The EPA Wants More Regulations On Truckers

18 wheelers

LonelyConservative-

President Obama’s EPA is at it again, proposing costly new regulations that will drive up the cost of everything for everyone. This time it’s regulations on truckers.

The Obama administration on Friday proposed tough new standards to improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide pollution from trucks and vans, the latest move by President Barack Obama to address global warming.

The new rules are designed to slash heat-trapping carbon emissions by 24 percent by 2027 while reducing oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the rule.

Oh sure, right, this is just great news, unless you happen to be one of those people who buy things shipped on trucks.

more

44 Comments on The EPA Wants More Regulations On Truckers

  1. Trucker strike.

    IRS tax strike.

    Coal-fired powerplant strike.

    You see, we have had the answers all along, we just lack the resolve or the willingness to suffer a little bit in the short-term.

    Nah….we’d rather suffer more in the long-term by looking the other way and putting up with the power elite and their incessant bullshit.




    0
  2. I’m not sure a Tax Strike is a viable option anymore. Hell, they’ll just print up what they need. Our dollar does not seem to be tied to anything, and they’re printing the crap out of it now.




    0
  3. Yup. This administration is doing everything it can to fundamentally change America.

    Into a third-world country.

    Thanks barry.




    0
  4. and as soon as most of the white, male, christian, heterosexual, legal citizen truckers are wiped out, then they’ll open the floodgates so even more third world filth can do jobs Muricans just won’t do




    0
  5. I like the idea of a solar road. At least if the money is going to get evaporated, might as well make something of it. It improves safety, provides energy, communications, and best of all TSA could watch you relentlessly. Inroads to oil is what 2.5% (ex nuclear) of global production for renewables? A common sense approach is exactly what won’t happen until the blessings of oil really start to fade, in about 20-30 years, until we find another huge reserve of a half trillion barrels then we’re set for the game to keep playing. I like oil more, it is a true blessing that is renewable because we keep finding more!!!




    0
  6. If they really wanted to make America better, they’d pear the EPA down to about 10% and repeal the EPA’s ability to mandate radical changes without a vote from Congress.




    0
  7. The BASTARDS at the EPA just drove up the cost of everything (all goods and services of any kind) delivered by trucks. Sometimes I wonder if I’ll even have a job delivering flowers or anything else in a few years, I really don’t friggin know what’s going to happen. It’s probably a good thing I’m almost at retirement age but even then I don’t know. I’m more concerned for my kids and those younger than myself than I am about my own welfare because I can take care of myself.




    0
  8. “The EPA Wants More Regulations On Truckers”

    And I want more regulation (actually strangulation) of the EPA.

    Wait…isn’t the Constitution supposed to be doing that? Where’s “protecting the environment” in that exclusive list of enumerated powers?

    Well, a constitution as “govt control” sure hasn’t worked worth a damn, has it?




    0
  9. Tsunami, you must be a realitively young man or have a memory issue.

    The EPA, thanks to the Nixon admin, has reduced 60% of the dangerous air pollutants that, if you recall in th 60s, gave us smog, acid rain, lead poisoning , etc. Today, new cars are 98 percent cleaner than in the 70s.

    Remember when rivers burned?

    Remember the old venturi carbs sloshing gas in the cylinders? You had to change your oil every 2k miles, your points and plugs every 5k, and then did well to get 100k out of your engine. Ain’t that way no more.

    Sixty-percent more Americans were served by publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities from 1968 to 2008.

    Analysis shows that in 2010, Clean Air Act fine particle (soot) and ozone (smog) programs implemented since the 1990 Amendments will have prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths.

    But then, today’s so-called conservatives aren’t really that keen on lives when it comes costing their corporate bosses a few coins.

    Some of the above figures were copied and pasted btw because, well, why waste time on deaf ears and the blind?




    0
  10. RJW. Did you see rivers burning? Was the paint ever etched off your VW Bug from acid rain? If you answer yes to any of the above you are lying. Indocranation is a terrible thing. Don’t trust the MAN. Even if he’s a lying liberal.




    0
  11. And for all the good that you can point to that the EPA has done, it has all been erased with the declaration that CO2 is a poison that needs to be regulated.

    That’s what you get when you hand power over to the government, particularly left-wing government.
    The AGW crowd, in case you haven’t been paying attention, has been slowly shifting their argument over to, “hey, even if we’re wrong about AGW we’ll still have cleaner air!”
    People like that should be blindfolded against a wall.




    0
  12. Science will be twisted, logic is void. Just make it fit the narrative. And old hippies like RJW just slurp it up, regurgitate, and spew shit that now has to be fact because it’s been repeated so many times.




    0
  13. “Remember the old venturi carbs sloshing gas in the cylinders? You had to change your oil every 2k miles, your points and plugs every 5k, and then did well to get 100k out of your engine. Ain’t that way no more.”

    Agreed, in addition, I always hated having to repair my wooden covered wagon wheels while traveling across Oklahoma, all the while watching for renegade injuns…THANK YOU EPA!




    0
  14. @RJW – Your argument depends on the premise that without the EPA there would not have been any improvement in air or water quality. That is not, and cannot be, a fact in evidence, nor can we say what the opportunity costs were of alternate uses for the huge expenditures of both private and govt wealth on inefficient EPA programs.

    So go piss up a rope, and make sure you don’t pollute any Clean Water Act protected mud puddles in the process.




    0
  15. @BigFurHat – Nixon removed the last link between the dollar and its gold underpinnings. He did that unilaterally; no congressional authorization sought. That is why Nixon was a horrible president (that plus accepting Agnew as running mate).




    0
  16. The best and only true EPA we have are farmers, sportsmen, hunters, and people that live off the land. They truley put the earth first. Kick me in the ass, I want to add the Amercan Indian to that list. Not all, but most.




    0
  17. lol Like anyone that claims to be a “pro-life pro-2a Democrat” has anything valuable to contribute. You’re either too dumb to realize you vote against your own conscience – or you’re a big fat liar that will say anything.

    I nominate you for Mr Intellectually Dishonest Man of the year.




    0
  18. I do recall Nixon cheering the predominantly conservative appointed Berger Court for Roe v Wade saying “there are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white or a rape.” and that a teenager who “gets knocked up” would be able to get an abortion for “five dollars.” And there was his justification for it for curtailing those ” little black bastards”.

    So, we have the Republican court and Nixon to thank for abortion.




    0
  19. I’ll reiterate that I am indeed a pro-life democrat. I am also anti-abortion.

    Today’s so-called conservatives claim to be that but many are not at all. Granted, they may be anti-abortion but they are not pro-life.




    0
  20. Ron Ward, no one wants to go back to the days you describe. But the EPA has fulfilled their mission and has gone from saving our environment to destroying our economy. They’ve outlived their usefulness. Time to shut them down.




    0
  21. I could agree that they could be stripped of a great deal of power and that they themselves could be better regulated but this talk of just “shutting them down ” with no replacement is just silly.

    Your admission that they served a purpose defeats your very argument. I mean, you think corporations have changed their evil ways, that they now see the light, that they are now more protective of people and the environment?

    The arguments of today’s plutocratic and social Darwinism genuflecters make no sense.




    0
  22. Ronnie, Didn’t Ivread you were pro gun? I’m taking a Force on Force tune up with my go to pistol instructor. She’s, well she’s not attracted to men. But she’s the best damn pistol instructor I’ve ever met. We need some bonding, some eye to eye soul searching. You get out here I’ll pay for the course. Oh yea she hates liberals so keep that on the QT. It’s a brave new world isn’t it. Not kidding about the pistol course.




    0
  23. They are used as a weapon by liberal idiots. They serve no purpose. You seem more intelegent than your average lib. Do your own fucking research. Just respect the truth.




    0
  24. Again, another silly argument that doesn’t stand to scrutiny.

    The problem with leaving the EPA up to individual states is that you need consistent regs as pollutants are airborne and travel by water.

    Lets say for example that KY, IN, and MO maintained simular fed guidelines but OH chose to have very laxed or even no rules at all.
    So we have corporations dumping raw toxins in the the Ohio River in Cincinnati. These toxins travel and are consumed in Louisville KY and then Evansville IN and then ST Louis MO and then…. And this same problem would exist in bellowing smoke stacks or poorly efficient autombiles.

    Now, I can foresee the elementry snide insults from the kings and queens of claptrap here but I don’t expect anywhere near an intelligent rebuttal on how giving individual states this power is advantageous for the country. It’s simply another silly argument that you can’t back up with reason.




    0
  25. So how does it feel to contribute to over 50 million deaths of innocent Americans?

    It’s outrageously laughable you express a feeling of superiority saying conservatives don’t care about the lives of others and then vote to keep killing the most vulnerable of innocents.

    No one with integrity could vote Dem if they are truly pro life.

    You are intellectually dishonest.




    0
  26. Republicans or conservatives or tea bags or whatever in the hell that they are today only care about peoples lives at the whims of their corporate bosses who pull their puppet strings.

    I, on the other hand, am pro-life on every front.

    Granted, the 1973 Roe v Wade brought to us by a predominantly Republican appointed Berger SCOTUS is certainly not a pro-life law on any level, you only get to vote for one of two parties on election day.

    I simply can’t see myself electing some reverse Robin Hood plutocrat. The numbers and the justifications just don’t add up.




    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!