|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 26, 2012 12:54:10 GMT -5
Which candidate expressed hope that high fuel prices would lead to greater CAFE standards in 2007:
'The CAFE requirements have not worked terribly well over the last 20 years in part because they haven't applied to trucks, so America has moved more and more to trucks and SUVs...so the average fuel economy over the last, I think it's 20 years, has been almost flat. I'm hopeful that with $3 gasoline being charged by Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad and Putin and others that you're going to see Americans slowly but surely move to vehicles that are far more fuel efficient and you'll see our manufacturers start competing on the basis of fuel efficiency.'
Sounds pretty socialist to me....
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 26, 2012 15:04:39 GMT -5
In what way?
Free market makes costs rise and the free market competes to provide a product that people want. Completely voluntary with no governmental force and coercion involved.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 26, 2012 15:15:48 GMT -5
So you don't think that the federally-imposed CAFE standards are some kind of "tyranny at the point of a gun" or some hyperbolic nonsense like that?
It seems that Mitt Romney didn't think so either in 2007. In fact, he said, 'I sure hope that you're going to see more and more hybrids and much better fuel economy...plug-in cars, electric cars with better battery technology, might be a way of reducing our emissions.' This is in line with other similar statements such as:
'I don't think that now is the time, and I'm not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,' and
'I'm very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.'
Interesting to note that you are on board with the Mitt Romney of 2007.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 26, 2012 15:37:55 GMT -5
CAFE standards yes, but the solution to getting people out of their big trucks, no.
Better technology is part of the answer, but not at gun point.
When the US mandated electric cars, it was a fiasco. (And, to try it again, the Volt was a real boondoggle.) But, when the consumers demanded it (you know, the free market that you so despise?), Toyota and Honda both came up with workable hybrids, which technology was bought by Ford and GM.
I don't know anything about Romney's view of the CAFE standards (and you didn't post anything about that), but wanting to improve fuel economy voluntarily is both laudable and workable, and not socialistic in any way whatsoever.
However, since Romney is as liberal as any of the democrats running, he's probably in favor of the CAFE standards, and probably in favor of strengthening them.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 26, 2012 15:51:31 GMT -5
No one is talking about "mandating electric cars" here, so that's a red herring, and your little jab about me somehow despising the free market is as typically dishonest as it is unfounded.
Romney's statement suggests that he had no problem with increasingly stringent CAFE standards in 2007, and was sanguine about the prospect of US manufacturers responding to them by increasingly competing on the basis of fuel efficiency. We already know that he has expressed concern over emissions and global warming.
I just find it interesting in that it sounds very much like something that a Democrat would say.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 26, 2012 23:14:57 GMT -5
Why is that surprising? Have you seen a conservative or libertarian either one support Romney?
Between Romney and Obama, a few would support him, but many would just as soon see Obama win since there is no discernible difference between them, just as there was no difference between McCain and Obama.
And anyone who cannot differentiate between a free market adjustment and government force despises the free market.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 27, 2012 7:49:44 GMT -5
And anyone who cannot differentiate between a free market adjustment and government force despises the free market. Careful - lest you indict yourself.
|
|