- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,141
- Reaction score
- 58,871
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I believe that over the last 60 years if there had been gains made the costs would be negligable today.
I do not know what the solutions are exactly but I do have a problem with the relatively small gains we've made over the last 60 years. I was looking at new trucks this past week. Most of them are listed at 12-15 mpg in city driving. Again, I could get that out of a 60 year old truck.
I would have liked to have bought a small diesel in a 1500 series Chevy truck. It would get at least in the high 20's. We even have this technology today but one can not buy that truck.
1. You have yet to prove that it is unrealistic. Also, unrealistic is not the same is not optimally cost effective.
2. The government has a legitimate interest in reducing dependance on a substance helps to fund elements that destabilize world peace and US interests.
3. You will need to show that no government is needed and why this is so.
4. So trucking manufacturers will leave the country, because they have to build trucks with a higher mpg? Did you think this through? (they still have a market here and will still have to build trucks to us specifications to reach that market)
I want this, because economics is a competing interest among other national interests, such as the environment in which economics relies on to be healthy and security concerns.
I believe that over the last 60 years if there had been gains made the costs would be negligable today.
I do not know what the solutions are exactly but I do have a problem with the relatively small gains we've made over the last 60 years. I was looking at new trucks this past week. Most of them are listed at 12-15 mpg in city driving. Again, I could get that out of a 60 year old truck.
I would have liked to have bought a small diesel in a 1500 series Chevy truck. It would get at least in the high 20's. We even have this technology today but one can not buy that truck.
I don't have to prove that it is unrealistic. Common sense tells me that a 33 1/3 percent increase is unrealistic.
The government does have a legitimate interest in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It also has a legitimate interest in preserving and promoting freedom. Instead of being tryrannical on two fronts (minimize drilling and refining and C.A.F.E. standards), I believe that liberty is a better answer. First, let the purchasers of vehicles work with the manufacturers on the best solution with regards to mileage. Second, allow for a large expansion of drilling and refining of petroleum products. Both are good for the economy. Both are good for companies. Both are good for freedom.
I understand that you think government is the answer to all things. I simply believe in freedom and buyers and sellers can work out the details without meddlesome government. I need to show you nothing.
That's not what I said, but I understand why you thought I did. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I understand that even foreign manufacturers have to comply with U.S. regulations. My thought was that it is this type of government meddling with over-regulation that is causing many companies to flee the States for better places to do business.
I understand that this is the announced cause celebre behind the tyranny, but even more basic than that is that the Statists want to kill free enterprise and force everyone into their tyrannical point of view. If they cannot get it through selling their ideas, they force everyone by dictate.
I have no desire to dominate people and wish, instead to promote and enrich them, we just disagree on how best this is accomplished.
You desire it. You want C.A.F.E standards. You want energy standards for lightbulbs. You want big government to control what we can and cannot purchase. You may say that you want free enterprise, but your solutions are the opposite.
I said I had no desire to dominate and wish to promote them.
Free enterprise often accomplishes this, but not always.
If either of you have any evidence that this will be some unbearable cost, please post it.
By the way, it will be coming out of my pocket when I go to buy bread. I think reducing fuel consumption will be a better long-term investment though, both for me and for the country. Lower demand for fuel creates lower costs for fuel.
Less pollution reduces health care costs.
I'm certainly mixed on this. I see these trucks sitting and idling and I know that we could come up with a way for them to still operate without sitting around idling all day. I refuse to believe that we couldn't have created more efficient vehicles over the last 60 years. Semi's in the 50's could get 6 mpg.
I am not fan of tyranny, but this doesn't cut the mustard. The simple fact is that industry has failed to advance on its own and needs help.
This is sensible regulation.
1. You have yet to prove that it is unrealistic. Also, unrealistic is not the same is not optimally cost effective.
2. The government has a legitimate interest in reducing dependance on a substance helps to fund elements that destabilize world peace and US interests.
3. You will need to show that no government is needed and why this is so.
4. So trucking manufacturers will leave the country, because they have to build trucks with a higher mpg? Did you think this through? (they still have a market here and will still have to build trucks to us specifications to reach that market)
I want this, because economics is a competing interest among other national interests, such as the environment in which economics relies on to be healthy and security concerns.
Tyranny works better than free enterprise... in some cases? Woof!
That means that ramping up domestic oil production would be a good idea. Whatcha think?
There won't be less polution, because small fleets and owner operators are just going to keep rebuilding their old model trucks, because it's cheaper--not to mention tax deductable--than buying a new truck.
These new model trucks, with all their new fangled crap are junk, anyway. I have 6 trucks. The newest is a 2004 International and it stays broke down. 99% of the time, it's that new fangled crap that is the problem. I have an 82 Peterbilt that rarely breaks down, and when it does have a problem, not only is it easier to fix, it costs half the price. How much with it cost to repair and maintain these fancy new engines that Obama wants to see on the road? Lots of factors there, that the out of touch folks don't think about.
The definition of tyranny is very specific. Automotive regulation does not fall under that definition.
Tyranny: Oppressive power exerted by government
As I said, tyranny.
Except this is not oppressive, but just a regulation, which is subject to politicians that we elect.
ROFL!! You don't think that the government telling us what we can and cannot manufacture or produce and specifying, if it can be manufactured or produced, how it must be manufactured or produced is not oppressive. Wow! Have you read 1984?
If it was a dictatorship, monarchy, or some other authoritarian form of government, I would agree with you.
And yes, I have read 1984, it was a silly and unrealistic book.
LOL! A government does not have to be a dictatorship or monarchy to be oppressive. According to my Webster's, this government could be labeled as authoritarian.
Authoritarian: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.
Looks like authoritarian, oppressive and tyranny were appropriate words.
You thought 1984 was unrealistic? Hmmmm. Have you also read "Atlas Shrugged?" Would that be another unrealistic book?
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime> .
My sleeper trucks have RV roof unit a/c and a diesel generator that is plumbed into the trucks fuel system.
I was referring to the second definition
Tell me, are you able to vote?
Then go ride a bicycle! Anyone who drives a car, even a Smart Car, and spouts this garbage is a hypocrite.
While you think the increase in fuel mileage is reasonable, I am thinking that you are looking only at the 2 mpg and not the 33 1/3 increase in the mpg. That is a huge leap in percentage. Tyrants want to put everyone into chains while freedom wants to unleash the chains. C.A.F.E standards on autos have virutally ended the era of where a person can purchase a full-size sedan and with the future plans, the mid-size and compact will disappear. Freedom allows people to purchase what they desire. Tyranny must crush those desires by putting chains on the people.
Seems like not everyone dislikes the idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?