a truck for Albert

Nah, the point is, just because you have the freedom to do something, it doesn't mean you have the sense not to.

 

Point taken but it's not really much different than automobile safety. Automakers are required to make their autos outfitted with seat belt restraints, air bags and third brake lights. That's a case of government regulations dictating what industry produces and it's benefited untold numbers of people over the years.

What do you mean who decides whom gets what? I was just saying that a private citizen that decides to buy and customize out some huge gas guzzler that gets 8-12 mpg and costs $400,000 should have to pay an extra premium tax. I never said Albert couldn't have his truck only that there should be another exorbitant expense associated with it. That's not Uncle Sam cherry picking who can or can not own one. It's just throwing up a financial hurdle that anyone that is seriously in the market for this type of vehicle can clear.

On the Hummer I was advocating revisions of the tax code that repeals the tax credit awarded to those that buy the Hummer. Most every SUV wouldn't qualify but a Hummer is heavy enough. The Government should not be in the business of making environmentally unfriendly vehicles easier to obtain. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with a tax credit that makes an alternative fuel or hybrid vehicle more affordable. Society would reap a benefit by that. Not so with the soccer mom's hummer. I just think the tax credit for heavy vehicles has been abused. It's intent was for farmers who require heavy trucks to make a living.

Again... I'm not saying the Hummer or the F-750 passenger vehicles should be banned. This whole allusion to socialism and the revocation freedom of choice is a bunch of hooey man. If the environment is going to get screwed by thousands of Hummers taking commuters hundreds of miles each day then those responsible for the excessive use of fuel and added pollution should have to pay to play.

Not paying to play is a much more slippery slope.

 

:ha:

:rotfl:

HEY! Guess who invented the Hummer?

 

don't laugh. The Hummer H1 was and is an absolute necessity to the armed services. I have no qualms with fire departments, the coast guard or forest rangers having use specific equipped heavy vehicles. That is what they are for. They shouldn't be used as everyday passenger cars. There are simply way too many passenger cars out there already... just making cars that use three or four times the amount of fuel and produce three or four times the amount pollution is clearly just not being a good steward of the earth. In these uncertain times when energy costs are so high and wars are being fought abroad in part because of the perceived energy crisis conservation should be our frame of mind.

It is irresponsible of industry to design and market a production passenger car that is so wasteful. What the Pentagon needs the Pentagon gets. I am not crawling up the military's *** here. Our infantry units need light armored vehicles and the mobility the hummer provides in a war theater not only wins battles but it saves lives.

My arguments against the Hummer have been very consistent. Battlefield deployment is use specific. Nice try John.

 

Right. I see your point that a clearly eco-disasterous design should not be released for public consumption. But since that already happened, don't expect the government to actually enforce any sort of regulations that clearly state "do as I say, not as I do". If a consumer version can be more eco-friendly, then a military issue version can be too, and the people will take them to task for it. I hope, anyway.

 

Military version doesn't need to be. I am in no way advocating the military revise it's design. They are repelacing the thing with something else anyway. The vehicle was designed for military use after all. The civilian passenger vehicle just shouldn't have been allowed to go.. However, all I have really suggested aside from stricter fuel standards is repealing the tax break granted to those who choose to buy the Hummer. If you bought a new Ford Focus would your tax liability decrease? Why should it if you buy a Hummer? That's my main point. The Government should step in and dictate stricter standards for fuel economy when it comes to passenger cars. They already exist. I just don't think they are stringent enough if the Hummer cuts the mustard.

 

Why is it so difficult to understand? Just because you can buy something doesn't mean you should. Vehicles like this are needed in military and service industries. Not hard to understand either. Joe somebody does not need one of these in his garage with a PS3 in it. Do we need laws to keep people from buying these? Yes. Should there actually be laws against vehicles like this? No. Some of you just don't get it and I guess never will. The government should give tax breaks and R&D grants to companies who toss crap like this out. No laws are needed money talks. In the end nothing will change until consumers demand it and until a fair share of those consumers pull their head out of ... well you know. Pay attention! No laws. Just common sense. Everyone has a choice for now. Make the right one.

 

Come to think of it it's probably going to be a self resolving issue. Not too many people are stupid and/or rich enough to buy those things in the first place. I'd be really concerned if every 3rd or 4th vehicle on the road was one. Maybe there aren't really enough of them to be that big of a deal. Eventually due to lack of popularity among consumers, rising fuel prices and hopefully some government pressure GM will have to raise the price of the thing or quit producing it. I bet emission standards & enforcement on the regular cars and trucks that are already out there on the road would have a greater impact on air quality and greenhouse gases than the absence of the Hummer line. My county, Hamilton, started emissions testing a couple of years ago. I like to think it's helped Chattanooga's air. I still always like to laugh and point at the drivers of Hummers.

 

FWIW, a contractor (former customer of mine) had a heart attack when gas went to $3.00/gal. and traded his Hummer back to the dealer. The reason he had one in the first place was to give himself a successful image to potential customers, hoping to increase business. He lived at the entrance to a development that he was building in.
He basically successful-imaged himself into bankruptcy. At lunchtime, I'd sometimes see him in a restaurant bar, trying to drink his nerves away. Then he'd get out this huge folder full of credit cards, and the barmaid would have to go through swiping each one until she hit on one that cleared :sad2:

So, there's some justice for you.

 

You have stumbled upon one of pet peves Bi, the Marta testing as it is known in Middle Tn. A good example of a possible good idea gone wrong. Look at your little form that comes in the mail I will list the vehicles that are exempt, notice that older vehicles are exempt. They are in truth the only ones that would create a problem as that the newer vehicles with computers would in all likelyhood not even start if they emissions systems were so faulty as to go beyond the perscribed levels of emisssions. It is just another greenie weenie tax that doesn't do anything but take more of my $$$ and make you feel better.