| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
wrote in message
... On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... On Sep 26, 10:54 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:40:51 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sep 26, 7:07 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct.../ItemId/9132/D... It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen. Sounds like a boondoggle to me. The amount of pollution produced by lobster boats is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and so is the amount of emissions that the lobstermen are exposed to. There are lots of risks to lobster fishing that are far greater than diesel exhaust. This whole idea was probably dreamed up by a bunch of old salts trying to figure out out they could get some fed funding for routine engine replacement. I was kind of wondering that myself, Wayne... Plus, what are the hidden catches. from what I've understood, the Stimulus for Cash for Clunkers really didn't prove that sweet of a deal for the consumer. It worked out OK for me. $4500 for a 1985 F-150 was "sweet". That was after a motivated seller made a pretty good deal. That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that you gave the Feds $4,500 through taxes who then gave it back to you only the Feds borrowed it from the Chinese. Probably the best way would be to compile how much you have paid in straight Federal Income Tax over the years and determine how much that $4,500 represents as a percentage of your taxes. Good Gawd, another stupid Obamadoggle. Don't these people ever learn. All indications so far is that it worked quite well to get the auto section of the economy moving again, which was the whole point. The problem was it only "moved" for about 3 weeks. Our dealers are crying the blues again. Some are, some aren't. Here's an interesting perspective... http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/ca...after-all.html -- Nom=de=Plume |
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:25:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... On Sep 26, 10:54 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:40:51 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sep 26, 7:07 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct.../ItemId/9132/D... It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen. Sounds like a boondoggle to me. The amount of pollution produced by lobster boats is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and so is the amount of emissions that the lobstermen are exposed to. There are lots of risks to lobster fishing that are far greater than diesel exhaust. This whole idea was probably dreamed up by a bunch of old salts trying to figure out out they could get some fed funding for routine engine replacement. I was kind of wondering that myself, Wayne... Plus, what are the hidden catches. from what I've understood, the Stimulus for Cash for Clunkers really didn't prove that sweet of a deal for the consumer. It worked out OK for me. $4500 for a 1985 F-150 was "sweet". That was after a motivated seller made a pretty good deal. That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that you gave the Feds $4,500 through taxes who then gave it back to you only the Feds borrowed it from the Chinese. Probably the best way would be to compile how much you have paid in straight Federal Income Tax over the years and determine how much that $4,500 represents as a percentage of your taxes. Good Gawd, another stupid Obamadoggle. Don't these people ever learn. All indications so far is that it worked quite well to get the auto section of the economy moving again, which was the whole point. The problem was it only "moved" for about 3 weeks. Our dealers are crying the blues again. Some are, some aren't. Here's an interesting perspective... http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/ca...after-all.html The author seems quite in agreement with what's been said right here. The program didn't do much. And only the future will see whether it actually helped sales or simply moved them forward a couple months. I like this line: "So cash-for-clunkers might have had some stimulative effect. But it seems like a pretty inefficient way to do that—if you really wanted to drum up consumer spending , we could have just offered the $3 billion as a rebate toward any consumer purchases..." Of course, doing so wouldn't have thrown a bone to the UAW. -- John H |
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:25:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... On Sep 26, 10:54 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:40:51 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sep 26, 7:07 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct.../ItemId/9132/D... It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen. Sounds like a boondoggle to me. The amount of pollution produced by lobster boats is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and so is the amount of emissions that the lobstermen are exposed to. There are lots of risks to lobster fishing that are far greater than diesel exhaust. This whole idea was probably dreamed up by a bunch of old salts trying to figure out out they could get some fed funding for routine engine replacement. I was kind of wondering that myself, Wayne... Plus, what are the hidden catches. from what I've understood, the Stimulus for Cash for Clunkers really didn't prove that sweet of a deal for the consumer. It worked out OK for me. $4500 for a 1985 F-150 was "sweet". That was after a motivated seller made a pretty good deal. That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that you gave the Feds $4,500 through taxes who then gave it back to you only the Feds borrowed it from the Chinese. Probably the best way would be to compile how much you have paid in straight Federal Income Tax over the years and determine how much that $4,500 represents as a percentage of your taxes. Good Gawd, another stupid Obamadoggle. Don't these people ever learn. All indications so far is that it worked quite well to get the auto section of the economy moving again, which was the whole point. The problem was it only "moved" for about 3 weeks. Our dealers are crying the blues again. Some are, some aren't. Here's an interesting perspective... http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/ca...after-all.html The author seems quite in agreement with what's been said right here. The program didn't do much. And only the future will see whether it actually helped sales or simply moved them forward a couple months. I like this line: "So cash-for-clunkers might have had some stimulative effect. But it seems like a pretty inefficient way to do that-if you really wanted to drum up consumer spending , we could have just offered the $3 billion as a rebate toward any consumer purchases..." Of course, doing so wouldn't have thrown a bone to the UAW. -- John H I think the point is that it did help with the economy and it did preserve some jobs. I don't know why you continue to flail away at the UAW. It's a union. They have problems, they're not perfect, but they certainly didn't spring from the ground whole. They were formed because of poor management practices. If we don't need unions any more, that's fine, but that's clearly not the case. -- Nom=de=Plume |
The fed is pitching in to clean up commercial marine diesels.
In article ,
says... On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:13:33 -0400, Gene wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:59:03 -0400, JohnH wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sep 26, 7:07*pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct.../ItemId/9132/D... It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen. Sounds like a boondoggle to me. * The amount of pollution produced by lobster boats is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and so is the amount of emissions that the lobstermen are exposed to. *There are lots of risks to lobster fishing that are far greater than diesel exhaust. *This whole idea was probably dreamed up by a bunch of old salts trying to figure out out they could get some fed funding for routine engine replacement. I was kind of wondering that myself, Wayne... Plus, what are the hidden catches. from what I've understood, the Stimulus for Cash for Clunkers really didn't prove that sweet of a deal for the consumer. I posted this once, asking about the math, but no one helped out. 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, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 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 ? of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, in a down economy, with auto makers all ready have been given billions of dollars, we all contributed even more, spending $3 billion to save $375 million. How good a deal was that ??? Obviously, the way you pose the problem... pretty poor, but saving fuel isn't what it is all about, is it? Please also factor in savings and benefits of safer vehicles that pollute less and giving the struggling American auto industry a sales boost. A car cannot be sold without sending money to nearly the entire continental 48 and firming jobs and the economies there. Factor in, too, that the $3500 or $4500 is not a "gift," it is taxable and your version of the math is even more confused. It is funny how these things work so well in other places, but here it is the devil's spawn...... Quantify, please. In your quantification, please note which manufacturing companies got the biggest boost. Also note that used cars also provide incomes for many. As many states have emission testing programs, do you think you've really cut back on pollution so much? Does anybody really believe this was anything more than another 3 billion dollar donation to the UAW? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com