"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

"John H." wrote in message
...
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.


It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:35:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
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.


It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?


When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When Florida is inundated because liberals don't want to solve
problems. If they did, we wouldn't have these situations:

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:35:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
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.

It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?

When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When Florida is inundated because liberals don't want to solve
problems. If they did, we wouldn't have these situations:

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


The po folk just love those liberal cities and states. They come from
far and wide to find some teat to suck on.

"John H." wrote in message
news
It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes
years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?

Hmmm.... a tool of the Heritage Foundation. No mention of that in the
article. As to the merits of reprocessing, if it can be done safely, I'm all
for it.

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


Sure is easy for you to morph from nuclear power to city's poor. Another
tactic to distract from the facts?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:33:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news
It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes
years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Liberals have been saying that for years. Go read up on the new
technology for dealing with nuclear waste.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
Yeah, it came from Fox News, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media
to mention it, would you?

Hmmm.... a tool of the Heritage Foundation. No mention of that in the
article. As to the merits of reprocessing, if it can be done safely, I'm all
for it.

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty
rate all have in common? Democrat mayors.


Sure is easy for you to morph from nuclear power to city's poor. Another
tactic to distract from the facts?

The 'morphing' was from problem solving to problem solving. I think
maybe you exercised the scissors again.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

"John H." wrote in message
...
Sure is easy for you to morph from nuclear power to city's poor. Another
tactic to distract from the facts?

The 'morphing' was from problem solving to problem solving. I think
maybe you exercised the scissors again.


You can't seem to stay focused. We were talking about nukes and previously
clunkers, then you attempted a strawman argument about inner-city poor.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
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.


It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes years
to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Every day you delay the building of nuclear plants is another day the
citizens of the USA are sending money overseas for energy or burning
coal and oil.

When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When are you going to stop talking about the problem and start taking
action.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
It's not a complete solution or even a good partial solution. It takes
years to build power plants, and there's always the spent fuel problem.

Every day you delay the building of nuclear plants is another day the
citizens of the USA are sending money overseas for energy or burning coal
and oil.

True enough.


When are you going to get serious about the actual problems.

When are you going to stop talking about the problem and start taking
action.

The real solution is to stop eating so much meat. That would have an
immediate and positive effect. The other things take years.

--
Nom=de=Plume