Got a clunker?

[Duffster]

Dufster, it is no secret what it takes to heat homes built to code. In my case it is $600 this season (for 5 cord of firewood). My utility bills are about $75/month which is the annual average including running the air conditioner. Last year we had a particularly hot summer and the air conditioning bill ran close to $150/month for nearly 4 months. But if I ran the natural gas furnace (cheapest "conventional" source of heat) it would be on the order of $1300 per season minimum and that would be with the thermostat set to 65. Those in rural areas are on propane and looking at more than $2500 per season. Perhaps you have been to hearth.com and read what people are going through the last couple of winters. .

You would have to be heating a corn crib to pay that much.

Did you notice Hugo Chavez donating heating oil to low income americans 2 years ago ? It seems to suggest that people cant afford to keep their homes warm. That seems to suggest that some will benefit from more insulation.
.

Do low income people live in new homes with current building codes.

People who insulate beyond code requirement and apply passive solar techniques when the home is built will typically save over $1000/season in utility bills assuming they are on natural gas. That amount will increase if it includes a "cold roof" providing a benefit in summer. That doesn't sound like much now, but that is without taking inflation into account. And as we know, amortization on the insulation in your home runs over a very long period, typically several mortgage terms.

Nonsense, I built a new house for my inlaws 7 years ago. The "budget" payment for there gas bill just went done from $60/month and that includes gas hot water, gas stove and a gas clothes dryer. The latter of the three could easily account for half that gas.

Granted we have pretty strict codes already.

 

[Double Orange]

Dargo, as my own example shows, I can save $2300 a year at current fuel prices. I recieved $4500 from the clunker program, so it will be amortized in just less than 2 years if we have no inflation (like thats going to happen). I will likely keep driving the car for the next 8 years after that, just like I did with the vehicle I traded in. Again, assuming no inflation (ha ha) the payback is going to be $18400, which appears to be a pretty neat Return on Investment. If we have 10% inflation starting after the first 2 years, that payback becomes $28 000. I didn't even own a REAL gas guzzling suv in the first place, just an awd wagon with a 2.8 V6. Apparently Ford Explorers are the #1 traded in vehicle. Depending on the choices those folks make, their payback numbers will make mine look silly.

So mathematically, your story is BS. It sounds like party line retoric, repeated verbatum.

You stole $4500 from tax payers and to add insult to injury you try to justify it will B/S Math.

 

[Duffster]

You stole $4500 from tax payers and to add insult to injury you try to justify it will B/S Math.

Well said.

 

[westcliffe01]

Less than 200/month for heating ?

Lots of low income people live in rented apartments, built by developers to code.

What was the size of the home you built and what constitutes your code ?

Here is ours: (and I think it is pretty poor for our climate)

You would have to be heating a corn crib to pay that much.
Do low income people live in new homes with current building codes.

Nonsense, I built a new house for my inlaws 7 years ago. The "budget" payment for there gas bill just went done from $60/month and that includes gas hot water, gas stove and a gas clothes dryer. The latter of the three could easily account for half that gas.

Granted we have pretty strict codes already.

 

[westcliffe01]

If you know the math to be BS show me the correction ? Or is ALL math BS to you ? I make a living from doing math and I don't mean as a school teacher.. or an accountant

You stole $4500 from tax payers and to add insult to injury you try to justify it will B/S Math.

 

[Double Orange]

If you know the math to be BS show me the correction ? Or is ALL math BS to you ? I make a living from doing math and I don't mean as a school teacher.. or an accountant

Take your 15000. loan at current 10 yr bond rate 3.45% you loose!
Hows that bit you asx.

 

[westcliffe01]

My loan doesn't cost you or any other taxpayer anything and the interest charges contribute towards gross domestic product, which is apparently what makes the wheels turn and keeps all of us in a job.

So if I wasn't going to pay for the car, what are you suggesting ? That we all steal cars in the future ?

And name calling is lowball.

 

[Duffster]

What was the size of the home you built and what constitutes your code ?

1800 sq/ft plus with a 3 sided walk out basement

Don't recall the code of the top of my head but the walls where built to R-19, basement walls to R-13/R-19 and the attic to a R-44.

 

[westcliffe01]

The problem is that you don't understand that the scheme actually makes sense. You didn't do the math to figure out whether you could break even. And, worst of all, apparently the old gas guzzlers that in most cases had a "new" sticker price higher than my import are considered a better investment ?

 

[Duffster]

If you know the math to be BS show me the correction ? Or is ALL math BS to you ? I make a living from doing math and I don't mean as a school teacher.. or an accountant

Your fuel savings doesn't return a dollar to the tax payer that paid the $4500.

Thats pretty simple math.

 

[westcliffe01]

Duffster, I have kept track of the past couple of winters in WI and they have been brutal. I am not joking when I say that I have many people who work at my office who have showed me their heating bills running $350 - $500/month (on natural gas) in homes that cost upwards of $350k and were built within the last 5 years.

 

[Double Orange]

My loan doesn't cost you or any other taxpayer anything and the interest charges contribute towards gross domestic product, which is apparently what makes the wheels turn and keeps all of us in a job.

So if I wasn't going to pay for the car, what are you suggesting ? That we all steal cars in the future ?

And name calling is lowball.

You are an Idio..t
Don't bother replying I have myself on IGNORE

 

[westcliffe01]

Here enters the thorny issue of the "real" cost of fuel, including occupying foreign countries in order to secure supplies. You still think the big picture is just about the direct fuel cost ?

Your fuel savings doesn't return a dollar to the tax payer that paid the $4500.

Thats pretty simple math.

 

[westcliffe01]

Every vehicle as an asset is a dead loss. Every used vehicle starts as a new vehicle. The TDI is the first new car my wife has ever owned. We only have these things because we need them. Whether we need 6000lb gvw vehicles to pick the kids up at school or go grocery shopping is a different matter.

If any automaker is going to stay in business, people have to buy cars. So if people are going to buy cars, and if america today uses more fuel than it should be using, and if the people who own the oil are not nice guys (Saudi's, Russians, Chavez and others) the question is simply what you will buy next ?

Take your 15000. loan at current 10 yr bond rate 3.45% you loose!
Hows that bit you asx.

 

[tallyho8]

You stole $4500 from tax payers.

I believe you are being a little harsh when you accuse someone of stealing just because they participated in a govt program that you disagree with.

I'm sure many say people on welfare are stealing our tax dollars.
And people on food stamps.
And banks that get subsidies.
And General Motors.
And Chrysler.
And AIG.
And people who make legal deductions on their tax returns.
And people with children in public schools.
And people on disability.
And people who ride the subsidized bus or rail system.
And people who got a rebate check this year.
Or millions of others that the govt spends tax dollars to support in one way or another.

But most of these people are not thieves, they are Americans, utilizing the system available to them, made possible by you, the taxpayer and voter.

All Americans are responsible for these programs because the politicians that you elected approved them. If you disapprove of a program that your representative voted for, let him know, email, send letters, get petitions signed, make phone calls, etc.

TBNers are a great bunch and can surely discuss programs such as these without being highly critical of those you don't agree 100% with.

 

[westcliffe01]

I believe pumkin time has arrived. Good evening to you.

 

[rcrcomputing]

The problem is that you don't understand that the scheme actually makes sense. You didn't do the math to figure out whether you could break even. And, worst of all, apparently the old gas guzzlers that in most cases had a "new" sticker price higher than my import are considered a better investment ?

Our government has an obligation NOT to forcibly take money from me to help YOU buy a car. I consider it a lack of moral values to take the clunker deal. Doing math on it serves no purpose other than to determine at what price you are for sale.

 

[westcliffe01]

RCR, what do you mean ?

I was in a situation where the vehicle I had was close to the end of its life. I could have gone out and looked for another like it (used) for something between $12-18k. I would not be saving the $2300/yr that I can because of the exceptional fuel mileage of the Tdi. I would not have qualified to get the $4500 CFC deal, nor the $1300 tax credit due to the high mileage and exceptionally low emissions (50 state legal diesel). I would have paid a higher interest rate on the used vehicle.

So, one way or another I needed to spend the money to buy something else. If everyone who went out to buy a car came back with something that got 40mpg it would be a very good thing. The drop in demand for fuel would probably cause the price of crude to drop. That would in time lower the price of NG and propane, so it would cost less to heat my home too.

The way the CFC program was structured deliberately rewards people for making what is apparently a difficult decision to downsize to something more economical which will hopefully swing the pendulum the other way on reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

 

[rcrcomputing]

Here enters the thorny issue of the "real" cost of fuel, including occupying foreign countries in order to secure supplies. You still think the big picture is just about the direct fuel cost ?

Which country? We must really be making out by occupying... Ummm, where's the money or any other oil we are securing? Please provide proof of your statement.

 

[rcrcomputing]

RCR, what do you mean ?


The way the CFC program was structured deliberately rewards people for making what is apparently a difficult decision to downsize to something more economical which will hopefully swing the pendulum the other way on reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

What I mean is, it is wrong to take taxes from me or anyone else to "reward" folks for buying a new car. That's not right.