Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71
  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by txgp17 View Post
    The part you're leaving out of the comparison is fuel chemistry & emissions. The old Impala was designed to run on leaded gasoline, the Taurus wasn't, plus the overall emissions from the Taurus are unquestionably lower.

    I used to drive a 1991 Honda Accord with a 4-cylinder & 5-speed. It ran great on 87 octane, got 30-ish MPG's, was comfortable, reliable, cheap to maintain, and would haul butt if you could shift it properly.

    Automobile tech has advanced drastically. Whether or not we choose to purchase a vehicle using all those advances is another issue.

    Right now I own a 72' Blazer & a 99' GMC K-3500.
    Both have 5.7 V8's.
    Both have automatics, but despite the 99's overdrive capability, it only gets about 1 more MPG. But it has way more power, requires far less maintenance, and runs much cleaner.
    Yes, but the old Impala took 1 gallon to go 25 miles, the Taurus needs the same gallon. The engine in my car neither creates nor destroys matter. Hence for every gallon that goes into the engine 1 gallon comes out the exhaust. And now that CO2 is considered a pollutant, there is just as much pollution coming out the exhaust now as there was then.


  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Like usual, you have trouble including the full story and have trouble getting your facts straight. I read the story at your link and the only "age" restriction noted was for cars older than 25 years. Additionally, the new vehicle must get at least 10mpg better in order to get a $4500 subsidy, however you can get a $3500 subsidy for a 4mpg improvement.

    By the way, I know a lot of people driving SUVs that aren't anywhere close to being "rich".

    "Clunkers eligible for the program must get 18 miles per gallon, or less, in combined city and highway driving. The subsidy ends up benefiting more owners of light trucks, SUVs and mini-vans more than it would owners of regular old passenger cars, auto experts say.

    A $3,500 subsidy can be used toward purchasing cars and vans that are more fuel efficient than the older clunkers by four miles per gallon. A $4,500 subsidy can be used toward purchasing cars and vans that are more fuel efficient than older cars by 10 miles per gallon.

    However, cars that have not been insured for the past year or those that are older than 25 years are not eligible to be traded in for vouchers."
    There is a video that loads in the middle of the column. It clearly states the cars must be 8 years old.

    And yes, I know a lot of people driving SUVs who aren't rich either. They wouldn't be driving the old cluncker if they had the money to buy a new one. The only people who will be able to take advantage of this program are the ones who have the money to buy a new car; which clearly is not the poor
    Last edited by ScareCrow57; 06-11-2009 at 05:40 AM.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by txgp17 View Post
    You are a boldfaced liar. That article reads:

    "The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017..."

    It's an estimate of two separate wars 8 years into the future. At least you're consistent with your propaganda.

    Only two things are infinite, the universe and your stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

    Libtard, what do God and Hussein have in common?
    Neither has a birth certificate.
    You are right about the stupidity part.

    It also includes the interest.

    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday."

    Now how can they say that the interest only applies to the war? Maybe the war money is not borrowed and the money going to social programs is borrowed. And here is a funny thing. I wrote a letter to the editor of a very liberal paper using that 3 trillion dollar number. They asked for the source and when I went looking I found the only places using that number were liberal blogs like the Huffers at Huffington Post.

    Here is the thing the liberals cannot comprehend. They claim domestic spending like the 700 billion in Stimulus funds is good for the economy. Nearly every dollar spent on the military is domestic spending, something about a buy American act. So if 700 billion is good for the economy, then 3 trillion is 4 times better.

  4. #24
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idiotboy
    You are right about the stupidity part.

    It also includes the interest.
    idiotboy continues to prove why he was outwitted by a credit card agreement.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    idiotboy continues to prove why he was outwitted by a credit card agreement.
    And you continue to prove that you can't cay anything intelligent so you just say something. Ever hear that saying it is better to be thought a fool than to remove the doubt by opening your mouth. You should just be quiet.

  6. #26
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    And yes, I know a lot of people driving SUVs who aren't rich either.
    Then maybe you should've refrained from that comment?

    The only people who will be able to take advantage of this program are the ones who have the money to buy a new car; which clearly is not the poor
    No kidding. Even without this program, the ones who have the money to buy a new car would be the ones buying new cars. What this program might do is exactly what it's designed to do - sell cars to people who otherwise not buy one right now.

    My vehicles are too new to qualify for this program, but if we take the mpg aspect of the program out of the discussion.........

    My wife's car is 6 years old and still runs great. We still have 2.5 years to go until my truck's paid off. So right now we have no intention of purchasing a vehicle since 1) we really don't need to and 2) taking on another full car payment would make things too tight financially for the next 2.5 years.

    However, if we could get a $5000 stipend towards the purchase of a new vehicle and still be able to get the dealer incentives and a good trade value for her car like normal, then we'd already have been out shopping for a new car. I'm sure we wouldn't be the only ones doing so.

    Personnally, I think this would be a better way to help out GM and Chrysler than just giving them cash.

  7. #27
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    And you continue to prove that you can't cay anything intelligent so you just say something. Ever hear that saying it is better to be thought a fool than to remove the doubt by opening your mouth. You should just be quiet.
    Heed your own advice, strawbrains.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  8. #28
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idiotboy
    And you continue to prove that you can't cay anything intelligent so you just say something. Ever hear that saying it is better to be thought a fool than to remove the doubt by opening your mouth. You should just be quiet.
    You don't deny my point.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Then maybe you should've refrained from that comment?


    No kidding. Even without this program, the ones who have the money to buy a new car would be the ones buying new cars. What this program might do is exactly what it's designed to do - sell cars to people who otherwise not buy one right now.

    My vehicles are too new to qualify for this program, but if we take the mpg aspect of the program out of the discussion.........

    My wife's car is 6 years old and still runs great. We still have 2.5 years to go until my truck's paid off. So right now we have no intention of purchasing a vehicle since 1) we really don't need to and 2) taking on another full car payment would make things too tight financially for the next 2.5 years.

    However, if we could get a $5000 stipend towards the purchase of a new vehicle and still be able to get the dealer incentives and a good trade value for her car like normal, then we'd already have been out shopping for a new car. I'm sure we wouldn't be the only ones doing so.

    Personnally, I think this would be a better way to help out GM and Chrysler than just giving them cash.
    Here is a good Q&A on USATODAT about the whole plan. Q&A: How the 'cash-for-clunker' plan would work
    For standard-duty models ó most SUVs, vans and pickups:

    1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.

    2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.

    For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):

    1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.

    2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.

    Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don't have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.
    Interestingly, I haven't found anywhere that says the vehicle must be American Made. Which in mind is a major mistake if that language is not there. How about rather than giving $5,000 to the rich who can afford the cars we go around to some of these people barely getting buy with their 1980 S-10 pickup truck with the floor rotting out and replace those. Or better yet, let's cut the income taxes on working people so they can afford these things on their own and don't have to depend on some government bureaucrat to help them.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    You don't deny my point.
    You don't make any.

  11. #31
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Here is a good Q&A on USATODAT about the whole plan. Q&A: How the 'cash-for-clunker' plan would work

    Interestingly, I haven't found anywhere that says the vehicle must be American Made. Which in mind is a major mistake if that language is not there. How about rather than giving $5,000 to the rich who can afford the cars we go around to some of these people barely getting buy with their 1980 S-10 pickup truck with the floor rotting out and replace those. Or better yet, let's cut the income taxes on working people so they can afford these things on their own and don't have to depend on some government bureaucrat to help them.
    So, I find it interesting that with each post, it seems that the requirements of this program keep changing.

    I also find it interesting that you're complaining about how this program will (primarily) benefit the "rich" since they can afford to buy new vehicles. This is interesting since one of the requirements is supposedly that the vehicle being replaced must be at least 8 years old. So how many "rich" people do you know that are driving around in >8 year old vehicles that aren't a "collector car" or something similar?

    I don't hang out with many "rich" people, but in my observations, they tend to have newer vehicles. Heck, I'm well away from being "rich", but as I already mentioned, both our vehicles are newer than 8 years. So I'm a little confused how this will predominately benefit the "rich".

  12. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    So, I find it interesting that with each post, it seems that the requirements of this program keep changing.

    I also find it interesting that you're complaining about how this program will (primarily) benefit the "rich" since they can afford to buy new vehicles. This is interesting since one of the requirements is supposedly that the vehicle being replaced must be at least 8 years old. So how many "rich" people do you know that are driving around in >8 year old vehicles that aren't a "collector car" or something similar?

    I don't hang out with many "rich" people, but in my observations, they tend to have newer vehicles. Heck, I'm well away from being "rich", but as I already mentioned, both our vehicles are newer than 8 years. So I'm a little confused how this will predominately benefit the "rich".
    I'm not changing the requirements, it seems new info comes to light as you dig deeper. Far be it for our government to inform the public. I wish we could get a real leader who would stand up and stop the giveaways.

    Most people driving around in a 8 year old vehicle are doing so becuase they cannot afford a new one. Perhaps $5,000 will prompt a few to trade in their 8 MPG SUV for the newer 10 MPG SUV. And then the 8 MPG SUV will simply be resold and back on the road again. And rest assured, once the dealer sees the trade and knows the program, you will pay more for the vehicle.

  13. #33
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    I'm not changing the requirements, it seems new info comes to light as you dig deeper. Far be it for our government to inform the public. I wish we could get a real leader who would stand up and stop the giveaways.
    I didn't say that you changed them. It just kind of seemed like you didn't look into this very well before posting it.

    Most people driving around in a 8 year old vehicle are doing so becuase they cannot afford a new one. Perhaps $5,000 will prompt a few to trade in their 8 MPG SUV for the newer 10 MPG SUV. And then the 8 MPG SUV will simply be resold and back on the road again.
    I agree that the end result may not achieve the "fuel savings" that they may be looking for, but if it gets the vehicle inventories off the lot and onto the street, then it still could be a good thing. If the cars that are already built get sold, then the manufacturers & dealers make money, more cars will need built and hopefully keep people working or called back off layoffs.

    And rest assured, once the dealer sees the trade and knows the program, you will pay more for the vehicle.
    They may try this, but I wouldn't be paying more. I'd walk away if they couldn't get me the right deal.

  14. #34
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,577

    Default

    Posted by scarecrow
    Most people driving around in a 8 year old vehicle are doing so becuase they cannot afford a new one. Perhaps $5,000 will prompt a few to trade in their 8 MPG SUV for the newer 10 MPG SUV. And then the 8 MPG SUV will simply be resold and back on the road again.
    If you read the proposal, (which I know you didn't) cars taken in for the "cash for clunkers" program are to be crushed.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  15. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    Posted by scarecrow


    If you read the proposal, (which I know you didn't) cars taken in for the "cash for clunkers" program are to be crushed.
    I haven't seen the proposal, just what the MSM is reporting. Do the rebates only go for American cars?

  16. #36
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    I haven't seen the proposal, just what the MSM is reporting. Do the rebates only go for American cars?
    You post this......"What a piece of TRASH legislation. Who is driving around in gas guzzling SUVs? The rich who can afford them that is who. What idiots. Who is the knucklehead that came up with this one?".....and other stuff ranting about this program and you haven't even seen the proposal yet.

    Thanks for a good laugh.

  17. #37
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    House OKs $4 billion 'cash for clunkers'

    What a piece of TRASH legislation. Who is driving around in gas guzzling SUVs? The rich who can afford them that is who. What idiots. Who is the knucklehead that came up with this one?
    It's yet another example of the lack of economic knowledge in Congress. Yet again the tax law is being twisted to encourage people to engage in economic activity that is not in their best interest. Much like the "first time homebuyers' credit", it will mostly reward people who were planning to buy a car anyway this year while sinking the nation further into debt.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  18. #38
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I don't hang out with many "rich" people, but in my observations, they tend to have newer vehicles. Heck, I'm well away from being "rich", but as I already mentioned, both our vehicles are newer than 8 years. So I'm a little confused how this will predominately benefit the "rich".
    I don't hang out with too many rich people either, but I have read about them. Surprisingly, most millionaires DO drive old cars. The recognize that a car is a depreciating asset, so they don't sink money into them unnecessarily. They also tend to live in houses that cost well below what they could theoretically afford. In short, most rich people actually get rich and stay rich by living well below their means.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  19. #39
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods View Post
    Wrong Answer. In Europe and the British Isles, the Government dictated that Rail would carry a great percentage of Travelers. Period. Government, by action or lack thereof, dictates Transportation Policy. Here, Every Administration since Eisenhower's has been absolutely "Highways First", "Airways Second" and Rail/Water gets the crumbs from the bottom of the box. We could accomodate a lot more Passenger Rail in the U.S. but someone has to pay for it. In Europe, most Rail Systems are Government backed, if not outright Government agencies. Here, Railroads struggle to move ahead with plans to improve service, in Europe the government pays the bill. America doesn't have the Rail Service that it should have, because no one wants to do anything to get it started.
    Umm...passenger service here in the USA is actually a government-owned company: Amtrak. The private rail companies handle cargo, the federally-owned company handles passengers. And, no surprise, guess which one is the least profitable?
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  20. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    You post this......"What a piece of TRASH legislation. Who is driving around in gas guzzling SUVs? The rich who can afford them that is who. What idiots. Who is the knucklehead that came up with this one?".....and other stuff ranting about this program and you haven't even seen the proposal yet.

    Thanks for a good laugh.
    Well please tell me how many pieces of legislation you have read.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sign of things to come for Democrats
    By ScareCrow57 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-19-2009, 12:17 PM
  2. Something The Democrats can be proud of
    By ScareCrow57 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 03:24 PM
  3. Why Democrats Don't Want Lower Gas Prices
    By dragonfyre in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-02-2008, 01:16 PM
  4. Democrats changing their symbol!!
    By Farley in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 11:19 AM
  5. Hoses- Taking care of them so we can take care of business.
    By ssabados in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-03-2003, 07:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts