





I. 56 MPG = Lost Jobs?



They write:










III. Ray LaHood Wants Standard to be Finalized by July







Comments     Threshold


RE: Car Sales
By dsx724 on 6/30/2011 5:50:11 PM , Rating: 1
If you don't meet CAFE, you pay a maximum of $100 per MPG per car you are below CAFE. You are giving off the false pretense that these vehicles will become unavailable which is not true at all. Considering that 1MPG will result in $1000 in addition gas costs (money sent overseas) over the life of a vehicle, I don't think the $100 tax is high enough. But who cares what the numbers are when you ignore the truth to begin with?

RE: Car Sales
By MrBungle123 on 7/1/2011 6:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
Right so lets just tack on and extra $3500+ to the cost of a large vehicle because why? Get a clue, comapact cars are not practical for a large part of the population which is why bigger things sell better.

RE: Car Sales
By dsx724 on 7/1/2011 10:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Only supercar manufactures with cars costing $100K+ will pay $3500 per car and $3500 won't even cover a brake job on those cars. The mandate is fleet-wide so if the average of the fleet is 5MPG below CAFE, you pay only $70 * 5MPG = $350 per car. But you never bothered to understand CAFE before staunchly opposing it. How is that not ignorance?

"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. They often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like underpowered antibiotic, facts make misinformation stronger."

RE: Car Sales
By YashBudini on 7/4/2011 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 2

Sounds like a severe case of plain old stubbornness.

RE: Car Sales
By mindless1 on 7/2/2011 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no. People who are truly conservation conscious, aren't driving the *average* number of miles in their vehicles, they are making smarter choices such as combining trips, living shorter distances from work, etc.

Indeed, who cares what the numbers are! You imply that people should be *hurt* if they don't agree with what you think is important. How would you like it if those people took an opposing view to your life choices? Since the government makes quite a lot of money on fuel taxation, it seems very logical that any vehicle that gets 1MPH BETTER fuel economy has to incur $100 tax per MPG increase to make up for the lost gas tax revenue.

