Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

On 03 Sep 2009 04:13:49 GMT, Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
wrote:

>On 2009-09-02, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:17:48 -0400, "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Justbob30" <NoThank@you.com> wrote in message
>>>news:h5ruqb$h1g$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Looks like no, it does not qualify, the average epa rating for
>>>this car
>>>> (modified) is 22 mpg, the average driver gets 22.8. so while
>>>your mileage
>>>> is very average, especially considering, short trips, city
>>>driving and cold
>>>> winters, it is not "bad enough".
>>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
>>>>
>>>> and http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-07
>>>>
>>>> "How do I know if my car or truck is an eligible trade-in
>>>vehicle?
>>>>
>>>> There are several requirements (but you also have to meet
>>>certain conditions
>>>> for the car or truck you wish to buy). Your dealer can help you
>>>determine
>>>> whether you have an eligible trade in vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> Your trade-in vehicle must
>>>>
>>>> have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you
>>>trade it in
>>>> have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per
>>>gallon or
>>>> less
>>>> be in drivable condition
>>>> be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for
>>>the full year
>>>> preceding the trade-in
>>>> The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier
>>>than 25 years
>>>> before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3
>>>vehicle, must
>>>> also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001"
>>>>
>>>
>>>why does the CFC program seem like it is rewarding the lavish,
>>>the irresponsible or the unwise ?
>>>everyone who purchased economically, responsibly or wisely in
>>>the last 20 years is pretty much exempt from the benefit.
>>>
>>>I once owned a now 36 yr old car 335,000 + miles (odometer broke)
>>>w/2 diy- jcwitney engine/head rebuilds and etc. repairs that
>>>would not have qualified the low mpg requirements with even a
>>>stretch and it probably had pretty descent emmision numbers too.
>>>
>>>robb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right, I don't get the benefit because I bought a sensible vehicle to
>> begin with. Nor do I get to rewrite my mortgage because I didn't buy a
>> house that I can't afford.
>
>Right. So the people that made bad decisions get to steal your money
>and mine... That sounds all right, if you're one of the ones that
>gets to do the stealing. To the rest of us, it's bad business.
>
>>
>> Nor did I get to loot the US treasury by making huge bets (with
>> borrowed money) that real estate prices would climb forever and then
>> just refuse to pay off when they finally fell. All that money was
>> siphoned off by the already wealthy - and they get to keep it while we
>> pay off the bad bets.
>
>What do you mean the "already wealthy"? The people that got those
>mortgages were people that would never have qualified for them in the
>old days. They got ARM's with interest-only payments so they could
>buy a $300k house while they were making $50k/year. When the bust
>hit, they couldn't pay the mortgage, and we got to bail them out.
>
>>
>> The idea of recouping that stolen money by having a tax on wealth
>> instead of income seems to be a non-starter. I guess it just makes too
>> much sense.
>
>We already tax wealth, as it's made. Why should people who have
>succeeded be forced to pay again, because of that success? That
>sounds like jealousy, not fairness.
>
>>
>> So, other than that, I don't really see what else Obama could have
>> done. We need to get the guzzlers off the road, we need to keep real
>> estate prices from collapsing, and we need to keep the financial
>> institutions running. We need to keep healthcare costs from swamping
>> us all. Anyone have a better idea?
>
>You want guzzlers off the road, impose large fees and taxes on the
>guzzlers. Don't give the people free money to buy new cars. And the
>financial industry was NEVER in any danger. A few large companies
>were, and they would have been sucked in by other companies if they
>failed. Without the risk of bankruptcy for bad business decisions,
>capitalism is doomed.
>
>If you want health care to not swamp us all, the solution is NOT to
>give it over to big brother and let him tax you to death for it. The
>better answer would be to spur competition in the market. Eliminate
>state laws making the sale of insurance from out of state illegal.
>And, by all means, lets get rid of the idea that insurance should
>cover every hangnail and sore tummy. Health insurance should be
>high-deductible, and there for emergencies that could bankrupt you.
>Normal doctors visits should be paid out of pocket. It would save you
>tons of money each year, and you'd be able to control the costs all on
>your own.


My comment on the "already wealthy" was about the folks that made tons
of money on the exotic securities that were really just bets on real
estate values. That money was taken in over the years as the bets kept
getting larger. Sure they were taxed as income, but it was all
fraudulent, though perfectly legal, because they should all have been
wiped out when the bets failed. Instead, they keep the money they
made, and we pay off the bad bets.

It's like betting on anything else. You make your money, fine. But
when you lose, then you have to pay off. The people who made all the
money on those exotic instruments kept their money, and we have to pay
it off.