Jump to content

Will this California Law be Good For You?


R W Burgess

Recommended Posts

I heard about this a couple weeks ago, but have not seen anything about it on our forums. Something to think about, because what laws begin in California seem to spread to the rest of the country eventually. Check it out below, then "search" for more information.

Please support our fellow hobbists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_(2010)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne, it says there is no text associated with it, even in the search pages?

With all due respect to our California car friends, NOTHING that comes out of Sacramento can ever be good for the old car hobbyist.

EDIT: OK, finally found a link that would work. So if I read it right, Prop 23 is actually beneficial to the old car hobby? and injects some common sense into the CA legislative process?

Edited by rocketraider (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure seems strange that the powers that be on this forum will so quickly erase my reply to mr burgess's post. but they won't come forward and show me some respect by just as quickly explain why my reply was erase. my reply violated none of aaca's forum rules. if you don't want valid responses to a political question such as calif prop 23, then don't allow the original posting, with all due respect to mr burgess, charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor,poci.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silverghost

Funny Note:

A few years back the State of Pa. & Federal Government had a new "Clunker Law" here in Pa.

The local electric utility Co. PECO Energy was buying back old so-called "Clunkers" to get a Federal & State emissions credit.

So PECO could put out more emissions generating power they were buying-back so called "clunkers" and taking them off the road and crushing them to off-set their own pollution emssions.

What a stupid government law & loophole for the electric utilitys that idea was !

PECO Energy sent Dad & I several form letters offering to BUY our old Pa. registered cars~

Our Antique & Colectable Cars !

Needless to say this offer did not go over well at our house !

Edited by Silverghost (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure seems strange that the powers that be on this forum will so quickly erase my reply to mr burgess's post. but they won't come forward and show me some respect by just as quickly explain why my reply was erase. my reply violated none of aaca's forum rules.

Pontiac, I went back and tried to find your post. Evidently it got deleted when my original post was moved here in the Tech Forum. My mistake entirely, as I had planned to post a duplicate here in the Tech Forum. I did not move it fast enough and another moderator moved it for me, but regardless, it is lost.

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this California Law be Good For You?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Wrong question. Read (all) the science (in proportion), assume it matters, look at your grandchildren, and answer this question for them while you still can.

Or you can focus exclusively on self-interest. That's easier.

"Will this California Law be Good For You?" indeed.:(

(Sound of delete button clicking)

Edited by Dave@Moon (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well- looking thru the wiki at who is in opposition, I can only conclude that the usual suspects are hard at work again. And once again we are at the mercy of agenda-driven science while third-world economies eat our lunch.

I live in an area that has had double-digit unemployment for YEARS before the rest of the country experienced it (mainly thanks to NAFTA and the unrelenting attacks on and demonization of the tobacco and textile industries). Consequently I am very sensitive to anything that will either create or suppress jobs. Now, 500,000 "possible" green jobs created vs upwards of a million current jobs lost as result of "current darling" legislation does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

Before anyone starts yapping about the tobacco settlement money was used for smoking-related illness and research, I can unequivocally guarantee you it has been used for everything but. You ought to see them lining up at the 'baccer money trough.

And all the tobacco quota buyout did was complicate my tax preparation every year. It sure didn't make millionaires of all the former tobacco farmers like popular belief holds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And once again we are at the mercy of agenda-driven science...

Oh brother!:rolleyes:

This piece of steaming "proposition" amounts to a permenant repeal of California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Thus far the terrible people charged with enforcing this legislation have implemented 3 provisions under this horrible act that effect existing cars in any way ( Assembly Bill 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act ). There is a requirement that gasoline contain oxygenates (already done), that garages check vehicle's tire pressures when serviced (already done), and that R-134a containers have shut-off valves and that a recycle program for them is put in place (again, already done). That's it.

(insert photo of "evil scientist" here)

There is (as yet) no inkling of a "clunker program" anywhere in the Act, regulations, or comments re. this legislation. Given the discredit those progams have encountered in the past it's extremely unlikely that any would be tried for cars older than mid-1980s vehicles which were exempted from the Federal program last year. No program would have a chance of being successful unless it were at least as limited in scope, plus limited to vehicles from California. Thank you SEMA!:)

I remember a time when Americans had the guts to confront problems, not avoid them. Steven Colbert did not name his rally "The March to Keep Fear Alive" ( http://www.keepfearalive.com/ ) for nothing.:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, let's not get into this political speech making again. My purpose of this thread was just to make people aware of what is going on in this country that may some day affect us, and actually, California car owners today.

Read the proposed law, but discuss it between each other and not this forum, please.

Thanks,

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Dave this proposition was made for California to help it get it's feet back on the ground which also means a reasonable unemployment number. If or when California finally gets it's house in order it will be able to have the luxury of implementation of it's utopian plans which will tip the scale again and we will get another repeat. This is a classic case of maker vs. taker in my state......do away with the maker and the train will stop. It will stop. I don't see how any outher state can look at us and want to follow..but some do.

I also mentioned another hike (#4) of $18.00 for vehicle resistration to keep Ca. state parks going. Can anyone tell me why the thread was moved ? R W Burgess?

BTY these laws are not political, There is no Republican, Democrat, or and other party involved in this issue. These are laws that we need to talk about to save our way of life, our hobby, ect.

Edited by helfen (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTY these laws are not political, There is no Republican, Democrat, or and other party involved in this issue. These are laws that we need to talk about to save our way of life, our hobby, ect.

You can't brush your teeth these days without making 8 decisions that somebody, somewhere will call political. Everything is extreme. Everything is out to get somebody, and it's always you. Every "maker" is a "taker". Fear rules America. The Tea Party has a position on Climate Change for crying out loud! That's a tax protest question? :confused: It sucks.

Which leads to "saving our way of life, our hobby, etc.". In reality at worst with the Global Warming Solutions Act in California you're talking about more expensive fuel that's harder to find for older vehicles. That's not exactly rounding us up and shipping us off to the camps. :)

We all know it's coming. It has to. Having an administrative entity control the situation is probably better than the chaos that'll come with an uncontrolled collapse.

As for the other provisions of the Global Warming Solutions Act, which is what's really driving this silly proposition, the presumption of negative impact seems more than a little extreme as well. Perhaps that's to be expected when the electric utilities and other industries that will lose business (and of course jobs) are the ones pulling the strings. The businesses that stand to gain from the Act don't have strings to pull yet.

It's all a game of who gets to keep/get the strings, you and I are just the pawns.

Edited by R W Burgess
Trying to keep this reasonable! (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going downhill fast...:rolleyes:

Our plant Operations group took a course called "A Systematic Approach to Industrial Operations" several years back, and one thing I remember clearly from it was that you can eventually put enough boundaries and controls in place that you will paralyze yourself and not be able to accomplish anything. Government has not learned that yet.

Edited by rocketraider (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I see we're swinging somewhat out of control again. It's really a shame that we do not actually have a forum to discuss these things within the AACA, since they certainly are of interest to our hobby. Unfortunately, we're not ready for that yet.

As I stated previously, "Read the proposed law, but discuss it between each other and not this forum, please."

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...