Thank God...EPA to scrap stoopid sae auto mileage requirements

[toobfreak]

Consider what the country would be like without government regulations.

Now consider what the country IS like WITH government regulations!

 

[IsaacNewton]

It's comical and sad how Little Donald's supporters think anything he does is going to last. In lest than a year the Congress is out of the hands of the GOP and in 2020 the Democrats win the White House again. But lord how the alt-right thinks they are dragging the entire country back to 1876. Too funny.

Isaac, the model to black and white reasoning!

In lest than a year the Congress is out of the hands of the GOP! Maybe. You don't know that. And if true, you think the public won't go ballistic if the Dems try to slap a bunch of regulations back on us?

and in 2020 the Democrats win the White House again. Sure. You KNOW that too. And with Trump making headway and winning for the people every day of the week.

dragging the entire country back to 1876. Right. Restoring the country back to the highly successful days of a low regulation free market that I knew and loved of the 70's and 80's is dragging us back to horse and buggies and gas lamps? I love how you tards think.

For when you run out.

 

[oldsoul]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mileage-epa-rule-201803

Great great news for the consumer who has been getting the bumpy cucumber for decades due to these goofball mileage standards!!!

Scott Pruit...EPA head....he is THE MAN

Great!!! Now, maybe, we can let the market place decide if higher mileage is what we want...

 

[SSDD]

Just for you, a vehicle operator who is in control does not get hit or hit other objects. Hence CAFE does not make a vehicle unsafe the driver does. Please try to understand kindergarden theory.

Are you really that stupid? You believe a driver who is in control is in control of everything around him or her? You believe that they can react immediately to any and everything that happens around them...from any and all directions...are you really that stupid? I bet you are.

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mileage-epa-rule-201803

Great great news for the consumer who has been getting the bumpy cucumber for decades due to these goofball mileage standards!!!

Scott Pruit...EPA head....he is THE MAN

Great!!! Now, maybe, we can let the market place decide if higher mileage is what we want...

Well obviously some that's what the people want.... nobody is buying those gay electric vehicles. This is America s0n.... for over 60 years they like that big cars and their big SUVs.

 

[Flopper]

Consider what the country would be like without government regulations.

View attachment 186610

Now consider what the country IS like WITH government regulations!



View attachment 186612

Cute, but inaccurate.
Government regulations are not just desirable but a necessity.

If there were no EPA, there would be no endangered species list but there would still be the law protecting endangered species. The determination of whether a species is endangered would end up in state courts and federal courts. The only way a developer could determine if clearing land and destroying habitat is a violation of the law would be by court rulings. There would be so many environmental cases, we have to have special courts to handle them.

There would be no IRS bulletins containing the answers to your tax questions telling how to report certain tax events. All you would have is the 6000 pages of the tax code to guide you. Just about everybody would need a tax expert.

There would be no EPA air or water quality guidelines, no certifications of compliance which serves to protect businesses from law suites.

If the Dept. Education did not issue guidelines and render opinions on civil rights complaints, the number of civil rights cases in our courts would increase substantially.

Every time there is new regulatory legislation pasted whether it's environmental, immigration, taxes, gun control, or whatever. There is a need for regulations to provide the details that people need to understand the law and how applies to them, certificates of compliance, and documented methodology to meet the requirements of the law. If we had no regulations, businesses would be the first to demand them.

 

[Flopper]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mileage-epa-rule-201803

Great great news for the consumer who has been getting the bumpy cucumber for decades due to these goofball mileage standards!!!

Scott Pruit...EPA head....he is THE MAN

Great!!! Now, maybe, we can let the market place decide if higher mileage is what we want...

Well obviously some that's what the people want.... nobody is buying those gay electric vehicles. This is America s0n.... for over 60 years they like that big cars and their big SUVs.

There are a half million people on the waiting list for Tesla Model 3.

It's not that people don't like big SUV'x and large luxury cars today. They just don't want to spend $50,000+ on a vehicle that gets 16mpg with a 8 or 9 person capacity to drive to work at 20 mph carrying 1 or 2 people.

60 years ago you could buy a new Cadillac convertible for $3400. That's right, not $34,000 but $3400. Who cared if the gas mileage was just 11 mpg. Gas prices were 20 cents a gallon. You could sail down the new interstate highways and freeways at 60 mph+. The world has changed rather drastically. Huge expensive luxury cars and SUV's are white elephants whose appeal is the uber rich .

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mileage-epa-rule-201803

Great great news for the consumer who has been getting the bumpy cucumber for decades due to these goofball mileage standards!!!

Scott Pruit...EPA head....he is THE MAN

Great!!! Now, maybe, we can let the market place decide if higher mileage is what we want...

Well obviously some that's what the people want.... nobody is buying those gay electric vehicles. This is America s0n.... for over 60 years they like that big cars and their big SUVs.

There are a half million people on the waiting list for Tesla Model 3.

It's not that people don't like big SUV'x and large luxury cars today. They just don't want to spend $50,000+ on a vehicle that gets 16mpg with a 8 or 9 person capacity to drive to work at 20 mph carrying 1 or 2 people.

60 years ago you could buy a new Cadillac convertible for $3400. That's right, not $34,000 but $3400. Who cared if the gas mileage was just 11 mpg. Gas prices were 20 cents a gallon. You could sail down the new interstate highways and freeways at 60 mph+. The world has changed rather drastically. Huge expensive luxury cars and SUV's are white elephants whose appeal is the uber rich .

LOL.....s0n....you could not be any more wrong. You spend too much time on propaganda laden lefty websites.....too much unicorn fodder.

Last year, Ford sold well over 1,000,000 F-150 trucks alone.

Add the combined EV sales of all makes/models in 2017? About 150,000 s0n....now you may call that a "changed world" but only about 274 people would agree with you.....so.....

So C'mon now....

Get off AlterNet....way too much fake stuff. The lefty sites don't compare statistics....provide Disney #s to the reader like % growth increases = fake. ( as I astutely pointed out above).

 

[toobfreak]

Government regulations are not just desirable but a necessity.

Of course. SOME regulations are necessary as are SOME limited government. But we have far too much of both.

If there were no EPA, there would be no endangered species list but there would still be the law protecting endangered species.

Without the EPA, endangered species would still be endangered, but we would be without the draconian agency which ruthlessly takes people homes, businesses and property countless times a year like a bunch of mobsters with machine guns for any specious reason (the raid on Gibson Guitars comes to mind). And just because a species is endangered doesn't mean it shouldn't disappear! Species become endangered or extinct by natural selection because they are supposed to. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct now.

There would be no IRS bulletins containing the answers to your tax questions telling how to report certain tax events. All you would have is the 6000 pages of the tax code to guide you. Just about everybody would need a tax expert.

If not for government regulations, the tax code could be just ONE page, and I wouldn't need a "tax expert" at all in the first place.

If the Dept. Education did not issue guidelines and render opinions on civil rights complaints, the number of civil rights cases in our courts would increase substantially.

If not for excessive and abusive over-regulation, the Dept. of Education would be concerned with education and not worried about civil rights.

Every time there is new regulatory legislation pasted there is a need for regulations to provide the details

Do you even hear yourself? So regulations create the need for more regulations? You've just proven my case. Regulations beyond a very small point are just government's way of imposing its will over others by force. If not for big government, things would be so much simpler that we wouldn't need their stupid regulations to explain everything to us in the first place.

 

[protectionist]

There have been a number of studies that have shown that regulations do far more good than harm. Consider what the country would be like without government regulations.

"Studies" huh ? Leave it to a liberal to turn to that >> Studies from liberal universities, think tanks, media, often based on faulty premises, and the highfalutin studies equally as faulty as the faulty premises they were based on.

 

[oldsoul]

60 years ago you could buy a new Cadillac convertible for $3400. That's right, not $34,000 but $3400. Who cared if the gas mileage was just 11 mpg. Gas prices were 20 cents a gallon. You could sail down the new interstate highways and freeways at 60 mph+. The world has changed rather drastically. Huge expensive luxury cars and SUV's are white elephants whose appeal is the uber rich .

Let's see if your reasoning stands up to the facts:

1. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year.
2. According to Wiki in 1956 it was $3,532.36. An increase of about 1571%.
3. Average cost of a new vehilce sold in 2016 was $34,450, according to Average selling price of new vehicles - U.S. 2007-2016 | Statistic
4. In 1956 the average was $3,151 (for a Ford) according to Pop History - 1956 Prices| FiftiesWeb For an increase of about 993%.

So, while income grew by 1571%, the cost to buy a new car only rose 993%, a difference of 578% (so the price of a car rose at a rate of about 2/3 that of income). Therefore, are we even comparing apples to apples here? I would argue that now, more than ever, owning a new car is more realistic for the average American.

Note: It is not a direct comparison for the fact that I am comparing the price of a specific make (in 1956) to all makes (in 2017). It was the best I could do without consuming an unreasonable amount of time.

 

[Flopper]

Government regulations are not just desirable but a necessity.

Of course. SOME regulations are necessary as are SOME limited government. But we have far too much of both.

If there were no EPA, there would be no endangered species list but there would still be the law protecting endangered species.

Without the EPA, endangered species would still be endangered, but we would be without the draconian agency which ruthlessly takes people homes, businesses and property countless times a year like a bunch of mobsters with machine guns for any specious reason (the raid on Gibson Guitars comes to mind). And just because a species is endangered doesn't mean it shouldn't disappear! Species become endangered or extinct by natural selection because they are supposed to. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct now.

There would be no IRS bulletins containing the answers to your tax questions telling how to report certain tax events. All you would have is the 6000 pages of the tax code to guide you. Just about everybody would need a tax expert.

If not for government regulations, the tax code could be just ONE page, and I wouldn't need a "tax expert" at all in the first place.

If the Dept. Education did not issue guidelines and render opinions on civil rights complaints, the number of civil rights cases in our courts would increase substantially.

If not for excessive and abusive over-regulation, the Dept. of Education would be concerned with education and not worried about civil rights.

Every time there is new regulatory legislation pasted there is a need for regulations to provide the details

Do you even hear yourself? So regulations create the need for more regulations? You've just proven my case. Regulations beyond a very small point are just government's way of imposing its will over others by force. If not for big government, things would be so much simpler that we wouldn't need their stupid regulations to explain everything to us in the first place.

The purpose of government regulations is to carry out the intent of regulatory legislation enacted by Congress. Regulatory legislation is not specific enough to protect the public or assure businesses that they are in compliance with the law. Without regulatory agencies, issuing specify rules and granting certifications, opinions, and other documentation, our courts would determine compliance. Instead a single set of regulations, we would have thousands of rulings from courts cases for individuals and businesses to deal with. A developer building a seawall or manufacturing plant piping waste into a river needs EPA compliance documentation if they going to stay out of court.

The Internal Revenue Code is codification of all federal tax laws. The tax regulation are an interpretation of the code. Without these regulation, the IRS could not function, tax payers would not know what or how to report income, and those thousands or IRS bulletins we depend on to answer tax questions would not exist.

 

[toobfreak]

Government regulations are not just desirable but a necessity.

Of course. SOME regulations are necessary as are SOME limited government. But we have far too much of both.

If there were no EPA, there would be no endangered species list but there would still be the law protecting endangered species.

Without the EPA, endangered species would still be endangered, but we would be without the draconian agency which ruthlessly takes people homes, businesses and property countless times a year like a bunch of mobsters with machine guns for any specious reason (the raid on Gibson Guitars comes to mind). And just because a species is endangered doesn't mean it shouldn't disappear! Species become endangered or extinct by natural selection because they are supposed to. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct now.

There would be no IRS bulletins containing the answers to your tax questions telling how to report certain tax events. All you would have is the 6000 pages of the tax code to guide you. Just about everybody would need a tax expert.

If not for government regulations, the tax code could be just ONE page, and I wouldn't need a "tax expert" at all in the first place.

If the Dept. Education did not issue guidelines and render opinions on civil rights complaints, the number of civil rights cases in our courts would increase substantially.

If not for excessive and abusive over-regulation, the Dept. of Education would be concerned with education and not worried about civil rights.

Every time there is new regulatory legislation pasted there is a need for regulations to provide the details

Do you even hear yourself? So regulations create the need for more regulations? You've just proven my case. Regulations beyond a very small point are just government's way of imposing its will over others by force. If not for big government, things would be so much simpler that we wouldn't need their stupid regulations to explain everything to us in the first place.

The purpose of government regulations is to carry out the intent of regulatory legislation enacted by Congress. Regulatory legislation is not specific enough to protect the public or assure businesses that they are in compliance with the law. Without regulatory agencies, issuing specify rules and granting certifications, opinions, and other documentation, our courts would determine compliance. Instead a single set of regulations, we would have thousands of rulings from courts cases for individuals and businesses to deal with. A developer building a seawall or manufacturing plant piping waste into a river needs EPA compliance documentation if they going to stay out of court.

The Internal Revenue Code is codification of all federal tax laws. The tax regulation are an interpretation of the code. Without these regulation, the IRS could not function, tax payers would not know what or how to report income, and those thousands or IRS bulletins we depend on to answer tax questions would not exist.

With a little common sense and honesty, the IRS could be reduced to a one room operation with about a dozen people working there processing tax payments. Little regulation would be needed to process a flat tax.

 

[Darkwind]

Why is everyone getting excited?

As soon as a progressive gets back into the executive branch, these regulations are going to be reinstated.

Maybe you should demand Congress pass a law that takes these standards off the books.

 

[ph3iron]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mileage-epa-rule-201803

Great great news for the consumer who has been getting the bumpy cucumber for decades due to these goofball mileage standards!!!

Scott Pruit...EPA head....he is THE MAN

Apt 2 nd grade cartoon pic.
Don't ask me to pay for your cancer when you get it

 

[Flopper]

60 years ago you could buy a new Cadillac convertible for $3400. That's right, not $34,000 but $3400. Who cared if the gas mileage was just 11 mpg. Gas prices were 20 cents a gallon. You could sail down the new interstate highways and freeways at 60 mph+. The world has changed rather drastically. Huge expensive luxury cars and SUV's are white elephants whose appeal is the uber rich .

Let's see if your reasoning stands up to the facts:

1. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year.
2. According to Wiki in 1956 it was $3,532.36. An increase of about 1571%.
3. Average cost of a new vehilce sold in 2016 was $34,450, according to Average selling price of new vehicles - U.S. 2007-2016 | Statistic
4. In 1956 the average was $3,151 (for a Ford) according to Pop History - 1956 Prices| FiftiesWeb For an increase of about 993%.

So, while income grew by 1571%, the cost to buy a new car only rose 993%, a difference of 578% (so the price of a car rose at a rate of about 2/3 that of income). Therefore, are we even comparing apples to apples here? I would argue that now, more than ever, owning a new car is more realistic for the average American.

Note: It is not a direct comparison for the fact that I am comparing the price of a specific make (in 1956) to all makes (in 2017). It was the best I could do without consuming an unreasonable amount of time.

There are a lot of other considerations in owning a new car today vs. 60 years ago. Urbanization has created huge traffic nightmares in most of our large cities. Today the average America has an hour driving time to and from work in our major cities. And when they get to work, there's a matter of parking. The average cost of parking is $12 a day, and up to $40 in some major cities and this of course is if you can find a parking place. A pleasant Sunday afternoon drive today is more likely to turn into a hour blowing exercise.

Automobiles are not the status symbol they use to be. Bill Gates drives a Ford Focus. Alice Walton drives 12 year old F-150. Warren Buffett drives a 7 year old Cadillac.

Unlike 60 years ago, people do care about the environment. Motor vehicles are biggest source of air pollution in the US.

 

[Flopper]

There have been a number of studies that have shown that regulations do far more good than harm. Consider what the country would be like without government regulations.

"Studies" huh ? Leave it to a liberal to turn to that >> Studies from liberal universities, think tanks, media, often based on faulty premises, and the highfalutin studies equally as faulty as the faulty premises they were based on.

Yes, studies instead of religious beliefs, folktales, stereotyping, anecdotal evidence and rightwing propaganda.

 

[Flopper]

Why is everyone getting excited?

As soon as a progressive gets back into the executive branch, these regulations are going to be reinstated.

Maybe you should demand Congress pass a law that takes these standards off the books.

That's not how conservatives think. They want the laws. They just don't want regulations needed to enforce them.

 

[Flopper]

Government regulations are not just desirable but a necessity.

Of course. SOME regulations are necessary as are SOME limited government. But we have far too much of both.

If there were no EPA, there would be no endangered species list but there would still be the law protecting endangered species.

Without the EPA, endangered species would still be endangered, but we would be without the draconian agency which ruthlessly takes people homes, businesses and property countless times a year like a bunch of mobsters with machine guns for any specious reason (the raid on Gibson Guitars comes to mind). And just because a species is endangered doesn't mean it shouldn't disappear! Species become endangered or extinct by natural selection because they are supposed to. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct now.

There would be no IRS bulletins containing the answers to your tax questions telling how to report certain tax events. All you would have is the 6000 pages of the tax code to guide you. Just about everybody would need a tax expert.

If not for government regulations, the tax code could be just ONE page, and I wouldn't need a "tax expert" at all in the first place.

If the Dept. Education did not issue guidelines and render opinions on civil rights complaints, the number of civil rights cases in our courts would increase substantially.

If not for excessive and abusive over-regulation, the Dept. of Education would be concerned with education and not worried about civil rights.

Every time there is new regulatory legislation pasted there is a need for regulations to provide the details

Do you even hear yourself? So regulations create the need for more regulations? You've just proven my case. Regulations beyond a very small point are just government's way of imposing its will over others by force. If not for big government, things would be so much simpler that we wouldn't need their stupid regulations to explain everything to us in the first place.

The only way you can avoid regulations is to have very specific legislation with no regulatory authority specified. That of course makes the law sort of voluntary.

 

[HenryBHough]

President Trump's election came just in time to halt Obama's plan to reduce gasoline use by mandating all new vehicles have square wheels.