Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default Democrats are Taking care of the wealthy - AGAIN

    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?


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    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?
    Actually Scarecrow, compare both emissions and gas economy with say a 1970s Ford F150 with a 300 inline six with a modern Cadillac Escalade and you'll find the Ford is way back in the pack. Modern technology has solved some of the problems, but the initial one that caused all this is still here, namely our own stupidity to buy these great gas guzzling monsters compared to a lot of Eiropean and Asian vehicles that are simply more economical and efficient than what we buy now. FYI, in Canada, I have a F250 with a 5.8l gas. Its way bloody bigger than what we need here, but I grew up on 'em and I like 'em. In Ukraine, we have a VW Passat which is far more efficient and as comfortable.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Actually Scarecrow, compare both emissions and gas economy with say a 1970s Ford F150 with a 300 inline six with a modern Cadillac Escalade and you'll find the Ford is way back in the pack. Modern technology has solved some of the problems, but the initial one that caused all this is still here, namely our own stupidity to buy these great gas guzzling monsters compared to a lot of Eiropean and Asian vehicles that are simply more economical and efficient than what we buy now. FYI, in Canada, I have a F250 with a 5.8l gas. Its way bloody bigger than what we need here, but I grew up on 'em and I like 'em. In Ukraine, we have a VW Passat which is far more efficient and as comfortable.
    The vehicle must be between 8 and 25 years old, must get less than 18MPG, and the new vehicle must get at least 10 mpg more.

    FYI. I had a 1971 Chevy Impala with a 350 in it. Pre-Emission controls. It got around 25 mpg. Realize that was a big ole V8. My new 2007 Ford Taurus with a 3.5 L (215 CI) engine gets around 26mpg summer, 23 mpg Winter. So here we are. 38 years later, I drive a smaller car with a smaller engine (1/3 the size) and burn the same amount of fuel. Something is wrong here. FYI, that 5.8L engine is the same size as the 350 CI I had.

    I did car pool with a guy who had a Jetta, just once. I refused to ride it after the first trip. It was uncomfortable and it was very tiny next to Mr Tractor trailer on the 6 lane highway. I also find that the smaller cars are less stable and don't do as well in the snow. Funny to look at the smart car and see it only gets around 30MPG. Something is seriously wrong here.

    And here is a really interesting thing to contemplate. Since my pre-emission control and my new post emission control cars both get about the same MPG am I really putting any less pollution in the air? Perhaps the only thing these emission controls have done is drop the fuel mileage and made the car cost more and more difficult to work on.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    mountain view, AR
    Posts
    144

    Default

    We own big chunks of GM and Chrysler, they need to stimulate sales. Also, around here no one is rich, and most drive old clunker pick-ups.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allison20 View Post
    We own big chunks of GM and Chrysler, they need to stimulate sales. Also, around here no one is rich, and most drive old clunker pick-ups.
    OK, so the guy in the clunker gets $5,000 towards the purchase of a new car valued at $15,000 or even $10,000. If they had the extra $5,000 they would already have the new car.

    But let me see if I understand you argument. I own a business, so to stimulate some business, I go out into the street and give people $100 bills to shop in my store. But I don't give it to everyone, just a select few who meet a certain criteria. I truly hope this bill gets the death it deserves. This is an absolutely stupid idea, unless we make a cut somewhere else to make up for the difference.

  6. #6
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,918

    Default

    I had a 1985 Escort, obviously 4 cylinder, with a 5 speed transmission. At the time I was making 2 to 3 trips a week between Madison, Wisconsin and the twin cities. I was averaging 45 miles to the gallon at speeds of 75 mph. I now have a Ford Focus (The only car I have ever owned that made me wish I had my pos Taurus wagon back) and it is a 4 cylinder with an automatic and on a good day I get close to 30 mpg. Giving a slight compensation for the automatic I should still be getting close to 40 with this crap box. Modern technology is robbing mileage we already proved we could have with internal combustion engines.

  7. #7
    Forum Member gamewell35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    T

    I did car pool with a guy who had a Jetta, just once. I refused to ride it after the first trip. It was uncomfortable and it was very tiny next to Mr Tractor trailer on the 6 lane highway. I also find that the smaller cars are less stable and don't do as well in the snow. Funny to look at the smart car and see it only gets around 30MPG. Something is seriously wrong here.
    Crow, as a suggestion, if available, try using mass transit. I Commute 80 miles to NYC 5 days per week via railroad. Trust me, those tractor-trailers are like toys compared to Trains; plus you'll save money on gas, wear & tear on your vehicle and you can relax, have a coffee, read the paper or even sleep if you so choose. Plus trains tend to navigate the snow pretty good compared to cars in general. Just a friendly suggestion. I've been commuting this way for years and its really the way to go.
    "Did you check under the bed?" -- Judge Crater, 1930

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamewell35 View Post
    Crow, as a suggestion, if available, try using mass transit. I Commute 80 miles to NYC 5 days per week via railroad. Trust me, those tractor-trailers are like toys compared to Trains; plus you'll save money on gas, wear & tear on your vehicle and you can relax, have a coffee, read the paper or even sleep if you so choose. Plus trains tend to navigate the snow pretty good compared to cars in general. Just a friendly suggestion. I've been commuting this way for years and its really the way to go.
    Actually, during the week I take a bus, run by a private bus company, so no subsidy and I have to pay the full price. I have to drive about 20 miles to get to the bus stop. Trains just aren't that practical in America, the population is to spread out. They work in Europe because of the higher population density. They work in NYC as well because of the higher population density.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    38 years later, I drive a smaller car with a smaller engine (1/3 the size) and burn the same amount of fuel. Something is wrong here.
    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.
    Last edited by txgp17; 06-10-2009 at 03:59 PM.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  10. #10
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Post Nope...........

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Trains just aren't that practical in America, the population is to spread out. They work in Europe because of the higher population density. They work in NYC as well because of the higher population density.


    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.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  11. #11
    Forum Member Jonnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,256

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Actually, during the week I take a bus, run by a private bus company, so no subsidy and I have to pay the full price. I have to drive about 20 miles to get to the bus stop. Trains just aren't that practical in America, the population is to spread out. They work in Europe because of the higher population density. They work in NYC as well because of the higher population density.
    What do you do for work, besides being on this site and running up you post counts?


    You remind me of a ten year rookie. A know it all!

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods View Post
    in Europe the government pays the bill.
    You mean the government forces the people to pay the bill.
    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods View Post
    America doesn't have the Rail Service that it should have, because no one wants to do anything to get it started.
    That's not the sole reason.

    Compare the population densities in people per square mile.
    USA - 80
    UK - 640 (8 times denser than USA)

    Trains are only efficient if they're relatively full. Rails could only be an efficient means of transport in very few places in our nation.

    I agree, we should have more, but setting a widespread goal to mimic the UK would be very wasteful.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  13. #13
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonbat
    You mean the government forces the people to pay the bill.That's not the sole reason.

    Compare the population densities in people per square mile.
    USA - 80
    UK - 640 (8 times denser than USA)

    Trains are only efficient if they're relatively full. Rails could only be an efficient means of transport in very few places in our nation.

    I agree, we should have more, but setting a widespread goal to mimic the UK would be very wasteful.
    Hey moonbat. How's that case going that proves Obama isn't a citizen?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Nation's Capital
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by txgp17 View Post
    Compare the population densities in people per square mile.
    USA - 80
    UK - 640 (8 times denser than USA)
    New Jersey, USA, 1,134.5 people per square mile as of the 2000 census. 13 different NJ Transit rail lines criss cross the state. Still, traffic sucks. Perhaps we just need to stop building houses on top of each other instead of telling us the SUVs are the problem?

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    The vehicle must be between 8 and 25 years old, must get less than 18MPG, and the new vehicle must get at least 10 mpg more.
    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."

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Hey moonbat. How's that case going that proves Obama isn't a citizen?
    Hey libtard. How's that case going that proves the Iraq war cost $3,000,000,000,000.00?
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  17. #17
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs down Yep!...........

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    By the way, I know a lot of people driving SUVs that aren't anywhere close to being "rich".

    Right on the money!................ My wife's oldest Daughter owns and drives a Chevy Suburban. She wouldn't have anything else. She's a decent size person, active outdoorswoman, athletic, School Bus Driver type. You can't possibly get her away from a 'burban, not with her lifestyle. She shares my disdain for anything except raw performance in a motor vehicle. My wife is pretty much the same, except her tastes are a bit more polished, since she has a Lincoln Town Car. My old farm truck is a 95 Dodge Ram 1500 4X4 Club Cab, 318 V8. And, Lastly, my "Better" Truck is a '04 F150 4X4, Super Cab 4 Dr, with a 4.6 V8 There is nothing Green or penny pinching on my place, and that's the way we want it. And why shouldn't I have that right? Is "Green" that important? I don't think so, nor do most folks that I know. Forcing people into little toy cars that can't hop over a speed bump is downright stupid, as far as I'm concerned. A few, very vocal folks think the sky is falling because of a bit of smog or whatever it is out there, and claim those "Little Green Eco Toys" will save the world. They Won't. In order to reverse the declining natural resources out there, we need a strategy that does more than look at carbon emissions. One of the biggest Pollution sources in America is our beautiful Suburban Lawns which leach hundreds of thousands of tons of Fertilizer into the Nations waters each year. Are we closely regulating Lawn Care? No, but it is more critical than most folks think.......
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  18. #18
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonbat
    Hey libtard. How's that case going that proves the Iraq war cost $3,000,000,000,000.00?
    Pretty good. I'm a lot closer in my claim than you are with yours.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Pretty good. I'm a lot closer in my claim than you are with yours.
    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.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  20. #20
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    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.
    Wow. Comparing Obama to God. I have to say that's quite a stretch. Heck you're allowed your opinion.

    But...how am I the liar moonbat? You're right in that it says "could." It could also end up costing more.

    You continue to prove the black helicopters are keeping you awake at night.

    Thwup...Thwup...Thwup...Thwup. ..Thwup...Thwup...Thwup...Thwu p...Thwup
    Last edited by scfire86; 06-11-2009 at 01:41 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

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