Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
Is it?
Compare the Cost v. Reward of this strategy to the Cost v. Reward of requiring companies to make 45, 50, 55mpg cars...cars that won't even make a dent in our consumption for 10 or so years. How would you like to pay 20k + for a bottom-barrel 'Cobalt' (but it gets 50mpg!!).
Like I said...I'm hard pressed to find anybody who agrees with me, but the bottom line is we ARE going to pay, one way or the other...I find this to be the most effective use of our money in terms of reduced oil consumption. That is, untill we electricy, or hydrogenify, or ethanolify our vehicles...then it'll won't really matter....
Anyways...car Czar....I thought that was Bob Lutz?  |
I should have been more clear, C v R for the
consumer at the pump is in the negative. I shouldn't have left that out.
And I do completely agree with you that the Gov setting unrealistic standards to get votes is going to be rediculously to the disadvantage of the car consumer also. I just don't want to compound the problem by adding a gas tax to the cost of high technology cars...
Sorry guys, I'm firmly in the category of cut spending and cut programs first. Get the Gov under control and then see what the revenue needs are.
They don't need any more money.