Don White wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:49 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:40:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the
aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000
vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts
through
the re-manufacturing industry

And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere,
small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict
beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of
the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers
were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.
Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.
Nuclear energy sucks.

It is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. I pay 30% more for the
electricity running through this laptop sitting while I'm sitting on
this couch, than I do at my other home which is served by a coal
plant. Once or twice a year, they remind me that I have to drive by
the melting reactor building to get away, if there ever is a serious
event. That makes my family safe, huh? What the HELL do we do with all
of that spent fuel? It is ACCUMULATING AT THE REACTOR COMPLEXES now,
since no state wants it transported down their roads or stored within
their borders. When will the bill come due and who will pay for the
final disposal of that stuff?

I'd be all for it, if we could overcome the shortcomings, but at this
writing it just sucks.
--


The Pollyanna twins...Kevin & JohnnyPrepH think nuclear power is as safe as
going to Sunday mass.
Maybe they should sit on one of the spent rods for a bit to see if it can
power up their brains.




Damn! Why didn't I think of that!

The "deathers" are going to visit herring soon, and tattoo a Do Not
Resuscitate label on his foot.




--
Birther-Deather-Tenther
Idiots All

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:09:08 -0400, Gene
wrote:

Nuclear energy sucks.

It is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. I pay 30% more for the
electricity running through this laptop sitting while I'm sitting on
this couch, than I do at my other home which is served by a coal
plant.

That will not be true when Gore gets his cap and tax bill and your
coal plant will pay double or triple for the coal.


Al Gore is president? No wait, he's in Congress. No... I know. I know. He's
on the Supreme Court!

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 14:44:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That will not be true when Gore gets his cap and tax bill and your
coal plant will pay double or triple for the coal.


Al Gore is president? No wait, he's in Congress. No... I know. I know. He's
on the Supreme Court!

I originally typed "Obama" but I didn't want to keep slamming a guy
who is basically a puppet for the people who put him in office. You
notice he has backed off of all of his "change" rhetoric since his
Jimmy Carter moment (roughly defined as the day he realized the
president is largely a ceremonial office)
Gore has their ear and is the high priest in the carbon tax crusade.
That cult has taken over the left.

George Soros owns the left.. He has bought and paid for them.

--
Wafa free since 2009

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
George Soros owns the left.. He has bought and paid for them.


I got the check last week.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 14:44:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That will not be true when Gore gets his cap and tax bill and your
coal plant will pay double or triple for the coal.


Al Gore is president? No wait, he's in Congress. No... I know. I know.
He's
on the Supreme Court!

I originally typed "Obama" but I didn't want to keep slamming a guy
who is basically a puppet for the people who put him in office. You
notice he has backed off of all of his "change" rhetoric since his
Jimmy Carter moment (roughly defined as the day he realized the
president is largely a ceremonial office)
Gore has their ear and is the high priest in the carbon tax crusade.
That cult has taken over the left.


How do you come to the conclusion that Obama is a puppet? The majority of
Americans put him in office and by a wide margin in the electoral college.

We'll see if he backs off his "change" rhetoric. It's not clear yet. If he
does, e.g., giving away the public option to a bunch of right-wing stooges
of the insurance industry (no, there are Democrats there also), he will lose
his base. Not sure what Carter has to do with anything. He's been out of
office for a while now. I was never a big fan of his.

I guess it's got to be someone's fault, so Gore is it?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:31:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I originally typed "Obama" but I didn't want to keep slamming a guy
who is basically a puppet for the people who put him in office. You
notice he has backed off of all of his "change" rhetoric since his
Jimmy Carter moment (roughly defined as the day he realized the
president is largely a ceremonial office)
Gore has their ear and is the high priest in the carbon tax crusade.
That cult has taken over the left.


How do you come to the conclusion that Obama is a puppet? The majority of
Americans put him in office and by a wide margin in the electoral college.

Every president since Nixon was a puppet of the monied people who put
him in office. It is getting worse each cycle.

Well, in that sense ok.

Nobody comes up with a billion dollars without owing a lot of
allegiance to a lot of rich people. You also have party pressures.
That is what knocked down all of Carter's lofty goals. I only bring
him up as an example of an "outside the beltway" guy who came to town
promising to change the way government worked. He was ground up and
reduced to a gray paste in 3 months, much like Mr Obama.

The jury is still out with Obama. I hope it won't happen. We need it not to
happen.

I guess it's got to be someone's fault, so Gore is it

Gore is the spiritual leader of the carbon tax cult, no more, no less.
In that regard he is the democratic equivalent of Jerry Falwell or
Rick Warren who also were not government officials but had a lot of
influence on Bush's policies and controlled a lot of votes.

I'm unconvinced by either those groups... carbon tax vs. cap and trade. I
should read more about it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Think of the number of nonpolluting nuclear plant that could have been
built and truly eliminating coal fired plants. reducing CO2 means
eliminating fossil fuels (gasoline,coal, natural gas, propane, etc) as
an energy sources.

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Why did my 2001 F-150 with a 5.4L V8 qualify to be replaced with a 2009
F-150 with a 5.4L V8 under the CARS program?

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:40:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.


Not around here. Whole cars were shredded and loaded into hopper cars
destined for China.


In that case, they threw out stuff that they didn't need to do according to
the regs.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
Got his from a blog at http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2331218/posts

Hard to argue with the math:



"Here's some math from your stories that the average clunker got 15 mpg
and the average replacement gets 25. ·

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of
gasoline. ·

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. ·

So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by
320 gallons per year. ·

The total is about 700,000 vehicles - so that's 224 million gallons /
year. ·

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. ·

5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's U.S. consumption. ·

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
·

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that???"

And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry

To bribe the voters. Obama knows his policies are not working and political
support is dicipating, so he bribes those he can with our money. Or should
I say our credit-debt?

Obama is destined to be the biggest debt increase of any government leader
in the history of the world. It will takes decades, perhaps generations to
recover from.