You’re joking right? Since when has the government ever followed it’s own laws?

LL

Brent – where in the constitution does it say that government has the “responsibility” to tell people what to drive????? If I chose to drive a car that gets 10 miles to the gallon, whether gas costs $1.00 a gallon or $10.00 WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS OR THE GOVERNMENTS?

It’s my money…….

LL

How about we just pass a law against global warming? Wouldn’t that be easier?

I’m really not sure how fuel-efficient cars have to do with religion. Oh, you must be talking about Gore’s religion of Green.

Well, I guess if you can’t debate on facts, start throwing out scary words…

I’m sorry brent, I really think you may be in the wrong party if you think it is a good thing for the Government to be the social conscious for the people. Now, you’re talking about a theocracy.

If your Neo-socialist law passed will the government then create a goon squad or SS to go round up all us non-conformists who refuse to drive a tin can so the gas doesn’t go so high?

You will have to pry my truck out of my cold dead hands. I dare anyone to tell me I have to buy a pos tin can that is incapable of doing what I need a vehicle to do. And if you get your fascist ideas passed and ban the production of them, I’ll make my own. When you throw me in jail, you will soon realize you’re being completely unDemocratic, and yes, I’m going to say it…… unAmerican.

If would be one thing if things are a completely isolated independent activity. But most things aren’t, like like smoking and driving. If you can drive around by yourself in a gas guzzler and can afford to pay for the gas you might think that you are only affecting yourself. But, even then you are not, for instance, your gas-guzzling reduces the gas supply, raising prices for people who can’t afford to spend extra money on gas.

Government can be used for good to promote socially-desirable aims. Government has been used this way for decades both by conservatives and liberals. So, I think that the use of Feebates can be a very compelling way to help people make wiser vehicle purchases in this regard.

If the American Government is now in the business of mandating our vehicles, maybe the American experiment has failed, and like previous democracies, so have we.

This is just amazing logic Brent. You’re going to use the Federal Government to “nudge” (read FORCE) people to buy what the Government says is good for them? That’s Stalinist and totalitarian thinking. That’s a dictatorship there pal.

Obviously they are not going to ban all SUV’s, but making them prohibitively expensive is just as bad! I’m a productive member of society so that I can enjoy my personal freedoms on the weekends, be it trips to Andy’s cabin or traveling hockey trips. Things that would not be nearly as enjoyable or even possible w/out my SUV. So, please don’t take it away from me! And think ahead to what it is going to cost you to buy one if your family grows larger or your kids pick up expensive hobbies!

I don’t think that anyone proposes banning everything but subcompacts completely, there are certainly legitimate uses for large vehicles. But I think that too many people have purchased vehicles much larger then they really needed. This is unnecessary.

You would think that people would think ahead when they purchase a vehicle and consider if the gas price doubles and I’m driving 30 miles to work, will I be able to pay for the gas? Yet for some reason they don’t even when now still when the gas is $3 a gallon. Therefore I feel that the government does have a responsibility to “nudge” people into driving more appropriate vehicles for what their needs require.

Seriously though, there are people in this world who need big vehicles. An Aveo is not going to haul a boat to the lake or a horse trailer to a rodeo. Are we not going to allow folks to participate in these types of activities anymore?