Subsidizing ethanol? Whatever happened to the free market you're always touting to fix everything? Oh yeah, that's right, not when it hurts your friends from Ford and Exxon.
If the public decides that tiny, underpowered vehicles are desirable, then they will also be profitable and the fuel economy will rise without government intervention. If not, the government should be pleased to profit the ridiculous tax that they impose on fuel.
Increasing mandatory fuel economy standards "does not come at the expense of automobile safety" but what about comfort, practicality and power? The free market should determine what is manufactured and what is purchased, not the government. These mandates will not eliminate larger and more powerful vehicles, but will limit the manufacturers ability to produce sufficient quantities of them, thus artificially raising thier prices.
For the feds, it's win-win. For the average American, lose-lose. Anytime Pelosi is clapping while a bill is being signed, it's a bad day for us common Americans.
Mandatory use of more biofuels = higher food cost.
Finally caving to Al Gore's ridiculous notion that humans are causing catastrophic global climate chage is further evidence to the lack of spine demonstrated by the current administration.
Hybrids, great. Don't ask how much it costs to replace the battery systems when the factory warranty runs out or that the technicians are literally risking thier lives to work on these cars.
I watched part of it before I threw up a little in my mouth. Who voted for this clown?
Aerialbomb 3 years ago
Subsidizing ethanol? Whatever happened to the free market you're always touting to fix everything? Oh yeah, that's right, not when it hurts your friends from Ford and Exxon.
ndavidg 3 years ago
thanks for a making a bad situation worse. now we're paying tripple for food too! you truly are a jackass
talktal 3 years ago
If the public decides that tiny, underpowered vehicles are desirable, then they will also be profitable and the fuel economy will rise without government intervention. If not, the government should be pleased to profit the ridiculous tax that they impose on fuel.
kstompaint 4 years ago
Increasing mandatory fuel economy standards "does not come at the expense of automobile safety" but what about comfort, practicality and power? The free market should determine what is manufactured and what is purchased, not the government. These mandates will not eliminate larger and more powerful vehicles, but will limit the manufacturers ability to produce sufficient quantities of them, thus artificially raising thier prices.
kstompaint 4 years ago
For the feds, it's win-win. For the average American, lose-lose. Anytime Pelosi is clapping while a bill is being signed, it's a bad day for us common Americans.
kstompaint 4 years ago
Mandatory use of more biofuels = higher food cost.
Finally caving to Al Gore's ridiculous notion that humans are causing catastrophic global climate chage is further evidence to the lack of spine demonstrated by the current administration.
Hybrids, great. Don't ask how much it costs to replace the battery systems when the factory warranty runs out or that the technicians are literally risking thier lives to work on these cars.
kstompaint 4 years ago
Did he issue any signing statements with this one?
Voice0fEnergy 4 years ago