Affording Fuel
 

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article
. net,
says...

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
. ..
More people are living in cardboard boxes in this country than
ever
and
these fat cats are making more and paying less taxes than
ever.
And
we
are
STILL cutting taxes while the deficit skyrockets. How can
these
people
call themselves conservative?

The deficit fell from '04 to '05...and its expected to continue
to
fall
through at least '09.

In the past 30 years we've gone from:

Biggest importer of raw materials and exporter of finished goods

to

Biggest exporter of raw materials and largest importer of
finished
goods.

China and Japan own a large percentage of our currency,
corporations
are
allowed to operate offshore to avoid taxation and more of our
currency
is flooding into the mid-east than ever before.

I just had a meeting with some very nice folks from the mid-east
who
don't mind us being in Iraq at all. Their friends are making
money
hand
over fist supplying goods and services to our troops.

Not only are we sending them tankerloads of oil money, we're
paying
them
seven different ways for supplying our country with goods and
services.

Something wrong with this picture? Why are we so damned
near-sighted???

The biggest danger to our country is allowing jobs to escape to
countries
that are not our allies. China is our biggest threat...and
corporations
have bought into the Chinese government horse and pony show that
paints
such
a rosy scenario over there. It's a facade...and China's recent
restrictions
placed on Google are a perfect example of how screwed up things are
over
there right now.

For the first time in the last half decade, I decided to buy an
American
car
again. I would hope you and every other American would consider
doing
the
same. For a very long time, American car manufacturers had their
problems,
and you were right to stay away. But I can assure you that in
their
latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Awhile back you stated that if a car manufacturer made an
all-wheel-drive
sport sedan that is comparable to what you were driving at the time
(an
Audi
Quattro?), you'd buy it. So now I'm going to hold you to your
word:
go
drive the Cadillac STS AWD or the Chrysler 300M AWD and buy
whichever
you
like better. Either should fit your needs nicely. I went from an
Infiniti
G35 to a Cadillac STS and have been very happy with the choice.

Are you claiming to be a good American or a good investor?

I don't think the above suggestion would satisfy both criteria.


I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket.

The Chrysler is ugly.

$18,308 to have the privilege of driving a Cadillac for 39 months. I'd
rather make payments on a boat or summer cabin and have the 2nd home
write off.

Name me a single car with an MSRP over $40k that you could drive for less
than $18,500 over 39 months. Don't forget to include tax!

That's dependent on leasing. Most people don't lease.

Driving a vehicle over $40k for 39 months isn't a function of the value
of the car, it's a function of how many they've sold and how aggressive
the financing rates they're willing to offer to get you in the car.

The real value in a car is after you've paid it off and drive it another
50,000 miles. That's when the cost/mile goes down. Your cost/mile has
to be astronomical.

How long do *you* keep a car?

It depends. My A6 is on a lease and I'll probably purchase it this
September. Our '95 Cherokee was paid for 6 years ago and has 75,000 on
it. I also have a '68 Chev c-20. I tend to keep 'em longer.


And, in order to purchase that car post-lease, you'd be buying a car
that's worth 2/3 of the residual. Cadillac will have to write off the
loss when it's incurred.

Correct. But GMAC takes the hit. And I go buy another car.

I'm astounded that you don't recognize the folly in your statement.
You're all for it given that the big, stupid company will, in the end,
take it in the shorts.

It's this "pass-the-buck" mentality in America that's got us in so much
economic trouble.

Deficit, military spending, oil, China, jobs.

There's a string that connects them all.

jps

Affording Fuel
 

In article ,
says...

concourse cars are - well, reproductions and not worth the incredible
amounts of money they command. they are for people with too much
money and not enough sense.

I'd like to edge a little closer to your last statement, personally.

I don't care whether they're concourse, I want to drive 'em and dote on
'em.

jps

Affording Fuel
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

and the Hispanics speak better Spanish.

Ever seen the Cheech & Chong movie in which Cheech sings this stupid song
about Mexican Americans? He's stoned, so he thinks he's written a
fabulous song, including the line "Mexican-Americans like to go to night
school and take Spanish, and get a B...." :-)

Yeah, gad, can you believe the Administration targeted Tommy Chong for
selling bongs and put him the slammer for about a year? Your tax dollars
at work.

Wouldn't wanna put all those DEA agents out of work, would you?

Affording Fuel
 

Eisenhower warned us about this. Maybe we should be grateful
that the 'dictatorship of the corporate interests' has held
off as long as it did. Meanwhile, voters are about the least
important concerns in Washington- 3 election cycles now have
proved that voters are stupid, have no memory at all, and
can be easily shilled into impoverishing & imprisoning
themselves.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
i dont agree with that at all.

That's your priviledge. I wouldn't expect you to agree,
given your demonstrated tastes & preferences.



there is nothing wrong with a two party democracy, but the opposition
has to present a strong case, real alternatives and not more of the
same retorhic which plays to only a small part of their base. the
democrats are vapid and only interested in grandstanding.

As opposed to spending 100s of millions of dollars shouting
lies & slander over & over until it is commonly accepted as
"truth?"


the only solution is term limits - so dumbass fat slobs like ted
kennedy or dumasses like trent lott get the boot after two terms.

I'd agree with term limits, but not with slander &
name-calling. Why can't you offer something positive,
especially since that's your main criticism of "the other side?"

DSK

Affording Fuel
 

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:44:01 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

But I can assure you that in their latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by
leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time.



I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but
financed
it,
I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd
lose
$25k
in depreciation in that time period.


we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than
that -
i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k
on
it when we traded it in.

You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your
way is
of course the smartest way to own a car.

Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease
alllows
you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease, if market
value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and sell it, if it
is
lower, you let the auto company take the loss.

i know someobdy in the car business, less than 1% of the lease cars
ever are returned at or under their milage and almost never in prime
condition.

That is the catch ;-)


I'm 28,000 miles under my mileage limit on my current lease. In theory, I
overpayed for the car since I used it so little. But in actuality, the
residual value was set so ridiculously high, that it's still not worth what
I could buy it for at the end of the lease.

Affording Fuel
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Fred Dehl wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in
:

Most US cities cannot be evacuated on short notice under any
circumstances, and out in the boonies, there typically isn't the
infrastructure to handle heavy traffic.

Put Ray Nagin in charge of the buses and an evacuation will run fine.


Yawn.

Maybe you ought to go back to cursing, fella.


Nagin won't be Mayor very long. Landrieu just announced that he's running
against him.

Affording Fuel
 

"jps" wrote in message
...


Deficit, military spending, oil, China, jobs.

There's a string that connects them all.

jps

Speaking of the bitch-du-jour, and manufacturing going overseas, I've got
something to contribute: You can't even get a good night's sleep any more.
The most basic need, sleep, is now in the hands of foreigners. I've never
seen Consumer Reports handle a product category with this much negativity.
And in this case, they're right. Here's what happens when we shut down
textile factories where people knew what the hell they were doing:


August 2005
Sheets: Wake-up call
Silk pillowcases that shred in the wash? Linen sheets so wrinkly after
laundering that you might as well not bother making the bed? Sky-high thread
counts based on creative calculating? Note to the makers of sheets in our
tests: Stop sleeping on the job.

Much has changed in the bedding business. Tried-and-true names such as
Cannon and Charisma are largely gone, a result of company bankruptcies.
High-quality percale sheets--the kind we have recommended--are harder to
find, too.

Instead, consumers are faced with high prices, unfamiliar brands,
poor-wearing fabrics, and marketing that wrongly places a premium on the
highest thread count. Standard sheets used to last years; some of those we
tested don't even come close.

In short, we didn't find much to like among the 19 queen sheet sets we
tested, which are priced from $30 to $385 and are found in bed-and-bath and
department stores and online. They included trendy weaves such as sateen and
satin, and nontraditional fibers such as polyester and modal, a cellulose
fiber made from wood.

Unsuitable fabrics. In 20 launderings following the manufacturer's
directions, the Domestications Washable Silk pillowcases were in shreds. The
Linens 'n Things Home Brilliance Jersey knit sheets shrank so much after
just five washings that they no longer fit the bed. Then there was the
Cuddledown Heirloom Voile set, which is sheer. Who wants to see through to
the mattress pad or pillow protector? Even the percale sheets in our tests
were only fair for strength, typically a standout feature for percale.

Almost all the tested sheets needed ironing to look their best. Some of the
unusual fibers require even more care. Silk needs delicate laundering.
Sateen can rip on a toenail or cat's claw; satin can snag even on chapped
hands.

Poor quality control. Fresh out of the package, a Bed Bath & Beyond sheet,
now discontinued, was 10 inches shorter than it should be. With other sets,
we discovered missing or torn components.

What-were-they-thinking design. Buttons on the DKNY Play pillowcases allow
you to fit king-sized or queen-sized pillows. But you might greet the day
with button imprints on your face. With the Domestications Washable Silk
set, unseemly seams down the middle of the fitted sheet could haunt a
restless sleeper.

Questionable claims. Some manufacturers use creative math to boost thread
count (see Thread counts). Likewise, some sheets are labeled organic. But
that simply means that the material is grown without pesticides. Federal
regulations don't exist regarding the processing of the raw material, so all
kinds of environmentally unfriendly chemicals could be used. "Natural" or
"green" labeling may indicate that harsh chemicals such as formaldehyde or
chlorine aren't used in processing. Without standards, though, there are no
guarantees.

Affording Fuel
 

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

Fair enough but have you ever calculated your cost per mile?

Let me help, using your numbers:

"I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket."

That comes to $18,308, divided by 40,000 miles = 45.8 cents/mile
before insurance, fuel and maintenance.

If you purchased a Lexus for about $45,000 and drove it 100,000 miles
you'd get about the same numbers but the Lexus would still be worth
somewhere between $5 and $10K, possibly more.

The advantage of leasing is getting a new car every 3 or 4 years with
minimal transaction costs, but it is still cheaper to purchase and
hold if you buy quality.

Using my numbers, the second 100,000 miles is almost free!

Affording Fuel
 

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

No, Fred, you didn't make any points. You made a number of
unsubstantiated claims.

Every statement I made is 100% true and backed up by federal and transit
association data. Our city is in the midst of blowing some $6 billion on
new mass transit, and I was tasked with writing several columns for the
newspaper offering some truths about other cities' experience with it.

Your reasons are true, but they don't mean that the system cannot work. Your
reasons point out that in order for a system to work in an optimum fashion,
you cannot simply stick buses or trains in place. Unfortunately, it requires
a bit more thought, which can be a difficult thing when you're predisposed
to dislike the idea, for dark reasons of your own.

1) In many instances, mass transit drops you off someplace where there are
no other necessary services such as grocery stores. This is because in the
past 50+ years, very few communities could've known of the urban sprawl we'd
eventually have. Some communities are redesigning to make some areas more
useful to pedestrian shoppers.

2) People (like you) believe that the purpose of mass transit is to stop
people from driving their cars 100% of the time, which is absurd. If a
person takes the train into NY City, and avoids idling on the Long Island
Expressway for 2 hours, they still have to drive home from the train
station. So what? Now they're driving for 10 minutes instead of 2 hours. Has
this achieved nothing?

3) Politicians persist in their criminal relationships with the construction
business, so we keep building roads that create short-term solutions (and
jobs), because this is what the construction business wants. Meanwhile,
perfect mass-transit solutions opportunities often exist, but are ignored.
Example: Here (Rochester NY), highway route 490 is one of the busiest in the
area. Parallel to the highway, about 1/2 mile away, is an old, unused rail
bed in good condition. At every point where the rail bed crossed the same
main roads as the highway exits, there was cheap property available for Park
& Ride lots. This meant that motorists who normally got off at those exits
could, instead, leave their cars in those lots, and use a light rail
service.

The city hired two engineering firms to evaluate the possibility of
installing light rail service. The independent conclusions were that unlike
other cities where light rail had been considered, our situation was
perfect. The vast majority of the automobile traffic on that road ends up in
downtown Rochester, whose entire business district encompasses maybe 10
square blocks. The railway could've taken people exactly where they wanted
to go, to a place where they finished their trips on foot even if they
drove.

The idea was so perfect that it was ignored. The highway was widened,
instead, to handle more traffic. Matter of fact, the work began on the
highway about a month after the studies were presented to the city
government. The mayor was interviewed on TV around that time, discussing his
solutions to sprawl. Waiting near the podium for him to finish was a very
happing looking guy in a suit too expensive for a public official, smoking a
big cigar and smiling broadly. I later found out he was the owner of the
company which got the contract to widen the highway.

Affording Fuel
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:51:57 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

After TMI, I was a subcontractor on an NRC study that was supposed to
determine the best ways to evaculate the areas surrounding nuke plants
if disaster struck

so that f'd up plan at Seabrook and CT Yankee was your fault? :)

What was the plan? Free bicycles for everyone downwind of the plants?

Affording Fuel
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article
. net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article
. net,
says...

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
. ..
More people are living in cardboard boxes in this country
than
ever
and
these fat cats are making more and paying less taxes than
ever.
And
we
are
STILL cutting taxes while the deficit skyrockets. How can
these
people
call themselves conservative?

The deficit fell from '04 to '05...and its expected to
continue
to
fall
through at least '09.

In the past 30 years we've gone from:

Biggest importer of raw materials and exporter of finished
goods

to

Biggest exporter of raw materials and largest importer of
finished
goods.

China and Japan own a large percentage of our currency,
corporations
are
allowed to operate offshore to avoid taxation and more of our
currency
is flooding into the mid-east than ever before.

I just had a meeting with some very nice folks from the
mid-east
who
don't mind us being in Iraq at all. Their friends are making
money
hand
over fist supplying goods and services to our troops.

Not only are we sending them tankerloads of oil money, we're
paying
them
seven different ways for supplying our country with goods and
services.

Something wrong with this picture? Why are we so damned
near-sighted???

The biggest danger to our country is allowing jobs to escape to
countries
that are not our allies. China is our biggest threat...and
corporations
have bought into the Chinese government horse and pony show that
paints
such
a rosy scenario over there. It's a facade...and China's recent
restrictions
placed on Google are a perfect example of how screwed up things
are
over
there right now.

For the first time in the last half decade, I decided to buy an
American
car
again. I would hope you and every other American would consider
doing
the
same. For a very long time, American car manufacturers had
their
problems,
and you were right to stay away. But I can assure you that in
their
latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality
and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Awhile back you stated that if a car manufacturer made an
all-wheel-drive
sport sedan that is comparable to what you were driving at the
time
(an
Audi
Quattro?), you'd buy it. So now I'm going to hold you to your
word:
go
drive the Cadillac STS AWD or the Chrysler 300M AWD and buy
whichever
you
like better. Either should fit your needs nicely. I went from
an
Infiniti
G35 to a Cadillac STS and have been very happy with the choice.

Are you claiming to be a good American or a good investor?

I don't think the above suggestion would satisfy both criteria.


I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket.

The Chrysler is ugly.

$18,308 to have the privilege of driving a Cadillac for 39 months.
I'd
rather make payments on a boat or summer cabin and have the 2nd home
write off.

Name me a single car with an MSRP over $40k that you could drive for
less
than $18,500 over 39 months. Don't forget to include tax!

That's dependent on leasing. Most people don't lease.

Driving a vehicle over $40k for 39 months isn't a function of the value
of the car, it's a function of how many they've sold and how aggressive
the financing rates they're willing to offer to get you in the car.

The real value in a car is after you've paid it off and drive it
another
50,000 miles. That's when the cost/mile goes down. Your cost/mile has
to be astronomical.

How long do *you* keep a car?

It depends. My A6 is on a lease and I'll probably purchase it this
September. Our '95 Cherokee was paid for 6 years ago and has 75,000 on
it. I also have a '68 Chev c-20. I tend to keep 'em longer.


And, in order to purchase that car post-lease, you'd be buying a car
that's worth 2/3 of the residual. Cadillac will have to write off the
loss when it's incurred.

Correct. But GMAC takes the hit. And I go buy another car.

I'm astounded that you don't recognize the folly in your statement.
You're all for it given that the big, stupid company will, in the end,
take it in the shorts.

To some extent I agree with you. When auto manufacturers lease cars at
ridiculously inflated residuals, they don't make as much money over the long
run as if they'd sold it, or leased it at a true market residual value. But
in a highly competitive market, sometimes half a loaf is better than no
loaf.

They make their profit up front on the sale of the vehicle. They depreciate
the vehicle over the life of the lease, and take the tax writeoff at the
end.

They aren't really "buying" the vehicle at the residual value. That's a
number that matters more to the consumer.



Regardless, they accomplished their goal:
They got a young professional to buy a GM car again (after owning 2 Toyotas
and an Infiniti), and changed his mind about American cars for the better.

Affording Fuel
 

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:09:41 -0500, DSK wrote:

I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

Then you haven't owned them long enough. Oil will be king until
alternative energy sources are developed, and that won't happen until
gasoline hits 5 to 10 dollars a gallon. On second thought, that might
happen sooner than we think.

My guess is that WW III will be all about oil and that history will
not be kind to the US energy policies of the last 30 years.

Affording Fuel
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

Fair enough but have you ever calculated your cost per mile?

Let me help, using your numbers:

"I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket."

That comes to $18,308, divided by 40,000 miles = 45.8 cents/mile
before insurance, fuel and maintenance.

If you purchased a Lexus for about $45,000 and drove it 100,000 miles
you'd get about the same numbers but the Lexus would still be worth
somewhere between $5 and $10K, possibly more.

The advantage of leasing is getting a new car every 3 or 4 years with
minimal transaction costs, but it is still cheaper to purchase and
hold if you buy quality.

Using my numbers, the second 100,000 miles is almost free!

I don't totally disagree with you. Buying and holding a quality car is the
cheapest way to go. Usually.

But like I said, the primary advantage is that leasing allows me to get into
a new car every 3 to 3 1/2 years.

And one thing you're forgetting about is the cost to drive that Lexus for
the 50,000 miles *after* the warranty has expired.

Even if nothing breaks, you'll have tires, brake pads, rotors, spark plugs,
etc. to replace...where I'll simply turn the car in before it's time to
spend money on all of those again.

Then, if you have a major mechanical issue arise at 80,000, what does that
Lexus cost you over the 100,000 mile lifetime?

Affording Fuel
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:09:41 -0500, DSK wrote:

I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

Then you haven't owned them long enough. Oil will be king until
alternative energy sources are developed, and that won't happen until
gasoline hits 5 to 10 dollars a gallon. On second thought, that might
happen sooner than we think.

My guess is that WW III will be all about oil and that history will
not be kind to the US energy policies of the last 30 years.


Heck, WWII was about oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as a result of the
oil embargo we imposed upon them.

Affording Fuel
 

As opposed to spending 100s of millions of dollars shouting
lies & slander over & over until it is commonly accepted as
"truth?"


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
you mean like the daily kos and wonkette?

or mother peace?


Let's see, which side spent the most, last campaign season?
How much $$ is tossed into these sources you name?

Frankly, the Democrats did not field even ONE 'Swift Boat
Veterans' type ad campaign, the Rove/Bush faction did how
many? You should be proud, not ashamed. After all, it worked.


I'd agree with term limits, but not with slander &
name-calling. Why can't you offer something positive,
especially since that's your main criticism of "the other side?"

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
i can do that until im blue in the face and it wont change anything at
all.


Try it, then. Don't give up before you start.


slander and name calling are part of the process

Wrong. Slander and name-calling is a popular tactic for
those who have little else to offer. It has been used to
sway the gullible and the petty mean-spirited since
Hammurabi... or even earlier.

DSK

Affording Fuel
 

I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

"Wayne.B" wrote
Then you haven't owned them long enough.

heh heh since 1978. If that's not long enough, what is?

What I meant by my comment above is that *current* price
trends are not reflecting profits (or at least not in
proportion), and the profits are not being passed on.

... Oil will be king until
alternative energy sources are developed, and that won't happen until
gasoline hits 5 to 10 dollars a gallon. On second thought, that might
happen sooner than we think.


Well, depends on what you mean by 'developed.' There are all
kinds of alternative energy technologies out there. Problem:
they all cost more & deliver less HP-per-gallon than petroleum.

And in some places, gasoline already costs $9/gal.


My guess is that WW III will be all about oil and that history will
not be kind to the US energy policies of the last 30 years.



Agreed. Totally.


NOYB wrote:
Heck, WWII was about oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as a result of the
oil embargo we imposed upon them.


Largely, yes.

DSK

Affording Fuel
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
As opposed to spending 100s of millions of dollars shouting lies &
slander over & over until it is commonly accepted as "truth?"


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
you mean like the daily kos and wonkette?

or mother peace?


Let's see, which side spent the most, last campaign season? How much $$ is
tossed into these sources you name?

Frankly, the Democrats did not field even ONE 'Swift Boat Veterans' type
ad campaign,

Moveon.org

Affording Fuel
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
I own several oil company stocks, and the
neither dividends nor price appreciation has not followed
reported profits... yet...

"Wayne.B" wrote
Then you haven't owned them long enough.

heh heh since 1978. If that's not long enough, what is?

What I meant by my comment above is that *current* price trends are not
reflecting profits (or at least not in proportion), and the profits are
not being passed on.

... Oil will be king until
alternative energy sources are developed, and that won't happen until
gasoline hits 5 to 10 dollars a gallon. On second thought, that might
happen sooner than we think.


Well, depends on what you mean by 'developed.' There are all kinds of
alternative energy technologies out there. Problem: they all cost more &
deliver less HP-per-gallon than petroleum.

And in some places, gasoline already costs $9/gal.


My guess is that WW III will be all about oil and that history will
not be kind to the US energy policies of the last 30 years.



Agreed. Totally.

Which is why we need at least get the ball rolling on tapping our own oil
resources in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. We don't have to start pumping
the stuff yet. Just get it ready for when the big one breaks out.

Affording Fuel
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
As opposed to spending 100s of millions of dollars shouting lies &
slander over & over until it is commonly accepted as "truth?"


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
you mean like the daily kos and wonkette?

or mother peace?


Let's see, which side spent the most, last campaign season? How much $$
is tossed into these sources you name?

Frankly, the Democrats did not field even ONE 'Swift Boat Veterans' type
ad campaign,

Moveon.org


CBS

Affording Fuel
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:55:51 -0500, thunder
wrote:


If I'd lost my retirement and was forced to eat cat food
during my Golden Years because of some fat cat's greed, I'd be thinking
he'd better be spending heavily on security.


wha? you mean you'd take the - law - into your own hands?

tsk.... :)

actually, i agree with you. and i know how and have the - stuff- - to
do it from long range - really long range. :)

Maybe you should put on a workshop for others lacking your talents.

Affording Fuel
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:30:27 -0500, "RCE" wrote:

In my life there have been more people telling me I
couldn't do something than those who encouraged me to try. I rarely
listened to the first group.

damn straight...

And isn't jps a corporate CEO?

Affording Fuel
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:55:51 -0500, thunder
wrote:

If I'd lost my retirement and was forced to eat cat food
during my Golden Years because of some fat cat's greed, I'd be thinking
he'd better be spending heavily on security.

wha? you mean you'd take the - law - into your own hands?

tsk.... :)

actually, i agree with you. and i know how and have the - stuff- - to
do it from long range - really long range. :)

You were not Air Force. We specialized in long range.

Affording Fuel
 

NOYB wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

But I can assure you that in their latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by
leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time.



I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but
financed it,
I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd lose
$25k
in depreciation in that time period.


we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than that -
i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k on
it when we traded it in.

You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your
way is
of course the smartest way to own a car.

Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease
alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease, if
market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and sell it,
if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss.


I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just bought
had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20 percentage points
too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's GMAC taking the
hit...not me.



I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about
this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of
the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate
cost of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the
vehicle at the end of the lease period.
Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K
- 12K km per year.

Affording Fuel
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste? There are so many former soviet
union nukes out there to be bought or stolen. Iran, North Korea rogue states
have nuclear plants making good, non-waste weapons grade product, that the
security of the waste is not as critical anymore. And how much waste are
you talking about? It is not like the left over from mining, that take up
miles of land. We already have lots of waste up by Chuck, that is trying to
leach into the Columbia. We have to move a lot of that to Yucca Mt. no
matter what. They can only solidify so much of the ground around the waste
containers. We have to have oil for a lot of the products we use, so there
still will have to be petroleum pumped, but we could cut our usage by
probably 75% by going fission nuclear for the present time. This would
remove a lot of the middle eastern bargaining chips as well as a huge amount
of money to them. And think what happens to the manufacturing base in
China, if we get cheap power. We could pay our people more than the
Chinese, and still be competitive. Not the $100k a year for an assembly
line flunky that HK thinks they require, but they would have a living wage.

Affording Fuel
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste?

Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin.

Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American.

Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials.

Affording Fuel
 

Frankly, the Democrats did not field even ONE 'Swift Boat Veterans' type
ad campaign,


NOYB wrote:
Moveon.org


Yeah right.

1- was it's budget $100 million +

2- was it funded by blatant partisans

3- did it publish outright lies & slander based on fiction,
aimed directly at the most prominent Republicans

The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's
hardly equal, is it?

Or is your moral position 'the Democrats occasionally don't
tell the whole boring truth, so therefor is't OK for
Republicans (espeically the most radical fundie hard-right
faction) to scream lies all the time'?

It's a rather odd situation for the party of "morality and
responsibility" to be in.

DSK

Affording Fuel
 

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:42:08 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

Most species attack when cornered. You just whimper. Pathetic.

Good bye Freddie.

plonk

Affording Fuel
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Fred Dehl wrote:


Illiterate asshole,

Read the post again. Do you know what the **** a "profit margin" is?
God you're the stupidest sack of **** in the world.



Uh, Fred, you're not in your kitchen here. Try to control your foul
mouth.

Thanks.

I doubt his mommy would let him talk that way at home.....
at least not without a cake of soap to clean up afterwards.

I guess it is OK when jps writes it?

Don't try to paint me with a brush that doesn't apply (today).

I may break down and call people assholes and cocksuckers some other day
but I've chosen to hold my tongue in these proceedings in hopes of
making more important points.

I hope you appreciate my attempt at civility.

jps

I appreciate the attempt. But where is his netcopping when you fail at your
attempts?

Affording Fuel
 

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:01:00 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

concourse cars are - well, reproductions and not worth the incredible
amounts of money they command. they are for people with too much
money and not enough sense.

I'd like to edge a little closer to your last statement, personally.

I don't care whether they're concourse, I want to drive 'em and dote on
'em.

concourse cars aren't for driving - they are for showing.



I guess that's up to the owner, eh?

Classification doesn't portend utilization.

If I bought a car that was classified concourse, it wouldn't be for the
purpose of showing it.

It would be for the purpose of driving it.

I stand ready for any other smartypants comments you need make.

jps

Affording Fuel
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:03:55 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:02:32 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

A much stronger car of the 1960s...a TR4A-IRS. I had one of those, too.
Great car. Not nearly as pretty as the MGA, but...it ran and ran and
ran.

Always wanted a red 'Healy 3000 from that era.


Indeed. An aluminum bodied 100-6. Love 'em.

pansies...

Not if you stuff a chevy in there. Was funny how years ago, people would
claim the AH 1000's would be turds in the handling area, when they had a
chevy small block replace that huge hunk of cast iron from England. Was
that they were not used to power. The small block engine was about 200#
less in weight.

Affording Fuel
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

If sales go up, profits should as well.

Not necessarily.


Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher margins
even.

Affording Fuel
 

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:09:52 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

If sales go up, profits should as well. If they don't, shareholders
should replace the board and management.


Tell that to the car companies that had explosive sales growth when
they started selling cars at the "Employee Discount" last summer.



They should have had their management and boards replaced years ago!

Affording Fuel
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

The guy you voted for in 2000 said that the internal combustion
engine is the greatest threat to mankind, and you're calling the
purchase of its lifeblood "mandatory"?
In a sense, he's correct. In many parts of this country, there an
almost religious aversion to using mass transportation, an idea that's
part of normal life in some countries, and a few of our busier cities.
Even in New York only 10% of commuters use mass transit.

The reasons to not use mass transit are numerous:

- It's slower. The average mass transit commute takes 75% longer than
the
same commute by car.

- It takes quality time away from families. I run errands on my lunch
hour. In my car. If I took mass transit to work, I'd be tied to the
office and have to run errands after work, decreasing my evening
at-home
time (over and above the time lost to the longer commute as described
above).

- It's inconvenient. Unlike cars, mass transit seldom provides
door-to-
door service. So you end up walking in the elements (rain, snow,
extreme
heat) or driving to the station (Hey, isn't the goal of mass transit to
"get us out of our cars"? Oops.)

- It degrades automobile travel. Buses move slowly, are impossible to
pass or see around, and stop every few blocks, slowing down traffic on
major arteries, decreasing fuel economy and increasing pollution
emissions. Plus if you drive to and from the transit station, your car
doesn't have a chance to warm up. This means greater engine wear and
decreased fuel economy.

- It's unsafe. Mass transit has a higher deaths-per-passenger-mile
than
nearly every other method of transportation you can name. Also many
mass
transit stations, centers, and bus stops are nests of criminal
activity.

- It doesn't get us out of our cars. In addition to the need to drive
from home to the station, mass transit doesn't let us combine trips.
Transit won't let you go grocery shopping on your way home. Or get a
haircut. Or visit the doctor. Or pickup your children from school.
With
a car you can do all that in one trip on the way home from work.

The overusage of private vehicles affects us in quite a few negative
ways. At the top of the list is a certain sort of stupidity that
blinds people to the effects of their decisions.
More smug condescension from the elitist left. Go back to your triple
latte and your Oprah-approved book o' lies.

You've proven my point. Meanwhile, how have other countries gotten
around some of the problems you've described? Are you aware of any of
them, or do you prefer to assume that things could not be much better?


Poor Fred.

When I need to get downtown for a morning meeting, I take public
transportation. It's much faster and much cheaper than driving into the
city and paying for parking. We have nine buses a day leaving from a
nearby commuter lot, one returns back at noon, and the others start
leaving downtown at 3 pm. If I want, I can also drive to a Metrorail
station, take the train downtown, and return whenever I like. Also much
cheaper than driving downtown.

My wife commutes on the bus to her downtown office. She usually buys a
10-ride ticket for $40. That's five round trips. Parking downtown is $12
a day in a decent lot. Add to that the cost of fuel, wear and tear on the
car, insurance, and the fact that you can nap, read the paper or chat on
the bus, and driving into the city becomes a losing proposition.


OK, but don't you sometimes have to sit next to negroes or puerto ricans?
I'm really cynical. I think that's a major reason some people don't like
mass transportation. Matter of fact, a few have actually said it to me.


Mass transit works in a few areas in this country. As the mass transit does
not go from and to the places people need to go. If you have to change
buses 3 times, and add another hour to the commute, people will avoid it.
It is costly. If you get a couple people in the car, you can be close to
the price of MT in this country. In Europe, they have better transit, and
is reasonable. In 2001 the Metro in Paris costs about .75 Euro to go
anywhere in the major metropolitan area of Paris. Fast, often running
trains. Compare to Bart in the SF Bay area. $3-5 one way for most trips,
and then you have to catch a bus or two. One line to an area. The Metro,
has several lines going different directions. Where we stayed, there were 2
different line metro stops within 2 blocks. Manhattan Island is one of the
few places where mass transit is done correctly. Lots of trains to Penn and
Grand Central stations, and subway to get to other areas of the city.

Affording Fuel
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

If sales go up, profits should as well.

Not necessarily.


Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher
margins even.


Not exactly. If one laborer produces 60 widgets and hour and you sales
increase to 90 widgets an hour, your profits could possibly decrease in
order to meet production.

Affording Fuel
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:01:00 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

concourse cars are - well, reproductions and not worth the incredible
amounts of money they command. they are for people with too much
money and not enough sense.

I'd like to edge a little closer to your last statement, personally.

I don't care whether they're concourse, I want to drive 'em and dote on
'em.

concourse cars aren't for driving - they are for showing.



I guess that's up to the owner, eh?

Classification doesn't portend utilization.

If I bought a car that was classified concourse, it wouldn't be for the
purpose of showing it.

It would be for the purpose of driving it.

I stand ready for any other smartypants comments you need make.

jps

Some weird Russian dudes in my neighborhood are selling a mint DeLorean.
Shall I give them your email address? :-)

Affording Fuel
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

Fair enough but have you ever calculated your cost per mile?

Let me help, using your numbers:

"I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket."

That comes to $18,308, divided by 40,000 miles = 45.8 cents/mile
before insurance, fuel and maintenance.

If you purchased a Lexus for about $45,000 and drove it 100,000 miles
you'd get about the same numbers but the Lexus would still be worth
somewhere between $5 and $10K, possibly more.

The advantage of leasing is getting a new car every 3 or 4 years with
minimal transaction costs, but it is still cheaper to purchase and
hold if you buy quality.

Using my numbers, the second 100,000 miles is almost free!



Not completely true. If you lease the car, and use the car for business,
you can write off the percentage of the lease vs. the percentage of milage
used for business. If you own the car, you can take depreciation. But the
depreciation is set by the IRS, and for expensive cars, does not cover the
costs. So business owners can write off more of the car expenses with a
lease. Other than the fact, you will need to drive the car a lot for
business, and commute to the office is not part of the cost. Leasing in
just buying with no down payment. NOYB's really high residual value lease,
is a thing of the past. The companies took a huge bath on the residual
value, as well as the sales of new cars. When you had the market flooded
with 2 and 3 year old cars at a discount, a lot of the new buyers, bought
used.

Affording Fuel
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

But I can assure you that in their latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by
leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time.



I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but
financed it,
I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd
lose
$25k
in depreciation in that time period.


we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than that -
i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k on
it when we traded it in.

You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your
way is
of course the smartest way to own a car.

Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease
alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease,
if market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and
sell it, if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss.


I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just
bought had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20
percentage points too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's
GMAC taking the hit...not me.



I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about
this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of
the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate cost
of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the
vehicle at the end of the lease period.
Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K -
12K km per year.

Are you kidding!? You're the ideal candidate. Get a low mileage (10,000
mile per year) lease, and you'll save at least $150/month over financing the
same vehicle.

Consider this:
My car has an MSRP of just under $42k.
I paid $1800 to the dealer when I picked it up...plus another $422 for the
first month payment.

That's just under $18,500 in total out of pocket and monthly payments.

If I financed the same car for 66 months, rolled the sales tax into the
payment, and paid out the same $1800 when I picked up the car, my payment
would have been nearly $700/month. $700/mo * 39 months=$27,300. Add the
$1800, and you're at nearly $29k to drive that car for 39 months.


On a 66 month finance deal, with very little money down, you end up owing
after 3 years about the same amount as the car is worth. In other words,
you have zero equity and still owe $20k on a 3 year old car. And you've
paid out almost $10k more in cash over that time period!

The only way purchasing the car makes sense is if you keep it a year or two
past the last payment (ie--7 or 8 years). And hope that nothing breaks when
it's out of warranty.

Affording Fuel
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Frankly, the Democrats did not field even ONE 'Swift Boat Veterans' type
ad campaign,


NOYB wrote:
Moveon.org


Yeah right.

1- was it's budget $100 million +

2- was it funded by blatant partisans

You're kidding, right?



3- did it publish outright lies & slander based on fiction, aimed directly
at the most prominent Republicans

Of course it did.



The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's hardly equal,
is it?

The actual answer was "yes" to 2 of the 3 questions.

It may be "yes" to all of the questions, but I haven't the time to lookup
what their budget was.



Or is your moral position 'the Democrats occasionally don't tell the whole
boring truth, so therefor is't OK for Republicans (espeically the most
radical fundie hard-right faction) to scream lies all the time'?

It's a rather odd situation for the party of "morality and responsibility"
to be in.


I really don't know how to curtail blatant political advertising via special
interest groups, and at the same time protect their first amendment rights.

Of course, it'd all be simpler if we just did away with the Bill of Rights.

Affording Fuel
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

The guy you voted for in 2000 said that the internal combustion
engine is the greatest threat to mankind, and you're calling the
purchase of its lifeblood "mandatory"?
In a sense, he's correct. In many parts of this country, there an
almost religious aversion to using mass transportation, an idea
that's
part of normal life in some countries, and a few of our busier
cities.
Even in New York only 10% of commuters use mass transit.

The reasons to not use mass transit are numerous:

- It's slower. The average mass transit commute takes 75% longer than
the
same commute by car.

- It takes quality time away from families. I run errands on my lunch
hour. In my car. If I took mass transit to work, I'd be tied to the
office and have to run errands after work, decreasing my evening
at-home
time (over and above the time lost to the longer commute as described
above).

- It's inconvenient. Unlike cars, mass transit seldom provides
door-to-
door service. So you end up walking in the elements (rain, snow,
extreme
heat) or driving to the station (Hey, isn't the goal of mass transit
to
"get us out of our cars"? Oops.)

- It degrades automobile travel. Buses move slowly, are impossible to
pass or see around, and stop every few blocks, slowing down traffic on
major arteries, decreasing fuel economy and increasing pollution
emissions. Plus if you drive to and from the transit station, your
car
doesn't have a chance to warm up. This means greater engine wear and
decreased fuel economy.

- It's unsafe. Mass transit has a higher deaths-per-passenger-mile
than
nearly every other method of transportation you can name. Also many
mass
transit stations, centers, and bus stops are nests of criminal
activity.

- It doesn't get us out of our cars. In addition to the need to drive
from home to the station, mass transit doesn't let us combine trips.
Transit won't let you go grocery shopping on your way home. Or get a
haircut. Or visit the doctor. Or pickup your children from school.
With
a car you can do all that in one trip on the way home from work.

The overusage of private vehicles affects us in quite a few negative
ways. At the top of the list is a certain sort of stupidity that
blinds people to the effects of their decisions.
More smug condescension from the elitist left. Go back to your triple
latte and your Oprah-approved book o' lies.

You've proven my point. Meanwhile, how have other countries gotten
around some of the problems you've described? Are you aware of any of
them, or do you prefer to assume that things could not be much better?


Poor Fred.

When I need to get downtown for a morning meeting, I take public
transportation. It's much faster and much cheaper than driving into the
city and paying for parking. We have nine buses a day leaving from a
nearby commuter lot, one returns back at noon, and the others start
leaving downtown at 3 pm. If I want, I can also drive to a Metrorail
station, take the train downtown, and return whenever I like. Also much
cheaper than driving downtown.

My wife commutes on the bus to her downtown office. She usually buys a
10-ride ticket for $40. That's five round trips. Parking downtown is $12
a day in a decent lot. Add to that the cost of fuel, wear and tear on
the car, insurance, and the fact that you can nap, read the paper or
chat on the bus, and driving into the city becomes a losing proposition.


OK, but don't you sometimes have to sit next to negroes or puerto ricans?
I'm really cynical. I think that's a major reason some people don't like
mass transportation. Matter of fact, a few have actually said it to me.


Mass transit works in a few areas in this country. As the mass transit
does not go from and to the places people need to go. If you have to
change buses 3 times, and add another hour to the commute, people will
avoid it. It is costly. If you get a couple people in the car, you can be
close to the price of MT in this country. In Europe, they have better
transit, and is reasonable. In 2001 the Metro in Paris costs about .75
Euro to go anywhere in the major metropolitan area of Paris. Fast, often
running trains. Compare to Bart in the SF Bay area. $3-5 one way for
most trips, and then you have to catch a bus or two. One line to an area.
The Metro, has several lines going different directions. Where we stayed,
there were 2 different line metro stops within 2 blocks. Manhattan Island
is one of the few places where mass transit is done correctly. Lots of
trains to Penn and Grand Central stations, and subway to get to other
areas of the city.


There is a reason mass transit works in Europe and not here. European
cities developed centuries ago in tight dense areas, with the remaining land
used for agriculture. Streets for the most part are narrow and not good for
auto traffic. Highways do not extend to the city center for the most part
either. On the other hand, US cities developed for the most part (except
for a few cities like NYC and Boston) after the rise of the automobile so
the demographics are entirely different and are not as well suited for mass
transit. Also, because of those differences, the cultures, work habits etc.
have developed differently as well.....wrt how one buy groceries, entertains
etc.

Affording Fuel
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

Fair enough but have you ever calculated your cost per mile?

Let me help, using your numbers:

"I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket."

That comes to $18,308, divided by 40,000 miles = 45.8 cents/mile
before insurance, fuel and maintenance.

If you purchased a Lexus for about $45,000 and drove it 100,000 miles
you'd get about the same numbers but the Lexus would still be worth
somewhere between $5 and $10K, possibly more.

The advantage of leasing is getting a new car every 3 or 4 years with
minimal transaction costs, but it is still cheaper to purchase and
hold if you buy quality.

Using my numbers, the second 100,000 miles is almost free!



Not completely true. If you lease the car, and use the car for business,
you can write off the percentage of the lease vs. the percentage of milage
used for business. If you own the car, you can take depreciation. But
the depreciation is set by the IRS, and for expensive cars, does not cover
the costs. So business owners can write off more of the car expenses with
a lease. Other than the fact, you will need to drive the car a lot for
business, and commute to the office is not part of the cost. Leasing in
just buying with no down payment. NOYB's really high residual value
lease, is a thing of the past. The companies took a huge bath on the
residual value, as well as the sales of new cars. When you had the market
flooded with 2 and 3 year old cars at a discount, a lot of the new buyers,
bought used.

Nobody was advertising the deal I got. It was on Cadillac's website, and
not very easy to find. I printed it out, took it the dealer, and they said
it was the first that they had heard of it (despite the fact that it was
the last week of a 5 week ad campaign).

My dealer's "deal" included an additional $2500 down, and another $50/month.
I told them I'd call all the Cadillac dealers from Tampa south to Miami,
until someone honored the advertised deal on Caddy's website. They of
course wrote the deal.