thunder wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:46:46 -0400, BAR wrote:


500,000 serviceable used vehicles have now been taken out of the used
car market.

Yeah, but all the junk yards will be having sales on used parts. ;-)


How? The CARS program requires that the vehicles be destroyed in their
entirety.

On Aug 21, 6:24*pm, BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:46:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

500,000 serviceable used vehicles have now been taken out of the used
car market.

Yeah, but all the junk yards will be having sales on used parts. ;-)

How? The CARS program requires that the vehicles be destroyed in their
entirety.

I dont' realy know, but I thought there was an option of stripping it
of anything usable in a period of 180 days then it had to be crushed.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:21:56 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:42:03 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


They are allowed to part them out but most are being crushed around
here. We don't really have any junk yards. The "Make America Beautiful"
people zoned them all away.

Florida, right? I noticed that. I had a friend who used to call me,
when he needed unusual parts. I'd buy them at my local junk yard, I mean
Auto Salvage, and send them down. Usually, with shipping, it was still
cheaper for him, than buying them local.

Auto salvage? When I was a kid my dad was building a tractor. He
bought a landing flap gearbox from a B-17. Bought a nice piece of
plate exactly the right size for the crossmember to mount it on. Too
bad it was armor and nearly undrillable, expecially with whatever
drills the local hardware store had. He used a hand drill, a big one
with a half inch chuck, and a big gear with a crank handle on it.

Casady

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:10:39 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


The real problem is, what are they going to do next month?

True, but when "cash for clunkers" was conceived, the concern was whether
there would be a "next month".



This is the classic "giving a man a fish".

Pfffttt.. The concern was how to move more money to the Unions...

--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:10:39 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


The real problem is, what are they going to do next month?
True, but when "cash for clunkers" was conceived, the concern was whether
there would be a "next month".



This is the classic "giving a man a fish".

Pfffttt.. The concern was how to move more money to the Unions...



*This* from a loser like JustHate, who couldn't hold down a job moving
crates in a warehouse or sweeping horse poop out of a barn?

On Aug 23, 11:19*pm, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:10:39 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

The real problem is, what are they going to do next month?

True, but when "cash for clunkers" was conceived, the concern was whether
there would be a "next month". *

This is the classic "giving a man a fish".

Pfffttt.. The concern was how to move more money to the Unions...

--

considering how many trillions we've given to the rich in the last 30
years, it's about time we gave money to the unions. they're the only
ones WORKING in this country. the rich have ****ed away our national
wealth AND made us pay for their losses.

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 23, 11:19 pm, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:10:39 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
The real problem is, what are they going to do next month?
True, but when "cash for clunkers" was conceived, the concern was whether
there would be a "next month".
This is the classic "giving a man a fish".
Pfffttt.. The concern was how to move more money to the Unions...

--

considering how many trillions we've given to the rich in the last 30
years, it's about time we gave money to the unions. they're the only
ones WORKING in this country. the rich have ****ed away our national
wealth AND made us pay for their losses.

These union workers have to report to somebody and that would be
management. Whether that management is big government or big industry it
is all the same.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 04:14:14 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 23, 11:19*pm, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...



On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:10:39 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

The real problem is, what are they going to do next month?

True, but when "cash for clunkers" was conceived, the concern was whether
there would be a "next month". *

This is the classic "giving a man a fish".

Pfffttt.. The concern was how to move more money to the Unions...

--

considering how many trillions we've given to the rich in the last 30
years, it's about time we gave money to the unions. they're the only
ones WORKING in this country. the rich have ****ed away our national
wealth AND made us pay for their losses.

Shame on people who develop a business and provide jobs. It would be
much better if the business had never started.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous