The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards. Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.By that logic, they might as well mandate that cars weigh a minimum of three tons. That way, the cars would get shitty mileage and people would take mass transit.
We all know what's going on here: Trump's guidestar is that whatever Obama did, he'll do the opposite. If Obama wanted to send out free guns with tax refunds, Trump would propose banning all guns.
Apply Trump's Razor to everything Trump says: Everything Trump says is a lie, until proven otherwise.
Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Lewis Carroll
ReplyDeleteTrumpy and supporters put that number to shame......
Now there's http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/12/qanon-4chan-the-storm-conspiracy-explained.html
I'm packing to move to Canada.
Good luck on Canada, damn near impossible to get in. If you got money, Malta is a nice choice.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Comrade, you missed the obvious next move. Driving less reduces deaths, why then increase gasoline taxes to pay for more tax cuts for business and the wealthy while reducing deaths!
ReplyDeleteThe amount of misinformation in the arguments mentioned in that article and those it links to is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that someone in Trump's administration argued for a freeze on the regulations in order to keep the per mile cost of driving up. The articulated theory being that if cars burn more gas, they'll cost more to drive, so people will drive less, so they'll be safer.
That argument is saying we can't have more fuel efficient cars because it would increase personal freedom in the direction of increased financial ability to drive, and that this would be undesirable because they're making our decision that decreased crash incidence rate is more important than the driving we would like to do, our knowledge of crash incidence rates, presently or as could be increased by public advertising, notwithstanding. Federal government regulation to protect us from ourselves.
Does Trump want an alienated base? Because that's how he can get an alienated base. I will vote an empty ballot if all I've got to choose from are candidates who think like that.
"Trump administration officials contend that the rules stifle economic growth."
See, this is a completely different argument. It pushes for the same result of not increasing regulation, but it does so on grounds of free market growth, rather than paternalism. This I can get behind.
I'm curious if the article's first statement was perhaps their own embellishment. I can't find a quote of it, and the hyperlink goes to an economic freedom theory.
Sin taxes are a gateway drug to government overreach. Just say no.
Isn't this the nanny state argument?
ReplyDeleteI once heard an NPR piece on how much less autobody work a shop in TX got when gas went over $5./gallon. Everyone drove carefully. Obviously Il Douche needs to impose a gas tax that will push gas up over $10/gallon. Given how much he cares about the safeyt of 'Murcans, I'm sure he will
ReplyDelete