We can pick up a topic later, something not to emotionally charged. Perhaps a couple people on each side, taking turns, being civilized. We could set up some guidelines.

 

How about government mandates on automobile MPG standards?

Statehood for Washington D.C.?

Minimum wage?

??

I'm in. Don't know how much I can add, but count me in.

(bored today Tex?)

 

How about how would Al Gore have managed the economy any better than Bush did?

 

We can pick up a topic later, something not to emotionally charged. Perhaps a couple people on each side, taking turns, being civilized. We could set up some guidelines.

 

How about government mandates on automobile MPG standards?

Statehood for Washington D.C.?

Minimum wage?

??

I would take the "Pro" position on requiring autos to get more mpg.

I would take the "Pro" position on requiring autos to get more mpg.

As long as cars that people already own that don't meet the requirements are not banished, I am cool with it. Owning a couple antique cars and having a sister that can't afford to purchase a car, let alone with better MPG is why I think this way.

(bored today Tex?)

 

How about how would Al Gore have managed the economy any better than Bush did?

Too many what ifs. I am glad you recognize the premise that Al would have managed it better

 

I think the auto mpg might be good. Would someone like to summarize why government mandates are a good thing in this arena?

 

Anyone care to summarize why government mandates are not a good thing?

As long as cars that people already own that don't meet the requirements are not banished, I am cool with it.  Owning a couple antique cars and having a sister that can't afford to purchase a car, let alone with better MPG is why I think this way.

I think if something was ever passed you would have to make some modifications to those vehicles to fit the rquired specifications. Of course you would be given enough time do make those modifications as the vehicle manufacturers do as well.

There is no point in debating. "Less Filling" is obviously the right choice.

 

1. How about government mandates on automobile MPG standards?

2. Statehood for Washington D.C.?

3. Minimum wage?

1. No. Absolutely not. I should have the freedom to drive the car I want. No, not to polute. My car passes emissions tests and gets decent MPG, but where will they set the limit? Will it end there? Probably not.

 

2. No. DC was set up to NOT be a state. Keep it that way.

 

3. I disagree with mimimum wage all together. We live in a free society and you are free to work for someone that pays you $1 per hour or quit. In the end he won't have anyone working for him, his customer service will be pathetic and he'll go out of business. That's Capitalism.

 

I think if something was ever passed you would have to make some modifications to those vehicles to fit the rquired specifications. Of course you would be given enough time do make those modifications as the vehicle manufacturers do as well.

I'd be totally against it in that case. For the muscle cars that we have, to get better MPG, the engine and carb would have to be severely altered which completely changes the car.

I'd be totally against it in that case.  For the muscle cars that we have, to get better MPG, the engine and carb would have to be severely altered which completely changes the car.

emisions standards are only applied to the sale of new cars. It is nearly impossible to change standards for exsisting vehicles.

I'd be totally against it in that case.  For the muscle cars that we have, to get better MPG, the engine and carb would have to be severely altered which completely changes the car.

I'm sure old cars would be grandfathered in. They can't make you modify your old car, unless they're going to pair for the repairs and the loss, which could get WAY out of hand when you consider the value that would be lost by changing a classic or muscle car.

Too many what ifs. I am glad you recognize the premise that Al would have managed it better

Honesly I think he would have done much worse, but I was curious to see if anyone could make any convincing arguements.

emisions standards are only applied to the sale of new cars.  It is nearly impossible to change standards for exsisting vehicles.

YES! Okay, then I am for better MPG and emisions control.

how about government giving more support to cars that use a clean fuel.

how about government giving more support to cars that use a clean fuel.

That's a better idea. Ethanol - I grow it. I use it.

 

http://www.ethanol.org/

I'd be totally against it in that case.  For the muscle cars that we have, to get better MPG, the engine and carb would have to be severely altered which completely changes the car.

You're in the clear. The changes would not apply to older cars.

 

 

 

Edited to add... Duh!! I see that SS'er and Mr Eye already covered this..

You're in the clear. The changes would not apply to older cars. 

 

 

 

Edited to add... Duh!! I see that SS'er and Mr Eye already covered this.. 

Yeah, what's wrong with you? Moron! Wanna fight?

Yeah, what's wrong with you? Moron! Wanna fight?  

1. No. Absolutely not. I should have the freedom to drive the car I want. No, not to polute. My car passes emissions tests and gets decent MPG, but where will they set the limit? Will it end there? Probably not.

No one mentioned anything about emissions, but I guess it's fair to assume that a car that got better MPG would spew out fewer emissions as well. That being said, "passing emissions" does NOT mean your car doesn't have an effect on the environment. I'm not saying people should ditch motor vehicles until solar/electric cars are more practical, but I think people should be a little more world health-conscious when it comes time to buy a car. 95% of people who have SUV's don't need them, and while they are free to drive whatever they want, I think it shows a blatant lack of concern for the environment, which is scary.

 

You think you should have the freedom to drive whatever car you want, eh? You are aware that oil is a FINITE resource, aren't you? What will your car run on, once the earth's oil reserves are dried up? Or are you simply concerned with your own wants/needs, and have no regard for future generations?

I'm sure old cars would be grandfathered in. They can't make you modify your old car, unless they're going to pair for the repairs and the loss, which could get WAY out of hand when you consider the value that would be lost by changing a classic or muscle car.

Older cars would absolutely get grandfathered in, much like the way pre-1970 cars don't have to get catalytic converters.

95% of people who have SUV's don't need them, and while they are free to drive whatever they want, I think it shows a blatant lack of concern for the environment, which is scary. 

 

You think you should have the freedom to drive whatever car you want, eh?  You are aware that oil is a FINITE resource, aren't you? What will your car run on, once the earth's oil reserves are dried up? Or are you simply concerned with your own wants/needs, and have no regard for future generations?

I think that's a little crazy. 95%. And when do we get to decide who needs what and what they don't need? What's next? "Well...we feel you don't need a house that large and it's hurting the enviornment and wasting oil heating it so we're confiscating it from you."

 

I mean you can go on and on.

 

95% of the people don't NEED to be driving to the mall.

95% of the people don't NEED to watch TV and are wasting electricity.

100% of the people that water ski and boat don't NEED to do it.

95% of the people...

 

Yes, I do care about the enviornment. I recycle. I soak up dangerous UV rays by not wearing my shirt in the summer.

 

I care about future generations as well. I encourage alternative methods of fuel. Nuclear power is much cleaner than coal or oil. Ethanol is definitely something we should encourage. I understand that oil is not going to be there forever.

 

PS If some of this came across as hostile, it wasn't meant that way.

I think that's a little crazy. 95%. And when do we get to decide who needs what and what they don't need? What's next? "Well...we feel you don't need a house that large and it's hurting the enviornment and wasting oil heating it so we're confiscating it from you."

 

95% of the people don't NEED to be driving to the mall.

95% of the people don't NEED to watch TV and are wasting electricity.

100% of the people that water ski and boat don't NEED to do it.

95% of the people...

 

Yes, I do care about the enviornment. I recycle. I soak up dangerous UV rays by not wearing my shirt in the summer. 

 

I care about future generations as well. I encourage alternative methods of fuel. Nuclear power is much cleaner than coal or oil. Ethanol is definitely something we should encourage. I understand that oil is not going to be there forever.

 

PS If some of this came across as hostile, it wasn't meant that way.

Make no mistake, I don't think anyone should have anything confiscated. If most houses were heated using oil, then I think there should be efficiency regulations in place for furnaces. However, I think most houses are heated with either natural gas(a much cleaner, more plentiful resource, I believe) or electricity(infinte resources, no emissions).

 

The decisions should rest with the individual, and I think individuals should just use a little more discretion when it comes to exercising their freedoms. Having freedom doesn't mean you get to be devoid of any responsibility. Having said that, I don't think it would be all that big of an imposition to require that automakers make vehicles that get at least 20 mpg(or whatever). It wouldn't affect you the buyer(it would save you some money), it would affect corporations that should be required to be more environmentally friendly than they currently are anyways. Might reduce their profit by a few millions--cry me a river.

 

I think this debate will be moot in a few years, as electric and hybrid cars are becoming more feasible every day. The technology is already there, but the lobbyists and special interest groups are holding things up until the oil companies have a chance to reposition themselves, and get footholds in other markets. I don't think it was coincidence, for example, that the tobacco companies didn't start to really get nailed until after Philip Morris had already acquired enough food companies to become one of the biggest conglomerates in the industry.

 

No, no hostility taken, nor emitted on my part. Just having a debate. Isn't that what the topic headline asked in the first place?

ghost... i agree with you on the oil companies. you gotta think that gasoline is a huge market for them. i wonder just how deep they are in with some companies slowing down the production of the gasoline free car.

One issue that is central to this debate is

 

Does our government have the duty to legislate things for our own good?

 

For example increasing the mpg on vehicles reduces our reliance on foreign oil. Many people will agree this is a good thing and in our collective, national best interest.

 

Even though we individually agree that reducing our reliance on foreign oil is good, many Americans believe * you * should drive the small, lightweight, fuel efficient car and I'll drive a Hummer. So left to market conditions, we would not see an increase in over all fuel efficiency.

 

Consumers also would not spend more for fuel efficiency.

 

So by legislating this, the government is telling all Americans you cannot be trusted to do the right thing, we need to do the right thing for you.

 

Is that correct?