This is fucking absurd. The single most important step the U.S. could take to reduce its dependence on foreign oil would be to extract the oil that exists on U.S. soil. Secondly, 54mpg is absurd. I don't think people realize how impossible that number is. I would bet good money that the number is not reached. Not even close. Finally, there is a HUUUUUGE collateral damage (some say "unintended consequence") from a policy like this: DEATH. The laws of physics dictates that crashes between heavier and lighter vehicles favors that heavier vehicle. No amount of airbags and crush zones can completely overcome this. As long as trucks and buses are allowed on the same roads as 54mpg vehicles, those small and light vehicles will be far more dangerous to the passengers than larger, heavier vehicles.
In general, I agree. However, unions and big business act in their best interests far more than they do the public and therefore sometimes government has to step in and force them to change direction every so often.
Why would it do that? CAFE doesn't mandate a particular technology, so far as I know. I'm sure if you invent a car that runs on hummingbird dung and no gasoline, the gummint will approve your car as meeting the standards. barfo
Fannie and Freddie were government mandates on lenders via the Reno Justice Department. As far back as 2000, Paul Ryan was sounding alarm bells about worthless loans due to the elimination of "red-lining". Try again.
In whose interest does government act? Last time I checked, pretty much everybody who enters government gets awesome benefits and sees their wealth increase. Meanwhile, for those funding it, can the same be said?
And you know the ruling elite will be transported in limos, and those big govt SUVs they love so much - sure they will be hybrids, but they will be able to afford those $90,000 hybrid SUVs that weigh 6,000lbs. What a policy like this effectively says is the rich and powerful can afford to be protected with very expensive large and heavy vehicles, but the middle class will NO LONGER be able to afford to have those same protections.
Debatable, but in any case that's not what he said. He said 'we've ever taken' not 'that we could take'. If it isn't reached, it will be because the standards were repealed, not because it is technically impossible. Sure. That's why we outlawed bicycles and pedestrians. Americans are obviously willing to put up with a huge amount of traffic fatalities. I don't see why more would necessarily cause anyone to reconsider. Besides, there are a LOT more SUVs on the road now than trucks, and SUV drivers are arguably less capable than truck drivers. Get those SUV's off the road, and you might actually reduce deaths, despite lighter weight cars. barfo
Are the auto death rates higher in the rest of world where they drive more fuel efficient cars? I'd like to know what the death rate by auto accidents are like in Europe where they drive smaller cars and have faster highways.
Remind me again who was President during the entire life of that bubble? Someone has a big mancrash on Paul Ryan doesn't he? Pull out the Air Supply albums and just soak it all in....
Because a lot of funding for technology comes from the feds. If we get locked into one or two types, the funding may dry up for the better ones that aren't quite ready.
I would bet great money that the president of the United States of America knows a bit more than the average person as to what the present and future states of our technology will be.
It started in 1998. Bush and Clinton are both to blame. The rest of your post is the rambling of somebody who doesn't have anything else of substance to say.
Is that why Obama has literally given billions of dollars to solar companies that have gone bankrupt within a few years of receiving federal funds? I'm not sure Obama even knows how to properly wipe his own ass at this point. He's the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.
Interesting. My comments were reflecting the headline number of 54mpg average. Don't you love how regulating agencies don't speak English? "No, we don't mean miles per gallon miles per gallon, we mean some odd tested number we came up with that has no bearing on real life?"
Great. Now we're up to 3 current vehicles, zero of which are combustion engines, that are even "average" in this new fantasy. Democrats, we all love you're good intentions, but they don't play in the real world.
You REALLY don't know how Washington works do you? Even assuming Obama does in fact know a bit more than the average Joe, it doesn't matter. That is mostly not how policy gets decided anymore.
So, if the auto manufacturers are on board with the new standards, and they and the consumers are all "winners", then who are the losers? Clearly there must be some somewhere, otherwise the standards wouldn't be necessary. Why do we have to mandate more efficient vehicles if they would benefit everybody?
So in our country, there may be a day where you have the right to own and possess a .45 semi-auto handgun, but you can't drive a vehicle that gets bad gas mileage? I'm all for more fuel effecient cars, but this sounds out of control for me. And Masbee brings up a great point how this type of law, in application, will have the effect of discriminating on people with lower incomes.
Masbee, you are frankly being unAmerican to say "we can't reach 54mpg" The laws of physics clearly do not dictate it is unattainable. It's like when people said we couldn't get to the moon. American ingenuity is an amazing thing, and you should be ashamed for sticking your head in the ground and saying "can't."
