|
Affording Fuel
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "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. OR.....like me, drive 20-30k miles a year. |
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. There are too many reasons for increased sales, and too many different types of businesses. Meat sock's blanket statement was silly. |
Affording Fuel
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:24:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"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. Which is why I keep cars and trucks for ten years or more. My Mustang will go to a grandkid. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Affording Fuel
Mike Hunter wrote:
You might want to do some research on gasket problems. Don't need to, I realize that, the Ford 3.8 front drive is a prime example... BUT The gaskets are not responsible for the action of the DexCool gunking up & "beaching" in low-flow areas, & erosion of cast iron head surfaces that were just fine with glycol, or even plain water! GM like ever other manufacture had gasket problem. The result of the government mandate to gasket manufactures to remove asbestos without giving the gasket manufactures time to develop an alternative material. GM, Toyota, Chrysler, Honda and every other manufacture were not at fault, they and their customer were victims of a poorly planed government madate. But asbestos was not a factor in the design of lower intake gaskets - practically EVERY ONE with DexCool on GM V-6s & most V-8s is going to fail to some extent - go out & look at yours. If it's under warranty - go get it done - there are updated gaskets coming out now for more recent vehicles - Rendezvous, etc... Rob |
Affording Fuel
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. Read the rest of the post you snipped! |
Affording Fuel
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "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. Anathema. I've got an older English sports car with a straight six in it, and it would lose tens of thousands in value if I replaced that engine with a Chevy engine. My old car is older than my wife. They've both still got their curves, though. But years ago, we swapped engines. The cars were not classics then. I turned down buying a Ferrari GTO for $5500 in about 1967 as I figured I could not afford the ZF replacement transmissions, etc. Was racing a 1964 Corvette in those days. Highest a GTO sold for was $16,500,000. Would have been a good car to buy and store. |
Affording Fuel
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. There are too many reasons for increased sales, and too many different types of businesses. Meat sock's blanket statement was silly. But with good management, the profits should go up. |
Affording Fuel
The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's hardly equal,
is it? NOYB wrote: 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. You're kidding right? Here's the problem for you- reality. Name one lie and/or slander published by moveon.org. DSK |
Affording Fuel
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. Read the rest of the post you snipped! I read it, and then snipped it to make the next message less cluttered. The things you said are only distantly related to the worst threats regarding nuclear materials. Go back to step 2 and buy the magazine. You'll probably be interested and surprised, as I was. I'd post the text, but I don't subscribe to the digital version, which is $39. |
Affording Fuel
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. There are too many reasons for increased sales, and too many different types of businesses. Meat sock's blanket statement was silly. But with good management, the profits should go up. In all types of businesses? That's next to impossible, unless, of course, you want to shut down your production facilities and move them overseas. Not always possible, though. |
Affording Fuel
jps wrote:
$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. More people are all the time. There is a surplus of out-of-lease cars and many leasing companies have exited the business. 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. I like leases since the car is always fairly new, less likely to break down, is always under warranty, and routine maintenance is covered (some cars). There are other considerations due to business use, but I have leased my last seven cars, only two of them since I started my business. 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. I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up. In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car. Welcome to American cars. jps |
Affording Fuel
Harry Krause wrote:
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. Hopefully he got his slap on the wrist. Dan |
Affording Fuel
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:16:32 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: Using my numbers, the second 100,000 miles is almost free! the way we look at it, we break even on the purchase price around 75k - the rest is a freebie. and if those idiots at ford ever offer zero percent financing again, well probably finance it. We purchased a new Ford Focus for my daughter last year as we could not pass up the rebates and employee pricing offered to all buyers..........we got the car for about 25% off sticker. We could not even have purchased a used 2004 Focus at the price we got. The Big 3 sold their souls/shot their wads with the employee pricing, rebates and 0% financing over the past couple of year. Folks who may not have purchased a new car for several more years down the road took advantage of those deals, taking them out of the picture for car new sales in 2006 and 2007. So besides losing money on the incentives, the Big 3 has a smaller pool of prospective buyers over the next couple of years. Add to the mix the financial/benefit commitments the Big 3 made to their workers (most importantly health benefits to retirees) and the increasing US market share of *imports* (many now made here) and you have a very unstable future for the Big 3. Not a good thing for the US. |
Affording Fuel
"DSK" wrote in message ... The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's hardly equal, is it? NOYB wrote: 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. You're kidding right? Here's the problem for you- reality. Name one lie and/or slander published by moveon.org. Name one fact or truth published by them. |
Affording Fuel
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. Read the rest of the post you snipped! I read it, and then snipped it to make the next message less cluttered. The things you said are only distantly related to the worst threats regarding nuclear materials. Go back to step 2 and buy the magazine. You'll probably be interested and surprised, as I was. I'd post the text, but I don't subscribe to the digital version, which is $39. Yucca mt can be protected. but there is so much nuclear material out there in bombs, etc and rogue states with nuclear reactors, the worry is more when do the nut cases get it, the do they get the material. |
Affording Fuel
In article , jherring1
@yahoo.com says... As the former owner of an MGB-GT, I can state that everyone of those are true. Thanks, jps! '59 MGA, '70 BGT, '73 Midget, '69 Austin America (whew, was that a stinker!). There's nothing like English electrics... jps |
Affording Fuel
|
Affording Fuel
|
Affording Fuel
"jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up. In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car. My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition. I could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it. How long was your lease on it? |
Affording Fuel
"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. Read the rest of the post you snipped! I read it, and then snipped it to make the next message less cluttered. The things you said are only distantly related to the worst threats regarding nuclear materials. Go back to step 2 and buy the magazine. You'll probably be interested and surprised, as I was. I'd post the text, but I don't subscribe to the digital version, which is $39. Yucca mt can be protected. but there is so much nuclear material out there in bombs, etc and rogue states with nuclear reactors, the worry is more when do the nut cases get it, the do they get the material. You keep saying these things about storage, but that's not the point. Buy the magazine. There are things in the article you and I were completely unaware of. Do *are* interested in learning something new every 12 hours, aren't you? Or, have you picked out your gravestone already? There's nothing in between the two. |
Affording Fuel
NOYB wrote:
Name one fact or truth published by them. The "reasons" for invading Iraq? The HUGE increase in the US debt? The wiretapping of American citizens without warrants? The torturing? Social Security "reform"? Medicare "reform"? Congressional ethics "reform"? Actually the list is a lot longer, but I have a busy day ahead. Posts like this make me think you're really a not-so-covert Socialist agitator intent on making the U.S. right wing look bad. DSK |
Affording Fuel
"DSK" wrote in message ... The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's hardly equal, is it? NOYB wrote: 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. You're kidding right? Here's the problem for you- reality. Name one lie and/or slander published by moveon.org. Moveon's claim that Bush lied about the "reasons" for invading Iraq Moveon's lies that the deficit continues to grow, when it has in fact shrunk considerably from 2004 to 2005. Moveon's claims that the President "broke the law" by granting the NSA the ability to listen to phone calls made by terrorists...when in fact several Presidents before him took similar steps Moveon's lies that Bush authorized people like England to pose with naked Iraqi soldiers with dog collars around their necks. Moveon's lies and distortion of the statistics about Bush's social security reform proposals. Moveon's characterization that Bush is a modern day Hitler |
Affording Fuel
Here's the problem for you- reality. Name one lie and/or slander published
by moveon.org. NOYB wrote: Moveon's claim that Bush lied about the "reasons" for invading Iraq Are you now claiming that President Bush told the truth about his reasons for invading Iraq? Yellowcake? Trailers? Links to Al-Queda? Dancing in the streets & tossing flowers to the liberators? Moveon's lies that the deficit continues to grow, when it has in fact shrunk considerably from 2004 to 2005. Aren't these the same 'accounting tricks' that you're always accusing others of using to claim Clinton built up a budget surplus? Is the Iraq war expenses included in this 'shrinking deficit'? Moveon's claims that the President "broke the law" by granting the NSA the ability to listen to phone calls made by terrorists...when in fact several Presidents before him took similar steps Actually, you're the one lying about Moveon.org's action... they are petitioning to determine the legaltiy of the action, not claiming that it's illegal. And no President has "taken similar steps" unless it was during a declared war. Moveon's lies that Bush authorized people like England to pose with naked Iraqi soldiers with dog collars around their necks. Please post a link to Moveon.org's statement. And remember, President Bush is the Commander in Chief of a military that was ordered to disregard the Geneva Conventions and "push the envelope" on treatment of prisoners... a doctrine that presumably came right from the top since it was publicly declared by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General (presumably with Bush's knowledge & approval). BTW while we're on the subject of accountability, chain of command, and legality, how do you feel about President Bush's use of so many 'signing memoranda' when executing legislation? Moveon's lies and distortion of the statistics about Bush's social security reform proposals. PLease quote same. President Bush's proposals to "reform" Social Security were a transparent attempt at looting, and most Americans were not dumb enough to fall for it... of course you blame 'libby-rull propaganda' for that. Moveon's characterization that Bush is a modern day Hitler Can you provide a link to that? OTOH there is a retouched photo of Hillary done up to look like Hitler that is very popular in Republican mail lists, and of course the fake photo of Kerry with Hanoi Jane. Actually, I don't follow Moveon.org much at all, so your protests only serve to give them more publicity. Good work comrade! DSK |
Affording Fuel
In article . net,
says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up. In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car. My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition. I could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it. How long was your lease on it? 48 mos. Financing was ridiculous and nothing out of pocket. It was my second lease with them and, although I'm attracted to the new a6 (mostly the interior), I'm also attracted to getting off the merry go round. Per our discussion, Volkswagen would still get its money out of the car vs. GM having to write off the difference between residual and the actual worth of the car. jps |
Affording Fuel
|
Affording Fuel
"jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up. In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car. My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition. I could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it. How long was your lease on it? 48 mos. Financing was ridiculous and nothing out of pocket. It was my second lease with them and, although I'm attracted to the new a6 (mostly the interior), I'm also attracted to getting off the merry go round. Per our discussion, Volkswagen would still get its money out of the car vs. GM having to write off the difference between residual and the actual worth of the car. Audi had a great lease on its A6 and A4. The A4 was $349/mo. with zero out of pocket, 12,000 mi/yr, for only 24 months. The A6 was $569/mo. or $599/mo with the same terms. Obviously, the 24 month term was what I found most appealing. But I wanted to be under $500, so I didn't even drive the A6. The A4 was too small and too slow. I couldn't get used to a 4-cylinder after driving the G35...even if it was turbocharged. |
Affording Fuel
"jps" wrote in message ... I've had one hell of a time justifying the expense of fuel and, consequently, over the last year our boat has been out very little. Now I come to find that Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton have made more money this past year than at any time in history and our rate of savings hasn't been this low since 1933. I'm feeling stung. The taxation is going to happen one way or another. I feel government is in a better position to redistribute my taxation more than I trust Exxon or Chevron or Halliburton but I guess they already have. Think about it folks. Very few companies are having banner years, apart from these companies. Is it some sort of coincidence that these same companies are friends of the current administration? This whole thing stinks from the head down. I guess the dinghy will have to do for now. jps get a sailboat!! |
Affording Fuel
jps wrote:
In article . net, says... I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up. In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car. My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition. I could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it. jps That means you either paid too much in depreciation during the course of your lease or you paid a large "cap cost reduction" so the residual value is higher. What you "net" on it in a sale would be a repayment to yourself for overpayment. You will also pay sales tax on the residual value since you never owned it in the first place. You would now be buying it from the bank. That can be avoided if you trade it in. As far as I can tell, leasing is a guessing game for the banks. They have to guess what the car will be worth after a certain period of time with a certain number of miles on the odometer. I have also traded in a lease right before its expiration date and picked up a grand, or so. I have traded in others that were essentially a wash just to avoid the return hassle. Dan |
Affording Fuel
Fred Dehl wrote:
For the same reason I respond to Snipper...I want to see how big of an asshole you really are. Nice language for someone complaining about others being "foul-mouthed". Here's a hint, idjit - we TYPE with our HANDS, we SPEAK with our MOUTHS. Every village needs an idjit, and Harry is ours. -- Skipper |
Affording Fuel
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in nk.net: 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. "Costs" is not the accurate term. "Charges" is correct. There are massive taxpayer subsidies of every mass transit system in the world. The lie that mass transit "costs" "only" fill in the fare the rider pays here is nothing more than that: a lie. I do not say the ticket charges were xxx, I say the ticket cost me xxx. Semantics. Of course there are massive subsidies. BART, the SF Bay area mass transit, has a strike or threatened strike every time the contract comes up for renewal. So a train driver, or station agent is making $80k + benefits. GED required. Most of the taxpayers, think they should be fired if they strike. Just like the air traffic controllers. |
Affording Fuel
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:42:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: For the same reason I respond to Snipper...I want to see how big of an asshole you really are. Snipper's the current title holder. Unfortunately that creates a lot of by product and clutter. Put him in the bozo bin and be done with it. |
Affording Fuel
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in ink.net: "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in nk.net: 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. "Costs" is not the accurate term. "Charges" is correct. There are massive taxpayer subsidies of every mass transit system in the world. The lie that mass transit "costs" "only" fill in the fare the rider pays here is nothing more than that: a lie. I do not say the ticket charges were xxx, I say the ticket cost me xxx. Semantics. Semantics don't pay the bills :-) BART, the SF Bay area mass transit, has a strike or threatened strike every time the contract comes up for renewal. So a train driver, or station agent is making $80k + benefits. GED required. Most of the taxpayers, think they should be fired if they strike. Just like the air traffic controllers. Absolutely. They do for Michael Criton, et al. |
Affording Fuel
In article et,
says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up. In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car. My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition. I could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it. How long was your lease on it? 48 mos. Financing was ridiculous and nothing out of pocket. It was my second lease with them and, although I'm attracted to the new a6 (mostly the interior), I'm also attracted to getting off the merry go round. Per our discussion, Volkswagen would still get its money out of the car vs. GM having to write off the difference between residual and the actual worth of the car. Audi had a great lease on its A6 and A4. The A4 was $349/mo. with zero out of pocket, 12,000 mi/yr, for only 24 months. The A6 was $569/mo. or $599/mo with the same terms. Obviously, the 24 month term was what I found most appealing. I couldn't do that. The thought of having to go through the hassle every 24 mos. is not appealing to me. But I wanted to be under $500, so I didn't even drive the A6. The A4 was too small and too slow. I couldn't get used to a 4-cylinder after driving the G35...even if it was turbocharged. I love the growl of the a4 3.0. I tried to squeeze into it after returning my 1999 a4 but couldn't justify it. Good thing too, I had 5 grown men in the a6 for business two weeks after taking delivery and too many times since. jps |
Affording Fuel
In article ,
says... jps wrote: In article . net, says... I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up. In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car. My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition. I could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it. jps That means you either paid too much in depreciation during the course of your lease or you paid a large "cap cost reduction" so the residual value is higher. What you "net" on it in a sale would be a repayment to yourself for overpayment. You will also pay sales tax on the residual value since you never owned it in the first place. You would now be buying it from the bank. That can be avoided if you trade it in. The reason I have a disparity of value at the end of the lease is that I don't put anywhere near the mileage on the car the lease anticipates. I'm 3 miles from work and, being in the NW, not on the road that much, not like folks in the NE who can drive through 5 major metropolitan areas in 5 hours. Most of our travel is by plane... As far as I can tell, leasing is a guessing game for the banks. They have to guess what the car will be worth after a certain period of time with a certain number of miles on the odometer. Right. I have also traded in a lease right before its expiration date and picked up a grand, or so. I have traded in others that were essentially a wash just to avoid the return hassle. I guess that depends on the dealer/financing folks flexibility. jps |
Affording Fuel
In article ,
says... jps wrote: In article , says... jps wrote: In article , says... It is concours, by the way, as in concours d'elegance. Not concourse. That's beyond my class of French. I probably can't even spell foie gras. jps Isn't he the brother of cooo-de-grass? Is that a french hemp reference? Smoooooookin'! Stewart had a funny thing on "switchgrass" last night. Also, Howard Fineman talked to Al Franken yesterday about his bet that if Bush mentioned the word "switchgrass" during the SOTU he'd drink an entire bottle of something. jps |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com