Survey Indicates That EPA Will Continue To Force Automakers To Make Cars No One Wants

The EPA is run by cronies of the President. Elect Trump and the Keystone pipeline will happen and sanity will come to the overregulation of the Obama Bin Barack dictatorship.

The EPA is of course run by the people who have been appointed by the sitting president - that is one of the perks of the job. Having said that - the EPA long predates the current President - and was actually started in December 1970 by Republican Richard Nixon. Since the creation - the EPA has been directed MORE often by Republican Presidents - than Democrats - and I see no effort by the Bush family or Ronald Reagan to eliminate it. To blame the current president for it is nonsense. The problem is that there are indeed real consequences to the emissions put into the atmosphere by humans and there are cities in the world where it is virtually impossible to get a good breath of air. Without the EPA - many US cities would still be among those. In a totally free market - people would not car - and people would die from the emissions that have been regulated.

As far as the Keystone Pipeline - it is funny that a right wing advocates allowing the government to largely TAKE people's land for use on that project. - In a real free market - the company would have to buy the land at whatever price the owner wanted - and avoid land that was not for sale. IN using the government to buy the land - you are reducing the rights of land owners to get the price the market will bear. Why shouldn't a land owner have the right NOT to have a pipeline go through his property - which he supposedly has the right to quiet enjoyment to. And why should a land owner not have the right to set the price he will accept for his land? Oh - when it helps the big business owners - then using the Government to screw landowners is perfectly acceptable to you two faced people.

There is zero reason for CAFE stds and this type of regulation other than the Gubment wants to tell the citizens what to drive. The Gubment needs to be dramatically reduced in size, scope, personnel and resources. $20T in debt and what do we have to show for it... pure insanity. With Hitlary we'll have more regulation, fewer jobs and freedoms(the Chinese and others already own them), higher taxes, more unrest, who knows what Bill will be doing with the interns, and $39T in debt....

Consumers are short-sighted. Remember when President Bush Jr. subsidized SUV sales (to stimulate sales), consumers loved him for it, and then not too much later, they were crying about the Pump Pain they were experiencing when gas prices went up.

Roll the calendar further back and you'll see a time when American car manufacturers said FU to economy cars, then when gas prices went up and consumers were buying smaller, more fuel-efficient foreign cars (because of meager domestic offerings), domestic car sales plummeted and manufacturers cried foul, and wanted tariffs placed on the more popular foreign cars.

So here's the story: Many consumers see TODAY's relatively low gas prices, and in their mind, they assume this will last forever, without actually devoting any brain cells to think that prospect through. As a result, many car consumers are enamored with big, fuel-inefficient vehicles. Suck a lot of cheap gas, and it's still affordable. In a couple of years or so when gas prices return to their previous highs and possibly surpass them -- that's what virtually all analysts predict -- those consumers with gas-guzzling vehicles will my crying, once again, about their pain at the pump. So sad that it was impossible to foresee that, right? That's when they'll want to replace their big, gas guzzling SUV with a more fuel-efficient vehicle, and if American manufacturers don't have compelling offerings, the sales will go to foreign brands, and we'll have history repeating itself, once again.

Smart domestic manufacturers: Keep on designing compelling, fuel-efficient vehicles (IC, Hybrid, EV), regardless of what CAFE requires, regardless of what consumers are buying TODAY, because when gas prices go back up, you won't be caught with your pants down, like last time.

Thank you Steve. Perfect answer. Also the gas prices are low because of lower demands of fuel from fuel efficient cars.

W did not "subsidize" SUV Sales. GM launched their program right after 911 but I'm sure they were encouraged to do it. W did not do it but if you can show me, you'll change my mind. US Car companies could not build economy cars in the US and make a profit, heck in the late 90's and beyond they could hardly make ANY cars and make a profit due to legacy costs. Thus their sickening financial situations a few years ago. So, they focused on SUV's & Trucks because they could make $ on them and they needed cash... NOW the car market is changing so they're pursuing Hybrids, EV's etc... predominately because the market and the culture is more accepting them. The Leaf has yet to sell 100K units in a nation of 330M (known Americans). And, Car technology is changing largely due to competition not regulation or cafe requirements.

ABC News - Fed Tax Break Encourages SUV Purchases

By AMANDA ONION. Oct. 1, 2003

Thanks to a generous tax credit, Karl Wizinsky is driving a very large vehicle these days — a 2002 Ford Excursion.

"It doesn't hurt to have a larger vehicle, but I wouldn't say it's a requirement of my business," he said on a cell phone while driving the Excursion. "But I ended up saving $32,000."

This year, the perks of buying a large SUV — if you're a small business owner — got even bigger.

Congress recently passed a tax bill, as proposed in President Bush's economic stimulus plan, that offers a $100,000 tax credit for business owners who purchase any vehicle weighing 6,000 pounds or more when fully loaded.

BobM writes “…So why do you need the Government to protect people from making poor decisions…”

You tell me! I’m not the one making an argument in favor of bigger government or a Nanny State! In fact, I’m the guy who got pissed at the Feds giving huge Social Assistance checks -- on the order of many billions of dollars -- to failed US car manufacturers, and failed US banks and financial institutions. The Government has socialist policies, and they favor Wall Street, and not Main Street.

A great man once said "Government isn't the answer, its the problem." In a totally free market all issues and problems rise to the surface and industrious individuals or companies fueled by the opportunity/risk & reward develop solutions. Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates are but a few examples. Which government agency really functions efficiently
(IRS?, VA?, Justice? FDA? etc etc) Don't get me wrong...a central government is important in many areas but the less it tries to influence
market dynamics the better the country would be in the long run. We are becoming a nanny state because the central government is trying to be all things to all people all the time. Just saying...and those who disagree can pile on, I know its coming.

However - of course you will - in a free market - want the government to protect your right to your intellectual property - and your right to monopolize it - regardless of how it affect the consumer.

The problem is - in a truly free market - there are two other "free" entities - consumers and workers. Failure to pay workers actually reduces the market for goods and services. If wages were set really low as a free marketer might like - there would be no spendable income beyond basics. AND of course - if workers are free - then they are also free to band together and unionize - and we would be back to where all this started more than 100 years ago.

We can argue this back and forth forever - and never achieve a balance - because there are indeed good point on both sides. And that is why we should have a democracy where all of the people on both sides are considered and people actually worked together jointly to solve problems. However it seems that we only actually do that when a major event (World war) happens that focuses on a common goal. When I was younger - when the Republican party and the Democratic party were not liberal vs conservative - there were both types in each party. Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller - Senator Chase from NJ - were republican LIBERALS. Southern Democrats were probably more conservative than Northern Republicans. But good politician focused on common goals and brought both sides together for the common good. Today - in the "no" mentality of the tea party - where either they get their way or no one does - NOTHING happens. One cannot blame the president for having a Congress that will not even bring his ideas to the floor - and note that the Senate has been just as much a problem with fillibuster becoming an overused commodity that was once only used sparingly if at all. The result is gridlock. The Republican House Leadership has argued to defeat anything suggested by the president - even if you agree with it. That is truly stupid. I doubt that woman's suffrage would pass today -even with all of the woman in congress. I know that the civil rights legislation would never get to the floor of congress.

I believe that we actually agree on many things - that the infrastructure of the USA needs an overhaul among other things - and until these things are looked at as common goals of Americans - and not party politics - nothing is going to change. It really makes no difference how the election comes out this November - the Senate will remain locked within the Fillibuster blockade - and once the Republicans have used it time and time again - one cannot expect the Democrats to be different if they gain control. I note that the current President has used his Veto the least of those in the last 50 years. WHy? - nothing gets to his desk to consider.

AS far as the central government trying to be all things to all people - that is clearly not the case - 90% of the people in the USA agree that Guns should not be

TomM...We are not that far apart actually in our beliefs and underlying facts. There is a role for government but defining its limits does not seem to be on the table for discussion anymore. Party loyalty and loyalty to party leaders before all else as you point out trumps (no pun intended) what's best for America. I'm not sure about your gun point which got cut off but 90% for anything reminds of the old (sic)quote "that nothing is more democratic then a lynching." Lately I don't trust or agree with anything coming out of Washington from either party or any agency. Ed Koch use to say "If you agree with me 8 of 12 times, vote for me. If you agree with me 12 of 12 times, see a psychiatrist." Wonder what he would say to do if you don't agree with anything?