SCOTUS blocks Obama climate change rules

[K1052]

Just because you don't give a shit about people and would be perfectly fine pricing cars out of their budget or saying "you don't need more than a Fiat 500 for your 6-person family" doesn't mean we all feel that way.

Basing long term policy decisions on the soon to be mythical 6 person family seems like a good idea.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, I can see where you'd conclude that after statements from me like "I support CAFE but think the 2025 standards are unrealistic and not achievable absent historic scientific breakthrough." I directly and specifically addressed each of your rudimentary solutions and you want to wave your hand and will into existence 20-50% mpg gains based on nothing beyond your desire for them. Discussions like that would lead anyone to think I like pollution instead of that you were an unrealistic ideologue who no longer accepts reality when it conflicts with your dreams.

Just pointing out that you said I can't complain about conservatives rejecting pollution controls for ideological reasons:

Well then I guess you can't complain when conservatives reject your climate change policies or other ideas out of hand for ideology reasons also. Okay with me if we do things that way since GOP owns Congress and already use that approach. It will just be a brute force imposition of temporary majority will on the opposition, their concerns be damned.

I mean, climate change policies are all about controlling pollution, correct?

 

[glenn1]

Right, so ideological, fact-free ranting. You are doing exactly what you complain about. How are you so oblivious and so irrational all the time?



No we didn't, we took my advice basically to the letter. SDI was never implemented and current BMD systems are totally ineffective against a nuclear attack by any real nuclear power.

Again, people aren't as stupid as you are.

Yeah, whatever you want to believe but almost 300 billion and counting dollars spent on it disagree. I guess if your advice was "continue researching and implementing it in every administration including Obama's" I guess we did take your advice to the letter. Or maybe you think you're right because Clinton renamed the program.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, whatever you want to believe but almost 300 billion and counting dollars spent on it disagree. I guess if your advice was "continue researching and implementing it in every administration including Obama's" I guess we did take your advice to the letter. Or maybe you think you're right because Clinton renamed the program.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/usmissiledefense

Nope, I think I'm right because of the actual attributes of the system.

Like I said though, you're just ranting as usual.

 

[OutHouse]

I don't really need to issue any citation. I get monthly bills. My link has the real numbers.

funny inst it? the flaming libtards in here know more about your bill than you do AND THEY DIDNT KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE!! BWHAHAHHAHA

 

[werepossum]

Well, I'm not saying they will or won't create more jobs, but those jobs are the only option. They will create the only jobs, for sure.

It's certainly possible you might see more jobs in the future, but that really isn't the way innovation happens: innovation kills jobs. Everyone knows this. Creating more jobs with innovation is a fool's argument. No one stops innovation to save obsolete jobs, do they? Even the most regressive conservatives understand that this is death.

But they aren't going to replace jobs that don't exist, anyway (the stagecoach tilter in the world of the automobile), so you have to look at funny math, in a way. The loss of many coal and oil jobs isn't a negative...it becomes a 0. Hell, building that stupid pipeline would have been a negative (or a 0) if it happened. Something like a dozen people total working that thing, rather than the shippers and train operators working full time.

Fossil fuels will be a thing well beyond their use in direct energy production, so it's not like that is disappearing. I'm all for keeping it going as long as it's needed, but the sooner we can get off of it the better

I disagree that innovation kills jobs, net. Certainly a lot of innovation (e.g. automation) kills some jobs directly, but anything that creates more wealth with less input frees up that wealth for new purposes. If an automobile can be built for $1,000 less due to some innovation, then either the manufacturer or the customer or the dealer winds up with an extra $1,000, which will be spent on new goods or services. Other types of innovations create jobs; for example, air bags require more labor to build and install. No free rides of course, so that might be a net wash.

I propose a deal between liberals and conservatives.

We agree that any "green energy solution" that is twice as costly as the next option is no solution at all. BUT you guys have to acknowledge that environmental laws and regulations still are necessary on some level, even if it means business can't maximize margins by simply dumping their hazardous waste in the local drinking supply, in the interests of stopping our lands from becoming the polluted cesspool China is rapidly becoming.

Sounds reasonable, but scoring would be extremely difficult. On the one hand, lots of green energy is heavily subsidized. On the other, coal for instance leaves mountains devastated, waterways polluted, more mercury and smog in the air, and mountains of slag waiting to ruin a lot of people's day. All those things ultimately cost money and lessen our world, so the apparent cost of energy might not be near the true net cost.

There aren't any current non-hybrid cars that I'm aware of that meet that standard, even a Honda Fit or Fiat 500 don't. Car and Driver estimates "efficient, modern, mainstream sedans such as the Hyundai Sonata will need to improve their fuel efficiency by about 50 percent by the end of the program" (2026 CAFE standards); do you foresee some quantum leap forward in materials technology, aerodynamics, or physics that's going to make that possible? Are you just so wedded to your green power wet dreams that you no longer give a damn about the impacts to actual citizens anymore or whether people can actually even meet their needs with what you're trying to force them to buy, that is if anyone but the rich childless can afford to buy cars when you're done?

50 mpg as a corporate average is insane within the next twenty years. There would be no light trucks, period. Really, nothing but tiny eggshell cars suitable for two adults or two small adults and two small children. Would be great for the used car market though.

 

[fskimospy]

Now that Scalia has died it looks like those rules will go through after all.

 

[JSt0rm]

Now that Scalia has died it looks like those rules will go through after all.

really?

 

[K1052]

really?

The liberal wing of the court dissented to the order so whoever replaces Scalia could tip it the other way when the case comes up, presuming it's Obama or his Democratic successor.

 

[Wreckem]

The liberal wing of the court dissented to the order so whoever replaces Scalia could tip it the other way when the case comes up, presuming it's Obama or his Democratic successor.

The case is years away from SCotUS. This was a stay on the rules taking effect while the case goes to trial in district court.

 

[fskimospy]

The case is years away from SCotUS. This was a stay on the rules taking effect while the case goes to trial in district court.

Right, and when the DC court decides in favor of the rules as is most likely SCOTUS will no longer have enough votes to put in another stay so they will be implemented as planned.

Glenn is probably having a rage aneurysm right now, haha. He was so happy!

 

[Ken g6]

I have electric heat. Now instead of keeping my place at 60F, I reluctantly set it at 50 to 55F. I raise my bedroom to 58F for sleeping. Very comfy. It's like having Hugo Chavez as my president.

Off-topic: You need a heat pump, or something.

 

[zinfamous]

I disagree that innovation kills jobs, net. Certainly a lot of innovation (e.g. automation) kills some jobs directly, but anything that creates more wealth with less input frees up that wealth for new purposes. If an automobile can be built for $1,000 less due to some innovation, then either the manufacturer or the customer or the dealer winds up with an extra $1,000, which will be spent on new goods or services. Other types of innovations create jobs; for example, air bags require more labor to build and install. No free rides of course, so that might be a net wash.

Ah yes, the manufacturer and dealer gets more cash because shit is cheaper because less jobs. Therefore...they make more jobs rather than just get wealthier and fatter.

Spoken like a true supply side acolyte that believes in stubbornly and repeatedly discredited theories decade, after decade, after decades, after decade. Trickle down, man, one of these days it will trickle--and I ain't just talking about my pilly packer at the urinal when I turn 64!

 

[lopri]

The case is years away from SCotUS. This was a stay on the rules taking effect while the case goes to trial in district court.

I do not know how you say that if you know how this SCOTUS works. The conservatives on the court love to "expedite" anything related to Obama and this case was, by all indication, going to decided this term. Stay of lower court ruling, absent from circuit split, usually means there are 5 justices who want to reverse lower court ruling.

 

[lopri]

Edit: Never mind the above post. I thought the thread was about the DACA/DAPA litigation. My mistake.

 

[zinfamous]

There aren't any current non-hybrid cars that I'm aware of that meet that standard, even a Honda Fit or Fiat 500 don't. Car and Driver estimates "efficient, modern, mainstream sedans such as the Hyundai Sonata will need to improve their fuel efficiency by about 50 percent by the end of the program" (2026 CAFE standards); do you foresee some quantum leap forward in materials technology, aerodynamics, or physics that's going to make that possible? Are you just so wedded to your green power wet dreams that you no longer give a damn about the impacts to actual citizens anymore or whether people can actually even meet their needs with what you're trying to force them to buy, that is if anyone but the rich childless can afford to buy cars when you're done?

exact same detractions they made before, exact same challenges they faced when all previous forced regulations were deemed "impossible."

snore.

 

[Wreckem]

I do not know how you say that if you know how this SCOTUS works. The conservatives on the court love to "expedite" anything related to Obama and this case was, by all indication, going to decided this term. Stay of lower court ruling, absent from circuit split, usually means there are 5 justices who want to reverse lower court ruling.

Its funny how you say I don't know how things work. The reality is you need to shut up.

The lower court hasn't ruled on the merits of the case yet. They have barely gotten the case. The stay was a stay was to prevent enforcing the regulations while the district court tries the case. The case was filed in district court in Oct of 2015. The case itself will likely take multiple years to try. Then multiple years to appeal before reaching SCotUS. Admin law cases like this take forever to get sorted out. We are at minimum 4 years for the ultimate resolution on this case. Quite possibly longer as major precedent setting admin law cases(which is what this case is) have taken 8-10 years before.

Decided this term? Really? The term ends in June and almost all the cases they are deciding this term are on the calendar already. Furthermore, SCotUS cannot just take this case before a district court tries it because they lack original jurisdiction to hear the case. It will most certainly not be decided this term. Finally, the makeup of the Supreme Court when it is decided will likely be dramatically different, not counting Scalia's replacement.

 

[K1052]

Right, and when the DC court decides in favor of the rules as is most likely SCOTUS will no longer have enough votes to put in another stay so they will be implemented as planned.

Glenn is probably having a rage aneurysm right now, haha. He was so happy!

This is what I was envisioning.

Either way the prospects look less good if the original stay was happy news for a person's particular interests.

 

[werepossum]

Ah yes, the manufacturer and dealer gets more cash because shit is cheaper because less jobs. Therefore...they make more jobs rather than just get wealthier and fatter.

Spoken like a true supply side acolyte that believes in stubbornly and repeatedly discredited theories decade, after decade, after decades, after decade. Trickle down, man, one of these days it will trickle--and I ain't just talking about my pilly packer at the urinal when I turn 64!

Think about it. Say a manufacturer comes up with an innovative way to cut $2,000 worth of labor from manufacture of a particular model. They can choose to pocket that $2,000 or sell the car for $2,000 less. Very, very few automobiles are built with processes only applicable to that particular make or model, so it's a guarantee that their competitors will be using the same innovation or an equivalent. This is the beauty of the free market - even if the manufacturer chooses to pocket the whole $2,000 they will quickly be forced to give it back because of the free market, as a competitor will take advantage to be more competitive and thus capture more market share (and therefore ultimately more profit.) Compare that to a socialistic or communist system with the efficiency of one government manufacturer. That innovation probably never gets implemented since there is no profit motive; nothing particularly good happens if it works out, but something bad might happen if the innovation doesn't pan out.

Let's track our two options separately. I'll start with the "evil" option - the manufacturer pockets the $2,000 per car. Even the 0.1% eventually get tired of swimming in cash (especially cash that us plebs have touched - we're so common.) Soon, that extra profit will be disbursed. It might be in executive bonuses, stockholder dividends, improved cash holdings (i.e. banked), or invested in new ventures, equipment, or labor. Obviously the investment will be designed to maximize future profit, market share, or market diversity, all good things. But eventually all that $2,000 goes back into the economy. Maybe it gets spent immediately; maybe it gets banked at some level. The part that is banked is now available to be loaned out so that other people can afford to start businesses, buy cars or homes or tits (seriously, you can buy breast implants on credit), go to school, etc. All that drives economic activity and creates jobs. On the other hand, if the car's price drops, then consumers have more cash left and/or have to take less out of savings. If the former, they can bank the difference (see above) or buy something.

But in either case, that innovation allows us to create and have more wealth with the same amount of labor. That is exactly how we progressed from subsistence farming to today's wealthy Western civilization. Even compared to our parents and grandparents, today we have and consume a great deal more wealth. This is directly because of innovation, not government regulation and taxation.

Not everything the private market does is evil, and not everything good comes from government, dude.

 

[theeedude]

Think about it. Say a manufacturer comes up with an innovative way to cut $2,000 worth of labor from manufacture of a particular model. They can choose to pocket that $2,000 or sell the car for $2,000 less. Very, very few automobiles are built with processes only applicable to that particular make or model, so it's a guarantee that their competitors will be using the same innovation or an equivalent. This is the beauty of the free market - even if the manufacturer chooses to pocket the whole $2,000 they will quickly be forced to give it back because of the free market, as a competitor will take advantage to be more competitive and thus capture more market share (and therefore ultimately more profit.) Compare that to a socialistic or communist system with the efficiency of one government manufacturer. That innovation probably never gets implemented since there is no profit motive; nothing particularly good happens if it works out, but something bad might happen if the innovation doesn't pan out.

Let's track our two options separately. I'll start with the "evil" option - the manufacturer pockets the $2,000 per car. Even the 0.1% eventually get tired of swimming in cash (especially cash that us plebs have touched - we're so common.) Soon, that extra profit will be disbursed. It might be in executive bonuses, stockholder dividends, improved cash holdings (i.e. banked), or invested in new ventures, equipment, or labor. Obviously the investment will be designed to maximize future profit, market share, or market diversity, all good things. But eventually all that $2,000 goes back into the economy. Maybe it gets spent immediately; maybe it gets banked at some level. The part that is banked is now available to be loaned out so that other people can afford to start businesses, buy cars or homes or tits (seriously, you can buy breast implants on credit), go to school, etc. All that drives economic activity and creates jobs. On the other hand, if the car's price drops, then consumers have more cash left and/or have to take less out of savings. If the former, they can bank the difference (see above) or buy something.

But in either case, that innovation allows us to create and have more wealth with the same amount of labor. That is exactly how we progressed from subsistence farming to today's wealthy Western civilization. Even compared to our parents and grandparents, today we have and consume a great deal more wealth. This is directly because of innovation, not government regulation and taxation.

Not everything the private market does is evil, and not everything good comes from government, dude.

Supply side economics. Doesn't work and has been an unmitigated disaster for the people who supported it politically in the last 35 years. I mean the useful white middle class idiots whose life expectancy is now declining, not the "job creators."
But hey, let's keep trying. It will trickle down any time now.

 

[werepossum]

Supply side economics. Doesn't work and has been an unmitigated disaster for the people who supported it politically in the last 35 years. I mean the useful white middle class idiots whose life expectancy is now declining, not the "job creators."
But hey, let's keep trying. It will trickle down any time now.

Has nothing to do with supply side economics and everything to do with removing our protections against cheap foreign labor and lax laws protecting the environment and workers.