Well, then you should be very happy, based on your own assessment that he can do so.
;-))
Sorry, Caddyman, but I remain unconvinced that the increased mileage standards will in any way improve national security.
And, frankly, while I recognize that in the early days of the EPA something really did need to be done, as LA was disappearing into a smog cloud and countless rivers and streams were so polluted you could almost walk on them…if you could stand the stench…I think most of what’s being mandated today has its roots in politics and power rather than environmental needs.
I93 through NH desperately needs another lane in each direction, yet the project has been held up for a decade and tens of millions of dollars added to the cost by lawsuits by the Conservation Law Foundation to try to force the state to use the money build a rail system RATHER than add lanes. Meanwhile, people are dying on I93. There was a rail system years ago…it couldn’t survive. And, frankly, nobody wants a rail system. They’re using the courts to force their will on the people. They’re even happy to let people die needlessly to do so.
I believe that the new mileage standards are also more rooted in politics and power than need. And few people would support them of put to a vote.
Correct, TSM. Can You Spell Opportunity, Tax Revenue, Redistribution, And Socialism?
It’s not about warming or cooling or “saving the planet(s)”. Also, it’s not about energy indepedence or we would not just be helping the Saudis build their clean and green nuclear energy program, we’d be working on our own!
CSA
In the late 80’s a sports car got about 20 mpg overall. They still do, but cars as fast as an 80’s sports car get up to 27 mpg overall (based on the Civic anyway). At this rate we should gain a 15% boost in mileage by 2016. That means only two kinds of cars will meet 40 mpg overall by 2016 (and 35 mpg now): hybrids and cars slower than the slowest cars on the road right now. This is the average, so for every car faster than this there must be another that’s even slower.
A hybrid costs around $8000 more than a similar car with equal acceleration (again, based on the civic)… to save less than $200 a year in fuel costs. So the average person will be forced to pay 50% more for his car or drive something much slower than any car currently available in the United States. Are they serious, or are they high on crack???
Can’t we just let things continue to improve as they are? 5mpg in 7 years is pretty good IMO. Or at least try a more realistic goal like 25-30 mpg? The average car on the road gets 20 mpg overall right now, so that’s 5-10 mpg more. That’ll make sure the improved technology goes to gas mileage while keeping acceleration the same or a little lower. And it’s still a big improvement.
If the politicians were really serious about increasing fuel efficiency, they would allow gas prices to rise to the levels of last summer or higher. When gas was $4+/gallon, you had to get on a waiting list to buy a Prius. That waiting list was almost a year long in some cities. My boss bought his from a dealer about 160 miles away simply because his waiting list was only a couple of months long.
If you blame George Bush for last summer’s high gas prices, then you must also give him credit for selling more Priuses and small cars than Al Gore’s movie ever did.
We’re Already Trying Something Else. We’re Now Driving Less And Saving Gas.
Since gas prices spiked and the economy went in the tank, Americans have already cut back.
Remember, this isn’t about saving anything. It’s about cap and tax and higher energy prices. Our government is going to punish us for using energy and generate all kinds of new tax revenue that will be used to redistribute wealth and buy health care for people who don’t earn it. That’s why there’s no concern for out-of-control government spending in Washington by the dominate party.
CSA
I got 36.1 mpg on a long trip today with my Chevrolet Cobalt XFE with a manual transmission. Your question until 2015 was…?
Our government is going to punish us for using energy and generate all kinds of new tax revenue that will be used to redistribute wealth and buy health care for people who don’t earn it.
Let’s just keep blaming the little guy…people who EARN health care still can’t get proper health care. I suppose you want people to earn police protection, fire protection, FDA protection, access to the library, safe cars, drive on the interstate and every other socialist program now in existence. No sense arguing against socialism and how YOUR govt. is trying to protect you from yourself. Socialism is part of our free choice…get use to it, or go out and grow your own food, operate on yourself and make your own weapons to protect yourself from the hoards of socialists. Most people are socialist at heart already, they just won’t admit it.
And just because we are the only free world ctry W/O national single payer health care and ranked 37 th in the world in personal health does not make us the only nation that is right on this issue.
Those countries went to National healthcare to SAVE tax money. We should move to EVs before China and the rest of the world for the same reason.
“Most people are socialist at heart” Really?
Most people want their money taken away, redistributed and allocated by a third party? You mention basic services that the government provides. We’ve had most of those for about 200 years without an expansive government. Why do we need socialism now and not before now? Socialism takes away your free choice by the way. Maybe you should study the success of the National Socialist German (American?) Workers’ Party? And look at the booming economy in the former Soviet Union, socialism works great. Cuba, another booming economy. How about all those Canadians that come to the US when they need really good medical care in less than 6 months.
Socialism is a historic failure, it has never worked and will always fail. Socialism would work in a perfect world, but there will always be corruption in government. Socialism in government breeds corruption faster than any other system because those in power have absolute power. Individuals lose their power to choose and competition dies. With competition dead, improvement and innovation ceases, unless it is sanctioned by the all powerful government.
You Are Mixing Up The Services That Should Be Provided At State, County, And Township Level With The Services A Bloated United States Government Is Usurping.
You say, " …people who EARN health care still can’t get proper health care. I suppose you want people to earn police protection, fire protection, FDA protection, access to the library, safe cars, drive on the interstate and every other socialist program now in existence."
The government should provide health care to citizens who are disabled and can’t earn it. I believe that already is in place. Many of these other things (police, fire, libraries, schools, etcetera, get voted on at state or local levels where citizens get a much bigger “bang for their buck” and much more accountability. " I suppose you want people to earn police protection, fire protection, FDA protection, access to the library, safe cars, drive on the interstate and every other socialist program now in existence." I do pay for these services and I don’t have a problem with it, most of the time.
What do you mean by, “…people who EARN health care still can’t get proper health care.”? Whatever this means, How in the world will government takeover of health care help this situation? Everywhere the government has been involved in this exact situation, health care has gotten worse. Rationed health care (some health care you just won’t have access to) and longer delays are the norm.
Would you like to take a number at the DMV or stand in line at the Post Office for some health care? Health care should be between a patient and his/her family and doctor(s), not between a patient and his/her government.
“Most people are socialist at heart already, they just won’t admit it.” Winston Churchill had a handle on this. He has a famous quote, which I won’t bother to look up. Let me just say that I agree with you. Children are socialist at heart. When people mature, they naturally grow out of it. Most adults are not socialists at heart. They need to be coerced into it.
From what I’m seeing lately, every time the Feds come to help, people lose there jobs and our choices become more limited. Freedom goes away.
CSA
I think we agree…everyone is a socialist, it’s just to what degree. Just like I believe everyone is in favor of gun control to some degree(machine guns and mortars incl) , federal intervention on matters that are interstate incl. auto pollution. It’s all a matter of degree. That was and is my point. Even local and state govt. need some oversight and help when they can’t provide it them selves. The river/air doesn’t pollute just the town, county state in which the polluter resides. The criminal doesn’t affect just the town,state community in which he commits the crime and neither does the polluting, energy wasting car or money wasting private profit motivated health care system. The Fed has a role…we debate issue by issue without a whole sale condemnation of their efficacy.
I believe COMMUNISM is a historic failure. The main reasons being the relative inability of governments to run businesses, the lack of a professional managerial class, and the lack “ownership” by the public in how things are run. I believe you are confusing socialism with communism.
However, democratic socialism has been successful in many areas; present day Germany, although a Capitalist society, has a great deal of socialism including a much more successful health care system than the US, very good highway safety statistics, infintely better environmental programs, etc, all combined with a very high standard of living. Until China takes over (with 13 times the population) Germany has the world’s highest industrial wages, and is also the world’s largest EXPORTER!!! Some failure!
In terms of corruption in government, the US only ranks 14th in the world on the Corruption Index compiled by Transparency International. The least corrupt countries are; Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Singapore, Finland, Holland, Canada. Note, with the exception of Singapore, all these countries are “socialist” by your standards.
The current boom in Russia is the result of the death of communism with its suffocating influence on business and efficiency. Russia is at present a socialist country by US standards, with the largest energy companies government owned but run by good managers. In other words, a mixed economy but with plenty of opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Both sides of the aisle scare me,when a system loses accountibility it can very well run amok.I definately don’t have all the answears,I lean to the center and liberterian points of view.One of the scary things is that most extremists believe what they are preaching.
- The market will sort itself out if left alone.
- Don’t force people to pay for what they don’t use.
- The central gov’t needs to be weaker-as the forefathers intended.
- For pitys sake get a handle on greed(When is enough,enough?).
5.Fill in the blank.
Kevin( P.S -The engineers never cease to amaze me,given thier constraints)
Since when does the Honda S2000 or the Mustang pay a gas guzzler tax? They don’t and they shouldn’t. As for the Hummers and F-350’s of the world. Even though I don’t like the idea of it. I could see where a reasoable one-time tax gas guzzler tax could be instituted. Some like $500 for each MPG over the CAFE standard. With an exclusion clause for those who used the vehicle for business/work use. Additionally if you were trading in an even-less fuel efficent vehicle the tax would be waved as well.
Whoever told you a Civic was a sports car lied to you 
My car has about 250% the power of your car but still manages about 60% of the fuel mileage. Which one is more efficent in a power to fuel mileage comparison?
Haven’t read all of these threads but it looks as though it may be getting a bit heated. To both sides, does anyone really honestly believe that politics and government is the best way to improve anything…by mandate? The free market, necessity, has equally benefited liberal and conservative alike. Wouldn’t it be more useful to ask and analyze why we don’t have vehicles with these capabilities in order to find natural market forces that can accomplish our goals? So what if the Obama administration is successful in this initiative. In 4, 8, or maybe 12 years it will all just be reversed by the next conservative administration voted in after the fickle American electorate swing again. That’s market forces need to be allowed to make these decisions and not governments. We all need to rely more on common sense and less on any person, popular or not.
On a slightly different topic, why is Diesel now, after many months of being the highest priced fuel once again the least expensive?
Respectfully, this is not true. I’m not even in the industry and I have had conversations with at least 5 geologists that concede there is hundreds of millions of barrels in reserve and that is not even considering emerging extraction technologies to get at even more. The problem is the strangle hold the feds have on the states, lands, and corporations to get at the oil and more importantly build more and newer refineries. It’s a parallel to the ‘shortage’ of the Carter era. There was no such thing as soon as corporations were freed to be innovative, creative, and find out how to get to previously unreachable or unknown reserves.
Agree that high gas prices are a very effective driver to get people into small, fuel efficient cars. But at the current price, taxes are needed to get the price up to $4/gallon. A wise government would set a retail gas price level that would encourage conservation. If the market caused wholesale prices to rise that tax would be backed out enough to maintain the $4 level without causing hardship.
This type of price support is often applied to agricultural products to smooth out market price fluctuations. If consumers could look forward to a steady $4 /gallon fuel price, they would buy the right vehicle based on their spending power. Powerful cars would still sell, as they do in Europe, to wealthy buyers, or those wo really want power.