Thread: Obama Wants Better Gas Mileage.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/18/auto...ards/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday is set to propose stricter fuel economy standards in an effort to cut down vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan will require passenger cars and light trucks to get an overall average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, according to a senior administration official with knowledge of the plan. By that year, cars will be expected to average about 39 mpg and 30 mpg for trucks.

Current fuel economy standards are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 for trucks.

The Obama plan would accelerate by four years new fuel economy standards passed by Congress at the end of 2007.

Fuel economy will be increased gradually beginning in 2012 and run through 2016. The administration predicts the changes will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil by 2016. That's roughly what the country goes through in about 86 days, according to numbers from the Energy Information Administration.

The proposed plan is expected to add about $600 to the cost of a car, the official said. That's on top of $700 added by changes to fuel economy rules that have already been recently enacted, the official said, but consumers should be able to save enough in gas to make up for the cost.

Yeah, that's brilliant.

More fascism (government control of business) - which has already had the side effect of helping to destroy the US auto industry. Subsidizing the auto industry one week and then penalizing it the next is just fucking stupid.

The Asian Auto Industry, and the US Auto industry itself is the reason why the US auto industry is dead.

Calling environmental regulations fascism

The planet earth has been cooling for 10 consecutive years. Man made global warming is a myth. The earth will actually still be "cooling" at least until 2030, accoring to scientific research. The planet will always warm and cool, regardless of what we as humans are doing.

Funny enough, environmentalists very recently tried to reach the north pole to research the supposed evidence of the north pole warming up. They couldn't make it all the way to the north pole. Why? The temperature was too cold, 100's of miles from it, rendering human travel impossible.

http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satel...lobal-cooling/

Originally Posted by MauvaisSang

If you're getting 8 more miles per gallon, that extra $600 you pay up front is gonna be worth it.

If it's worth it, then people will make that choice voluntarily, and won't need the state to compel them to obey.

I get around 10 MPG.

Originally Posted by MauvaisSang

The US Auto industry killed itself.

Not entirely. The government has helped with that, given various "safety" dictates, "environmental" dictates and labor dictates.

Originally Posted by Ignatius B. Fisticuffs

Calling environmental regulations fascism

Shouldn't you be rallying to support the candidate who's keeping Gitmo open and staying in Iraq? You also said how Obama was so different from Bush.

Regulations is a form of fascism. Just because you support fascism doesn't mean it isn't fascism because you don't want to be associated with certain fascists from the past.

Time to subsidize some tobacco farmers while penalizing the sale of tobacco now!

The US existed for well over a century without tri-letter agencies, so it isn't impossible.

And why is the FDA necessary? To give credibility to companies that don't deserve it and to eliminate the need of restaurants to build up reputations? Or do you think it should be necessary to get a prescription to get some Cheerios?

To answer your question, yes, regulatory agencies are fascist. They allow the government control of the means of production without de jure ownership.

Originally Posted by Resident Tough Guy

I think Canadians should have zero say in American politics.

I'm not a Canadian.

You're opposed to free speech too? Does it scare you?

Here's the next question, then. Sure, it might be fascist, but is every single element of fascism intrinsically wrong, evil, or insert-negative-adjective-here?

And I just used the FDA as an example. It was the first commonly known agency I could think of.


And I don't think government regulations are completely bad. They can, however, be easily abused. That's where the problem arises. The question is, where do you draw the line?

The government's power to use force should be strictly limited to its retaliatory use. That's where the line is drawn. And that's what government is. To quote Washington, "Government is Force."