Got his from a blog at http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2331218/posts

Hard to argue with the math:



"Here's some math from your stories that the average clunker got 15 mpg and
the average replacement gets 25. ·

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of
gasoline. ·

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. ·

So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 320
gallons per year. ·

The total is about 700,000 vehicles - so that's 224 million gallons / year.
·

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. ·

5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's U.S. consumption. ·

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. ·

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that???"

And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles to
the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through the
re-manufacturing industry

On Sep 4, 11:30*pm, "Lu Powell" wrote:
Got his from a blog athttp://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2331218/posts

Hard to argue with the math:

"Here's some math from your stories that the average clunker got 15 mpg and
the average replacement gets 25. ·

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of
gasoline. ·

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. ·

So, an average clunker transaction reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 320
gallons per year. ·

The total is about 700,000 vehicles - so that's 224 million gallons / year.

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
That's Obomath. This bunch of morons we have for an administration do
well to breath on their own.

As opposed to the previous administration, a bunch of lying thieves, who
spent our treasure and blood like drunken sailors on shore leave.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:41:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
That's Obomath. This bunch of morons we have for an administration do
well to breath on their own.

As opposed to the previous administration, a bunch of lying thieves, who
spent our treasure and blood like drunken sailors on shore leave.

That is a great example of 'Bush Rationale'.

Bush spent a lot of money, so it's OK for 'Bama to waste four times as
much.

You guys are something else.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:40:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:41:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
That's Obomath. This bunch of morons we have for an administration do
well to breath on their own.
As opposed to the previous administration, a bunch of lying thieves, who
spent our treasure and blood like drunken sailors on shore leave.

That is a great example of 'Bush Rationale'.

Bush spent a lot of money, so it's OK for 'Bama to waste four times as
much.

You guys are something else.

"Waste" implys that bama can account for the money he so frivolously
throws around. Most of the bailout money just vaporized into thin air.
Does anyone know where all that automaker bailout money? Even more
difficult to trace is the financial industry bailout. I wonder if those
executives ever got their bonuses. The clunker program hasn't done so
well either. Mis management of the program has left the dealers holding
the empty bag. Hopefully they will eventually get paid.

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Think of the number of nonpolluting nuclear plant that could have been
built and truly eliminating coal fired plants. reducing CO2 means
eliminating fossil fuels (gasoline,coal, natural gas, propane, etc) as
an energy sources.

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Why did my 2001 F-150 with a 5.4L V8 qualify to be replaced with a 2009
F-150 with a 5.4L V8 under the CARS program?

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:09:08 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:49 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:40:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
And that doesn't take into account the loss of revenue for the aftermarket
parts and repair industry that just lost those potential 700,000 vehicles
to the junkyard. Nor the energy savings of recycling those parts through
the re-manufacturing industry


And, it doesn't take into account the improvement to the atmosphere, small
though it is (if you really want a big improvement, severely restrict beef
sales), nor the improvement, also relatively small in the viability of the
auto manufacturers nor putting the breaks on a worsening job market.

Hate to break it to you, but most of the usable parts of the clunkers were
salvaged before the shredding. There was some loss to the secondary car
sales market, since they were removed from the mix.

Until you liberals get serious about nuclear energy, your 'improvement
to the atmosphere' comments are little more than humorous politics.

Nuclear energy sucks.

It is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. I pay 30% more for the
electricity running through this laptop sitting while I'm sitting on
this couch, than I do at my other home which is served by a coal
plant. Once or twice a year, they remind me that I have to drive by
the melting reactor building to get away, if there ever is a serious
event. That makes my family safe, huh? What the HELL do we do with all
of that spent fuel? It is ACCUMULATING AT THE REACTOR COMPLEXES now,
since no state wants it transported down their roads or stored within
their borders. When will the bill come due and who will pay for the
final disposal of that stuff?

I'd be all for it, if we could overcome the shortcomings, but at this
writing it just sucks.


Better to let Florida sink, huh?

How have the stupid, friggin' French managed to do so well, Gene?
Perhaps you should do a little reading on the new technology available
for dealing with nuclear waste.

I guess improving the atmosphere isn't such a big deal after all, is
it?
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.