If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
Tell your Congressmember to do something about it
Brent P wrote: > > In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > > > Brent P wrote: > >> > >> In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote: > >> > >> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans > >> > and coupes. > >> > >> No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the > >> market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military > >> and foreign aid expenditures. > >> > >> Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess. > >> > > The US didn't invade Iraq for the oil. > > To keep the taps off and drive prices up. Remember, Saddam Hussain became > an enemy of the US when he started over pumping. It was all down hill > from there. > Why do you just say insane things? The US through the UN was holding Saddam's output of oil down. Meanwhile the US was begging Saudi Arabia to pump as much as possible. > > In any case, the cost of oil is > > going up which should cause Americans to seek better efficiencies. That > > is what you are claiming will work, isn't it? > > Hybrids had been selling for over sticker until production caught up.... > Try responding to what I actually said. Higher prices for oil mean the American consumer will seek higher efficiencies. These higher oil prices are *good* for the US in the long run. -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop" |
Ads |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
Tell your Congressmember to do something about it
In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>As for side impact beams, dual master cylinder brake systems, etc and so >>forth, well times change, buyers wants change. Safety does sell now. All >>the regulations could disappear and guess what? Those things would stay >>in the cars because few people would buy them without. > Just to properly reflect the real world, if the regulations > disappeared there would be some people who still ordered all the > safety stuff. But there is a huge number of low income people who > would RIGHTLY judge the odds of getting in an accident against the > cost of the safety stuff and opt to buy a NEW CHEAPER car that did not > include several thousand in safety stuff. They would not get the > airbags, ABS, traction control, stability control, door beams, > reinforced roof, etc. They would not be able to order the cars as such. Line item optioning disappeared years ago. It would be like trying to order hand cranked windows on most models today. > It's a safe bet, pardon the pun, that without > the regulations there would be many many people who perceive their > need to be the CHEAPEST NEW car they can get their hands on that has > "luxury" features, like AC, PS, PB, Stereo without all the extra > expense. Name the vehicles you can order without AC, PS, PB in model year 2007. BTW, none of those are required features, yet one would be hard pressed to find models that didn't come with them. If there are more than half dozen vehicles that aren't of the commerical fleet type, I would be surprised. > Because we have had the safety features for a while now, > even if the regulations disappeared there would be the threat of > lawsuits if a manufacturer sold a "non safe" car so most likely you > would only see them from some small out of country company that > imported them. Like the $2500 car they are talking about making in > India. At the very most. |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
Tell your Congressmember to do something about it
In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> To keep the taps off and drive prices up. Remember, Saddam Hussain became >> an enemy of the US when he started over pumping. It was all down hill >> from there. > Why do you just say insane things? The US through the UN was holding > Saddam's output of oil down. Meanwhile the US was begging Saudi Arabia > to pump as much as possible. Scroll back a few more years, to when he fell out of favor, pre-gulfwar 1, not post. The US government set him good. Told him the US would not get involved if he invaded kuwait... HA! >> > In any case, the cost of oil is >> > going up which should cause Americans to seek better efficiencies. That >> > is what you are claiming will work, isn't it? >> Hybrids had been selling for over sticker until production caught up.... > > Try responding to what I actually said. Higher prices for oil mean the > American consumer will seek higher efficiencies. These higher oil prices > are *good* for the US in the long run. When something threatens their profits, when there is a real alternative, big oil can certainly drive prices down to kill the alternative. |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
Tell your Congressmember to do something about it
In article >,
Brent P > wrote: >In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> Why do you just say insane things? The US through the UN was holding >> Saddam's output of oil down. Meanwhile the US was begging Saudi Arabia >> to pump as much as possible. > >Scroll back a few more years, to when he fell out of favor, pre-gulfwar >1, not post. The US government set him good. Told him the US would not >get involved if he invaded kuwait... HA! "The United States takes no position in your border dispute with Kuwait" (BTW, the current standard leftist position is that Saddam was right about that dispute) is a far cry from "Go ahead, invade and annex the whole country of Kuwait, we don't give a damn!" -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|