- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't know the exact numbers, as I imagine they're almost impossible to calculate, but it's almost certainly a much larger amount than would be saved. Think about this: The average person drives approx 12k miles per year. A car that would have gotten 18mpg would thus use 666 gallons of gas per year. A new car getting 22mpg would use 545 gallons of gas per year. That's 121 gallons saved/year.
When you think about the massive amount of energy that goes into extracting and creating the metal, pounding it into shape, building the car, doing the interior, painting the thing, shipping the car to the dealership, etc. it's certainly far more than that.
But that's not what it was sold to the public as.
Only in comparison to pre-CARS levels. Maybe. You -assume- that those that get the slightly-better mileage will not simply drive slightly more.
And, in any event, this does not change the fact that "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand as a 18MPG Tahoe -still- gets worse mileage than ALL of the cars under CARS.
CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.
Fallacy:But this is a logical fallacy based on your assumption that all those people that are trading in SUV's/Cars/Trucks with low enough gas mileage to qualify would've done so still if they could've only purchased a small compact car instead of SUV's or trucks.
Fallacy:
You dont need to buy a small compact car -- you can buy an Impala or Taurus or G8, all of which get 22MPG oir better. As we're so oftern told, people dont NEED a SUV, a full/mid-size car will do.
Even if so, it still doesnt excuse The Obama for the blame of driving up demeand in putiing these new SUVs on the road; "not as much" is nothing but spin, no different than saying that unemployment is up, but "not as much" as before.
No, it isn't:Let me see if I got this right..what you are saying is that since some people are buying cars with only a small increase in MPG and still bad MPG, CARS is going to drive up fuel usage, even though people are getting better millage? That is totally illogical.
That very much seems to be the position of the left, yes.Some people are tied into having trucks, for example farmers. Should they not have a chance to improve their fuel efficiency too? Do you think the government should force the whole country into subcompacts, or just try and make gains?
As i said:So you are suggesting that the government should tell people exactly what type of vehicle to buy? Never knew you for such a big government type.
It makes perfect sense.Your second paragraph makes zero sense.
No, it isn't:
Remember - "drive up demand" necessitates a baseline for comparison.
Whatever that demand was last year, if we have 90% of that demand this year, its still up from that baseline.
Now, it may be down from last year, but it is still "up" from that baseline, and it is "up" from what it would be had the CARS program required that the new vehicle get, say 22 MPG or more.
Thus, demand is driven up.
That very much seems to be the position of the left, yes.
That is, it was, until The Obama started moving SUVs out of the showrooms.
As i said:
That very much seems to be the position of the left, yes.
That is, it was, until The Obama started moving SUVs out of the showrooms.
It makes perfect sense.
An improvement over a terrible condition can still be a terrible condition. Excusing it as "better than before" does not mean it isn't still terrible.
Last year (and iun numeround yrears previous), the gas prices were decalred to be a function of "increased demand" from SUVs.I am still not even seeing your point. Feul efficiency is improving over what it is currently, so this is going to increase the demand for fuel how?
The you havent been around much. Villification of the SUV and championing of the subcompact is a basic staple of the left.No, it has never been the position of the left.
Think so?This is false
The issue isnt the impovement, or even that the CARS program isnt a good idea -- the issue is the Obamanistas not criticizing The Obama for subsidizing SUV purchases, and/or their not blaming Him for the increased demand on gas that the SUVs He subsidized will create.So if we cannot improve by huge amounts, we should not improve at all. Yeah, that is a good idea...
The issue isnt the impovement, or even that the CARS program isnt a good idea -- the issue is the Obamanistas not criticizing The Obama for subsidizing SUV purchases, and/or their not blaming Him for the increased demand on gas that the SUVs He subsidized will create.
I've addressed this 3 or 4 times.If the newer SUVs are more fuel efficient than the old ones where is the increase?
I've addressed this 3 or 4 times.
Just for you, I will refer you to myself:Humor me and try again
Think so?
Then so is the idea that I am arguing that the government should force the whole country into subcompacts.
The issue isnt the impovement, or even that the CARS program isnt a good idea -- the issue is the Obamanistas not criticizing The Obama for subsidizing SUV purchases, and/or their not blaming Him for the increased demand on gas that the SUVs He subsidized will create.
I didnt characterize YOUR position, I characterized that of the left.So why can I not exaggerate your position when you are flat out lying about mine?
Including SUVs, which still get terrible gas mileage.He is not "subsidizing SUV purchases", he is subsidizing the purchase of newer, more fuel efficient vehicles.
I cannot thnk of a condition that would make me NOT oppose CARS, and so you argument here is meaningless.If CARS did not allow for trucks and SUVs to be bought, you would be crying about how Obama was discriminating against those who need trucks and SUVs, such as farmers and people with large families.
I didnt characterize YOUR position, I characterized that of the left.
Are you REALLY going to argue that the left would NOT like to have everyone drive little cars in lieu of SUVs? And that th eleft is not beyond creating legislation that 'incents' people to do so?
Including SUVs, which still get terrible gas mileage.
Unless, of couse, you dont think that 15-18MPG is terrible.
Thus, he is not only subsidizing SUV purchases, but purchases of vehicles that get terrible gas mileage.
I cannot thnk of a condition that would make me NOT oppose CARS, and so you argument here is meaningless.
Ah. Do as I say, not do as I do.Alot of people on the left own SUVs and trucks.
The best selling of which are vehicles that get terrible gas mileage.No, he is subsidizing the purchase of vehicles that get better gas mileage than the ones currently owned.
Really.And the best argument you can come up with is totally wrong.
Ah. Do as I say, not do as I do.
The best selling of which are vehicles that get terrible gas mileage.
And so, The Obama has subsidized the continued purchase of vehicles that get terrible gas mileage.
Fact:
If CARS were a GWB program, you and all the other Obamanistas would be sqawking about how its just another pay-off to his Big Oil buddies.
Really.
What IS my "best argument" aaginst CARS?
Amazing how you had to leave out part of what I said. Your dishonesty is amazing. let me repeat: there are more factors than fuel mileage that have to be considered when purchasing a vehicle. Is a liberal farmer who needs and owns a pickup be a hypocrite? How about a liberal who uses wood heat and needs a pickup to haul wood?
.
On the the contrary -- my honesty refuses to let you explain away your hypocricy.Amazing how you had to leave out part of what I said. Your dishonesty is amazing.
That depends -entirely- on their position on trucks/SUVs.Let me repeat: there are more factors than fuel mileage that have to be considered when purchasing a vehicle. Is a liberal farmer who needs and owns a pickup be a hypocrite? How about a liberal who uses wood heat and needs a pickup to haul wood?
On the contrary -- it would have been exactly what He should have done.Again, Obama has subsidized the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles. By your logic, he should only have included hybrid cars in CARS, which would have been stupid and ineffective.
None of this changes the fact that If CARS were a GWB program, you and all the other Obamanistas would be sqawking about how its just another pay-off to his Big Oil buddies.By the way, I actually praised Bush when he did things right.
You didnt answer my question.You have no credible, logical argument against CARS.
I own a Tahoe it comes in real handy when hauling photo equipment and or kids around. And MPG sure beats my old blazer.
On the the contrary -- my honesty refuses to let you explain away your hypocricy.
Do as I say, not do as I do.
That depends -entirely- on their position on trucks/SUVs.
On the contrary -- it would have been exactly what He should have done.
But instead, he subsidized over-sized, dangerous, unnecessary gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks.
None of this changes the fact that If CARS were a GWB program, you and all the other Obamanistas would be sqawking about how its just another pay-off to his Big Oil buddies.
You didnt answer my question.
You claimed that my best argument is 'totally wrong'.
How can you say that if you cannot specify what my argument is?
You may run away from your untenable position.I don't even need to go beyond here, you have made yourself look foolish enough. Your taking my words out of context is "honesty"...I love it.
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?