Was "saving gas" the reason for the "clunkers" program? If you had a truck, but needed a new truck, what is wrong with trading for a new truck under the program?

The data do show

Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones. But plenty of consumers bought trucks and SUVs with the help of government checks.

Oh, wait, the author is just being an asshole looking for controversy where there is none I guess.

The comments were hilarious though.

davidphogan: Oh, wait, the author is just being an asshole looking for controversy where there is none I guess.

Exactly. If you had a 1990 S-1500 with a throttle body injection V8 and you replaced it with a similar sized truck with a MP-EFI V6, or with a small turbo-diesel V8, you're going to cut your mileage down quite a bit. Might still be crap compared to a Prius, but ya know, some people do need a light duty truck.

Do is the plural, davidphogan.

Dinjiin: Exactly. If you had a 1990 S-1500 with a throttle body injection V8 and you replaced it with a similar sized truck with a MP-EFI V6, or with a small turbo-diesel V8, you're going to cut your mileage down quite a bit. Might still be crap compared to a Prius, but ya know, some people do need a light duty truck.

And it's in those gas guzzlers that the greatest opportunities for conservation are. They're burning a lot of gas per mile, so if you even raise mpg a few points you're saving the same as moving someone from an already-efficient 2-door coupe to a hybrid getting 20 miles more per gallon.

davidphogan: Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

do is plural

does is singular

brainiac-dumdum: davidphogan: Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

do is plural

does is singular

doe is a deer - a female deer.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: brainiac-dumdum: davidphogan: Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

do is plural

does is singular

doe is a deer - a female deer.

Ray is a deceased musician.

bearsfolks: Was "saving gas" the reason for the "clunkers" program? If you had a truck, but needed a new truck, what is wrong with trading for a new truck under the program?

Um, it had to get better gas mileage.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: brainiac-dumdum: davidphogan: Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

do is plural

does is singular

doe is a deer - a female deer.

shove your deer where a drop of golden sun don't shine

bearsfolks: Was "saving gas" the reason for the "clunkers" program? If you had a truck, but needed a new truck, what is wrong with trading for a new truck under the program?

I have a Saturn that gets 35 miles to the gallon. I couldn't trade it in under Cash for Clunkers because it wasn't a gas sucking beast. Did you pay ANY attention to the program?

davidphogan: The data do show

Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones. But plenty of consumers bought trucks and SUVs with the help of government checks.

Oh, wait, the author is just being an asshole looking for controversy where there is none I guess.

The comments were hilarious though.

If it were singular it would be "does". It is correct grammar.

Sabyen91: davidphogan: The data do show

Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones. But plenty of consumers bought trucks and SUVs with the help of government checks.

Oh, wait, the author is just being an asshole looking for controversy where there is none I guess.

The comments were hilarious though.

If it were singular it would be "does". It is correct grammar.

And I see that has been covered. Didn't mean to pile on.

I really don't understand why "conservatives" keep poking the Cash for Clunkers program with pointy sticks. Even if they can make a rational argument against it, most people are going to be like, "screw you I got a new car".

Hell, military spending is direct economic stimulus (I know, I'm a defense subcontractor), so I don't see how they have a leg to stand on since they'll gladly play for any military boondoggle no matter how far fetched (so long as it provides jobs in their district), but providing cash to subsidize the car industry is communism. Or something.

Personally, I would rather have programs like this than tax rebates, especially right now when almost everyone with extra cash is just hording it (raises hand guiltily).

TwistedFark: I really don't understand why "conservatives" keep poking the Cash for Clunkers program with pointy sticks. Even if they can make a rational argument against it, most people are going to be like, "screw you I got a new car".

Hell, military spending is direct economic stimulus (I know, I'm a defense subcontractor), so I don't see how they have a leg to stand on since they'll gladly play for any military boondoggle no matter how far fetched (so long as it provides jobs in their district), but providing cash to subsidize the car industry is communism. Or something.

Personally, I would rather have programs like this than tax rebates, especially right now when almost everyone with extra cash is just hording it (raises hand guiltily).

They don't realize successful social programs are wildly successful. There is a reason Social Security is called the third rail of politics. Touch it and die. They seem to have forgotten this decade.

This is bad news... for OPEC.

TwistedFark: I really don't understand why "conservatives" keep poking the Cash for Clunkers program with pointy sticks. Even if they can make a rational argument against it, most people are going to be like, "screw you I got a new car".

HURR DURR BIG GUMMINT SCHOLIST OBAMA

TwistedFark: I really don't understand why "conservatives" keep poking the Cash for Clunkers program with pointy sticks. Even if they can make a rational argument against it, most people are going to be like, "screw you I got a new car".

Really? Most people I know said, "screw you I don't want to pay for somebody else's car."


Personally, I'm annoyed that I'm forced to supplement the purchase of a new vehicle even though I will never buy new and just spent the better part of a year finding a replacement vehicle that matched my preference and price range.

Cash for Clunkers was a bad temporary economic fix. It resulted in the destruction of valuable durable goods. Even if a clunker is a clunker, it could have replaced an even worse car in the used car market. The vehicles were destroyed in a way that doesn't even allow many parts to enter the secondary market. The program's ultimate result is unnecessary economic and environmental waste (the destroyed cars didn't vanish into the ether after all.)

Besides, if you think its so popular, why aren't the Democrats pushing for Cash for Clunkers 2?

Sabyen91: TwistedFark: I really don't understand why "conservatives" keep poking the Cash for Clunkers program with pointy sticks. Even if they can make a rational argument against it, most people are going to be like, "screw you I got a new car".

Hell, military spending is direct economic stimulus (I know, I'm a defense subcontractor), so I don't see how they have a leg to stand on since they'll gladly play for any military boondoggle no matter how far fetched (so long as it provides jobs in their district), but providing cash to subsidize the car industry is communism. Or something.

Personally, I would rather have programs like this than tax rebates, especially right now when almost everyone with extra cash is just hording it (raises hand guiltily).

They don't realize successful social programs are wildly successfulpopular. There is a reason Social Security is called the third rail of politics. Touch it and die. They seem to have forgotten this decade.

FTFM

chapman: Besides, if you think its so popular, why aren't the Democrats pushing for Cash for Clunkers 2?

Hell, why aren't we pushing for WPA 2? Why would they push for Cash for Clunkers 2? It did its job (whether you hated it or not).

Stupid is as stupid do.

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: brainiac-dumdum: davidphogan: Is data now a singular word? I've seen this in a number of articles lately. Is this how it's now being taught?

do is plural

does is singular

doe is a deer - a female deer.

Ray is a deceased musician.

T, a man who pities fools.


brainiac-dumdum: shove your deer where a drop of golden sun don't shine

(Note to self: that song is NOT one of braniac-dumdum's favorite things.)

(Second note to self: ... :-/ )

The latest figures I've seen say the gov spent $24,000 to give about $4000 to each clunker trader. That only makes sense to a true Obamite. Add to that the value of the wasted clunker and the cost is even greater. It also shrunk the used car market, forcing up the price of transportation for low income people. And the Fark header claim that there was a 57% increase in mileage is wrong. That 57% increase was in the mpg of the types of clunkers compared to the types of new cars. Each type was counted once and not as many times as it was purchased. All the 57% figure shows is that a group of new cars gets better mileage than a group of old cars. There wasn't a 57% increase in mpg for the fleet of replacements over the fleet of clunkers. Read the article. Most of the swaps were for low mileage new cars with only a slight increase in mileage over the clunker. But hey, it's free money, right?

... err, brainiac, even.

/wonders what the hell Bran Flakes have to do with all this

hayjump: The latest figures I've seen say the gov spent $24,000 to give about $4000 to each clunker trader. That only makes sense to a true Obamite. Add to that the value of the wasted clunker and the cost is even greater. It also shrunk the used car market, forcing up the price of transportation for low income people. And the Fark header claim that there was a 57% increase in mileage is wrong. That 57% increase was in the mpg of the types of clunkers compared to the types of new cars. Each type was counted once and not as many times as it was purchased. All the 57% figure shows is that a group of new cars gets better mileage than a group of old cars. There wasn't a 57% increase in mpg for the fleet of replacements over the fleet of clunkers. Read the article. Most of the swaps were for low mileage new cars with only a slight increase in mileage over the clunker. But hey, it's free money, right?

Yeah, those are the latest figures you have seen from NRO.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: doe is a deer - a female deer.

D'oh! That's what I meant! D'oh!

Sabyen91: Why would they push for Cash for Clunkers 2? It did its job (whether you hated it or not).

Its job was to provide a temporary pull forward of sales. Trading in near-future purchases for present ones. This was an unsustainable program with short term benefits bordering on the myopic.

If you want to hang a "mission accomplished" banner on this one, be my guest. As long as the Democrats don't actually try for Cash For Clunkers 2 they can put a sash on it and parade it down main street and I'll be happy.

chapman: Sabyen91: Why would they push for Cash for Clunkers 2? It did its job (whether you hated it or not).

Its job was to provide a temporary pull forward of sales. Trading in near-future purchases for present ones. This was an unsustainable program with short term benefits bordering on the myopic.

If you want to hang a "mission accomplished" banner on this one, be my guest. As long as the Democrats don't actually try for Cash For Clunkers 2 they can put a sash on it and parade it down main street and I'll be happy.

Myopic? Actually, the car companies are no longer in terminal danger. So...I guess it worked, huh?

Sabyen91: Yeah, those are the latest figures you have seen from NRO.

Nah, it was those noted ideologues at Edmunds. Everybody knows that they are part of a devious faux news media triad along with Fox News and Cat Fancy.

davidphogan: D'oh! That's what I meant! D'oh!

Bah, po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Let's call the whole thing off!

/but only if I can reverse the phone charges

chapman: Sabyen91: Yeah, those are the latest figures you have seen from NRO.

Nah, it was those noted ideologues at Edmunds. Everybody knows that they are part of a devious faux news media triad along with Fox News and Cat Fancy.

Cool. And the car companies are rebounding. So...

chapman: Sabyen91: Yeah, those are the latest figures you have seen from NRO.

Nah, it was those noted ideologues at Edmunds. Everybody knows that they are part of a devious faux news media triad along with Fox News and Cat Fancy.

By the way, Edmunds? I know they know their cars but when did they become the go to guys when it comes to government spending? Slightly fishy.

Clunker cash didn't save the auto companies. They haven't been "saved" yet. All we've done is inject billions of dollars into them, hoping they'll rise from the dead and save all those nice union jobs. The clunker cash, while a huge waste, was only a dribble by current gov standards.

Sabyen91: Myopic? Actually, the car companies are no longer in terminal danger. So...I guess it worked, huh?

The only major American car company that posted a profit for that quarter was Ford. All of the American cars companies are predicting that the cash for clunkers sales were an anomaly and to not expect similar sales in the next quarter. GM still lost money. They are in no less danger from going out into BK today than they were before the program began. Chrysler lost even more in total sales. In other words, myopic.

hayjump: Clunker cash didn't save the auto companies. They haven't been "saved" yet. All we've done is inject billions of dollars into them, hoping they'll rise from the dead and save all those nice union jobs. The clunker cash, while a huge waste, was only a dribble by current gov standards.

Hmm, ok. Then the increased employment by car companies is an illusion and they are still dying and cutting jobs...right?

chapman: Sabyen91: Myopic? Actually, the car companies are no longer in terminal danger. So...I guess it worked, huh?

The only major American car company that posted a profit for that quarter was Ford. All of the American cars companies are predicting that the cash for clunkers sales were an anomaly and to not expect similar sales in the next quarter. GM still lost money. They are in no less danger from going out into BK today than they were before the program began. Chrysler lost even more in total sales. In other words, myopic.

A loss /= death to a large corporation.

hayjump: All we've done is inject billions of dollars into them, hoping they'll rise from the dead and save all those nice union jobs.

Don't forget the manufacturing facilities that it keeps in the US. During a major war that can be a good thing.

davidphogan: hayjump: All we've done is inject billions of dollars into them, hoping they'll rise from the dead and save all those nice union jobs.

Don't forget the manufacturing facilities that it keeps in the US. During a major war that can be a good thing.

We used to be the arsenal of the west. Soon we will be the McDonalds of the west, if we aren't already.

Sabyen91: We used to be the arsenal of the west. Soon we will be the McDonalds of the west, if we aren't already.

We outsourced that job to Brazil and India, sorry. Try again.

It was a good idea that cost too much and did nothing for anyone but the people that could afford a new car.
A smaller tax credit for people that replaced their old car with a lower MPG car (new or used) would have done more good.

Sabyen91: A loss /= death to a large corporation.

So far we've gone from shouting to the rooftoops "the car companies are saved" to limiting the claim to the much smaller accomplishment that "these car companies aren't dead." In a few months, they'll merely be pining for the Fjords.

Unless they turn a profit GM will eventually run out of the money they borrowed from the Federal Government. The result will either be BK or another loan. Another loan remains a much more likely scenario given that BK would result in a renegotiation of union contracts. Still being alive today is not directly attributable from moving Q4 sales to Q3 and does not mean that anybody is saved in the long run.

davidphogan: Sabyen91: We used to be the arsenal of the west. Soon we will be the McDonalds of the west, if we aren't already.

We outsourced that job to Brazil and India, sorry. Try again.

Crap, umm, the lemonade stand of the west?

The "increased employment" is an illusion. Check quality reviews. The bailed out companies can't make a good vehicle. They aren't selling the junk we're paying them to make. And they damn well should be adding jobs. We gave them billions. So, actually, we're the ones doing the hiring, not them. It's a bit like giving a transfusion to a corpse hoping it'll jump up and dance. If they don't get their act together, all those billions will be wasted.

chapman: Sabyen91: A loss /= death to a large corporation.

So far we've gone from shouting to the rooftoops "the car companies are saved" to limiting the claim to the much smaller accomplishment that "these car companies aren't dead." In a few months, they'll merely be pining for the Fjords.

Unless they turn a profit GM will eventually run out of the money they borrowed from the Federal Government. The result will either be BK or another loan. Another loan remains a much more likely scenario given that BK would result in a renegotiation of union contracts. Still being alive today is not directly attributable from moving Q4 sales to Q3 and does not mean that anybody is saved in the long run.

So, the Dems have been proactive. What is the Republican plan?

hayjump: The "increased employment" is an illusion. Check quality reviews. The bailed out companies can't make a good vehicle. They aren't selling the junk we're paying them to make. And they damn well should be adding jobs. We gave them billions. So, actually, we're the ones doing the hiring, not them. It's a bit like giving a transfusion to a corpse hoping it'll jump up and dance. If they don't get their act together, all those billions will be wasted.

Oh, cowshiat.

How charming and such a reasoned, logical, informed response. I guess this is the kind of thinking that motivated the clunker program. Goodnight.

hayjump: How charming and such a reasoned, logical, informed response. I guess this is the kind of thinking that motivated the clunker program. Goodnight.

chapman makes good arguments. You...just cite bullshiat.

Sabyen91: So, the Dems have been proactive. What is the Republican plan?

Proactive isn't necessarily prudent. It just amounts to doing something. Frankly, I think that was an element of the Bush years that we were better of shedding from our collective political practices.

I still think that BK is the best option. Reorganize, shed bad brands and restructure bad contracts. GM has a chance to survive, but the Unions are terrified at the notion that their contracts are in peril. Chances are that they will take a haircut, but not nearly as bad as what will happen if GM continues down the current course.

The US Government cannot be the permanent guarantor of the automakers. The American people may have tolerated the first bailout, but I don't think they will support another. I also don't believe that the Obama administration has the political capital to try another bailout even if it was needed.

The big three were all losing money well before the economic downturn. Only Ford has posted a profit since then and they recognize it as temporary. Taking more debt in the form of government loans will not save any of them, only postpone the inevitable. I am no more inclined to support the government taking on more debt on behalf of the auto companies.

Maybe that's not the "official" GOP response (though Mitt Romney came close to saying something similar before the bailout), but it is what I believe is best under the circumstances.

Sabyen91: davidphogan: Sabyen91: We used to be the arsenal of the west. Soon we will be the McDonalds of the west, if we aren't already.

We outsourced that job to Brazil and India, sorry. Try again.

Crap, umm, the lemonade stand of the west?

Much better. I would have also accepted taqueria.

chapman: Sabyen91: So, the Dems have been proactive. What is the Republican plan?

Proactive isn't necessarily prudent. It just amounts to doing something. Frankly, I think that was an element of the Bush years that we were better of shedding from our collective political practices.

I still think that BK is the best option. Reorganize, shed bad brands and restructure bad contracts. GM has a chance to survive, but the Unions are terrified at the notion that their contracts are in peril. Chances are that they will take a haircut, but not nearly as bad as what will happen if GM continues down the current course.

The US Government cannot be the permanent guarantor of the automakers. The American people may have tolerated the first bailout, but I don't think they will support another. I also don't believe that the Obama administration has the political capital to try another bailout even if it was needed.

The big three were all losing money well before the economic downturn. Only Ford has posted a profit since then and they recognize it as temporary. Taking more debt in the form of government loans will not save any of them, only postpone the inevitable. I am no more inclined to support the government taking on more debt on behalf of the auto companies.

Maybe that's not the "official" GOP response (though Mitt Romney came close to saying something similar before the bailout), but it is what I believe is best under the circumstances.

I am tired so I am not going to debate anymore. I am not disrespecting you, I think you have a valid argument that I just don't totally agree with. Peace and have a good night.

Sabyen91: I am tired so I am not going to debate anymore. I am not disrespecting you, I think you have a valid argument that I just don't totally agree with. Peace and have a good night.

Fair enough. It was an enjoyable discussion and represents what I like about Fark on its good days. Have a good night.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I've found somebody else on the internet who I think might be wrong about something, I must go correct them!