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!