Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader Obama has TRUTH SQUADS and they are coming after you 1/21/09! Be VERY afraid!

 And of course, a lot of people who do so don't even 'need' them.

I don't agree.  When I take my child to school, I see many moms driving SUV's with maybe 2-3 kids in tow.  One might speculate that the moms really don't "need" an SUV for only 3 kids, but what I also see are the dads that drop off kids are usually in sedans.  So dads give the moms the SUV to drive to haul the kids around with all their bookbags, sports equipment, etc.  But when Dad wants to haul the boat to the lake or haul off the trash,  he uses the SUV.  Can't pull a boat w/a sedan or take a family vacation with all the kids, pets, luggage in a sedan. 

My point is that most people that have SUVs really do need a vehicle such as that in the family.  Of course it would be great if they were more fuel efficient or even better for families to have 3 cars: 2 small cars to drive everyday and 1 SUV for times that you need it, but most of us can't afford to buy 3 cars and pay ins. also.

Jason, I agree that given the content of the article, the title of the post seems somewhat hyperbolic.  That said, the small-minded, self-important, ivory tower attitudes exhibited by the likes of Thomas Friedman, Joe Klein and the New York Times editorial board suggest a desire to achieve far more than "changing minds".  These people have effectively annointed themselves arbiters of what consumers can and cannot buy...in effect, they've stated that if Americans are too slow/dumb/ignorant/stubborn to accept certain "realities", it is up to pseudo-intellectual journalists to convince government to force them on everyone...and to regulate what people can and cannot drive.  In other words, give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile.  With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to conclude that their push for government control does not stop there.  So when does it stop?  Not to speak for Mark, but perhaps his headline is taking a page out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook...illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

But I must highlight something you wrote that I found a little troubling...

I see no reason not to regulate the output of wasteful vehicles just to protect the tiny percentage of people who might buy Suburbans and Expeditions and Hummers.  And of course, a lot of people who do so don't even 'need' them.

Doesn't this sound a little arbitrary?  What is your definition of a "wasteful" vehicle?  And why is it any of our business to determine who does and who does not "need" certain vehicles?  Businesses are in business to meet consumer demand.  To the extent that they don't, they fail...and those that do meet consumer demand succeed (and create jobs).  The parasitic influence of heavy government regulation (ostensibly for the "public good") only serves to force companies to build what the public doesn't want and consumers to make a choice between buying what they don't want, or buying nothing at all.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

fitzfong.blogspot.com

I agree with motherbelt on this one. The article passed on the idea of banning SUVs with little concern about its consequences and no "intellectual curiosity" about who actually buys an SUV.

Ah, so families with disabled children or elderly parents should be forced to jump through hoops to get a vehicle so that we can punish those who don't really "need" them. Nice to see you really believe in everyone having freedom of choice.

What else shall you decide I don't need? Let's ban soda since I don't need it and it leads to expensive conditions like diabetes. Let's ban electric heat since it sucks up too much power and force homeowners to start installing fireplaces again. Let's get rid of wasteful things like laundry dryers and force the plebes to invest in old timey clothes lines. But if you're diabled, you can always apply for a dryer at your local government ministry and hope that they're kind enough to accomodate.

I see no reason not to regulate

Here's you a reason off the top of my head: it's not the government's business!!!

I'm a typical white person.

You just can't keep that elitist liberal nature in check, can you Jason?

I see no reason not to regulate the output of wasteful vehicles just to protect the tiny percentage of people who might buy Suburbans and Expeditions and Hummers.  And of course, a lot of people who do so don't even 'need' them.

What will you want to regulate next, hmmm?  How big my home is, since my family doesn't have children, how many bedrooms do I get?  Do I qualify for a plasma TV?  Or must I make do with a small screen?  It's awfully hot in Florida, where may I set my thermostat in your government regulated world, Jason?

You've been living the liberal life so long that you cannot possibly even understand the absurdity of the government regulating a market as huge as the auto industry.  Think about it....they are "too big to fail", supposedly.  So if the automakers manufacture vehicles people neither want (or need!!!), what is the logical conclusion, Jason?

Liberal lies, and you're just picking on Mark's headline because the content of the NYT's piece is clearly insane.

How's your mama?
JUST KIDDING. I'm sure Nancy has been a wonderful mother to you, poor devil.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

"Cars like the Prius are undoubtedly going to gain marketshare in the coming years."

I hear this exact same prediction in the 70's about the "sub-compact" models that were offered during, and shortly after,  the "oil crisis."  What happened?  Did all the predictions come true?  Did America 'embrace the future?"  Did the sales of such cars eclipse that of bigger models?  No, just the opposite happened.  The purchased models got bigger and bigger, didn't they?

Why is that, if it was in America best interest to drive "sub-compacts" in order to secure our oil supply an protect the environment (those arguments were used in the 70 and 80's too, remember)?  Could it be that Americans like the "convenience" of being able to transport both people AND cargo in the same car, at the same time?  Could it be that Americans don't want to make SEVERAL trips to accomplish a given task when being able to make one trip is far more effective?  Could it be that Americans are not as stupid as some people believe we are?

It's obvious that, when the Government doesn't force "choices" on people through mandates, that the markets themselves  are capable of deciding what is "best" for Americans, and that Americans themselves want freedom of choice in order to decide for themselves whit is "best" for them.  If that involves choosing bigger models, then so be it. Who are YOU, or anyone else for that matter, to make those choices for us?

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

The intent of the article is obvious

You should change your name to "Deluded Liberal" or "Wrong Again"