Clunker Pick-Ups Traded for New Pick-Ups. LOL!

BUMP FOR LIBERALS!

Since: Sep 08

11,500

Oh boy.

I sometime wonder what it is you think you are going to accomplish by this. You know you are going to get called out by someone for your outrageous attempts at misinformation.

The rules for trading in a truck under the cash for clunkers program are different, but trucks do qualify:

For light- and standard-duty model trucks, which includes most sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and pickup trucks:

•The old vehicle must have a fuel-efficiency mileage rating of 18 mpg or less

•The new vehicle must be rated at least 2 mpg better to qualify for the $3,500 voucher or at least 5 mpg better for the $4,500 payment.

For heavy-duty trucks, which includes models with a gross vehicle weight of 6,000-8,500 pounds:

•The old truck you’re trading in must be rated 15 mpg or less.

•The new truck must be rated at least 1 mpg better to get the $3,500 voucher and at least 2 mpg better to qualify for the $4,500 voucher.

The government doesn’t assign mileage ratings to work trucks (which weigh in at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight), so the Cash for Clunkers program uses age as the criteria for determining whether they qualify for a government trade-in subsidy.

The old truck has to be a 2001 model or older, and $3,500 is the only amount offered to help with the purchase of new work trucks.

http://environment.about.com/od/cashforclunke...

Carolina

Williamson, WV

Sundog512 wrote:

Oh boy.
I sometime wonder what it is you think you are going to accomplish by this. You know you are going to get called out by someone for your outrageous attempts at misinformation.
The rules for trading in a truck under the cash for clunkers program are different, but trucks do qualify:
For light- and standard-duty model trucks, which includes most sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and pickup trucks:
•The old vehicle must have a fuel-efficiency mileage rating of 18 mpg or less
•The new vehicle must be rated at least 2 mpg better to qualify for the $3,500 voucher or at least 5 mpg better for the $4,500 payment.
For heavy-duty trucks, which includes models with a gross vehicle weight of 6,000-8,500 pounds:
•The old truck you’re trading in must be rated 15 mpg or less.
•The new truck must be rated at least 1 mpg better to get the $3,500 voucher and at least 2 mpg better to qualify for the $4,500 voucher.
The government doesn’t assign mileage ratings to work trucks (which weigh in at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight), so the Cash for Clunkers program uses age as the criteria for determining whether they qualify for a government trade-in subsidy.
The old truck has to be a 2001 model or older, and $3,500 is the only amount offered to help with the purchase of new work trucks.
http://environment.about.com/od/cashforclunke...

I believe you used a flawed word in connection with the thought process's that BDT uses....*think*....he proves on a daily basis that he's incapable of doing that. LOL!

Since: Sep 08

11,500

Carolina wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe you used a flawed word in connection with the thought process's that BDT uses....*think*....he proves on a daily basis that he's incapable of doing that. LOL!

LOL.

I guess he was hoping no one would check up on him. In the real world, accuracy is everything and half assedness will get you on the unemployment line everytime.

Carolina

Williamson, WV

Sundog512 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.
I guess he was hoping no one would check up on him. In the real world, accuracy is everything and half assedness will get you on the unemployment line everytime.

Ah...you hit the nail on the head there....he's not familiar with the real world....just another disability scam artist.

Since: Sep 08

11,500

Carolina wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah...you hit the nail on the head there....he's not familiar with the real world....just another disability scam artist.

Let's see. What was the pharse....he's either "deliberately deceitful or woefully uninformed."

Carolina

Williamson, WV

Sundog512 wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's see. What was the pharse....he's either "deliberately deceitful or woefully uninformed."

You got it...and you got him pegged perfectly!

Ole BDT

Just wanted to see to what extremes you two would grasp for in your habitual and pathetic efforts to cover Barry's many boondoggles. Also, I wanted to show others how you two just can't resist the temptation to throw in a personal attack with your comments. Y'all sure didn't disappoint me. Thank ya, fellers. LOL!

Since: Sep 08

11,500

Ole BDT wrote:

Just wanted to see to what extremes you two would grasp for in your habitual and pathetic efforts to cover Barry's many boondoggles. Also, I wanted to show others how you two just can't resist the temptation to throw in a personal attack with your comments. Y'all sure didn't disappoint me. Thank ya, fellers. LOL!

No, you just wanted to try to post more BS and you got busted for it. But nice try at covering your a$$, though.

Ole BDT

Sundog512 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you just wanted to try to post more BS and you got busted for it. But nice try at covering your a$$, though.

So, you consider the pitiable copy and paste efforts you posted as busting me, huh? How so, Dog? The facts are the facts, my friend, and they're specifically contained within the article I posted. Do you actually think you can baffle someone with a bunch of gobbledygook that you gleaned from an environmental web site? You've got to be kidding me, bro!

Ole BDT

Sundog512 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you just wanted to try to post more BS and you got busted for it. But nice try at covering your a$$, though.

BTW, Dog, the below-excerpt taken from your source negates any trivial effort you might post for rebuttal. Try again, will ya? You lose, Dog! LOL!

"Cash for Clunkers is a federal program designed to stimulate U.S. auto sales and help the environment by providing an economic incentive for consumers to replace old, low-mileage vehicles with new, fuel-efficient models that are safer and emit less pollution and fewer greenhouse gases."

Watch It Closely

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>So, you consider the pitiable copy and paste efforts you posted as busting me, huh? How so, Dog? The facts are the facts, my friend, and they're specifically contained within the article I posted. Do you actually think you can baffle someone with a bunch of gobbledygook that you gleaned from an environmental web site? You've got to be kidding me, bro!

It does not matter where the facts came from, does it. Those are the government rules for trading in pick up trucks. Plain and simple.

Watch It Closely

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>BTW, Dog, the below-excerpt taken from your source negates any trivial effort you might post for rebuttal. Try again, will ya? You lose, Dog! LOL!
"Cash for Clunkers is a federal program designed to stimulate U.S. auto sales and help the environment by providing an economic incentive for consumers to replace old, low-mileage vehicles with new, fuel-efficient models that are safer and emit less pollution and fewer greenhouse gases."

How does it negate anything?

If the pick up truck gets better gas mileage and has lower emissions, what's the problem.

Stop trying to cover your a$$ and just deal with it BDT. You were wrong again. Being wrong is one thing, but continually calling attention to yourself in a simple minded attempt to cover your rear is quite another.

Watch It Closely

Since I don't see the article here that you are linking to (anyone else having that problem?), I went out on line and tried to find it.

I assume it is something similar to this?

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stor...

If so, then what you are referring to is something that is clearly the fault of the dealership and of the total number of cars and trucks traded in during that time period, this appears to be a very small percentage.

It's certainly not going to turn out to be the scandal you are hoping for and pales in comparison to sending 4000 of Americas best and brightest to their deaths based on lies and misinformation. But you go ahead and keep reaching for those straws.

Ole BDT

Watch It Closely wrote:

<quoted text>
How does it negate anything?
If the pick up truck gets better gas mileage and has lower emissions, what's the problem.
Stop trying to cover your a$$ and just deal with it BDT. You were wrong again. Being wrong is one thing, but continually calling attention to yourself in a simple minded attempt to cover your rear is quite another.

This is how it negates everything you said:

an economic incentive for consumers to replace old, low-mileage vehicles with new, fuel-efficient models that are safer and emit less pollution and fewer greenhouse gases."

Ole BDT

Watch It Closely wrote:

Since I don't see the article here that you are linking to (anyone else having that problem?), I went out on line and tried to find it.
I assume it is something similar to this?
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stor...
If so, then what you are referring to is something that is clearly the fault of the dealership and of the total number of cars and trucks traded in during that time period, this appears to be a very small percentage.
It's certainly not going to turn out to be the scandal you are hoping for and pales in comparison to sending 4000 of Americas best and brightest to their deaths based on lies and misinformation. But you go ahead and keep reaching for those straws.

BTW, Dog, I'm not looking for a scandal, I'm simply pointing out just one of the goofy programs Barry has schemed up in his deceptive efforts to convince the American people that he's really concerned about the economy and their misery. Why would he apply a band-aid to a full-blown cancer where it not for the sole purpose of covering his 'done-nothing' behind?

Watch It Closely

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>BTW, Dog, I'm not looking for a scandal, I'm simply pointing out just one of the goofy programs Barry has schemed up in his deceptive efforts to convince the American people that he's really concerned about the economy and their misery. Why would he apply a band-aid to a full-blown cancer where it not for the sole purpose of covering his 'done-nothing' behind?

Tell that to the auto companies who just posted quarterly earnings that were above expectations.

Watch It Closely

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>This is how it negates everything you said:
an economic incentive for consumers to replace old, low-mileage vehicles with new, fuel-efficient models that are safer and emit less pollution and fewer greenhouse gases."

And there were guidelines in there for trucks as well. They had to get better gas mileage and meet newer pollution standards. What's the problem?

Ole BDT

Watch It Closely wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell that to the auto companies who just posted quarterly earnings that were above expectations.

Why don't you check what their earnings are currently and tell us again when the next quarter is up? I'll be waiting to hear your good news. Auto sales hit rock bottom after the clunker debacle ended and they continue to drop as I type.

Ole BDT