Honda Car Forum

In article <gubo4t$ivu$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"CharlesTheCurmudgeon" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:

> "dbu'" <nospam@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2458A6.06391812052009@news.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <187ef9e9-5a47-4476-afec-807051f52eae@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> > Björn <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 12, 4:36 am, "80 Knight" <nos...@pleaseandthanks.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > is it ethical to wish for thousand's of people
> >> > to loose jobs, and pensions?
> >>
> >> That is what GM management has done by stealing from the pension funds
> >> and bankrupting the company.
> >> Thank former CEO and the Board of Bystanders
> >>
> >> > Of course it isn't, but you have such a hard
> >> > on for GM, that you will do anything to see them go down,
> >>
> >> You mean the CEO etc
> >>
> >> > if you worked for a company for 30 years, been assured and
> >> > guaranteed all those 30 years that you would have a full pension when
> >> > you
> >> > retire? Would you be pleased that it was taken away from you?
> >>
> >> That is what GM management has done by staeling from the pension funds
> >> and bankrupting the company.
> >> Thank former CEO and the Board of Bystanders
> >>
> >>
> >> They are as you claim
> >> > dishonorable person.
> >> and
> >> > have no ethics, morals, or even rational
> >> > thoughts.
> >>
> >> They are as you claim
> >> > a burden to society, always have been, and always will
> >> > be.
> >
> > I hope GM has the guts to pull up stakes and get the hell out of
> > detroit. GM should move to a more friendly state like Mississippi or
> > Tennessee where government and workers are more friendly to big
> > companies. Detroit is in decline along with Michigan. They both need a
> > kick in the ass and boot the democrats out of power along with the big
> > shot partisan labor unions.
> > --
> > "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became
> > an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about
> > the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all
> > about it." Bobby Rush
>
> You know what really killed Detroit? The riots in the 60's. There was a
> black enterprenurial class in Detroit that was not directly dependent on the
> auto industry. Ever heard of Motown Records? But after the riots, the
> enterpreneurs moved to someplace less violent. Even K-mart at one time had
> its headquarters in Detroit, but moved to Troy Michigan in the early 70's.
> The same can probably be said of South Central Los Angeles, and is
> definitely true of parts of Chicago. Once the busniesses and decent people
> started pulling out, the gangs moved in. Here in Chicago, Daley is still
> trying to control the gangs with ever-stricter gun control laws. It's been
> going on since 1982 and it HASN"T WORKED A LICK. Most of Chicago except for
> the tourist areas downtown and a few small enclaves of really rich white
> folk here and there is a disaster. And as we saw at last years Taste of
> Chicago, the gangs are starting to close in on the tourist traps.
>
> Charles Grozny

Yes, yes I know about all that. Detroit has seen it's better days.
They should have diversified long ago, but now it's a car town, big
labor town and this is what you get. Likeness to cities and towns built
around Army bases. When the base closes there is nothing.
--
"Barack Obama went to Harvard and became
an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about
the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all
about it." Bobby Rush

"aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote in message
news:mSkNl.212767$4m1.81809@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
> > <johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cb292ff4-da5d-468f-b923-38ffa3e59818@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >> I think this is only for >10 year old cars/trucks?
> >>
> >> "Under the so-called cash-for-clunkers legislation, consumers with
> >> old, gas guzzlers could get $3,500 or $4,500 in government vouchers to
> >> use toward the purchase of new cars that get gas mileage that exceeds
> >> the old car's by four miles per gallon."
> >>
> >>
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news...ion=2009050518
> >>
> >
> > This is a joke, right?
> >
> > In the Chicago area we hear ads on the radio for donating old cars all
the
> > time now, including the jack-off that sings "1-877-Kars-For-Kids" all
the
> > time. That, plus an emissions program that is designed to fail cars as
soon
> > as possible after 4 years, is designed to get people to stay in debt
buying
> > cars is already in place.
> >
> > Me, I'm driving a 14 year old Corolla. They made a change in the rules,
no
> > car prior to 1996 has to be emissions inspected anymore. So I continue
to
> > drive my old Corolla. I own it.
> >
> > Charles the Curmudgeon
> >
> >
> I quite agree, the whole concept is a crock, just like the similar
> program in California was a few years back. Is the decreased pollution
> from the new car greater or lesser than the increased pollution from
> making another new vehicle to replace a serviceable vehicle? (Not to
> mention the sin of junking a collectible car, in some cases, just
> because it is old.) Most clunkers can be made 98% as non-polluting as a
> new car, with a few hundred dollars in repairs. It is an asymptotic
> curve- those last few percentage points cost as much as all the
> improvements before them. Better to give away free tuneup coupons to
> everyone- it'd probably be more improvement to the air at a much lower
> cost.

The emissions on my '91 Explorer (4.0 V6 engine, 4WD) keep getting lower
with every smog test. Maybe the emissions are not as low as they could be
but I'm doing all the work on it myself. Perhaps if they handed out free
repairs/tuneups/parts as suggested that might keep emissions lower.

To me the main silliness of this concept of a credit for trading in a
clunker is how many people who drive an old car can even afford a new car,
or, for that matter, want one? I'm very happy with the performance of my
'91 Explorer and might not be as happy with a new one.

>
> Call a spade a spade- this is welfare for the car companies and
> vote-buying from the people that would get the rebates, nothing more.
> And they are doing it with MY money, as usual.
>
> --
> aem sends...

On May 12, 11:06*am, "Ulysses" <therealulys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "aemeijers" <aemeij...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:mSkNl.212767$4m1.81809@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
> > > <johngd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:cb292ff4-da5d-468f-b923-38ffa3e59818@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com....
> > >> I think this is only for >10 year old cars/trucks?
>
> > >> "Under the so-called cash-for-clunkers legislation, consumers with
> > >> old, gas guzzlers could get $3,500 or $4,500 in government vouchers to
> > >> use toward the purchase of new cars that get gas mileage that exceeds
> > >> the old car's by four miles per gallon."
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news..._clunkers/inde...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > This is a joke, right?
>
> > > In the Chicago area we hear ads on the radio for donating old cars all
> the
> > > time now, including the jack-off that sings "1-877-Kars-For-Kids" all
> the
> > > time. *That, plus an emissions program that is designed to fail cars as
> soon
> > > as possible after 4 years, is designed to get people to stay in debt
> buying
> > > cars is already in place.
>
> > > Me, I'm driving a 14 year old Corolla. *They made a change in the rules,
> no
> > > car prior to 1996 has to be emissions inspected anymore. *So I continue
> to
> > > drive my old Corolla. *I own it.
>
> > > Charles the Curmudgeon
>
> > I quite agree, the whole concept is a crock, just like the similar
> > program in California was a few years back. Is the decreased pollution
> > from the new car greater or lesser than the increased pollution from
> > making another new vehicle to replace a serviceable vehicle? (Not to
> > mention the sin of junking a collectible car, in some cases, just
> > because it is old.) Most clunkers can be made 98% as non-polluting as a
> > new car, with a few hundred dollars in repairs. It is an asymptotic
> > curve- those last few percentage points cost as much as all the
> > improvements before them. Better to give away free tuneup coupons to
> > everyone- it'd probably be more improvement to the air at a much lower
> > cost.
>
> The emissions on my '91 Explorer (4.0 V6 engine, 4WD) keep getting lower
> with every smog test. *Maybe the emissions are not as low as they couldbe
> but I'm doing all the work on it myself. *Perhaps if they handed out free
> repairs/tuneups/parts as suggested that might keep emissions lower.
>
> To me the main silliness of this concept of a credit for trading in a
> clunker is how many people who drive an old car can even afford a new car,
> or, for that matter, want one? *I'm very happy with the performance of my
> '91 Explorer and might not be as happy with a new one.

A lot. Or they can buy an old clunker from a neighbor.

This is a stimulus bill, not an environmental bill.

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:58:39 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But, your absolutely right... It's a whole lot cheaper in the long run
>>>to keep your old car and drive it 'till the wheels are square!
>>
>>
>> It's probably better for the environment as well, because the environmental
>> impact of manufacturing new cars and disposing of old ones is pretty high.
>> --scott
>
>
>Shhhhhhhhhh------ Them thar' inviar-mentalists don't want that to git
>out. Could toss cold watah on the econutz premise!
>
><G>
>
>JT

Environmental impact is hard to measure, but just looking at energy,
Toyota has calculated that the energy to manufacture a car is about
equal to the energy needed to run it for a year. So, it depends on
what you are driving and what you replace it with. If Grumpy replaces
one of his Civics with a Prius, it might balance out in four or five
years. Replace a Suburban with a Prius and you are in the green in
about six months.

On May 12, 10:33*pm, Jeff <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> This is a stimulus bill, not an environmental bill.
>

Yup, it's all about moving inventory off dealer lots.

Why's the mpg standard so low? Look at cars in inventory.

Just more bailout.

On May 12, 8:40*am, dbu' <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I want GM to move the hell out of detroit and get a fresh start. *No
> reason why they can't be competitive with the overseas brands. *And we
> don't need the big government of obama to feed them money and tell them
> what to do and how to make the cars.
> --

Well, you should be thrilled at the prospect of GM importing cars made
in China. Could be they'll move their headquarters to Shanghai. Not
only would they be competitive with overseas brands, they'd become an
overseas brand!

I'm pretty sure Obama isn't going to tell them HOW to make cars but I
suspect he will tell them WHAT cars to make. Better him than the
idiots on their board of directors who can't seem to get it thru their
thick heads that a "competitive" Malibu isn't enough to win back
significant market share. How many mediocre sedans does a company with
less than 20% of the market need to make?

But I suppose you're right. They don't need a Govt bailout - they just
need to go bankrupt. Eliminates all your issues with big govt. And so
what about all those workers whose jobs evaporate. Let 'em move to
Shanghai and try to organize a union there.