1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    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.

  2. #27
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    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

  3. #28
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    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."

  4. #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 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.

  5. #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.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    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".

  7. #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.

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    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.

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    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

  10. #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?

  11. #36
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    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.

  12. #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).

  13. #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).

  14. #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).

  15. #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.

  16. #41
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    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?
    Yes, and guess what, there was a derailment between Albany and NYC a day or so ago and that was the end of the rail service.

    Another difference with Europe is that getting a license is very expensive, gasoline is very expensive, and owning a car is expensive. Over there you will see a lot of mopeds.

  17. #42
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Well please tell me how many pieces of legislation you have read.

    Apparently.. one more than you did!
    ‎"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

  18. #43
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Well please tell me how many pieces of legislation you have read.
    I have no idea what the number is, but I've read/skimmed thru at least 2-3 pieces of state legislation this month.

    The number of pieces of legislation that I've read is irrelevant to this discussion since I'm not the one ranting about how bad a specific piece of legislation is, despite having not actually read it.

  19. #44
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Found this web site with info on the bill

    Cash for Clunkers

    Apparently there is only 1 Billion and it is part of a WAR TIME Spending bill.

    The actual language of the bill appears to be unavailable

  20. #45
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Found this web site with info on the bill

    Cash for Clunkers

    Apparently there is only 1 Billion and it is part of a WAR TIME Spending bill.

    The actual language of the bill appears to be unavailable
    For bitching so much you sure don't spend a lot of time researching what you are bitching about

    I clicked on your link and saw that the bill in question would be House Resolution 2751, and did a simple search for that.

    Here you go

    I don't have a problem with people bitching about stuff they don't agree with. But at least spend some effort to learn more about what you are bitching about. Read the bill to see what it says, instead of repeating what the news people are telling you what it says.

    I can assure you that FoxNews and CNN both have different interpretation of the bill thats why you gotta go to the source.

    PS: It took me a lot longer to type this response than it took me to find the actual text of the bill.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  21. #46
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    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?
    Just to demonstrate the issue with facts (darn, pesky facts):
    Amtrak, a government-run company, had $2.45 billion in revenue, yet needed $1.3 billion in federal money because it lost money (again).

    BNSF, a private company, made $2 billion+ on roughly $18 billion in revenue.

    I can't find a year when Amtrak made a profit. Many analysts blame this partially on government oversight...Congress makes the decisions based on votes, not the business based on economics. Yet again, more proof that government does not understand economics and cannot perform private sector roles better than the private sector.
    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).

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Just to demonstrate the issue with facts (darn, pesky facts):
    Amtrak, a government-run company, had $2.45 billion in revenue, yet needed $1.3 billion in federal money because it lost money (again).

    BNSF, a private company, made $2 billion+ on roughly $18 billion in revenue.

    I can't find a year when Amtrak made a profit. Many analysts blame this partially on government oversight...Congress makes the decisions based on votes, not the business based on economics. Yet again, more proof that government does not understand economics and cannot perform private sector roles better than the private sector.
    Up in Canada, passenger train travel is bloody near non existent. There basically is none in Western Canada except for Via Rail transcontinental run. I've had a lot of experience in Europe of passenger transit. In my home in Ukraine, my wife and I can travel from home to Kiev in 3 hrs, (300km) for 55 Hryvnia, about $8. Its much more simple than driving up and trying to find parking. In nearly any city of any size, they have electric trams, electric buses and diesel buses. Transport is ridiculously cheap. In addition, they sell licenses to private contractors for Mashrutkas These are 15 to 18 passenger vans that travel a set route about 16 hrs a day. Cost is 2 Hryvnia to go about 10 km. These are not subsidized at all. This all came about because 20 years ago, nobody could afford or were not allowed a car so public transport was the only way. At a guess, probably 80% of Ukraines people use public transport for all their travel needs.

  23. #48
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    For bitching so much you sure don't spend a lot of time researching what you are bitching about

    I clicked on your link and saw that the bill in question would be House Resolution 2751, and did a simple search for that.

    Here you go

    I don't have a problem with people bitching about stuff they don't agree with. But at least spend some effort to learn more about what you are bitching about. Read the bill to see what it says, instead of repeating what the news people are telling you what it says.

    I can assure you that FoxNews and CNN both have different interpretation of the bill thats why you gotta go to the source.

    PS: It took me a lot longer to type this response than it took me to find the actual text of the bill.
    Thanks, I didn't look at the second update. Having scanned the bill (meaning I didn't study it) it is absolute garbage. The vehicle will be scrapped. So if the vehicle is worth more than $4,500 the program will cost money. I did a quick search, SUVs, Trucks, etc are going for a lot more than the $4,500 you might get. For instance, a 2000 Ford Excursion 20,000

  24. #49
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Just to demonstrate the issue with facts (darn, pesky facts):
    Amtrak, a government-run company, had $2.45 billion in revenue, yet needed $1.3 billion in federal money because it lost money (again).

    BNSF, a private company, made $2 billion+ on roughly $18 billion in revenue.

    I can't find a year when Amtrak made a profit. Many analysts blame this partially on government oversight...Congress makes the decisions based on votes, not the business based on economics. Yet again, more proof that government does not understand economics and cannot perform private sector roles better than the private sector.
    Around here, we have a bus route that is serviced by the Public transportation system as well as a private provider. The private provider is $37 per week ($55 for a 10 ride pass). The public provider charges $1 per trip, $20 for a week. What that means is the government is subsidizing $17 per week. I take the bus during the week to avoid paying for parking in Beautiful downtown Albany. Nights and weekends there is no charge for parking. Just another way the working class gets screwed.

  25. #50
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Thanks, I didn't look at the second update. Having scanned the bill (meaning I didn't study it) it is absolute garbage. The vehicle will be scrapped. So if the vehicle is worth more than $4,500 the program will cost money.
    The program won't "cost" any more regardless of the value of the vehicle being disposed of. Now, if the dealers won't be giving a trade allowance if they aren't going to be able to resell the vehicle being traded, then that would make the program less attractive.

    So, if your vehicle is worth more than $4500 as a trade and you won't get anything for it under this program, then you'd have to be an idiot to use the program to buy a new vehicle.



    I did a quick search, SUVs, Trucks, etc are going for a lot more than the $4,500 you might get. For instance, a 2000 Ford Excursion 20,000
    All new vehicles are going for a lot more than $4500 these days. The program isn't designed to allow you to get a "free" vehicle, it's designed to lower the overall purchase cost.

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, 01:17 PM
  2. Something The Democrats can be proud of
    By ScareCrow57 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 04:24 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, 02:16 PM
  4. Democrats changing their symbol!!
    By Farley in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 12:19 PM
  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, 08:32 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register