Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 74

Thread: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

  1. #51
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I don't know the exact numbers, as I imagine they're almost impossible to calculate, but it's almost certainly a much larger amount than would be saved. Think about this: The average person drives approx 12k miles per year. A car that would have gotten 18mpg would thus use 666 gallons of gas per year. A new car getting 22mpg would use 545 gallons of gas per year. That's 121 gallons saved/year.

    When you think about the massive amount of energy that goes into extracting and creating the metal, pounding it into shape, building the car, doing the interior, painting the thing, shipping the car to the dealership, etc. it's certainly far more than that.
    But this does not take certain things into account, such as the fact that people need new cars periodically, this is putting them into new cars faster, and putting them into models with better gas millage. Those factors and others make it impossible to really figure out the exact things, but I do think we come out ahead.


    But that's not what it was sold to the public as.
    And that is not all it is, but I am liking the result on a personal level.

  2. #52
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Only in comparison to pre-CARS levels. Maybe. You -assume- that those that get the slightly-better mileage will not simply drive slightly more.
    This is a possibility, but you can scarcely blame Obama for that, though I am sure you will try,

    And, in any event, this does not change the fact that "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand as a 18MPG Tahoe -still- gets worse mileage than ALL of the cars under CARS.
    Let me see if I got this right...what you are saying is that since some people are buying cars with only a small increase in MPG and still bad MPG, CARS is going to drive up fuel usage, even though people are getting better millage? That is totally illogical. It means that fuel usage will not be reduced as much as it would have been if those people all bought more efficient cars, but it will still be reduced, resulting in lesser demand.

    CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.
    Some people are tied into having trucks, for example farmers. Should they not have a chance to improve their fuel efficiency too? Do you think the government should force the whole country into subcompacts, or just try and make gains?

  3. #53
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    But this is a logical fallacy based on your assumption that all those people that are trading in SUV's/Cars/Trucks with low enough gas mileage to qualify would've done so still if they could've only purchased a small compact car instead of SUV's or trucks.
    Fallacy:
    You dont need to buy a small compact car -- you can buy an Impala or Taurus or G8, all of which get 22MPG oir better. As we're so oftern told, people dont NEED a SUV, a full/mid-size car will do.

    Even if so, it still doesnt excuse The Obama for the blame of driving up demeand in putiing these new SUVs on the road; "not as much" is nothing but spin, no different than saying that unemployment is up, but "not as much" as before.

  4. #54
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Fallacy:
    You dont need to buy a small compact car -- you can buy an Impala or Taurus or G8, all of which get 22MPG oir better. As we're so oftern told, people dont NEED a SUV, a full/mid-size car will do.

    Even if so, it still doesnt excuse The Obama for the blame of driving up demeand in putiing these new SUVs on the road; "not as much" is nothing but spin, no different than saying that unemployment is up, but "not as much" as before.
    So you are suggesting that the government should tell people exactly what type of vehicle to buy? Never knew you for such a big government type.

    Your second paragraph makes zero sense. Up a little, and up a lot are different, as is up and down. In this case, there is no up as you want to suggest, but a down.

  5. #55
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Let me see if I got this right..what you are saying is that since some people are buying cars with only a small increase in MPG and still bad MPG, CARS is going to drive up fuel usage, even though people are getting better millage? That is totally illogical.
    No, it isn't:
    Remember - "drive up demand" necessitates a baseline for comparison.
    Whatever that demand was last year, if we have 90% of that demand this year, its still up from that baseline.

    Now, it may be down from last year, but it is still "up" from that baseline, and it is "up" from what it would be had the CARS program required that the new vehicle get, say 22 MPG or more.

    Thus, demand is driven up.

    Some people are tied into having trucks, for example farmers. Should they not have a chance to improve their fuel efficiency too? Do you think the government should force the whole country into subcompacts, or just try and make gains?
    That very much seems to be the position of the left, yes.
    That is, it was, until The Obama started moving SUVs out of the showrooms.

  6. #56
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So you are suggesting that the government should tell people exactly what type of vehicle to buy? Never knew you for such a big government type.
    As i said:
    That very much seems to be the position of the left, yes.
    That is, it was, until The Obama started moving SUVs out of the showrooms.

    Your second paragraph makes zero sense.
    It makes perfect sense.
    An improvement over a terrible condition can still be a terrible condition. Excusing it as "better than before" does not mean it isn't still terrible.

  7. #57
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No, it isn't:
    Remember - "drive up demand" necessitates a baseline for comparison.
    Whatever that demand was last year, if we have 90% of that demand this year, its still up from that baseline.

    Now, it may be down from last year, but it is still "up" from that baseline, and it is "up" from what it would be had the CARS program required that the new vehicle get, say 22 MPG or more.

    Thus, demand is driven up.
    I am still not even seeing your point. Feul efficiency is improving over what it is currently, so this is going to increase the demand for fuel how? This has nothing to do with last year, last decade, last whatever. We have to work from the situation now.


    That very much seems to be the position of the left, yes.
    That is, it was, until The Obama started moving SUVs out of the showrooms.
    No, it has never been the position of the left. We have never suggested mandating what cars people should buy, only that we can encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars, which is what CARS is doing. Entirely consistant nod nothing like what you suggest.

  8. #58
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    As i said:
    That very much seems to be the position of the left, yes.
    That is, it was, until The Obama started moving SUVs out of the showrooms.
    This is false

    It makes perfect sense.
    An improvement over a terrible condition can still be a terrible condition. Excusing it as "better than before" does not mean it isn't still terrible.
    So if we cannot improve by huge amounts, we should not improve at all. Yeah, that is a good idea...

  9. #59
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I am still not even seeing your point. Feul efficiency is improving over what it is currently, so this is going to increase the demand for fuel how?
    Last year (and iun numeround yrears previous), the gas prices were decalred to be a function of "increased demand" from SUVs.
    An increase compared to... what?
    There's your asnwer -- an increase from that point.

    No, it has never been the position of the left.
    The you havent been around much. Villification of the SUV and championing of the subcompact is a basic staple of the left.

  10. #60
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    This is false
    Think so?
    Then so is the idea that I am arguing that the government should force the whole country into subcompacts.

    So if we cannot improve by huge amounts, we should not improve at all. Yeah, that is a good idea...
    The issue isnt the impovement, or even that the CARS program isnt a good idea -- the issue is the Obamanistas not criticizing The Obama for subsidizing SUV purchases, and/or their not blaming Him for the increased demand on gas that the SUVs He subsidized will create.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •