I work for a dealership in Port Orchard. Any ways, I think it's rather sad to see these old cars and trucks come in, and have them junked.

Rules are that they have to be driven in and in working condition. Today a gentlement brought in a 86 Ford F-250 he's had since new, 159k for miles, clean for age. We have to turn around and drain the oil, put in an additive and run the engine until it seizes...

You'd think they'd donate them instead...Just my 2 cents

What's sad is to see the government give people $3500 to $4500 for their junk...

Keith

SO TRUE!

So what is this program intended to achieve? Stimulate the new car buying segment of our economy?

In most cases people are up side down in their vehicles once they drive off....I've seen some pretty good deals though, 4000 rebate 4500 clunker, 9 grand difference on a 09 Ranger...not bad...

Boosting the economy not quite sure about that, most of the sales guys get paid $100 per car deal on new because they are all invoice deals...The dealer itself is getting 400-500 in holdback if that...Crazy

My friend just dumped his 96 sebring for 4500 instead of selling on craigslist for 900. Good to see that POS off the road, real hazard.

So if I hold on to my 98 Ranger instead of selling it will it be worth more on the used market soon? It's worth more than the trade in and I already have a new truck.

Yeah my Ranger would qualify on a Tundra but not an F150.

What I'm thinking is the more used autos get scrapped the more a used auto is worth on the open market.

Pretty much. Or you could trade me straight up for a brand new, never been used IGLOO COOLER!

Is it loaded with beer?

If its 4x4....sure

A vehicle is only worth what someone will pay for it....

My 1997 Ranger 4x4 has 191,000 miles on it and I averaged a little over 18 MPH on my last 3 tanks. So where does the MPH figures come from? Certainly can't be what I tell them.

My 98 4X4 has 105,000. 4.0 and one of the first four doors.
I'm pretty sure it's estimated mpg.

You can go to any manufacturers website....Go to the cash for clunkers area of the site...You can put in your vehicles information, it will pop up what it qualifies for..

Can you believe it--- my MPH is 17????

You had better run and get a new one at my expense before the money runs out!

Sounds slow, Jerry.

Once again, AuntyM, you're far off the mark on how things actually work. Besides what KK pointed out, the new car must generally get more than 10 MPG over the old car to qualify for the full $4500.

No, you were able to take the money you saved because taxpayers pay for your medical care, your husband's pension, and his disability pay to buy that Scion. This program gives those people who pay taxes supporting you a chance to purchase a new vehicle that not only stimulates the economy, but also helps wean us off foreign oil. It's for those people--many from right here on this board--that don't have a guaranteed income and a heavily subsidized healthcare system like yours. Some of those people have even recently lost their job along with their healthcare, and now are struggling to take care of their family; yet they continue paying taxes to take care of you.

Actually, no, we don't make a habit of bragging about what the taxpayers are going to pay for our healthcare. And we actually believe every American should receive the same type of care we do. We don't whine and snivel because we have to find a doctor closer to us than the Military Treatment Facility while others here can't even afford healthcare. Simply put, we don't have the contempt for taxpayers that elitists like you have.

We actually feel humbled by some of the sacrifices that civilians are making today while they continue paying taxes to provide for our benefits. We believe in empathy.

You'll never get it.

It might just be me but I find it hard to believe that goharley has ever felt humbled.

It's not just you, Jerry. The inability to understand what others may feel or experience--empathy--is a well known RW character trait, or flaw, depending on how you look at it. That's why it's hard for you to believe I've ever felt humbleness.

And simply marrying a service member should grant a person more benefits than someone that works 10-hour days at minimum wage with no health coverage? Is that what you mean by earning?

Aunty,

Now tell us how you really feel....

Keith

I dont usually get into these kinds of discussions but I have a wife that stays home raising two boys under 6 and manages to keep a pretty damn happy home... don't even begin to tell me that she isn't earning a share of my benifits...

And to the minimum wage earners with no benefits... time to get a real job

"If yer gonna drive that slow Jerry, please stay off the freeway."

It's ok....his left blinker is always on.

"I have a wife that stays home raising two boys under 6"

Piper, personal choices you make shouldn't enter the equation.

so are you saying that both aunty and my wife should get a job so that they can earn their own benefits?

Nope. However, some do choose to both work so their argument, versus yours, could be they "earned" it a lot more.

yes and no...

When my wife last held a job with health insurance she was not able to take the coverage from her company as long as I was paying for the family plan that covered the kids.

Basically it makes no difference if she is working or not. As long as I am buying the family plan she has to take that insurance. She cannot be covered twice.

That guy with no benefits working 10 to 12-hour days making minimum wage to put food on your table might think she needs to get a "real" job.

Telling that guy to get a "real" job is the kind of elitism I'm talking about. You don't know these guys' stories. You probably know some people that barely made it out of high school, and perhaps some that actually didn't. They may work their ass off, but reality is: that's the best they'll ever do job-wise. They're not lazy. They simply don't possess the mental capacity to qualify for a higher paying job. It's not their fault. Tieing benefits like healthcare to one's ability to achieve and maintain a certain level of employment is somewhat feudal-esque, IMHO.

So everybody should make the same wage?

No, they should all have equal access to healthcare.

"yes and no...

When my wife last held a job with health insurance she was not able to take the coverage from her company as long as I was paying for the family plan that covered the kids.

Basically it makes no difference if she is working or not. As long as I am buying the family plan she has to take that insurance. She cannot be covered twice."

So you make my point....she stays home by choice and cannot be compared to someone who has no choice.

Everyone has a choice, some people continue to choose poorly...

I guess that makes me an elitist... BTW I dont fish for pinks or chums either

My health care plan was negociated out of wages, I've worked long and hard for years to get to this point where I can afford decent healthcare. I already pay additional healthcare dollars into Medicare. Each year I pay deductable prescription and other health care costs that total at least a $1000. And now what I'm hearing is that I will have to accept less care, longer waits, hospice and end of life counsoling after I retire.

Back to the regularly scheduled program...



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.


By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer

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 thanks to 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.

"My wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn't qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4,500 or return the new car (and get our old car back)," a car buyer wrote Tuesday on a message board at the Edmunds.com automotive Web site.

The buyer said he had signed a document agreeing to provide additional documentation needed to process his trade-in, but had not done so yet.

Another car shopper emailed CNNMoney.com saying he went to the Environmental Protection Agency's fueleconomy.gov Web site on Saturday to double-check the fuel economy rating for his 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis. When he had visited previously, the car's combined city and highway fuel economy was rated at 18 miles per gallon, making it eligible for the program.

But on Saturday, he found something different: The fuel economy for his car had been raised to 19 mpg -- one mile per gallon over the maximum fuel-efficiency allowed under the Car Allowance Rebate System (aka Cash for Clunkers). As a result, he became ineligible for a trade-in credit worth up to $4,500.

Even though the program's basic requirements have been known since it was created by Congress earlier this year, Cash for Clunkers didn't become official until July 24. So as part of the official launch, the EPA conducted "quality assurance and quality control effort regarding fuel economy calculations on more than 30,000 vehicle model types spanning the past 25 years," according to an e-mail sent by EPA spokesman Dale Kemery.

As a result, eligibility for roughly 100 vehicles was affected, Kemery wrote. However, roughly equal numbers became newly eligible and newly ineligible.

Car shoppers have been posting comments on various Internet message boards, including several at the automotive Web site Edmunds.com, describing their frustration with the changes.

The owners of a 1993 Camry V6 wagon, a 1995 Saab 900S and a 1988 Toyota 4Runner all describe their vehicles becoming suddenly ineligible for the program around the time the rules officially went into effect.

Consumers who believe their eligibility may have been hurt by EPA's changes should contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers Cash For Clunkers.

"They should call our attention to it," said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the NHTSA. He did not promise, however, that the agency would bend the rules.

Cash for Clunkers benefits are retroactive to July 1, so dealers have been able to make deals since that date. But they had to wait until July 24 to file for their reimbursement checks.

Hyundai Motor America has been helping its dealers close Cash for Clunkers deals since July 1 by providing them with cash advances equal to the expected CARS rebate, a Hyundai spokesman said. As of last Friday, about 14% of Hyundai sales were Cash for Clunker deals, according to the automaker. Last month, Hyundai sold about 38,000 cars.

It is unclear if any of Hyundai's deals so far were made ineligible by the changes, said Hyundai spokesman Phil Leinert, or how the automaker might deal with situations in which a car's eligibility changed.

Brian Benstock, owner of Paragon Honda in New York City, said he's done 33 Cash for Clunkers deals since July 1. So far, he said, he has had no problems because of altered fuel economy numbers.

"Fortunately, most of our customers weren't on the edge," he said. The average fuel economy of his Clunker trade-ins has been about 16 mpg, he said.

Dealers who entered into agreements with customers before last Friday, based on a fuel economy figure listed at fueleconomy.gov, have only themselves to blame, said Tyson.

"We made it very clear that they would be holding themselves out to some risk if they consummate a deal before the program officially begins," Tyson said.

Aunty gets her wingnut propaganda from SH.net nowadays anyway KK.

Has anyone seen the Frontline episode on dueling health care systems, where the compared the systems used by England, Taiwan, Switzerland, Japan, Germany and the US? Good show, and it exposes the truth behind what's going on in healthcare, not some schpiel delivered by some blowhard radio host, insurance lobbyist, or politician.

This link will take you to a summary page, that puts it in terms even someone with the attention span of a fruit fly should be able to browse through and understand. Read it, and if you surpass the fruit fly with your attention span, watch the show.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

Afterward, just remember that you're phuckt, because even if we could cook up a perfect plan, it would never be implemented because many people have an interest to protect, and the American voter is dumber than a f'n fencepost and will believe what a radio host, or industry lobbyist says rather than expending an hour to find out the truth.

Half our health care expenditures could be eliminated tomorrow if you put me in charge. Show up at the ER with a runny nose and a fever, and you'll be given a reason to be admitted. Maybe a punctured lung, or compound fracture will get you a bed, hmmmmm? Show up at the doctor's office obese, and you'll be sent to a quaint desert island "reeducation" camp, where you'll eat nothing until you're not obese, then you're welcome to use the health care system again. If you smoke, you'll have a year to quit.......with our assistance of course, including patches, gum, etc. If you don't quit in a year, you're out. The majority of our medicine will be proactive, rather than reactive. Things that reduce outlandish future costs will be provided at little or no current cost.

Oh, and everyone's in. No exceptions. The system depends on EVERYONE paying in, so the pool of those that don't burden the health care system will cover those that do. But here's a secret.........if you ARE a burden to the health care system, it had better be due to genetics, an accident, or simple bad luck, and NOT due to your laziness.

But, look at that. We're back to that Dictator thing from earlier conversations. The voters won't make me the Dictator, and they won't vote for a responsible candidate. They want a solution...........or so they say. I say they're full of sh!t. They just want to piss and moan. If you have any doubts, refer to the thread about the cop, prof, and Obama.

Then get two f'n lawyers and spend two days, John Conyers.

You're a f'n congreeman. WTF else do you have going on? Spending lobbyist money? Shooting off your piehole on TV?

Read the f'n bill and report back on it WITHOUT soundbites about "rationing" and "audits". Does YOUR healt plan allow you to go to the doctor 362 days a year? Would they "audit" you if you did that? Is there a lifetime max on your coverage? Can we call that "rationing"?

I see lots of GOP criticism. I hear no GOP alternatives. Offer one up, and critique the opposing plan. Or at least come up with a better excuse than "it would take two lawyers and two days to read it". Half you f'ers ARE lawyers.

That's a load of crap, Hank.

When the GOP held both houses, and the WH, there was no talk of health care reform by them, only terrorism.

Meanwhile, the lugnuts have loosened further.

So, maybe you could direct me to the GOP's alterntive plan?

What percentage believes in angels?

And yet all those donkeys voted for the incumbent.........or at least 85% of those that gave Congree a 29 % favorable score did.

Hey..........maybe they're only 29% favorable because 85% of the goats will vote for them no matter what.

And no Poli-Sci degree, either.

It's amazing how much Aunty beatches, whines, pisses & moans about all her "tax payer dollars" going to waste, yet she vacuums up more taxpayer dollars off the gov't teat than a battalion of welfare moms with a dozen bastage children each. Like I've said before. She's just a big fat sow at the taxpayer trough grunting that more piglets want in on her free dinner.

Don't watch Hannity and haven't heard Rush in 10 years(guy in the shop had him on his radio), you can't add 47 million more people to the current health care provider system without reducing care for those already insured. If in one instant the amount of landscapers increased 25% would that affect your business? Obama himself was the one talking about hospice taking a pill instead of an operation.

Oh, and everyone's in. No exceptions. The system depends on EVERYONE paying in, so the pool of those that don't burden the health care system will cover those that do. But here's a secret.........if you ARE a burden to the health care system, it had better be due to genetics, an accident, or simple bad luck, and NOT due to your laziness.


I agree Dan--- everybody should pay, but that's not how it will be set up.

Coverage for everyone would be a big win for employees. No more will you worry about whopping monthly insurance costs if you lose or quit your job. You'll truly be able to say "take this job and shove it" and not have to worry about paying $500 a month. Corp America loses a big hook.

Here's what I think should happen but won't:

We regulate the insurance industry now. If they want an increase it needs to be approved/justified. That justification comes from the ever rising costs.....drugs, machines, etc. Why not regulate the costs? I had a CT scan. Took about 20 minutes. The bill came to $1,500. Are you kidding me? Machines should be break even not for profit. I was prescribed a drug last year. For me it was a $50 copay for a 90 supply. The total charge, however, was over $2,000. Are you kidding me? Then those little pills ended up swelling up my veins and putting me over night in the hospital with the same symptoms as a heart attack. Co pay to me but total cost for less than 24 hrs in a bed over $15,000. Are you kidding me?

What's truly wrong with our health care system is the raping and pillaging going on and the politicians who condone it.

If the decision-makers on The Great Plan are anything like this clown, we're all doomed

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on

I looked back to see where I typed anything close to that, but couldn't find it.

Uh, no.

I only included two groups who are a huge burden on the health care system in the interest of time.

But if you'd like to add up the cost of smokers, other tobacco users , and the obese on the health care system, and compare it to the costs of all accidents, illicit drug use and STD's and see how they stack up, fine with me. The comparison borders on asinine.

You mean my bias derived from being a Copenhagen chewer who would be subject to being kicked out of my own plan if I didn't quit?

Yeah.............my bias has everything to do with it, and the burden placed on the health care system by smokers and the obese has nothing to do with it.

For the same reason taxpayers pay for military spouses' care that have health problems due to promiscuity, stupidity or illegal drug abuse.

I thought we'd adopted a Piscatorial Pursuits Philosophy that "stupidity should hurt." Therefore, patients with ailments caused largely or wholly by stupidity should have to pay more.

Aunty, I don't think anyone said smokers are evil. That appears to be something you read into Dan's earlier post. More accurate to say that smokers are drug addicts; just that their drug happens to be legal, whereas some drug users are addicted to drugs deemed illegal. Biochemically they're all the same in that regard. Legal/illegal is a social legal value independent of the biological and chemical attributes of the respective substances. So a smoker is no more evil than a meth head. Both are substance abusers who are hooked. And as Dan points out, the 400,000 US smokers who die from tobacco use each year make the meth deaths a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Sg

My wife's not a military spouse, she's a retiree, and she's taken well enough care of herself that she'll never be near the drain on the system that you are.

Personal attacks before 6 am?!?


Give it a friggin' rest. Go eat some bran flakes or something...

Hankster, the bill I see is from my inurance company and lists the amount paid to the clinic. The contracted rate. $1,500 for a 20 minute CT scan.

So let's do your math:

1.5 mil for the machine and we'll round up to another 1 mil a year for your senior tech working in a major city, radiologist at the highest end, $300k a year for maintenance and we'll leave the doc out since he doesn't see a dime unless there's kickbacks:

$2.5 mil a year / 4,500 hr = 555 hours = 69 days = 13.8 weeks to break even.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

With lots, and lots, and LOTS of sugar.

It's gotta be the heat. Some of you folks are getting on my nerves.

You know what they say

"If you can't stand the heat....there's a drug for that"

Sounds like it is time to take the keys away from Gramma...

There seems to be some kind of a "theme" developing here with this thread...

Same theme that eventually develops in all of 'em...and it seems that most everyone sees it and recognizes it for exactly what it is except for a very few, who either can't see it or are foolish enough to think that no one else can.

Fish on...

Todd

Seems like it's all the same inference for the various arguments.

Government cash for clunkers....

A.K.A. my tax dollars for AntiM's healthcare.

Sigh....

With all due respect to both KD and Aunty, my post was not meant to be used as a hammer maliciously thrown in the direction of a specific party. A stated conclusion was intentionally excluded in hope of something either broader in context or more distilled would be forthcoming. Perhaps a cold G&T is in order for the latter, or this for your consideration of the former....

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. -- Noam Chomsky

Whoa...


The Chomsky line just went WAY over the heads of most of "us".













































But I like it!


(Just watch out or "we" will be calling you a socialist soon )

Hankster, the point is it's a very very lucrative business. We're not talking 10% profit margins here more like 200% to 300% or more. Raping and pillaging us at all levels of care even on your death bed and you don't seem to disagree with that. The doc get's maybe a couple hundred to be responsible for life and death decisions but send me over to Radiology and they gouge out $1,500? It's gotta stop. That's why I call for a regulated industry just like we regulate health care insurance. Blood suckers should be ashamed of themselves.

"When you consider that the alternative would be to cut you open and take a look, I'd say that's a bargain."

Btw, that's pretty warped logic. The alternative is to force you to extract less out of our pockets. Your "we" would still be turning an envious profit. Just not an insane one.

sounds socialist to me

are vision and owner allowed to charge what they want?

if you're insinuating i'm a lesbian, you're right. thankfully, i'm not a socialist

close to being a lesbian or a socialist?

leave me out of this! i voted for Ron Paul

Ron Paul is quite real. I voted for him so that he might be a replacement for the status quo a-holes we were offered by the big two/one party. He also stands for exactly the opposite of the sloth and greed of corporate america and their lackies, our government.

and if you have a problem with the easter bunny and santa claus, take some ex-lax since you don't like bran flakes. fairies are real by the way, just ask Hankster.

Doubt it...

Although it may be true if you think there are only TWO parties.

Libertarian Party (1971)
Constitution Party (1992)
Green Party (1996)

American Party (1969)
America First Party (2002)
America's Independent Party (2008)
Boston Tea Party (2006)
Independence Party of America (2007)
Jefferson Republican Party (2006)
Moderate Party (2006)
Marijuana Party (2002)
Objectivist Party (2008)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
Prohibition Party (1867)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
Socialist Equality Party (2008)
Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
Socialist Workers Party (1938)
Unity Party of America (2004)
Workers World Party (1959)
Working Families Party (1998)

Where's the Faux-Centrist Party?

Fish on...

Todd

Who pays the huge R&D costs? The Canadians?

Is it R&D or is it mostly to cover the costs of being sued when 87 yr old Aunt Mary has an adverse reaction?

But Oxycodone aka Oxycontin doesn't have those problems....(sarcasm)

The best pain reliever to hit the market was Vioxx.

You got that right !

Only because "YOU" keep voting for only one of the "TWO"...

My Fiance is a nurse and would bring home sample packs, that was the only non narcotic that would rid my back pain.

Who wants to bet that yet ANOTHER self-imposed ban is a comin' shortly?

The reasoning of course will be that EVERYBODY ELSE is making too many personal attacks.

The clunker fund has run out of money. I got 19MPG on my last tank with no car payments so I guess I will keep driving my 12 year old Ford.

that was EXACTLY my point about voting for Ron Paul - he does not represent the status quo - the big two/one party that is entrenched in D.C. I have zero love for either party and the total self-interest that most of our legislators seem to have, as opposed to their DUTY to serve the american people.



nice try JG! you aren't getting this thread back w/out a fight!

It's not really a fight when the rules favor one over another.

Favor one over DOZENS of others?

(We've got you surrounded )

Why do that? just call the cops, they know how to handle it...

+ 12 and counting!

They are adding additional funding, Jerry. And what you get on an individual tank is meaningless. You'd need to check online to see if you vehicle qualifies.

Just curious if you are against the program in general, Hank?

This would seem to be right up the alley of most Repubs in that we're propping up big business.

I find the whole program ridiculous but there is no doubt that the program is doing what it was intended to do which is to replace cars with more efficient ones and to spur car-buying. I'd guess there aren't many dealerships or salesmen that are complaining.

This program doesn't benefit me at all so it is bullchit!

I checked on line and Ford had mine listed at 17 MPG, 1 MPG under the limit of 18 MPG. I still get 19 MPG commuting, I think if I was on a trip I would get 22 or 23 so I think the Gov's figures are bogus.

bogus government figures? what a shock! hey the gov has to sell cars now that "we" are part owners

Put the hammer down, Jerry, and you'll burn enough. Regardless if their figures are bogus, you are elligible and there is money now available.

Jerry SSTILL qualifies.

AuntyM and her husband STILL have medical care.

Many GOPers STILL think Obama is not an American.

Really? I hadn't heard that before?

Must be part of the new Republican Party platform... huh?

My truck qualifies but I can't justify the expense. So they will give me $3500 if I buy a vehicle that gets 2 more MPG than my current rig under the assumption that it will save energy. What about the energy that it takes to manufacture the new car, do you suppose that is factored in to the equation?

Do you think the United States Treasury can afford to give EVERYONE a $4500 tax cut to buy a new car Hank?

Hell... the wingnuts are screamin' "re-distribution of wealth" now!

Just imagine...