Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 71
  1. #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.


  2. #42
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,583

    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

  3. #43
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    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.

  4. #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

  5. #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

  6. #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).

  7. #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.

  8. #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

  9. #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.

  10. #50
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    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.

  11. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    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.

    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.
    (2) DISPOSITION OF ELIGIBLE TRADE-IN VEHICLES-

    (A) IN GENERAL- For each eligible trade-in vehicle surrendered to a dealer under the Program, the dealer shall certify to the Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by rule, that the dealer--

    (i) will arrange for the vehicle's title to be transferred to the United States and will accept possession of the vehicle on behalf of the United States;

    (ii) has not and will not sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the vehicle for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country; and

    (iii) will transfer, on behalf of the United States, the vehicle (including the engine block) and the vehicle's title, in such manner as the Secretary prescribes, to an entity that will ensure that the vehicle--

    (I) will be crushed or shredded within such period and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes; and

    (II) has not been, and will not be, sold, leased, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country.
    You get it exactly. It's a stupid program.

  12. #52
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    You get it exactly. It's a stupid program.
    Sure I get it. However, the concept isn't necessarily stupid. It just needs better execution to be more effective.

    Like I said earlier, give me this stipend AND the trade-in value of my wife's car and we'll seriously look at buying a new car. Even if it's only available for US cars, we'll take a look. I'm sure others will follow.

    Otherwise, we won't be looking for at least another 3 years.

    It's kind of a win-win situation. The consumer gets a great deal on a new car and essentially a "refund" of their tax dollars. The car manufacturers/dealers get to move their inventory and make some money, which hopefully in turn prompts the production of more cars and keeping/getting people working. Maybe if the cycle repeats itself a few times, the car manufacturers are back on their feet.

    It may not be an ideal use of tax payer money, but I think it's much better than just handing over a pile of cash to GM, Chrysler, etc.

  13. #53
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Instead of giving $$$ to the Big 3 which might save them, we are giving $$$ to the people to buy the cars from the Big 3.

    The hope is that this will get inventory moving, the money will then go to the dealerships, then a portion to the Big 3, and I will have a newer car.

    It is really no different that the $8,000 for a new house, or sending everybody a check in the mail last year to spend and get inventory moving.

    Will it work, who knows? Time will tell...until then I am glad I paid of most of my debt last year.

    My biggest concern is that some people who own a car that is paid off will look at this and think that they NEED a new car and now is the perfect time to get one.

    Now they have a new car with a new car payment to go along with it and if something happens they will have a car in repo, debt collection calling, and the now "used" car is back at the dealer's lot waiting to be sold.

    There is a reason most "rich" people drive old paid off cars. You can pay $5,000 for a $5,000 used car. Or you can finance a car $15,000 for 5 years and pay $20,000 for a car that is worth $10,000 when you are done paying for it.
    Last edited by MarcusKspn; 06-15-2009 at 10:26 AM.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  14. #54
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Sure I get it. However, the concept isn't necessarily stupid. It just needs better execution to be more effective.
    You really believe the government should be giving money to people to make them buy things they normally would not buy? Why not give rebates to buy compact fluroscent lights? Or cigarettes? Or American made underwear and socks? Do you see where this goes? The government is artificially influencing how you spend your dollars, suggesting it is better for you to buy a car you may not need rather than spend money with your mechanic getting it fixed. Or donating the car to a church so it can be given to a family in need. Instead, the government wants to pay you to throw away a car and buy a new one. It's lunacy.

    Like I said earlier, give me this stipend AND the trade-in value of my wife's car and we'll seriously look at buying a new car. Even if it's only available for US cars, we'll take a look. I'm sure others will follow.
    If the car is to be shredded and the dealership must promise the car will not be used by anyone else, I can assure you that you will NOT receive the trade in value.

    It may not be an ideal use of tax payer money, but I think it's much better than just handing over a pile of cash to GM, Chrysler, etc.
    Maybe, just maybe, they should have been permitted to go bankrupt back in 2008. Or do we just keep throwing good money after bad? Really, our billions of dollars thrown at Chrysler just gave the Italian company Fiat quite a nice little business.
    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. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Really, our billions of dollars thrown at Chrysler just gave the Italian company Fiat quite a nice little business.
    If Fiat keep AMERICAN factories open, keeps AMERICANS employed, keeps AMERICAN dealerships open, then it was worth it in my book.

    A bankrupt US company that cannot pay Americans their wages is a lot more worthless than an Italian company that keeps Americans on their payroll.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  16. #56
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    If Fiat keep AMERICAN factories open, keeps AMERICANS employed, keeps AMERICAN dealerships open, then it was worth it in my book.

    A bankrupt US company that cannot pay Americans their wages is a lot more worthless than an Italian company that keeps Americans on their payroll.
    Interesting thought, actually. What about all the Canadians who worked in Chrysler plants in Ontario?

    However, consider this: you are an Italian company with no notable presence in the USA. The American work processes, contracts and factories have already proven unprofitable. The factories are designed to build large cars and trucks, not the small, fuel-efficient ones that made Fiat so exciting to the administration. On top of that, you have Italian shareholders that demand profitability.

    Are you, Mr. Italian Carmaker, going to be more concern about your Italian factories and stockholders, or the American dealers and factory workers? Now, I am not saying we need to take a protectionist stance on any of our industries. But I do think it is a little myopic to think that an Italian company with no ties to America is going to be terribly concerned about how many Americans stay employed in the left-overs of a bankrupt company that was basically given to them.
    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).

  17. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    Interesting thought, actually. What about all the Canadians who worked in Chrysler plants in Ontario?

    However, consider this: you are an Italian company with no notable presence in the USA. The American work processes, contracts and factories have already proven unprofitable. The factories are designed to build large cars and trucks, not the small, fuel-efficient ones that made Fiat so exciting to the administration. On top of that, you have Italian shareholders that demand profitability.

    Are you, Mr. Italian Carmaker, going to be more concern about your Italian factories and stockholders, or the American dealers and factory workers? Now, I am not saying we need to take a protectionist stance on any of our industries. But I do think it is a little myopic to think that an Italian company with no ties to America is going to be terribly concerned about how many Americans stay employed in the left-overs of a bankrupt company that was basically given to them.
    How else do you propose a bankrupt US company stay in business then?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  18. #58
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    How else do you propose a bankrupt US company stay in business then?
    I think they should follow the laws in place for bankruptcy. They should be given a chance to reorganize their debts and contracts, to become economically viable, and then exit bankruptcy with court and creditor approval. It's the way hundreds of companies have done it over the years. And if they cannot be viable after restructuring, then they should be sold off and their secured creditors paid first.

    That's the law. That's NOT what happened to Chrysler and GM. I do not think government-picked suitors should be given bargain pricing, while the unsecured union gets majority ownership despite its role in driving the company to bankruptcy.
    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. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Sure I get it. However, the concept isn't necessarily stupid. It just needs better execution to be more effective.

    Like I said earlier, give me this stipend AND the trade-in value of my wife's car and we'll seriously look at buying a new car. Even if it's only available for US cars, we'll take a look. I'm sure others will follow.

    Otherwise, we won't be looking for at least another 3 years.

    It's kind of a win-win situation. The consumer gets a great deal on a new car and essentially a "refund" of their tax dollars. The car manufacturers/dealers get to move their inventory and make some money, which hopefully in turn prompts the production of more cars and keeping/getting people working. Maybe if the cycle repeats itself a few times, the car manufacturers are back on their feet.

    It may not be an ideal use of tax payer money, but I think it's much better than just handing over a pile of cash to GM, Chrysler, etc.
    OK, pay attention. The car gets crushed. Since the dealer gets nothing in the end why would he give you anything for a trade?

  20. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    You really believe the government should be giving money to people to make them buy things they normally would not buy? Why not give rebates to buy compact fluroscent lights? Or cigarettes? Or American made underwear and socks? Do you see where this goes? The government is artificially influencing how you spend your dollars, suggesting it is better for you to buy a car you may not need rather than spend money with your mechanic getting it fixed. Or donating the car to a church so it can be given to a family in need. Instead, the government wants to pay you to throw away a car and buy a new one. It's lunacy.

    If the car is to be shredded and the dealership must promise the car will not be used by anyone else, I can assure you that you will NOT receive the trade in value.

    Maybe, just maybe, they should have been permitted to go bankrupt back in 2008. Or do we just keep throwing good money after bad? Really, our billions of dollars thrown at Chrysler just gave the Italian company Fiat quite a nice little business.
    HUH!!! Didn't we already try getting people to buy things they couldn't afford? Suddenly the housing market crashed and the government is screwed.

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