acquisition of property is not. You have the right to own a car (if you already possess it,) but not the right to buy (or otherwise claim ownership of) one belonging to somebody else.

To buy a car from someone else requires their consent to sell it to you. A legal right does not require consent; you are entitled to it.

You are correct - I meant buying a car has never been a right.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2012 7:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
His argument is like saying we don't have a right to bathe ourselves. Well, it's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution or any Federal law, so it's not a "right"....

Seriously wtf? No wonder they don't teach American history and the Constitution anymore. Ignorance breeds tons of Liberal Democrat voting idiots like lightfoot.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wordsworm on 8/28/2012 8:45:25 PM , Rating: 1
You should go to China or North Korea. They don't have Democrats/Liberals over there.

In any case, there's no way Romney's going to win the next election. Get used to Obama. He's going to be your president for another four years.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2012 9:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You should go to China or North Korea. They don't have Democrats/Liberals over there.


No I would say it's you people who need to move to China. Because you clearly prefer their system of Government to this one.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/28/2012 9:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Bet Romney wins by a surprise landslide, the same way Reagan was initially behind Carter and then absolutely. fucking. crushed him.

It'll be a surprise though, because as we've seen already, the left-leaning media will over-sample Democrats beyond what their numbers suggest proper, to skew polls and try to do what you just did, try to discourage Republican voters.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2012 9:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. Just like their exit polls had Gore crushing Bush, ooops!

You have to be just insane to think Obama can win this election. Romney wins in a landslide, big time.

Who in their right mind would vote for 4 more years of this? Not THAT many people.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Manch on 8/29/2012 1:07:25 AM , Rating: 3
that moron lightfoot will.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By lightfoot on 8/29/2012 11:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
Not being ignorant doesn't make me a liberal. As a registered Republican who is active in politics you and Reclaimer are embarrassments to the party.

Get your facts straight, learn what a "legal right" is and then come back and talk.

A right has a legal definition, and neither your nor Reclaimer seem to recognize that simple fact. Just because you are allowed to do something does not make that a protected right.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Get your facts straight, learn what a "legal right" is and then come back and talk.


Now it's "legal right". You didn't say that in your OP. Then you completely changed your argument from "own" to "purchase". Now it's "legal right"?

I think you've just been reading Ryrod's posts and acting like you're a lawyer too. We all know what you meant. You believe the Government can impose anything on us, because cars aren't a "right".

quote:
As a registered Republican who is active in politics you and Reclaimer are embarrassments to the party.


Good! Because you know what? I'm a Conservative, not a Republican. You establishment Republicans who are embarrassed by Conservatism and look to be more "moderate" and Democrat-like in all things are the embarrassment. You've ruined the party! You gave us Bush, you gave us McCain, and now you've given us Romney.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 11:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because you are allowed to do something does not make that a protected right.


And actually this is even debatable in this context. Ever heard of consumer protection laws?

If I go to buy a car and a dealership turns me away without an expressed legitimate reason (money, credit check, etc) I can sue them. They've violated my consumer rights. It most certainly IS protected.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wordsworm on 8/29/2012 9:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
There are a number of elite car companies who will refuse to sell unsavoury customers. Ferrari, for example, will not sell their cars to just anyone with a half million dollars.

Don't be afraid of doing a little research once in awhile. Of course, you always run the risk of becoming a liberal if you do.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Manch on 8/29/2012 12:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're the moron below saying everyones emmisions should be pumped into there cabin because it's unpleasant for you while driving your convertible. And apparently you're also an internet lawyer....amazing....

Stop changing your argument everytime someone shows you the stupidity of what you're saying.

I would suggest you unregister from the Republican Party, because most would disagree with you, and if you showed up at a convention, they would think you're a libtard crashing the party. Don't move over to the Democrats either. They have enough issues.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 4:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
I was going to reply with links, lightfoot, to a couple parts of the constitution, amendments thereof, and some quotes from the framers where they outright point out that, to them, and in the intent of the constitution, that property rights were to them as sacred as the ten commandments, if not moreso, but a quick googling makes it so abundantly clear that the law of this land entitles people to buy virtually anything the want that I can't justify putting in the work for you.

The only exception is if the government has VERY specific public safety reasons for it not be legal. We frown on toys that tend to choke babies, for example, and WalMart sells shotguns but not anthrax (but it does sell chlorine, extremely toxic and lethal, so even here we show constraint). It's abundantly clear that, as the constitution states (actually, an amendment), unless otherwise specified in the constitution, all rights and powers default to the individual citizen. (There's other relevant parts, but I think that one is the ultimate trump card)

And since there's nothing in the constitution about automotives...


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wordsworm on 8/29/2012 9:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Gore did beat Bush in the political ring. It was the court room where he failed. The Republican party had to rip up a lot of votes for Gore in order to win that election.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/28/2012 8:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree. Maybe in a different country where rights are held by the government by default instead of the people, but in this country, if it's not itemized in the constitution (and none of this crap is) then the right is automatically in the possession of the individual states or by individuals themselves.


Lightfoot is right. Buying a car is not a right. You have a right to contract to buy a car, but you have no legal remedy if an individual decides not to sell you a car. Part of the problem is that you are making the assumption that there is a fundamental right to buy the car.

Oh and my support is Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the US Constitution. ;)


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/28/2012 9:37:25 PM , Rating: 1
If there is one distinction the modern liberal seems cognitively incapable of understanding... it's that difference, rights and entitlements. Interesting it takes this to bring it out, though. Can see it elsewhere though; cell phones are now an entitlement, broadband internet, etc.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/28/2012 10:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your example is stupid. As if we're saying we have a "right" to ANY car we want, even one owned by someone else who refuses to sell. Seriously? Is that what you're actually taking away from this?

You were the one saying that an individual has the right to purchase legal tangible goods. That is incorrect. You have the right to contract with that individual, but not a right to purchase. Words do have meaning and you can't ascribe your own normative definition of "right" into the Constitution.
quote:
Rights can be acted on by individuals without the assistance of government and without forcibly interfering with other individuals.
Entitlements , on the other hand, cannot be fulfilled except through specific government actions which require forcible interference with others.

This is just stupid, you are making arbitrary distinctions that have no legal basis whatsoever.
quote:
Get your heads on straight people. Actually LEARN about the country you live in.

I have learned about the country I live in. It drives me nuts that you get on here and spout off your normative view of the Constitution without any real consideration about what the Constitution actually says.

You may disagree with lightfoot, but what he said is right and if you went to any of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, he would still be right. There is no Constitutional right to purchase a vehicle. NONE.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2012 10:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no Constitutional right to purchase a vehicle.


A lot of tough talk from someone who doesn't understand the most basic aspect of the Constitution.

The Constitution's purpose is NOT to spell out every single possible "right" of the people.

Did I say there was a "Constitutional right" to purchase a car? No. But it's still a right.

quote:
This is just stupid, you are making arbitrary distinctions that have no legal basis whatsoever.


That was almost a verbatim quote of the legal interpretation of rights vs entitlements. So sorry, it's not "stupid" or arbitrary at all.

quote:
You were the one saying that an individual has the right to purchase legal tangible goods. That is incorrect. You have the right to contract with that individual, but not a right to purchase. Words do have meaning


AHAHAHA!! You really think that's going to work? That dragging this down into minutia is going to save your failed point of view? You are debating sir, you're hiding!

quote:
You may disagree with lightfoot, but what he said is right


No, he couldn't be more wrong. And so are you.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2012 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore the Constitution, and this is evident in all the writings and opinions of the Founders, has one overriding mission statement.

The Constitution is based on the belief that we as human beings, have certain inalienable rights. That our rights were NOT dictated and spelled out by Governments and rulers.

The purpose of the Constitution wasn't to list our rights. It was to PROTECT our inalienable rights from the Government. It dictates to our Government, not the other way around.

So when you say something like "we don't have a right to own a car". I have to ask what you're basing that on. If We the People aren't granted the right to own property and engage in commerce with ourselves, I would like to see you prove that.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/28/2012 10:54:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Did I say there was a "Constitutional right" to purchase a car? No. But it's still a right.


Fine, by that logic, I have a right to breathe clean air. Therefore, every corporation must stop polluting the air tomorrow. Rights have absolutely no meaning unless they are backed up by legal support. Hence why I am harping on the Constitutional aspect.

quote:
AHAHAHA!! You really think that's going to work? That dragging this down into minutia is going to save your failed point of view? You are debating sir, you're hiding!


That is the whole point of this conversation. Everything is about the minutia unless you want to take broad strokes with Constitutional law. Oh and my "failed" point of view is law in 51 jurisdictions so argue with that.

quote:
A lot of tough talk from someone who doesn't understand the most basic aspect of the Constitution.


I understand the most basic aspects of the US Constitution. Apparently, you don't because you have this odd belief that you have a right to every single thing as long as it is not listed in the prohibition portion of the Constitution. You seem to lack the knowledge that there are penumbras in the Constitution.

quote:
So when you say something like "we don't have a right to own a car". I have to ask what you're basing that on. If We the People aren't granted the right to own property and engage in commerce with ourselves, I would like to see you prove that.


I never said that and you always misquote me because you like to use straw man arguments. I said that you have no right to purchase a car, but only a right to contract with an individual to purchase a car. It's an important distinction that this country was founded upon, and one that you seem to miss.

quote:
The Constitution is based on the belief that we as human beings, have certain inalienable rights. That our rights were NOT dictated and spelled out by Governments and rulers.


Nice try, but that was the Declaration of Independence and has no significance whatsoever in Constitutional law. The Constitution is limited to the Seven Articles and the 27 Amendments.

quote:
The purpose of the Constitution wasn't to list our rights. It was to PROTECT our inalienable rights from the Government. It dictates to our Government, not the other way around.


The purpose was to give the Federal government more power than what was given in the Articles of Confederation. As such, there is a balancing act that was done with regard to individual/state rights and the powers of the federal government. The words mean an awful lot and to go around saying that we have a right to purchase a car (as you said), is false in the Constitutional aspect. Furthermore, to say that buying a car is a right regardless of it's constitutionality is stupid because your supposed right doesn't mean anything because you can't enforce that right.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2012 11:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nice try, but that was the Declaration of Independence and has no significance whatsoever in Constitutional law.


Constitutional law doesn't apply here because this is SUCH a no brainier there's never been a SINGLE case in the history of this country regarding it.

Your argument is basically the same as saying I don't have a right to purchase food. That if the Government saw fit to, it could regulate me into starving to death.

This is what happens when you argue with an idiot, you just come off looking like one. I'm going to stop while I'm ahead, because now you're just trying to drag this into the realm of absurdity. You've abandoned all common sense and logic in the favor of mental gymnastics and red herrings. You're a FOOL.

The right to property is an essential part of any free society.

quote:
The Constitution is limited to the Seven Articles and the 27 Amendments.


In which not ONE of those infringes on the people's ability to buy, sell, or trade goods as they see fit within the law. In fact, most of the Constitution protects this FROM the Government.

Please, abandon this campaign of confusion and absurdity and understand that in this context "buy" and "contract to buy" is the same thing. We mean the same things!


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 12:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Constitutional law doesn't apply here because this is SUCH a no brainier there's never been a SINGLE case in the history of this country regarding it.

What do you mean that Constitutional law doesn't apply here? Are you referring to the fact that the Declaration of Independence doesn't hold any legal significance? If so, I'm glad we agree on that.

quote:
Your argument is basically the same as saying I don't have a right to purchase food. That if the Government saw fit to, it could regulate me into starving to death.


No, actually my argument isn't "basically the same". That's your problem, you are so ignorant to the nuances of Constitutional law and rights within the Constitution that you go around making up fictional rights. In your example, the people in your community could starve you to death by refusing to sell or give you food and the government can't interfere because it has to protect the rights of individuals to contract. That's the whole focus of this conversation is that the government is protecting a simple right, but limiting it to prevent abuses by either party.

quote:
You've abandoned all common sense and logic in the favor of mental gymnastics and red herrings. You're a FOOL.


I bet you call Constitutional lawyers fools all the time don't you? I say this because, my logic is based in Constitutional principles and those darn lawyers are the ones that came up with those principles. Oh and by the way, this is your second logical fallacy that you love so much, the ad hominem attack.

quote:
The right to property is an essential part of any free society.


The right to own, possess, and use property, but not the right to purchase. That is not a right that is included in any constitution in the US. Only the right to contract is included, and it is a subtle but important distinction that you lack the ability to understand, given your previous posts.

quote:
Please, abandon this campaign of confusion and absurdity and understand that in this context "buy" and "contract to buy" is the same thing. We mean the same things!


No, it doesn't mean the same thing, and telling people it does is incorrect. I'm posting to fix your incorrect statement before others read it and start spouting off the same thing. You were wrong and lightfoot was right, just admit it.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 12:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
Lightfoot said "owning". He didn't say purchase, or buy, or contract. He said "own".

We almost certainly have a right to OWN vehicles. Just stop, this is over. Admit you are wrong and move on.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 12:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lightfoot said "owning". He didn't say purchase, or buy, or contract. He said "own".

And then he corrected himself and said purchase. You still claimed he was wrong after he corrected himself. Therefore, you were wrong.
quote:
We almost certainly have a right to OWN vehicles. Just stop, this is over. Admit you are wrong and move on.

I never said that we didn't have the right to own, yet you are still sticking to your straw man tactics. Lightfoot was right when he said purchase, and law supports him. Just admit that you really don't know what the Constitution says, stop spouting fictional rights that do not exist, and stop bashing people that actually know what the hell they are talking about.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Paj on 8/29/2012 7:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
Arguing with a constitutional lawyer... about the constitution.

Gold.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 7:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Please. I've seen lawyers debate an issue. To say he falls short of that standard is an understatement. He's not even citing case precedence or any trial rulings to back his position, something ANY lawyer would have done nauseatingly so by now. So someone says he's a lawyer over the Internet, clearly it must be true!!!

This isn't even a Constitutional issue, but he keeps trying to force it into that area. We have a right to obtain vehicles in this country, the OP lightfood is dead wrong. And it's a travesty so many weak minded socialist morons agree with him.

It's only because of the sudden political nature of the automobile that this is even being debated. It's just absurd. The OP wants to undermine the ownership of the automobile from a 'right' to a situation where we are all under the Government's boot heel and they can dictate any terms to us.

This argument, if anything, highlights the cultural chasm between understanding the difference between a right, and an entitlement. The meaning of the two have been severely blurred over the years. Nobody is saying we're entitled to automobiles, that's different.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Paj on 8/29/2012 9:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough. I was enjoying the parry and riposte, that's all. For the record, I know very little about the constitution so I'm in no position to add anything!


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 9:20:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah it was 'fun' at first until it became obvious he was more interested in nitpicking over terminology, instead of debating what the OP's intentions were.

And to be honest you don't need to know much about the Constitution's specifics. Just the broad strokes.

The Constitution was specifically written to try and prevent this situation. Where we have a large centralized Government in Washington arbitrarily mandating policy to all the States and their citizens. States Rights, once a binding principle in America, is now nothing but an inconvenience to be ignored or outright trampled.

These mandates have only been made possible through GROSSLY biased and activist rulings by Supreme Court justices over the years who have criminally misinterpreted the meaning of the Commerce Clause. This directly conflicts with maybe the biggest theme of the Constitution: LIMITED Government. A Government that has unlimited mandate power over the people, cannot possibly be limited.

The idea that the writers of the Constitution, the architects of this nation, would ever agree we don't have a right to an automobile is just absurd.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Paj on 8/29/2012 10:43:24 AM , Rating: 2
No worries. I sometimes forget how different the system in the US is - regarding the relationship between the state vs federal government, and who has the mandate where.

The relationship between federal, state and local government is different everywhere I've been. The US system feels more like the EU with a lot more state autonomy, than say, Australia or the UK, where the federal government has a lot more power than the states.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By lightfoot on 8/29/2012 11:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
The article in question is about making NEW cars more expensive to PURCHASE. And the impact that will have on the poor and middle class who will find that the additional costs put a purchase of a new vehicle out of reach.

My exact quote of "owning a vehicle is not a right" meant specifically that it is NOT the governement's responsibility to ensure that every citizen owns a vehicle (ie makes sure that they are accessible to everyone.) IF you had a right to OWN a vehicle, the government would have to allow you to sue anybody who denied you that right, whether it be a dealership for making it too expensive or an employer for not paying you enough to make it affordable or even a private party for not simply giving it to you. That is what the government allows when a Person's Legal Rights have been denied.

This never was a debate about Property Rights (the rights that you have to protect property that you already own.) Those rights are known technically as "Property Rights" and are not being disputed.

There is no right, implied or otherwise, to property that you DO NOT ALREADY OWN. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN A CAR. You DO have a right to protect any cars that you already own, but there is NO LEGAL REMEDY to provide you with a car if you do not already own one.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 11:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My exact quote of "owning a vehicle is not a right" meant specifically that it is NOT the governement's responsibility to ensure that every citizen owns a vehicle


Of course not. Who said it was? You're being retarded.

quote:
but there is NO LEGAL REMEDY to provide you with a car if you do not already own one.


Nobody said there was.

Honestly are you a retard or something? Providing everyone a car wouldn't be a "right" anyway, that would be an entitlement.

I know what you're doing. By pushing this argument into the Twilight Zone of insanity, CAFE get's a free pass. Well no, I don't think so.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 11:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please. I've seen lawyers debate an issue. To say he falls short of that standard is an understatement. He's not even citing case precedence or any trial rulings to back his position, something ANY lawyer would have done nauseatingly so by now.


I can cite Lochner v. New York, if you'd like, but last time I cited cases in my support, you ignored it anyways. So rather than waste my time, I chose a different route.
quote:
This isn't even a Constitutional issue, but he keeps trying to force it into that area. We have a right to obtain vehicles in this country, the OP lightfood is dead wrong. And it's a travesty so many weak minded socialist morons agree with him.

When you talk about rights you are either talking about inalienable fundamental rights like travel that are inherent in the constitution or you are talking about the rights that are granted expressly but with limits in the constitution. And if you don't have the right then you don't have legal redress. I'd like to see you enforce your free speech rights against the state without the federal government backing you. You wouldn't get very far.
quote:
This argument, if anything, highlights the cultural chasm between understanding the difference between a right, and an entitlement. The meaning of the two have been severely blurred over the years. Nobody is saying we're entitled to automobiles, that's different.

What you call a right, often times isn't one covered under the constitution. As for your right vs entitlement the only real entitlements are social security, Medicare, etc. As people get confused about what is a right they tend to expand their supposed rights well beyond what actually exist. This is why you can't paint the constitution with broad strokes. Furthermore, the whole issue is whether you have a right to buy/purchase vs a right to contract and negotiate. Lightfoot was wrong at first but corrected himself and everyone still said he was wrong. If now you are saying that he is right when you say that people are not entitled to an automobile in violation of another's property rights then you are beginning to understand the distinction.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 11:32:49 AM , Rating: 2
The Constitution doesn't grant us freedom of speech. The Constitution protects our freedom of speech FROM infringement by the Government and other parties. This goes back to the belief in "inalienable" rights that you claimed weren't relevant, but are plainly obvious.

quote:
What you call a right, often times isn't one covered under the constitution.


Because the Constitution isn't a comprehensive list of all of our "rights". All power and rights not mentioned to the Government in the Constitution, is by default granted to the People and the States. Which is why opponents (such as yourself apparently) have referred to it as a "negative rights" documents. The Constitution spends far more time on what the Government CAN'T do, than it does on what we can.

quote:
If now you are saying that he is right when you say that people are not entitled to an automobile in violation of another's property rights then you are beginning to understand the distinction.


Is that the misunderstanding we're having? That when you hear us say it's our "right", you interpret that as us saying we have a right to any car out there regardless? I believe I covered the "violation of anothers rights" when I posted:


"Rights can be acted on by individuals without the assistance of government and without forcibly interfering with other individuals ."


Which as I recall, you tried to get all lawyer on my ass and say THAT was wrong as well.

I understand that you need to cloud the real issues and bury them behind miles of legalese. After all if you guys couldn't do that, you would probably lose more often than not. However it's not necessary here and only wastes peoples time. This issue isn't nearly as complex as you're making it.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Manch on 8/29/2012 12:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rights have absolutely no meaning unless they are backed up by legal support.


So since the constitution doesnt specifically say I can twiddle my thumbs, scratch my balls, or pinch my own nipples, I do not have the right to do it? If there is a law specifically covering this, then I would LOVE tho see it!


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 12:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So since the constitution doesnt specifically say I can twiddle my thumbs, scratch my balls, or pinch my own nipples, I do not have the right to do it? If there is a law specifically covering this, then I would LOVE tho see it!


There is no specific law that covers those. I'm not sure if you are trying to be facetious or not.If you want a case to back your right to do those things then you're looking at the right to privacy in Griswold v. Conn. and Roe v. Wade. That's what I was talking about when I said there were penumbras in constitutional law.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Manch on 8/29/2012 1:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
So what if I do those things in public? Do those still protect me? Everyones splitting hairs so I figured why not ask these absurd questions?

Come on! Lawyer me!


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 1:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Ryrod get's more absurd with every post. I wonder if he thinks we have ANY rights that can't be swept aside with his legal mumbojumbo routine.

Lawyer my ass. Just another online punk who got drunk and watched Matlock a few too many times.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 1:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the state you live in and the context. If you state has strict immorality laws and you go to a school in your underwear and scratch your balls in front of school children then you may have a problem. If you are wearing pants and you do a quick scratch of your balls as you are walking by school grounds you won't have a problem.

The reason why I was harping about the distinction with right to purchase vs right to contract is because some people honestly believe they have the right to go anywhere and be sold a product or service, otherwise it's a constitutional violation. However that's not the case. People have a right to refuse to sell goods or services to others as long as it is not done in violation of public policy i.e. because they are Hispanic or a woman. Right to contract is a huge issue that people complain about daily whereas scratching your balls is something half the population doesn't worry about and is unlikely to be litigated.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 1:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason why I was harping about the distinction with right to purchase vs right to contract is because some people honestly believe they have the right to go anywhere and be sold a product or service, otherwise it's a constitutional violation.


That was NEVER a talking point of this argument. You and that foot guy made that the argument.

Do we have a Constitutional right to affordable automobiles? Of course not. Nobody said we did!

Do we have a Constitution that specifically was against this level of mandate abuse and free market restrictions that are CAUSING price increases? Yes. Emphatically so.

Now you don't agree because you've already spoken of your love for the Commerce Clause. So I can't sway your insanity. I can only say that, on behalf of all Americans, thank you for continuing to misinterpret that clause and give the Government more and more power to bend us over a barrel.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 1:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now you don't agree because you've already spoken of your love for the Commerce Clause. So I can't sway your insanity. I can only say that, on behalf of all Americans, thank you for continuing to misinterpret that clause and give the Government more and more power to bend us over a barrel.

If you don't like it then why don't you run for office and change it or get confirmed to the Supreme Court? Otherwise all you're doing I'd creating a delusional fantasy of what your America would be.
For the record, we were on this route all the way back in the 1790s and 1800s. So take your issue up with that communist John Marshall.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 2:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't like it then why don't you run for office and change it or get confirmed to the Supreme Court?


Nah how about the people in the judicial branch and you lawyers just do your goddamned jobs and uphold the Constitution more, and creatively "interpret" it less. It doesn't need interpretation, it's VERY clear. It's needs more enforcement.

You probably think the ACA ruling was Constitutional as well. Moron...


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 2:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nah how about the people in the judicial branch and you lawyers just do your goddamned jobs and uphold the Constitution more, and creatively "interpret" it less. It doesn't need interpretation, it's VERY clear.

Apparently you haven't actually read the U.S. Constitution because it is not clear and it is incredibly vague. If you think it is clear, you are either ignorant or delusional. That's the reason our Constitution has lived so long. It's the flexibility in the vagueness in the Constitution that allows the government to deal with emerging issues.

And yes, I agreed with John Roberts who apparently is also a communist.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 2:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
So you believe in a Government with unlimited power, and accuse me of not reading the Constitution?

Okay you have absolutely no integrity.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/29/2012 3:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
I never said that. You really love these straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks when you have nothing intelligent or of substance to say. There are limits to the governments power, just not as much of a limit as you like.

And at least I'm not a hypocrite extolling the clarity of the U.S. Constitution while turning around and saying that there are rights included in the Constitution that aren't expressly written.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 4:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And at least I'm not a hypocrite extolling the clarity of the U.S. Constitution while turning around and saying that there are rights included in the Constitution that aren't expressly written.


My god, possibly the dumbest debate I've seen on DT yet, and thats saying something.

First.. Congress apparently felt it required a constitutional amendment, the 18th, to bring prohibition about, which specifically bans the sale of alcohol, but not, by my understanding, the possession. Seemed to them that people had the right to buy anything someone was willing to sell them, thus requiring an amendment to the constitution in order to nullify that right in a very specific instance.

Now, lets look at the 9th amendment. Exact text thereof: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Translation: If we havent already mentioned it, then the right still exists and is held by the people.

And then my personal favorite, the 10th amendment. Text: 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 .

I saw someone say something about someone being a constitutional lawyer. Obama is one as well, and that doesn't mean much. I'm an economist myself, and disagree with some peers. Amateurs are perfectly capable of debating economics with professionals, as good economic theory is inherently simple (we dont need unicorns and pixie dust like particle physicists do in string theory to justify our fields predictions). Thankfully, and as intended by the framers, the constitution is fairly plainly written, specifically so that the common person can read and understand it.

If anyone wonders what I think of lawyers, I'll point to google, which should turn up research from earlier this year finding the average lawyer is a 1 million dollar drain per year on US GDP. Lawyers are the pinnacle of welfare queens, which is why so many vote Democrat.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/30/2012 5:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First.. Congress apparently felt it required a constitutional amendment, the 18th, to bring prohibition about, which specifically bans the sale of alcohol, but not, by my understanding, the possession. Seemed to them that people had the right to buy anything someone was willing to sell them, thus requiring an amendment to the constitution in order to nullify that right in a very specific instance.

That's because they needed the 18th Amendment to get around Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. Without the Amendment, prohibition laws would have been struck down. The right to contract is an enumerated right in the U.S. Constitution, so the 9th and 10th Amendment are irrelevant to the discussion in this context.

The whole point of this argument was to correct a statement amounting to "if I have the money then I have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to purchase a vehicle" and that is wrong. This is why I was harping on the right to contract vs the right to purchase. That simple word "purchase" has a substantial legal significance. People seem to think in this country that they have a right to purchase whatever they want and if they are denied that right, then they have a constitution remedy, which is wrong. If I don't want to sell you something, I don't have to unless I am refusing to sell to a specific class of protected people. People in general look at the 9th and 10th Amendments to create all these rights which do not exist or to argue against federal actions which are constitutional, but some people have a personal revulsion otherwise. As such, the 9th and 10th Amendments are some of the most misunderstood amendments.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2012 8:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ryrod it's over. You lost, give it up. This is embarrassing.

quote:
The whole point of this argument was to correct a statement amounting to "if I have the money then I have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to purchase a vehicle" and that is wrong.


No you just, AGAIN, are refusing to accept that when we say it's a "right", you should use some common sense and realize we mean, of course, provided there is a WILLING seller. Private or otherwise.

quote:
If I don't want to sell you something, I don't have to unless I am refusing to sell to a specific class of protected people.


Are you an idiot? For the hundredth time I'll clarify, that was NEVER an argument put forth by me or anyone else here. That is NOT what we meant!

Like I said when this first started, and Ringold mentioned, this is one of the dumbest discussions I've ever seen.

quote:
As such, the 9th and 10th Amendments are some of the most misunderstood amendments.


Coming from someone who believes the Commerce Clause isn't being raped and pillaged, this means next to nothing.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ryrod on 8/30/2012 9:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I go to buy a car and a dealership turns me away without an expressed legitimate reason (money, credit check, etc) I can sue them. They've violated my consumer rights. It most certainly IS protected.

I am not even misquoting you. You said this and it is wrong. This is why I was harping on the constitutional right to contract. You can't even get straight what you said one day or apparently one hour to the next. Please just stop because you embarrass yourself so much on here with your lack of knowledge and your inability to take criticism or admit you are wrong.
quote:
Coming from someone who believes the Commerce Clause isn't being raped and pillaged, this means next to nothing.

You are the exact person I was referring to when I wrote that. You're no different from a guy I knew who tried to cite the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments to assert his right to "live the way he wants" and to express himself at 3am by bombarding his neighborhood with deafening music.
And as I noted before, you better travel back to the 1790s and 1800s and stop the supreme court if you don't like the way that the commerce clause turned out because it started with them. So stop crying about communism just because a Democrat is in the house. It's pathetic when you do that and then turn around and sing the praises of the Republicans when they're in office. No one from the Republican party called Bush a communist when he did similar things like Obama is doing now nor did anyone call Hatch or Grassley when they backed a bill with the individual mandate or Romney when he signed an individual mandate into law. Furthermore, it's Congress that has to abide by the language of the Commerce Clause so why don't you admonish the Republicans that support bills which violate your view of the Commerce Clause? You're so partisan that it is ridiculously comical when you cry foul about the Democrats and Obama. If you actually looked at the issues from a neutral standpoint you might be believable, but instead you are so biased in your views that I could probably create a comment generator and fill it with anti-Democrat statements and they would probably be equivalent in nature to everything you say.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wookie1 on 8/28/2012 9:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution is not intended to spell out anyone's rights. it is intended to describe what the essential functions of the government are and to provide the scope of its power. Everything not in the scope of the government's power is your natural right. That's gotten a bit contorted over the years with the commerce clause, though. The framers decided to add the bill of rights as they felt they were too important to not state directly.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wordsworm on 8/28/2012 9:21:38 PM , Rating: 3
It's nice of you to give him the reach-around.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By nedsand on 8/29/2012 9:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks wordworm I have to clean my monitor now.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By foolsgambit11 on 8/28/2012 8:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, if you're going to start with "legitimate philosophical differences", you should at least make an effort to portray each side's philosophy as legitimate. I'd say both sides believe that the government has a responsibility to "promote the general welfare". The Left believes that Government can best achieve this aim through a combination of positive action and market forces, while the Right believes the government that governs best governs least.

And to describe the Democrats in America as Marxists is a comical misrepresentation of their political and economic philosophies.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/28/2012 9:53:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
he Left believes that Government can best achieve this aim through a combination of positive action and market forces, while the Right believes the government that governs best governs least.


Considering how Singapore, Hong Kong, some former Soviet areas, and SEZs "Special Economic Zones" around the world where governments admit their red tape crushes business incentive elsewhere, the weight of history is on one of those sides.

Promoting the general welfare means vastly different things to both sides as well. America for its first hundred-plus years all thought it meant enforcing basic law, defending the shore and delivering the post. It's a relatively new thing, this cradle-to-grave welfare state we're creating, and if it was where the founders thought the constitution should lead us then its strange it took over a century.

quote:
And to describe the Democrats in America as Marxists is a comical misrepresentation of their political and economic philosophies.


Then you don't know Marx and the influences he had on political thought. Virtually all of the modern Democrats (post-Vietnam in particular) simply did not exist in this country until Marx's influence permeated the country.

It's also easy to see close similarities between Democrats in this nation and this ideological peers that aren't too big of pussies to call themselves Socialist, Communist, or in one nice example, The Red-Green Alliance.

Plus, be real. Obama's biological father; card carrying communist revolutionary of Kenya. Obama's mother; anthropologist, code word for a bachelors in Marxist bitterness. Obama's grandparents; self-professed socialists. And Obama's life-long mentor Frank, card carrying member of CP USA, founder of communist news papers and organizations in Chicago. And Obama himself in his biography said he gravitated to Marxist professors and student groups, with interviews with his college peers saying he was a communist revolutionary then. All of thats established history. Trying to suggest with all that self-professed Marxist influence that there now is none?


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/28/2012 9:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
Er, their ideas didn't exist, I mean. Obviously some were born earlier.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Paj on 8/29/2012 7:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering how Singapore, Hong Kong, some former Soviet areas, and SEZs "Special Economic Zones" around the world where governments admit their red tape crushes business incentive elsewhere, the weight of history is on one of those sides.


Actually, you're mistaken. Hong Kong and Singapore are the top two most free economies in the world according to several sources. They're also some of the most competitive, and the least corrupt.

quote:
Then you don't know Marx and the influences he had on political thought. Virtually all of the modern Democrats (post-Vietnam in particular) simply did not exist in this country until Marx's influence permeated the country.

It's also easy to see close similarities between Democrats in this nation and this ideological peers that aren't too big of pussies to call themselves Socialist, Communist, or in one nice example, The Red-Green Alliance.


Unless you're using vastly different definitions to me and the rest of the world, the Democrats arent Marxist or Communist. They arent calling for collectivisation of property, a single party system, or the abolition of class. They support private enterprise just like everyone else does.

Traditional Marxism is little better than intellectual pontification, and is a pretty outdated system of thought. It's founding theories have been refined into many, many offshoots that in some cases fundamentally alter its original aims.

Also, comparing Communism to modern Socialism is another fallacy. They are very, very different things. Many governments in European are Socialist to some degree, but they are definitely not Communist and would likely get offended if described as such.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 4:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, you're mistaken. Hong Kong and Singapore are the top two most free economies in the world according to several sources. They're also some of the most competitive, and the least corrupt.


Thats what I meant; history in on their side, the side of the free-market Hong Kongs of the world, not the socialists in places like Italy, where tax evasion is common, public perceptions of corruption high, and the government always one bad bond auction away from collapse.

As for modern communists, yes, they've reformed -- but only slightly. Obama took an equity stake in GM, for example, following in the footsteps of his socialist French counterparts. If we really want to get arcane on terminology, could call Democrats a little fascist too; they don't mind private ownership of capital, so long as it does the states bidding.

But if we set the Red-Green Alliance of Denmark or the Socialists of France as a benchmark for modern communism or socialism, and look at Obama, Pelosi and Reid ideologies and intentions, then its still fair to say I think that the resemblance is strong.

And, just like you have the occasional racist loon in the Republican party, there is indeed the occasional old-school communist in the Democrat party that can't understand why we didnt just nationalize GM, or prop it up, or throw up huge trade barriers, or nationalize the electric grid or the healthcare system. In fact, I'd say a majority of Democrat *politicians* (not necessarily voters) can't fathom why nationalizing, say, the electrical grid, would be a bad thing, so heavily influenced by Marx as they are.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By Paj on 8/31/2012 12:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats what I meant; history in on their side, the side of the free-market Hong Kongs of the world, not the socialists in places like Italy, where tax evasion is common, public perceptions of corruption high, and the government always one bad bond auction away from collapse.


Apologies - re-reading your post and your meaning becomes clearer.
I think Singapore and Hong Kong are special cases though - essentially city states, free trade works for them as so much of their economy comes from trade, with heavily diversified economies, a large manufacturing and refining sector, and a relatively low population.

They have virtually no agriculture, mining, or natural resources for example. Free trade works for them, but for massive countries the problems with free trade start to bite - exporting of labour overseas and loss of economic diversification. Witness the UK and it's over-reliance on financial services while all its manufacturing went overseas - now this is kicking its ass.

quote:
But if we set the Red-Green Alliance of Denmark or the Socialists of France as a benchmark for modern communism or socialism, and look at Obama, Pelosi and Reid ideologies and intentions, then its still fair to say I think that the resemblance is strong.


True enough. But to call this pure communism or pure Marxism is fallacious. And the implementation of socialist policies in Scandinavia, France and Germany as well has been highly successful, both currently and in the past, across economic, environmental and psychological metrics.

quote:
And, just like you have the occasional racist loon in the Republican party, there is indeed the occasional old-school communist in the Democrat party that can't understand why we didnt just nationalize GM, or prop it up, or throw up huge trade barriers, or nationalize the electric grid or the healthcare system. In fact, I'd say a majority of Democrat *politicians* (not necessarily voters) can't fathom why nationalizing, say, the electrical grid, would be a bad thing, so heavily influenced by Marx as they are.


Nationalising an industry is still a pretty far cry from pure Marxism. Most rail and power networks in Europe are run by the state, or in partnership with private industry, and work extremely well - punctual, cheap, technologically advanced, excellent coverage and profit making. SNCF in France run the fastest passenger service in the world, the TGV. Its now running all over Europe, and they are exporting this knowhow globally - even the US is in talks with SNCF at the moment.

Contrast this with the rail system in the UK - privatised in the 90s, and now the most expensive in Europe, overcrowded, poorly maintained and lagging behind in terms of innovation. Having experienced both, I know which system I prefer.

I believe the best solution lies not in absolutes - as the examples I have shown prove, success is often achieved through a balance of socialism and capitalism. Some systems work well in some scenarios, not so well in others. Trusting in absolutes benefits no-one.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By KCjoker on 8/28/2012 6:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
True but Obama and the Libs will just increase tax credits for lower priced cars. Meaning the rich will be helping them buy a new car.


RE: Owning a car is not a right
By wookie1 on 8/28/2012 10:01:14 PM , Rating: 3
Really? They'll take the tax credits away from the Teslas and Volts and instead apply them to a Civic? I'm not so sure, they seem to like having us all pay rich people to buy the cars of their crony buddies. You don't really think that poor people are going to spring for a >$40K volt or >$100K Tesla, do you?


Not going out of business at 15k
By inperfectdarkness on 8/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By Spuke on 8/28/2012 3:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If anything, cheap POS cars like what you see everywhere in Europe is what will flood the market.
I don't want cheap, POS cars to flood the market. Besides, that's won't happen anyways because our safety requirements have been increasing also. POS cars are effectively illegal here. Now cheap, new cars will be illegal here too. I'm not sure I agree with NADA entirely on 7 million out of the car market (could be spot on) but it's entirely possible as millions have ALREADY been eliminated from the car market. $5000 would make the average price of a car $35k in todays dollars. In reality, automakers have to justify that so they'll add more content and features, maybe more exotic materials. I expect the average price of a car in 2025 to be over $40k. That $16k base Focus will be more like $25k then IMO.


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By lightfoot on 8/28/2012 3:48:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If Joe Blow wants to turn his car into a 1500hp 8mpg fuel vampire--I have no problem with that; he should be allowed to do it.

I agree, but as the owner of a convertible that has to share the road with his kind, I would say that his emissions should be required to be filtered through his passenger cabin, and not mine.


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By Spuke on 8/28/2012 4:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, but as the owner of a convertible that has to share the road with his kind, I would say that his emissions should be required to be filtered through his passenger cabin, and not mine.
How do you know his emissions will increase? It's not an automatic thing, it really depends on the tuning. My brother had a heavily modified 300whp, normally aspirated, Acura RSX Type S that passed CA emissions with ease (not the visual though :)).


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By lightfoot on 8/28/2012 4:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
By definition, if you burn more fuel, you will emit more emissions. The exhaust may not be more noxious, but it likely will be.

My point is only that emissions should be regulated. Fuel economy and after market modifications should not. I'm also okay with the fuel also being taxed.


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2012 4:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
But the laws don't regulate the amount of emissions, only the content of them.

In other words you can have a 1,000 HP Veyron pass emissions and have a 100 HP econobox fail because the EGR valve is stuck.


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By lightfoot on 8/28/2012 4:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
And I have to share the road with them too. I am willing to bet that if all auto emissions had to be filtered through the passenger cabin that emission standards would improve dramatically for all vehicles. Emissions would no longer be an externality, but something that impacts the owner/operator's health directly.


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By Manch on 8/28/2012 4:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
If we do what you suggest, to make it fair you wouldnt be able to have your top down. Otherwise you wouldnt get your fair share of emissions.

Ya see why your arguement is stupid?


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By Spuke on 8/28/2012 4:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ya see why your arguement is stupid?
This.


RE: Not going out of business at 15k
By Manch on 8/28/2012 4:18:41 PM , Rating: 3
So since you drive a convertible, you claim dominion over all open air as your cabin?


$5000 is ridiculous.
By ZorkZork on 8/28/2012 4:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
If these standards were to take effect tomorrow then it might be true. But in 2017? Once production has been optimized it will be more like $50. If their numbers were to be believed then seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, anti-lock brakes, airbags, air condition, electric windows, etc. would already have pushed prices up way beyond what a normal family can afford.

On a side note I find it strange some of the automakers have fought this. Requiring continuous technological innovation in cars is the only thing that can stop all auto manufacturing from ending up in China. Once innovation slows down production will move there. Somehow European, Japanese and Korean automakers have understood this whereas the US automakers seems to just wanting to continue building what they did yesterday in new designs.




RE: $5000 is ridiculous.
By Spuke on 8/28/2012 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If their numbers were to be believed then seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, anti-lock brakes, airbags, air condition, electric windows, etc. would already have pushed prices up way beyond what a normal family can afford.
LOL! Cars prices HAVE increased dramatically AND the increases have not followed inflation (cause there really hasn't been much increase in inflation). Car prices have increased $10k at the least in the last 10 years or so. The AVERAGE price of a car today is $30,000!!!! In 2000 or 2001, it was $20,000!!!! I truly believe $5k is a low ball number meant to not shock the crap out of people. 2017-2025 car prices will NOT be $35k, I can guarantee you it will OVER $40k. Automakers can't just raise prices (even if it is to pay for greater fuel economy) $5000 without giving people $5000 worth of value. Look at todays $30k car compared to yesterdays $20k car. There's significant content and feature differences nevermind the safety, emissions, and fuel economy. I'm going to bookmark this article and we'll revisit this in 2017. My first post is going to be the average price difference between a 2012 car and a 2017 car. Bet you $1000 it will be $40k. I'll also bet you there will massive whining about car prices (from the same people no doubt) and how the new Focus costs $28k decently equipped and why are they so expensive and how the automakers are gouging us blah blah blah. I'm going to post a link right to this article and I'm going to laugh my ass off.


RE: $5000 is ridiculous.
By pandemonium on 8/28/2012 10:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless, everything is increasing in price. How much did a Milky Way bar cost in 2000? How much does it cost now? How much technology is in that bar compared to one from the year 2000? (The analogy is meant to be ironic in its relevance.)

I think your numbers validity is moot because there's no way you'll directly be able to associate the increase in price solely due to the driving innovations required to meet the new EPA standards in 2017 and beyond.


RE: $5000 is ridiculous.
By Keeir on 8/29/2012 9:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
You and the original poster are both somewhat correct.

Since cars became a standard fixture of American Life in 1950s, they have typically fallen in real cost after inflation. Starting ~1995 to today, the real costs after inflation have not fallen. They have not significantly risen either.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

In 2003, I purchased a 29,500 MSRP car. The MSRP for the same model car that is, bigger, safer, more features, and higher engine output is 37,400 today. The Inflation Calculator says it should be around 37,000. That's not a significant price increase, but in other decades the real price would have fallen by 5-10%.

The issue with the better fuel economy versus cost is how it is acchieved.

A simple step would be to replace the heavy steel parts with lightwieght high strength Aluminum parts. The price difference for a lb of formed material though is several factors moving from standard steel to high strength aluminum. This cost would never go away since aluminum is made is quantity already. Working with both steel and aluminum, the cost for a typical car frame (in material alone) would be 500-1000 dollars. If Carbon Fiber type composite is used, the cost would be very significant for the R&D, but over time the recurring cost could be minimal, meaning car prices may not raise significantly over the long term, but the short term the price raise could be much more than 1,000 dollars per car.

The issue with CAFE is not that the technologies/MPG are unacchievable, its that currently consumer do not say they want to pay for the technologies.


RE: $5000 is ridiculous.
By bobsmith1492 on 8/28/2012 11:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes they have yes they have! Cars are a third the cost of a house these days.

I'll never buy a new car. Some other poor schmuck can blow $20k of depreciation in a year in his new car then I'll pick it up for $5k and drive it another 10 years.

In the 70s my dad bought a brand new camaro with his summer job money. Now working as an engineer it would take an entire year's salary (post taxes) to buy most new cars.

Tell me car prices haven't increased.


IBTCJ
By tayb on 8/28/2012 3:58:31 PM , Rating: 3
In before the circle jerk.

Let me get my popcorn before Reclaimer shows up.




RE: IBTCJ
By Spuke on 8/28/2012 4:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't come in here to change anyone's minds. Cause we all will leave with the same "beliefs" we came in here with. I just find the arguments entertaining. :)


RE: IBTCJ
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/28/2012 4:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer is in Tampa for the convention ;)


RE: IBTCJ
By Spuke on 8/28/2012 4:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer is in Tampa for the convention ;)
LOL! I'm sure he'll be Skype-ing in here pretty soon.


So much for the poor...
By ppardee on 8/28/2012 7:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how anyone making less than $150k could even THINK about voting for this moron. Crash for Clunkers lowered the supply of used cars and pushed the prices way up. Now he wants to increase the cost of new cars also? A 'cheap' car costs 1/3 of the average household's annual income already! Gas prices are high in part because of a failed foreign policy that hasn't changed in at least 12 years and Obama's destruction of local energy production capacity.

Soon, only the rich will be able to afford to drive... And that's exactly what Obama wants.

"Under my plan, energy prices would necessarily sky rocket" - Barry Obama, Champion of the Poor.




RE: So much for the poor...
By Paj on 8/29/2012 7:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Fuel prices aren't high in the USA - they're some of the cheapest in the world.
Try living anywhere else in the world before you make that claim.

http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/internationalprices....

If buying a car is an option for you, congratulations. You're already much wealthier than most people on the planet. Even having that option makes you rich, relatively speaking.

Although it might not seem like it, the USA is a fantastically wealthy country by global standards.


RE: So much for the poor...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 7:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although it might not seem like it, the USA is a fantastically wealthy country by global standards.


Despite the best efforts of Obama and the Liberals to correct this "injustice", yes we are. For now...


Pure Insanity
By Beenthere on 8/28/2012 6:52:19 PM , Rating: 3
While the optimistic claims of $1.7 Billion in cost savings on gasoline sounds impressive, the increased cost to purchase said vehicles will cost consumers over $5 trillion dollars. Bama and the clowns at the EPA didn't mention that little tidbit nor that the regulations are unreasonable and won't achieve the desired lowering of emissions at all.

Are ya felling lucky or have you had enough of The Messiah and the other incompetent morons in DC?




By DanNeely on 8/28/2012 3:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today.


The 2012 CAFE target is 36MPG; 55 is only a 52% increase, nowhere near 'almost double'. I'm guessing the person who wrote the statement in unaware that CAFE MPG numbers are significantly higher than the window sticker numbers you see at the dealer because the latter's tests were been adjusted to roughly match real world driving. Because changing the testing method to be more realistic would effectively mean increasing MPG requirements (alternately the changing the methodology and target at once would almost certainly result in different percentage changes across vehicle types it would only give room for both sides to rant about how bad it was), CAFE still uses the same 30ish year old test methods it debuted with.




It's easy to increase efficiency
By Hulk on 8/28/2012 7:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
The Obama Administration and the Democrats realize that increasing automobile efficiency is as easy as increase the CAFE. It's not about the laws of physics, weight, aerodynamics, engine efficiency, or any other of that "engineering stuff." It's also not about a competitive market which forces manufacturers to compete against one another for the hard earned money of customers.

It's simply about forcing the automobile manufacturers to get off their lazy, rich butts and give us efficient cars. And stop killing the electric car too! Consumers don't know what they want or what is good for them! Only Obama knows that. Silly people.

Thank goodness the Obama Administration has the smarts to realize all of this and save us from our own stupidity. Otherwise I might have bought the car I wanted and now the one Obama wanted me to have.




Issue averted...
By GotThumbs on 8/29/2012 8:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
Simple solution. Used car sales will increase and new car sales will drop.

I've never purchased a new car and probably never will. As a casual reader of this....I can easily see that the average consumer will simple keep thier current vehicles longer (I average 9 years for each car) and will replace thier old car with a used car. Nothing this president has done so far...has put more money in my pocket...so I can't imagine how He expects us to go out and buy new cars. Unless He increased the amount of federal assitance in new car sales.

Personally, I don't want my government to be involved in my car purchase or anyone elses.




easy money
By rsmech on 9/1/2012 2:09:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla also jumped on the CAFE bandwagon when it learned that it could sell any credits for surpassing the standards to companies that haven't.


Not knocking Tesla but how does a gov't regulation become a commodity? Shouldn't profits be from goods or services not swapping gov't mandate quotas! I think I could find enough investors for an electic car company and profit just off of selling gov't credits, easier than having a real job.




By overlandpark4me on 9/2/2012 12:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
when that piece of crap is defeated and a grown up is elected.




hmm
By sweetca on 8/29/2012 1:13:25 PM , Rating: 1
Should I wade in to this shitstorm?




Lies and deceit
By quiksilvr on 8/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Lies and deceit
By Spuke on 8/28/2012 3:29:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is going for under $20k in the year 2012 and is at 53 mpg. Also, its a petrol/electric hybrid vehicle.
You sir are an idiot! LOL! That's ONE car. CAFE is a fleet wide average that's based on some goofy formula where you can get credits among many things. It's never been a straight average.


RE: Lies and deceit
By Topweasel on 8/28/2012 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
Where is the demand. Seriously Diesel is almost non existant from the US not just for emission reasons, but people don't want to buy them.

Sure we all have a friend or two, or themselves that would like a clean diesel option. Or a Hybrid. Or uses high percentage Ethonal. But the fact is that people don't buy them. Forcing the manufacturers to produce enough cars that are already expensive enough, but to add this efficiency, is just going to make it harder for them to make a profit. Consumers for the most part don't care, most don't care if its a fill up a month, or a fill up every 2. Only commuters will really care and its still a stretch there.

If people really want to see changes here, the first step is getting people to change. To be interested in these cars. Otherwise they are just going to overproduce limited interest cars for lip service to a government attempting to force customers to choose products they don't want to (and won't) while trying to give the customers what they want so they will.


RE: Lies and deceit
By freedom4556 on 8/28/2012 7:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diesel is almost non existant from the US not just for emission reasons, but people don't want to buy them.

Actually, it's pretty much entirely for emissions reasons. You couldn't buy a Europe-style diesel if you wanted to. Not one legally imported/assembled here since the '70s. Wiki it.


RE: Lies and deceit
By pandemonium on 8/28/2012 11:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused by your comment..maily because it's wrong.

http://www.vw.com/en/models.html#/flash=e77e276a2e...
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/car-range/ (unselect Petrol)

More specifically comparing the US versus UK versions with the same engines:
http://www.vw.com/en/models/jetta/trims-specs.s9_t...
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/jetta-vi/configu...

And no, emissions isn't the reason. The reason is our Oil companies and their lobbying for gasoline-based engines use because they've built a large infrastructure based upon it. If you actually go over to Europe, diesel not only runs cleaner, but gives you better mileage as well. Most vehicles are turbocharged instead of naturally aspirated, because it's more efficient. In the States, we're just all about larger engines for beefy exhaust tips and the low growl that makes you feel like a man. Apparently being efficient is for pussies.

Even further in the discussion, Brazil is almost completely independent of foreign energy reliance because of their ethanol based engines and power plants. Ethanol works perfectly well, but again...Lobbyists rule here.


RE: Lies and deceit
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 12:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes the oil companies are against diesel fuel, which has a HIGHER profit margin than gasoline. Makes perfect sense!

/sarcasm


RE: Lies and deceit
By pandemonium on 8/29/2012 12:16:14 AM , Rating: 3
Yes Reclaimer77 is against rationality, of which has a HIGHER chance for making stupid comments than the average user. Makes perfect sense!

/reality


RE: Lies and deceit
By Paj on 8/29/2012 7:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Diesels are massive in Europe. Peugeot recently brought out the first hybrid diesel which gets over 70mpg Imperial.

Building a diesel engine is more expensive though, and it can be hard when theres so much inertia behind petrol. Still, saying it can't be done is false.


RE: Lies and deceit
By freedom4556 on 8/29/2012 8:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
No, you're wrong, and I should've said Google it.

quote:
And then there's another challenge for diesels--stricter U.S. emission regulations. The 50-state light-duty vehicle limit for emissions of nitrogen oxides is 0.07 grams per mile. In Western Europe, the limit is 0.29. Reducing NOx to nitrogen and oxygen is much harder with a diesel engine because the exhaust is typically cooler and contains less oxygen compared to a gas engine. To meet U.S. regulations, diesel engines are required to use complicated--and expensive--high-pressure fuel injection and after-treatment systems that in some cases inject an aqueous urea solution to handle the NOx. The added expense of course means an even longer payback period for the consumer. Read more: Diesel Cars in Europe vs. America - Why Diesel Vehicles Are Expensive in US - Popular Mechanics

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-f...
This is what I meant by "Europe-style".

Most US diesel engines need an additive that has to be refilled periodically to meet NOx standards. Some have been improved enough to meet standards without that, appearantly. And additionally, the UK is not the best example of emissions standards for continental Europe.

http://www.practicalenvironmentalist.com/automobil...


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














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