Yeah, I knew once I read what I posted that I had used the wrong word. My bad...... sorry

 

No worries.

 

I may have misread, and if so, my apologies.

I do tend to blast through here at a high rate of speed sometimes

 

C4C had little to nothing to do with environment concerns....

 

Go outside and play. The adults are talking.

 

Well I think I might since adult your not....

Have a Merry Christmas.

 

Quote:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Kicks-Off CARS Program, Encourages Consumers to Buy More Fuel Efficient Cars and Trucks

Quote:

See a trend here?

http://www.cars.gov/files/official-i...n/July27PR.pdf

Here's the official findings along with press releases from day one of CARS.

CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Official Information - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”

 

Makes me sick

I couldnt do it. Saw a video where they did it to a two stroke detroit, I think it was a 6v53. Horrible.

 

I've traveled a fair bit (we even adopted our daughter from Russia) and I find, despite radically different governments, almost universally people are not happy with their government.
A close friend in Moscow, Alexi, and I were talking about the mysteries of the feminine mind (there's not a lot to do in Moscow in December) and I'll always remember he said "It is an international problem."
Perhaps getting a responsible and responsive government that has a sense of service to its citizens is "an international problem".

 

C4C went about it all wrong in many respects.
Viability of engines should have been established at dealers, GOOD engines should have been offered for resale to auto recyclers.
Bad, sick motors could have been destroyed as planned.
Too many good engines bit the dust that could have been used by folks who cannot afford a nice new plastic car.

Mechanics win
Auto recyclers win
Less well heeled folks who just needed to keep their good older car on the road, win.

C4C was a epic waste of tax payer dollars and usable parts, all under the guise of "environmental" concerns and stimulus attempts.

 

I agree that it was a waste of money, but I disagree that they should have resold the engines. If they had done that, one of the major issues that cash for clunkers was trying to address would have been disregarded.

 

"The whole purpose of the program was to provide some kind of catalyst to kick-start the economy" ~ George Pipas, Ford Motor Company

"There can be no doubt that CARS drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most." ~Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation


Reagan still said it best... "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

 

Resold good engines would have been a wash, they would have replaced sick engines still being nursed along. Or they would have been sitting on racks for considerable time before re-entering the operating status.

I also agree with the Ronald Reagan comment, he would have been horrified at C4C.

 

"The fuel economy increase from the trade-in to new car seems large, but it doesn't have that big of impact on environment" ~Christopher Knittle, Economics Professor, University of California at Davis
Knittle calculated the program will save approximately 270 gallons of gasoline per car, per year. If a total of 750,000 (the actual number was 690,000) vehicles are sold, as appears likely, approximately 12,000 barrels of oil a day will be saved in a country that consumes 9 million a day. (using the standard of 19gals of gas from 1 barrel of oil) 690k cars x 270gal per car = 186300000 gal saved per year, 186900000gal/yr ÷ 365 days = 510410.95 gal saved per day. 510411gal/day ÷ 19gal per barrel = 26863.73 barrels of oil per day. With a consumption rate of 9 MILLION bpd, that drops us to a consumption of 8.97 MILLION bpd... thats a huge whopping drop of......





ready for it....







you sure?









Ok......




0.29848588888% or roughly three tenths of one percent


But wait you say.... add that savings up over a year and it adds up!!! OK, we can do that too!! 26863.73bpd x 365 days = 9804995 barrels saved (using a cost of $80 per barrel) 9804995 barrels x $80 per barrel = $784,399,600 or just over 784 million dollars. So end result, we spent 2.75 Billion to save 784 million this year in oil costs... don'tcha just love gubmint math

 

I think the whole idea of C4C was to get our old vehicles off the streets and get us into newer, dare I say, more reliable vehicles. They were trying to free up some market space, but as with everything, there is always a "catch-22". They may have created the market space, but in doing so they created a lot of debt on our citizens, debt that, I for one, cannot afford. Our country is already in a huge debt (I do not have the exact number, and will not take a stab in the dark). As with every decision, it simply cannot please everyone involved. There is always a "better" way to go about things, but better for who? I agree 100% that it was a shame, becuase my hobby is rebuilding old cars. I would love to be able to own a brand new f150, but for what I use my trucks for, it would be a crying shame for me to even drive one. My old "clunkers" suit me perfectly. I can see advantages to both sides of this discussion, but whats done is done. There is no reviving any of those vehicles involved, so all we can do is keep our good ol' girls runnin the best we can. When we can't keep them running anymore, then we will have to either buy a newer, "better" vehicle, or walk.

Everything I typed is purely my opinion, and I do not mean to offend anyone in giving it.