Originally Posted by FNKNSTN
What land of make believe to you live in? This was a decision made by the government, not the general public. Do you really think that the public would protest outside the capital with signs saying that they want to smog their cars, and if they didn't pass, they wouldn't be allowed to drive them?
What are you talking about? Did the citizens not elect their local government? I actually spend a lot of time in California and I'm the first to admit that the coast and inland are almost two separate states, and I appreciate you defending your state- but what you are saying doesn't make sense.
And how is the helmet law not a smart law? Name one down-side to wearing a helmet. Tell me how it might negatively affect your health while you're going 75mph on the highway.
Personal freedoms issue
And if it's not about emissions... then why do you morons keep bringing it up? Lack California is some whack-job state or something. Get over yourselves and join the party.
Morons? nice ad hominem. Two separate laws with many coincident results. Since the results coincide, you can't discuss one without discussing the other.
You know what would work best for California? It would work best if there was no age of consent law. I say that if you put a bag over a 13 year old girl's head, covering that baby face of hers... and if she's so physically developed that you cannot tell that she's only 13 years old, then she should be LEGAL. But only because that's what's best for the state. Let the marijuana offenders and statutory rapists out of jail, save on some tax money.
Intellectually dishonest argument and you know it. Your state does let the marijuana offenders out. Some states do and some don't. It should be a state decision, not a federal one. Statutory rapist laws do vary by state. I don't think you understand the whole point many people are trying to make.
And you're right. Those old clunkers are disappearing for good! And pretty much any new car you buy will get twice the mileage of your old clunker.
Yes, in the boonies, the concentration of vehicles is less. Maybe if everyone in California spread out (it's a big phuckin' state) then we could all pollute more than we do now... right?
Again, an intellectually dishonest argument. And here we go back to the "California Lifestyle". After WWII, suburbs went nuts. There were 2 basic layouts for subdivision- The Levittown and the California Lifestyle suburb. Levittown was the Northeastern philosophy of smaller homes in compact lots near grocery type shops. The California Lifestyle suburbs featured home separated by long distances from both shopping and work. This caused cities designed this way to pollute more because they needed cars to get everywhere and dispersing the population so that rail and other mass transit wasn't very effective. This was advertised in the 50's and 60's as California Lifestyle or 'Lifestyle' housing and it dominates from the Mississipi to the Pacific Ocean. The pinnacle of this prior to the housing bubble burst was the McMansion subdivision. Western states have been trying to figure out how to fight this for years now.
Also, because of California's oppressive tax structure, and it's overpriced housing market for middle class Californians, many sold their modest property by California standards and moved to other western states. Arizona, Colorado, and Idaho had large numbers of Californians move in and start new McMansion type subdivisions because $500,000 goes a lot further in these other housing markets.
So you see, Californians DID spread out and pollute more. I've been on a P&Z advisory committee for a few years, you don't realize what kind of havoc this has caused in other places. It's slowed down quite a bit since 2005, but it was out of control for a while.
"Suffer from the Sunshine State Tax"? Who's suffering? I'm not. My 33 year old 10mpg getting Silverado passes smog with flying colors. Last I looked, it was only people from the other 49 states on here complaining about these CAFE standards and California's supposed influence on the whole thing.
California had set their own version of CAFE and their own pollution controls (CARB) separate of the rest of the country. However because the California market is so large, every producer either had to create 2 vehicles (adding cost) or adopting California's standard for everywhere else. CARB has been particularly hard on construction equipment, particularly small to medium contractors are having to retrofit their equipment that they bought when it was smog-legal and now isn't and they can't afford to. So then the equipment goes to auction where they are seeing huge losses on equipment value putting them out of business. California's rules have made new high economy diesels particularly tough to get into this country too, hurting everyone's ability to shop for high mileage vehicles.
I never knew of any MPG standard in California? All I know is that when gas prices went up in California (where demand is highest, and cost is highest - but I can afford it even in my 10mpg truck), people started selling their Silverados and F-150's and started buying Japanese Hybrids. So does it now make sense that Obama wants to push American car companies to increase their mileage standards? To compete with the Japanese maybe? I know a ton of you guys HATE Toyota... so what's wrong with Obama wanting to make an American company more competative so it can survive on its own in the future?
America actually already was pushing for higher mileage vehicles and the CAFE standard was in place prior-however it was set for 2020 and it gave more credits for development instead of punishments. Your opinion on whether or not its a good thing for the Government to push this faster is based upon your opinion on what the Government's role is. Whether GM can compete with Toyota should be up to GM in many people's view.
And what's this bullsh*t about California being limited on the styles of cars they can buy? This whole CAFE thing only says that American car companies have to offer cars which - in their class - average a certain MPG. If 35 was the magic number, that would mean a company could make two mid-size sedans. One that gets 50mpg, and one that gets 20mpg (like the 2010 SS maybe? - depending on your driving style and conditions).
California IS limited and has limited the US in their choice of automobiles. The clearest example is European Diesels. You have to have an engine certified as clean diesel in order to sell it in California. If you have a 3.0 and a 3.6 of what is basically the same engine-you have to certify each separately. It's very expensive and time consuming to do this. Therefore, manufacturers with good clean diesels are either skipping the process altogether or only certifying 1 or 2-limiting availability.
I like how all these dipsh*ts on here talk about California like they're residents.
And you talk about California as if you know something about your state and the rest of the country. Beyond the weather and the directions to Safeway, what do you know about your state? Spent any time in Sacremento? (hint: that's your state's capital).
Costly? How?
I like how everyone everwhere else thinks that we're suffering. And how they feel like they're suffering hahahahahahahahaahh Ahhhhhhhhhh sucks for you! I'm staying in Cali.
Enjoy!
|