34
   

Let GM go Bankrupt

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 11:10 pm
@roger,
somebody did a carbon footprint of the prius that showed that over the lifetime of operation it was worse than a standard small car, because of the extra pollution caused by the manufacture of the car. All is not what it seems in the saving the environment business. Last week there was a blurb about how the stuff we put into aerosol cans is ten times worse for global warming than the old stuff was, that stuff that we stopped using because it caused holes in the ozone layer....they just now figured this **** out, really on top of things our greener scientists are.....
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 10:15 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I am seriously considering using the handout....I have a 95 conversion van with 150K which gets 11mpg in the city, worth I figure $900. It is hard to pass up $4.5K ($3.5 k to me) to buy now when I prob would have replaced it with-in 2 years anyways.


Sure. Do it. If not you, then who? If anybody gets a government break, I am happy to see those go to responsible taxpayers.

I have a 1995 Subaru Impreza Outback that is developing a few 'old age' symptoms, but it is still servicable, relatively low mileage, and gets 30+ mpg in town if I drive smart, so I probably won't be doing that. But if I really needed a new car it would be tempting.

It is disgusting that the taxpayers are being required to continue to bail out GM and Chrysler though. Not only can you cash in your old gas guzzler at tax payer expense, but you can receive a very nice rebate from Government Moters that the taxpayers also mostly own which of course also makes the rebates at taxpayer expense. But it does provide a windfall of up to $9,000 for the consumer if they buy a GM or Chrysler product.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 10:17 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

somebody did a carbon footprint of the prius that showed that over the lifetime of operation it was worse than a standard small car, because of the extra pollution caused by the manufacture of the car.


I'm pretty sure that was a bullshit study; but feel free to link to it if you think it's real.

Quote:
All is not what it seems in the saving the environment business. Last week there was a blurb about how the stuff we put into aerosol cans is ten times worse for global warming than the old stuff was, that stuff that we stopped using because it caused holes in the ozone layer....they just now figured this **** out, really on top of things our greener scientists are.....


Really? I'd like to see a link to that, too. One would think that would be pretty big news.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 11:42 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

somebody did a carbon footprint of the prius that showed that over the lifetime of operation it was worse than a standard small car, because of the extra pollution caused by the manufacture of the car.


I'm pretty sure that was a bullshit study; but feel free to link to it if you think it's real.


Yeah, I remember it saying that Hybrids only lasted 4 years and that Hummers would last you 10 years.

I think a study like this is important, and the cost/energy to manufacture a vehicle is something that needs to be considered, but the study I've seen posted seems extremely biased.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 05:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
This is not the funny kind of irony: Scientists say the chemicals that helped solve the last global environmental crisis " the hole in the ozone layer " are making the current one worse.

The chemicals, called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, were introduced widely in the 1990s to replace ozone-depleting gases used in air conditioners, refrigerators and insulating foam.

They worked: Earth's protective shield seems to be recovering. But researchers say what's good for ozone is bad for climate change. These chemicals act like "super" greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.

Now, scientists say, the world must find replacements for the replacements " or these super-emissions could cancel out other efforts to stop global warming.

"Whatever targets you thought you were going to make," said David Fahey, a physicist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "it will be undermined by the fact that you have . . . additional emissions that you hadn't planned on."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12879799?source=rss
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 01:28 am
@roger,
okie wrote:
I wonder if Obama's great energy experts have factored in all the energy required to dismantle these old cars, recycle them, and the energy required to manufacture the new cars. Even though they are more economical when driven, that does not tell us the total story in terms of energy consumed or wasted when you junk a car that still runs, in favor of one that requires more manufacturing, transportation, and other things to deliver to the customer.


hawkeye10 wrote:
shame on you, you are not supposed to asks them sorts of questions!


roger wrote:

I think you've hit the biggie there. Consumer Report has done many articles on the various hybrids, and their potiential savings on fuel costs. At one point, they concluded that if your primary motivation were national energy savings, a used car was the best option. I am no longer a subscriber, so I can't provide a cite, but I'm not making it up.


I think if not a biggee, it is certainly something that is probably being overlooked. Because here is one really big thing to keep in mind, PRICE reflects not only value, but cost of energy and resources to produce it, so if a vehicle costs more than it would cost you in fuel to keep an older vehicle running, it just might indicate that the older vehicle is less wasteful than the newer vehicle, perhaps less wasteful of energy, resources, and everything that goes into the equation. I had a great argument with cyclops one time about this, when I pointed out that if it costs more to recycle something than to produce it from scratch, it just might be indicating the recycled product consumed more energy and so forth to produce. I still contend that PRICE or COST is a big indicator of what might be the most efficient, and efficiency will include energy consumption. Energy consumption occurs not only directly in the assembling a vehicle from all the components, but also in producing the components, transporting them, also the production and delivery of raw materials, but also in labor and infrastructure, people using energy to drive to work, energy to build the plants to produce, energy to build the equipment to mine the raw materials, the equipment to transport, the list is endless. What the price reflects is everything in the entire process to produce an item.

And when the government artificially tells the consumer that it will subsidize an activity not otherwise warranted by the the inherent market forces, it presumes to know the efficiencies of something more than the free market itself can determine. Experience shows us that this presumed wisdom is in fact fraudulant, not accurate, and so Obama and his administration is demonstrating his fundamental lack of knowledge and confidence in the free market. They are instead pretending to be all knowing, and wiser than the product of the free market equation, that takes in literally millions of factors that cannot be computed accurately by a bureaucrat. The closest or most accurate computation is probably reflected by price, so when you short circuit that, the law of unintended consequences will go to work overtime.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 01:49 am
@okie,
I agree, with a minor quibble on recycling. Recycled paper may indeed cost more than paper made from scratch, for example, but may have less or fewer hidden costs. That is, air and water caused by making paper is not an expense to the maker. It is a cost shared by society. Remember, "The Aroma of Tacoma" comes from being frequently on the downwind side of the paper mills.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 02:10 am
@roger,
I agree with your point, but even in that case where costs of pollution may be hidden, etc., it is difficult to judge, because what about the hidden or unforeseen, or difficult to calculate pollution of vehicles and fuel used to transport the recycled paper, etc. I am not arguing that the recycled paper may not in fact be better, but I am just pointing out that things are not always easily determined.

I cited an example to cyclops quite some time ago, of a case where Wichita could not find a suitable site for a landfill, because of environmental hurdles and opposition, so they hauled trash from that area all the way into Oklahoma, and they did this for years, supposedly to protect the environment. I know, because a relative drove a truck, a semi, everyday, one or two trips to Wichita and back, close to a hundred miles one way, and his truck was but one of a fleet of trucks. Literally hundreds of thousands of gallons, perhaps millions of gallons of fuel were expended, at least one accident that I know of that killed one person, and there was tremendous wear and tear on highways not otherwise traveled very heavily, which required alot of expense and fuel to repair. I think this type of stuff goes on all the time in this country, because of do-gooders.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 09:22 am
Another question about the cars, if they are destroyed, what does that do to the price of spare parts, etc., and what does that do to the energy consumed to make new parts?

Here is a good article:

http://www.laurensautosalvage.com/cash_4_clunkers/cash_for_clunkers.htm

"Why The CARS Program Will Not Work

The newly passed “Cash for Clunkers” program, AKA Car Allowance Rebate System, is a severely flawed and harmful piece of legislation. It’s based on assumptions that are simply not true, it’s impossible to enforce, it’s harmful to the environment, it will drive up the cost of many used parts, it will cost many American jobs, and of course is a complete waste of tax payer dollars.

The assumption that this legislation is based on is that people driving “older”, gas-guzzling cars will turn their cars in to the government and receive a “credit” to purchase newer, supposedly more fuel-efficient cars, thereby reducing our dependence of foreign oil and theoretically creating new jobs building new cars. The problem here is that it’s a well know fact that most older cars built in the 1980’s and 1990’s actually get just as good, if not better gas mileage than their brand new counterparts. It is not uncommon for a ‘90’s V6 Taurus to get 30 MPG, or ‘90’s 4-cylinder Accord to top 32 MPG, and some vintage Nissan Sentras and Ford Escorts can top 40 MPG. Going back to the ‘70s and ‘80s, many small Hondas and Volkswagens toped 50 MPG -- even better than modern Hybrids! There will be many cases where people will “trade in” a car that actually gets better gas mileage than the new one they’re buying with the credit!

There are other “assumptions” this program is based on that simply do not hold water. One problem is that there is no guarantee that people who receive these credits will even buy an American car. In fact, it’s more likely that people looking to purchase very fuel-efficient cars will buy a Japanese or a Korean car rather than an American car. This is great for job creation in Asia, but does little to nothing to create jobs here at home.

Another problem is that people who have the money to spare and good enough credit to buy new cars are probably not driving old “gas-guzzling clunkers”. It is more likely that they are driving vehicles less than six years old. There is almost no difference between a 2004 and a 2010 model automobile as far as MPG rating and pollution emissions.

Yet another problem is the disposal of cars turned in under this program! New car dealers routinely sell their trade-in cars to wholesalers, who then clean them up and sell them on used car lots. This will not be possible if the car must be destroyed…. Only automotive salvage companies have the capability to destroy cars. This means that cars traded in to this program now become almost worthless…. Less than the price scrap metal (currently about $200.00 for a complete full-size car). Many recyclers, including us, do not wish to fool with these cars in the first place as the hassle and cost of all the government paper work will far exceed the few dollars the car is worth as scrap metal.

As for enforcement, we can think of any number of ways to get around the requirements in this legislation. For example, one version of the bill requires recyclers to destroy all engines in cars turned into this program that get less than 18 MPG. Another version requires that the engines, transmissions, and some other drive train parts be destroyed from these vehicles, as well as raising the MPG cutoff limit to well above 18 MPG. It would be very easy to throw any old broken engine and transmission into a crusher, smash into a cube, and then claim that this hunk of metal was actually from the car turned into the Cash for Clunkers program. After “proving” that the parts were “destroyed”, the recycler can then sell you a bag of bolts and “give” you the engine or transmission for “free”.

As for the environment, the benefits of recycling used parts are well known and are undisputable. The amount of energy, raw materials, and pollution emissions saved are astronomical when reusing a used part verses manufacturing a new one. Destroying perfectly good parts and forcing consumers to buy new ones, most of which are made in China, will greatly increase the world’s pollution output and drain away even more of our limited natural resources " including a large increase in the consumption of oil.

As for driving up prices, that’s as simple as the laws of supply and demand from a high-school Economics 101 class, which is evidently basic education that most of our congressmen never received. If they had, then would realize that whenever you reduce the supply of any product when demand remains constant, then the price of that product will increase. As more and more perfectly good engines and transmission are destroyed, they will become harder to find and will drive up the price of the remaining parts still in the market. This harms both consumers and recyclers because not only will consumers have to pay more for parts, but recyclers will have to pay more to get older cars (because the demand is so high and there are fewer out there to be bought).

As to how this program will cause many thousands of job losses, as less and less used cars are available for recycling, automotive recyclers all over the country will have to reduce staff to keep pace with falling demand. In addition, all of the related industries such as repair shops, towing companies, auto auctions, used car dealers and the like will have to reduce their employees as well. These are all 100% American jobs going down the toilet….. All automotive recycling, salvage, and repair is performed in our local communities here in the US, where as most of the new cars purchased as a result of this program will be made overseas (as stated above).

Now if you’re not ready to blow your top after learning just how harmful this “Cash for Clunkers” program really is, then try this on for size; As cars are being destroyed, prices are going through the roof, pollution is being created by leaps and bounds, oil is being sucked out the ground at record paces, and thousands and thousands are people are being laid off " You’re helping to pay for it all via your tax dollars!

Obviously, we at Laurens Auto Salvage oppose the “Cash for Clunkers” program. Unfortunately, the senate has just snuck this bill passed us this week (first week of July 2009) and Obama just signed it into law. Now nothing can be done to stop this madness.............. all we can do is watch our tax dollars go down the drain."
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 03:25 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:


"Why The CARS Program Will Not Work



It will work because Congress says it will work. What I don't understand is why they don't just move Earth a bit farther from the sun, and declare a surplus of oil.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 03:29 pm
@roger,
a violation of EPA and OSHA regs
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 04:30 pm
@roger,
Quote:
It will work because Congress says it will work.


Like prohibition did?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 12:14 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
It will work because Congress says it will work.


Like prohibition did?

And like the stimulus package kept unemployment under 8% ?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:04 pm
Bait and Switch, not a surprise at all. This is what could be expected with Obamacare as well, bait and switch. Don't be a sucker in the first place. I find it mysterious why anyone would believe Obama on anything, let alone their health. He's a corrupt Chicago community organizer that has no experience doing anything real significant, nothing. The cash for clunker program is a good illustration of a bunch of duds running the government.

"Clunker confusion: MPG figures
Some car shoppers find that the fuel economy for their old cars has suddenly improved - making them ineligible for Cash for Clunkers.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Some car shoppers are finding that their trade-in vehicles, which qualified for a Cash for Clunkers rebate last week, don't this week because of changes in the EPA's fuel economy ratings.

In some cases, car buyers say, dealers are backing out of sales they've already made because the EPA changed the fuel economy figures on their trade-in.

......."


http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/autos/clunker_mpg_switch/index.htm?postversion=2009072811
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:19 pm
@mysteryman,
Exactly.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:25 pm
@okie,
I was watching the news early this morning and saw where the government is very slow reimbursing dealers for the 'clunker cash'. The dealers are apparently having to pay the customers out of their own cash reserves and then are reimbursed by the government. A number of dealers have many tens of thousands owed them by the government and are afraid the government will run out of money before they are reimbursed.

That is going to get really interesting if that should happen.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I was watching the news early this morning and saw where the government is very slow reimbursing dealers for the 'clunker cash'. The dealers are apparently having to pay the customers out of their own cash reserves and then are reimbursed by the government. A number of dealers have many tens of thousands owed them by the government and are afraid the government will run out of money before they are reimbursed.

That is going to get really interesting if that should happen.


They are worried that the government will 'run out of money?'

Seriously?

Cycloptichorn
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Nah! The Fed can always consult with California. They know all about issuing script.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

They are worried that the government will 'run out of money?'

Seriously?

Cycloptichorn


No, only China seems concerned about the US government running out of money. The dealers only have to worry about agreements being abrogated - see Chrysler bondholders. Oh, and the little matter of finance charges involved in carrying government paper in a tight credit market.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:55 pm
@roger,
Given the overall track record of the government and the shifting sands of changing policy and changing promises, can you blame the auto dealers from being nervous?

Quote:
Cash for clunkers funds going fast
By Ed Brayton 7/30/09 12:24 AM

In just the first three days that the cash for clunkers program has been active, almost 10% of the entire $1 billion appropriated for tax rebates on the purchase of new, more fuel efficient vehicles has been spent. Automotive News reports:


Federal refunds to dealers tripled on Tuesday, the third day of the cash-for-guzzlers program, as some dealers expressed concern that the program’s $1 billion budget would soon be depleted…

The U.S. Transportation Department approved $68.9 million in reimbursements as of early Wednesday morning, up from about $17 million the day before, Tyson said.

The difference comes to $51.9 million in a 24-hour period, or triple the total refunded since the program began last Friday.

The article also reports that the U.S. Transportation Department is “taking steps to ensure that if the program budget is exhausted, dealers will not be left holding the bag for credits they paid to customers but did not get reimbursed for.” Under the rules of the program, dealers have to sell the car and give the credit to the customer and then apply for reimbursement. That has led dealers to worry that as the funds are used up, they could be stuck having given $3,500 to $4,500 discounts to customers and not be reimbursed for those rebates.
http://michiganmessenger.com/24003/cash-for-clunkers-funds-going-fast


Quote:
Federal program creates questions for New Orleans-area auto dealers
New Orleans CityBusiness
Jul 27, 2009
by Stephen Maloney

The federal Cash for Clunkers program is in its first week of operation, but New Orleans-area auto dealers are already worried about what they see as a lack of regulations.

The program, which offers consumers an incentive of up to $4,500 to purchase a more fuel-efficient car, is expected to spur car sales in the New Orleans market, but local dealers are concerned that the consumer will be the only one to benefit.

Under the terms of the program, dealers essentially foot the bill for the incentive by including it in the purchase of the vehicle, auto dealer Ray Brandt said.

After the sale, the dealer then has to notify the government of the sale and apply for reimbursement, which Brandt called a scary prospect since there is no set timeline for the government to pay the dealer back.

"It's a great program, but it's kind of light on regulations," he said. "The consumer's going to get protected because he's going to get his money initially, but it's up to the dealer to submit all the correct paperwork and follow all the procedures to get reimbursed."

Brandt said he expects most of the approximately 19,000 dealers across the nation to take advantage of the program, but said there are still many unanswered questions.

"We're not sure in a lot of ways how this is going to work out," he said. "The state of Louisiana still has not told us whether the deal we give the consumer is sales tax-exempt, so we don't even know that yet."

The program could also run out of money while dealers are still offering the discount, rendering any pending reimbursements worthless, Brandt said.
MORE HERE:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20090727/ai_n32368052/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let GM go Bankrupt
  3. » Page 27
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 07:09:48