On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:38:17 -0400, wrote:

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.

Yes, there is that.
--

John H

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:38:17 -0400, wrote:

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.

Yes, there is that.
--

John H

I think Bama needs to issue another bailout to those poor dealers who
are still waiting to get paid from the clunker fiasco.