State's Rights?

And, as usual, the explanation given doesn't stand up to much reasonable thought.

They don't want a hodge podge of various state regulations? But all 18 states involved were going to adopt the same regs as California.

The car companies would then have to make cars to suit two different markets? Yeah, so? Companies modify their products all the time for different markets because it makes good business sense to do so. And if they don't want to, fine. Make cars that meet the higher standard and sell that one type everywhere.

Haven't cars sold in California had to meet tougher emission standards for like 30 or more years? What's the problem?

I don't really have an opinion on this, but I do have some facts that might be germane:

1) The Big Three/Big Two/Big Two And A Half (I've lost track of Chrysler's standing) are a hefty chunk of our country's current manufacturing base -- the sort of thing that the loss of which people are constantly decrying. They are actually making things, big, complicated things, here in the US (as well as around the world).

2) Auto workers represent some of the best-paying union jobs around -- if you define "union" by the traditional "blue-collar" definition, and discount a bunch of trades and professions that don't really deserve the union moniker.

Just a few things to keep in mind when weighing matters such as this...

J.

Jay, right-wing tools such as yourself always find some way to defend big corporations from minimum wage laws, environmental laws, consumer protection laws, etc. The point of this post was that this is just another one of those cases. The GOP, which is supposedly the vehement defender of federalism, has totally flip flopped on state's rights. But then, they always do. Tomorrow, when some state tries to get Creationism taught in public schools, they'll go back to preaching federalism like none of this ever happened. The core principle here isn't about a "hodge podge of laws" or anything of the kind. It's about bending over backwards to help GM and Chrylser and every other big corporation because, when they aren't trying to replace the Constitution with the Holy Bible, that is what Republicans do.

And of course, it doesn't help that Johnson is actually lying about the implications of the California admission standards.

OK, Mega, I get the notion that you don't like me. I don't quite get how you came to the conclusion that my opinion was wrong, as I clearly avoided expressing one, but no matter. Are you disagreeing with what I said about the auto makers? Did you even notice it? Do you want to refute it?

If you'd rather just call me names, feel free. I've been called worse things by better people than you. I usually take it as a sign that the person would rather assail me than my points -- and that is usually an indicator that I'm right.

J.

"Just a few things to keep in mind when weighing matters such as this..."

Oh good god Jay Tea, are you trying to look like a fucking moron?

35 mpg won't hurt the auto manufacturing section in the States because, and this is important to note, the 35 mpg standard is lower than practically every other market. This means every other manufacturer in world who sells in Japan, Europe, in fucking China has to meet this standard already.

The Big Three can meet this standard today.

"OK, Mega, I get the notion that you don't like me."

That's cause you are a moron.

"I don't quite get how you came to the conclusion that my opinion was wrong, as I clearly avoided expressing one,"

And a liar.

We are not stupid like you, we can tell what opinion you are trying to express by the facts you present.

"I usually take it as a sign that the person would rather assail me than my points -- and that is usually an indicator that I'm right."

Or it is a sign that you are such a fucking, goddamned retard that you are not worth debating.

Guess which is is, sub-human.

Jay Tea: "I don't quite get how you came to the conclusion that my opinion was wrong, as I clearly avoided expressing one"

Oh, c'mon, JT. Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? You made the post because you wanted to make a point. That you didn't include words like "Here is my point..." or "In my opinion..." doesn't make it any less of an expression of one.

Let's not post corporate talking points and then try to claim we're neutral, okay?

Now, to respond to your points.

1) The Big 2.5 auto companies manufacture things right here in the USA. Yup, but less and less as time has gone by. And wherever their factories are located they have fallen behind foreign companies in their ability to compete. What good does it do us if the best buggy-whip factory in the world in located here? Rather than "Our goods are made in the USA" wouldn't it be better to be able to say "Our goods are made in the USA and are good enough to complete all over the world."?

2) Auto union jobs pay well. So what? What has that to do with the topic at hand which is the conservative flip-flop on state's rights? (A question which could also be asked about your first point.) And, again, if the auto companies can't make cars that the public wants to buy, what will all those high-paid buggy whip workers do when the companies have their next round of layoffs or ship more jobs overseas where workers are cheaper? (Actually, aren't your two points somewhat in contention? Won't the higher labor costs tend to drive more manufacturing overseas?)

Fact is, if 18 states want higher emission standards, if the people in those states want cleaner cars, they will get them. They will buy the cars which run cleaner. Which won't be made by US companies.