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, the average "Cash for Clunkers" transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 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 US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $70/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that ??? They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!
Oh come on now Rick. Barry promised us a deficit neutral health plan.....you don't believe him? I mean....he did say say "Let me be clear!"....didn't he?
My only question is, How can you be Deficit Neutral? I mean by definintion if you have a deficit you are spending more than you take in,so where can you be neutral? Unless you jump in a ruck with no breaks and get it rolling down hill.
Leave me alone. I just finished my physics homework dealing with problems just like this. My brain is..... :D
Ok lets do some other math. 700,000x15,000(average low end vehicle cost) I would say that injecting 10.5 billion dollars in spending into the American economy is pretty win. Chevy And Ford Posted Very positive Sales trends during that whole program.....hmm thats so horrible for us
in addition, My roomie, Who is a lot manager for one of the largest car dealers in the mid west Said that he hired 6 guys to help deal with the Cash for clunkers cars. Thats 6 new jobs on his lot alone, and more than likely all 30 of their other ones as well. Further, All the cars on Classic's lots have been sold to local junkyards for 200 dollars apiece. Creating even MORE spending and A surplus of the car parts that make our cars run!! I have yet to find a problem with this program. Granted it isnt the best thing for the Average in debt american to get more in debt. But thats a pretty mild downfall i would say.
I have a friend that owns a Dodge dealership and they told me (this weekend actually) that since its ended they are back to like it was before. I was also told that of the 40 something C4C trade ins the government as only paid them for 6.
You may want to take into account the positive impact that using less gasoline has on the environment. At our current rate of depleting the ozone...over a BILLION people will be displaced by the ocean within 50 years if we don't turn things around. how much $ any of us has isn't gonna matter much anymore if the entire planet is destroyed. This is no joke.
you need to buff up on your climate research... average annual temps are down (and have been on a downward trend for a number of years) and many believe we are entering a global cooling period... don't believe what you are hearing from Al Gore and company...
how about someone who presents a few facts of recent occurrence... Joe Bastardi, meteorologist for Accuweather... he has shown a downward trend in global temps since 2003, quite to converse to the predictions of al gore and crew... his interview on oreilly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2iF99kOY edit to add - why is it that the global warming crowd insists on spouting data but will never enter into debate about it?? Gore (the acclaimed expert in the field) has been offered time after time after time to debate this, he flatly refuses... his movie has been proven factually inaccurate enough to the point that the UK forbid it to be played for kids in classrooms...
as snowmobiler, damn skippy!!! I loves me a good snowy winter, which we've been gettin pretty good ones lately here in the midwest
Your figures show 350 million dollars savings in one year.... In 10 years at the same savings in fuel would be 3.5 billion. Although I think 12,000 miles is way undercutting the average mileage people drive per year. I am not for or against the clunker program... Just the message trying to be portrayed by the math was unfair.
Yeah they are so backed up they are talking at least a year of employment, and fiding uses for them around global warming is a blanket term for worldwide averages. Areas like the midwest will have cooler summers, in the mean time, rain trends and draught in the west and southwest worsens yearly. I suggest reading "The state of the world" it comes out yearly and is a great read
you're not going to sell me on man-made climate change... the climate has been changing radically for millions of years.... a small 100yr collection of data is statistically irrelevant... and imho, GREATLY over-rates how important man is in the scheme of things... the fossil records indicate that since the industrial revolution began that we ~may~ have contributed to approximately 1/10th of 1% increase in the co2 saturation of the globe... again, a statistically irrelevant number... in the 70's we had a global cooling trend so drastic that scientists of teh day were predicting an ice age to begin by the turn of the century... meteorological science is so vague they can't predict, with scientific accuracy, the weather more than 48hrs out... yet some of the global warming/climate change alarmists are making claims of what is going to happen in 50-100yrs... its ridiculous beyond words... now, I'm not saying that there hasn't been a warming trend for a while, we are also in a slight cooling period right now, my beef is whether or not man has anything to do with it, if no, then our efforts to "stop" it could be exactly the opposite of what mother nature actually NEEDS to happen... nobody is talking about the possible unintended effects of stopping global warming... we've seen what happens many many times when man messes with nature, the consequences are often disastrous
