The New Obama Fuel Compliant Car is here!!

archer wrote: You keep going in circles PrintSmith.....weren't you talking about washing machines a bit ago? hard to keep up....it's regulations ruin the economy and the middle class, now it's just certain regulations, Now you are arguing that it's cars that kill people not drivers......can I assume you are on the side that guns kill people, not the person who shoots the gun. So confusing......

On the whole I think regulations make our world a better place, and help grow the middle class. You are taking one little example and using it to justify your cause of getting government out of our lives no matter how it may hurt us, I just don't buy it.

Yeah, I was. Those don't have anything to do with Love Canal or pollution of the water supply by corporations either. The electronics that are required to meet federal energy efficiency regulations add cost to the machine, shorten its useful life and end up making the middle class poorer than they used to be because they have to replace that appliance far more often than they once did before the federal energy efficiency regulations made electronic control of functions a necessity.

I am not a absolutist on regulations, but I think it is a tough balancing act. And sometimes having America reduce regulations a bit can bring jobs back to America. Consider freon usage, if you have a 0% freon escape requirement for domestic manufacturing, Widget Inc. decides to outsource the job to China which has a "we could care less" requirement about freon escaping, so greater greenhouse gases.
But suppose America permits only 15% freon escape. This keeps Widget manufacturing in America and reduces greenhouse gases by 85%.

Fred- what is missing fom the regulatory process is the inclusion of input from all parties involved, including the taxpayer/consumer.

What is missing is a cost-benefit analysis of the total impact of each regulation. What is missing is the common sense analysis and the political willpower to deny regulations that are hurting and damaging our economy.

If this process were in place - we would see vastly fewer regulations being passed at the governments will.

And - PS- I like his thoughtful, detailed and articulate posts. Many times he thoroughly defines the argument in a much more meaningful way than I.

I like PS posts too, very well written. Those who complain about PS posts being too long are just upset that they cannot offer a rebuttal because it would take a lot of work to address each point. So they complain about length of post and give up. LOL

Sometimes when a post is too short, the meaning is not clear.

For example, I honestly have no idea what this means:

Are you really saying that innovators cannot create around the regulations?

Bear,
They actually do address some of your costs of regulation. I just heard a sound bite where Obama complains he is blamed for over-regulation and according to his people, less regulations have passed under his watch and the expected costs are lower than under W in the same 3 year time period.

Red Tape Reduction?

In other cases, the president’s factual claims checked out — but didn’t tell the whole story.

For example, Obama claimed he approved fewer regulations in his first three years in office than Republican President George W. Bush did three years into his first term. That’s true through Obama’s first 33 months in office — just barely. But Obama’s regulations came at a higher cost.

Obama: In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.

Obama is right, as far as his statement goes. Bloomberg News, based on a review of Office of Management and Budget data, reported that the Obama administration approved 613 regulations in the first 33 months. That was 30 fewer than Bush approved in his first 33 months.

However, Bloomberg also found that it cost more to comply with Obama’s regulations than either Bush’s or President Bill Clinton’s during that same time period.

Bloomberg News, Oct. 25, 2011: The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms.

This is not the first time that the administration has hand-picked regulatory data to cast its actions in a more positive light than those of Obama’s Republican predecessor.

And those are just regulations that cost more than 100 million dollars to the economy-613 new regulations with 129 passed - so far.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/the-state-of-obamas-facts/

archer wrote: Now you are arguing that it's cars that kill people not drivers......can I assume you are on the side that guns kill people, not the person who shoots the gun. So confusing......

It's only confusing because you are attempting to muddy the waters and make it confusing.

No, cars don't kill people, people die and are injured as a result of being in a collision involving cars in which they are occupants, that is simply what happens due to the laws of physics. Lighter cars have less mass. Mass is one of the things that protects the occupants of a car. The less of it the car has, the less protection the car is capable of providing when there is a collision. The further a car is required to travel on a gallon of fuel, the less mass it is going to have, that's simple physics. Aluminum doesn't have the strength of steel, that too is simple physics. Thinner steel doesn't have the strength of thicker steel, also physics. Plastics have far less strength than steel, physics yet again.

Aluminum alloy wheels are lighter than steel wheels are. They are also less sturdy, easier to damage and more expensive to repair or replace if you happen to hit a curb or a pothole just right. Aluminum structure in the suspension is more brittle than steel structure is, easier to damage, more expensive to manufacture, repair and replace. Aluminum is replacing steel in wheels and suspension so that the weight of the car is reduced and it travels further on a gallon of gasoline. It is how the innovators created around government regulations. The result of the regulations, and the innovations created to comply with them, is a vehicle that is more expensive to purchase, less sturdy and more expensive to repair - all of which reduce the vitality of the middle class by raising the cost of their transportation needs. That's not confusing or difficult to understand at all, it is, in fact, quite easy to comprehend.

I'm keeping my F350 diesel quad cab till my dying day... even if I have to run it on baby seal oil.

You will drive your EPA fuel compliant car, eat your USDA mandatory lunch calories, and purchase your HHS/IRS mandatory essential healthcare benefits. I can't wait until they regulate the standard mandatory beer formula.

Sounds a lot like conservatives want to give the people what they think people want, not what people are looking for. As fuel prices rose people want better gas mileage. Making heavy gas guzzlers may appeal to some, but the market place wants more fuel efficiency. Clinging to gas guzzling behemoths almost killed our auto industry.

Once again innovation had made lighter vehicles safer by necessity because people demand it. We are perfectly capable of innovating around regulations, then everyone wins.