Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Burying Bill - Clinton that is... [View all]NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)170. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards hold auto industry to fuel average fuel economy stds
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requires vehicle manufacturers to comply with the gas mileage, or fuel economy, standards set by the Department of Transportation (DOT). CAFE values are obtained using the city and highway fuel economy test results and a weighted average of vehicle sales.
If you look at the line-up over time between 1970 and the present, you might remember the Pinto and Vega and lots and lots of small trucks. These were happy times in terms of an American outlook on sensible vehicle sizes.
A Suburban stood out like a truck and even full size pickups weren't very large unless they were one-ton and larger capacity variants.
CAFE standards were a good idea, but loopholes were found or created that, in a nutshell, killed the station wagon and truly small truck. Here's a good read:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/
And another less complex read here:
THE "SUV LOOPHOLE" is so big that you can drive a truck through it. In fact the loophole is a light truck.
Back in 1975, when Washington passed CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards designed to improve gas mileage in automobiles, lawmakers set a lower standard for light trucks. Automakers later used the loophole to market bigger cars, such as minivans and sport utility vehicles, which fall under the same category. The CAFE standard is 27.5 miles per gallon for cars, but 20.7 mpg for light trucks. Thus, what was supposed to be a break for hard-working farmers and industries became a Yuppie Exemption.
Not to her great credit, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein owns a gas-guzzling SUV, even though she believes in global warming and doesn't want to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, last year the Los Angeles Times reported that she owned three SUVs. Which makes her your perfect "SUV Democrat."
To her credit, Feinstein has been pushing to close the SUV loophole. "We're energy gluttons," said Feinstein. (With her three SUVs, she should know.) Her legislation would require that the 27.5 mpg standard for cars apply to SUVs and light trucks by 2007.
Feinstein's bill is on the money. It makes no sense for Washington to determine that there is a national interest in limiting gas mileage, but only for small, less expensive cars. Especially when light trucks and SUVs account for some 40 percent of new car sales. As Feinstein explained this week, it is a "no-brainer . . . that SUVs and light trucks are passenger vehicles" and should operate under the same rules.
more at: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Close-SUV-Loophole-3316597.php
Back in 1975, when Washington passed CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards designed to improve gas mileage in automobiles, lawmakers set a lower standard for light trucks. Automakers later used the loophole to market bigger cars, such as minivans and sport utility vehicles, which fall under the same category. The CAFE standard is 27.5 miles per gallon for cars, but 20.7 mpg for light trucks. Thus, what was supposed to be a break for hard-working farmers and industries became a Yuppie Exemption.
Not to her great credit, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein owns a gas-guzzling SUV, even though she believes in global warming and doesn't want to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, last year the Los Angeles Times reported that she owned three SUVs. Which makes her your perfect "SUV Democrat."
To her credit, Feinstein has been pushing to close the SUV loophole. "We're energy gluttons," said Feinstein. (With her three SUVs, she should know.) Her legislation would require that the 27.5 mpg standard for cars apply to SUVs and light trucks by 2007.
Feinstein's bill is on the money. It makes no sense for Washington to determine that there is a national interest in limiting gas mileage, but only for small, less expensive cars. Especially when light trucks and SUVs account for some 40 percent of new car sales. As Feinstein explained this week, it is a "no-brainer . . . that SUVs and light trucks are passenger vehicles" and should operate under the same rules.
more at: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Close-SUV-Loophole-3316597.php
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
191 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Maybe it's best to let people speak for themselves. I'm one of those who supported Obama and I won't
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#16
Alert stalking and attempts to stop opposition, yes. Whether it becomes a purge depends on
merrily
Apr 2015
#150
You're bragging that she supposedly captured the whites who left the Dem Party over Obama?
merrily
Apr 2015
#122
Since she hasn't decided how she wants to define herself all we can go on is her past record
davidpdx
Apr 2015
#175
I know, I can't believe people give him a break on so many things and that one thing especially.
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#8
No, not given a break. I refer to his fans who may want to underplay the significance of it.
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#11
Someone should point out their affair started when she showed him her thong...
DemocratSinceBirth
Apr 2015
#51
"Adults have sex. You may not approve, but it happens every day." Until you're the victim.
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#61
Not when she was an adult at the time of sound mind, and she actually DID instigate it.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#124
You know, Larry Flynt catches a lot of shit from some people around here...
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#24
Does he? I haven't seen any posts here condemning Flynt for his stand on the impeachment.
merrily
Apr 2015
#26
There hasn't really been a ton of discussion of the Clinton impeachment in general here
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#38
But only one of them was an employer and only one of them committed perjury on national TV,, being
merrily
Apr 2015
#27
Okay, first off, he didn't "commit perjury on national tv". He lied on national tv, which is not the
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#35
There was no perjury. That was a Right Wing Noise Machine claim. The judge dismissed that case on
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#71
I agree...This is like re-litigating the O J case again and again./NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Apr 2015
#72
I agree...This is like re-litigating the O J case again and again./NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Apr 2015
#72
He did commit perjury on national TV. His testimony, under oath, was televised.
merrily
Apr 2015
#112
He committed perjury. That is what he was impeached for, perjury. What are you quibbling about?
merrily
Apr 2015
#115
He was also disbarred for lying under oath and that did involve a court proceeding.
merrily
Apr 2015
#119
Regardless, no one forced him to lie under oath. Paula Jones did not consent to anything.
merrily
Apr 2015
#129
Right, and she was pretty clearly manipulated from the get-go by right wingers with an agenda.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#132
If she was a pawn or manipulated, I think it throws her claims into question, don't you?
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#146
Not really. It's pretty specific. And, in this case, probably preferable to what occurred.
merrily
Apr 2015
#163
Are you new here? Do you not have a clue about sexual harassment in the workplace?
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#64
Did Monica Lewinsky ever allege that it was sexual harassment? No, sir, she did not.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#75
Well said. And the impacts of these affairs is felt by coworkers in that hostile workplace.
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#173
"If anyone else does it, we want them in jail but if Bill does it, no problemo? "
NCTraveler
Apr 2015
#63
I DEMAND THAT EVERYONE WHO EVER HAD ORAL SEX OUTSIDE THE SANCTITY OF A CHRIST-CENTRIC MARRIAGE
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#88
Google an individual president's name and affair and make up your own mind.
DemocratSinceBirth
Apr 2015
#162
I'll say this: If all the pro-Hillary people have to run on are empty platitudes and "inevitability"
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#37
He did not have to sign it. He did not disavow it, either, until the Obama administration.
merrily
Apr 2015
#17
They bagged a majority in the house of representatives because of redistricting & political reality.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#92
Thank you for the needed history lesson -- too many people seem to have forgotten that context
pnwmom
Apr 2015
#30
He not only supported DOMA but bragged about it in radio ads in his reelection campaign.
AtomicKitten
Apr 2015
#103
lol, Hillary doesn't give clear answers on anything until it's thoroughly poll tested.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Apr 2015
#102
Like Al Gore did? No she shouldn't... Clinton was a good president, the two Bush's were horrible...
uponit7771
Apr 2015
#49
No he was not, all inclusive with progressive legislation he was good... not FDR not JFK but good...
uponit7771
Apr 2015
#65
Telecommunications Act, Repeal of Glass Steagall, ending "welfare as we know it" NAFTA, DOMA, DADT.
merrily
Apr 2015
#155
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards hold auto industry to fuel average fuel economy stds
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#170
Hmmm, actually reading that, I'm not sure I was calling my truck by the right name.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Apr 2015
#172
I can't believe this thread. The point of the whole OP was that Hillary would do well to turn her
jwirr
Apr 2015
#66
I'm amazed that some people here are still flogging the clenis outrage
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#77
Clinton created a hostile workplace environment and would have lost his job in the private sector...
NYC_SKP
Apr 2015
#81
It's clearly not true that FDR's affair is just as relevant to Hillary's run as Bill's affair.
merrily
Apr 2015
#179
The point of the matter, no one should give two shits about Bill's affair
justiceischeap
Apr 2015
#180
Right, why bother to talk to me directly, when you can find out everything I think from YOU!
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#186
Well, then why do you drop into random threads to ascribe shit to me that I've never said?
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#188