Fire Truck of Whey


New Whey Truck

In rural areas vehicles get recycled to new uses. This ex-fire tanker truck now delivers whey. I find the government’s “Cash For Clunkers” program last year to be a horrid waste of resources. They took perfectly good, finely operating vehicles and purposefully destroyed them. Yes, that’s good for the big automakers and new car dealers but it is a bad use of energy and materials.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. That is the right order of things. Perhaps we do need another Depression.

Outdoors: 20째F/6째F Cloudy
Tiny Cottage: 62째F/59째F

Sponsoring Advertisements:


Sponsoring Ads:


About Walter Jeffries

Tinker, Tailor...
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Fire Truck of Whey

  1. Gail in Montana says:

    I agree with you completely, Walter!! Great use of the retired tanker truck. There were a lot of folks that could have used those perfectly good vehicles that couldn't afford a "new" vehicle, terrible waste!!!!! Stupid idea!!

  2. Something that happened to us was we were looking for a used truck, another E250, and because of the government's cash for clunker's program the price of used vehicles shot up. I ended up not buying one. Prices will come back down and we can limp along patching and mending. When I saw all those perfectly good vehicles that had their engines destroyed by the government it made me feel sick and wonder what they are thinking. On the one hand they moan and groan about climate change and COP15 yet then they go and waste all those good used vehicles which were not really clunkers – a requirement of the cash for clunkers program was that the vehicle must be young and in good working condition. Bizarre.

  3. Bill says:

    Fine, poetic post title.

  4. It seems to me that there were very few instances where the program seemed to do what it set out to. For instance, my dad traded in a Rusty 1985 Mercedes 500SEL which got about 14mpg city/18mpg highway and bought a brand new 2010 Subaru forester which gets 30 or 35 mpg. A Win-win for everyone seeing as the Mercedes wasn't doing anything but leaking oil and guzzling gas.

    That said, the only people who could even afford to take advantage of the program were those who already had a bunch of money hanging around. Those who really needed a newer fuel efficient vehicle could not possibly have gotten financing at the time and probably would not be buying 'new' cars anyway due to the high price.

    Even well meaning govt programs seem to only help those who already have enough money and don't need the help.

  5. Kelsy says:

    I agree that less waste of resources would benefit everybody. If we took all of the items that could be reused, recycled, repaired or rehabbed the landfills would benefit every form of life on the planet. There is no big money to be made doing this though.
    As for needing another depression, from where I sit we are well on our way. Many families are merging homes to reduce their costs. People are jobless, crowding food pantries and more homeless are around. I have a friend staying with my family due to loosing his job, which resulted in the loss of his house. From this and all the government "incentive" programs I see us in a depression.

  6. Sara says:

    I agree with you 110%! My father works at a metal recycling facility and he was dumbfound by the government! He doesn't know what people are going to do when they need replacement parts for their clunkers? He had to destroy a 2002 dodge truck crew cab. He said it was a nice well keep truck. I think the saddest part was the people that got denied for the new car after they traded in their clunker and got stuck with no car at all! The government is getting better every year at screwing things up!

  7. tree ocean says:

    yep I have an old car that originally got 28mpg (and lucky to get twenty now) but didn't qualify since the original mpg was high. hahah Germany had a similar program and it was any car over a certain age-could you imagine junking that 2002 truck in the previous comment? OMG.

    I did see figures after the program closed and most people turned in their semi new Ford or Dodge trucks for a brand new one that got maybe 2 mpg better. Great way to spend taxpayer dollars!

  8. Diane N. says:

    Your post rings true. Our REAL clunkers, a 1989 Nova and 1993 Saturn, were too old & had too much mileage to qualify!

    But we're glad. We sold the Nova to a grateful young man & were given a relative's 1997 Saturn.

    I had no idea they were destroying the vehicles turned in for that program. It was even worse than I thought.

  9. Nance says:

    "Reduce, reuse, recycle."

    I think this current saying is recycled from the catch phrase from the Great Depression . . .

    Use it up; wear it out; make it do or do without!

  10. Aye, Nance. That was the phrase I was raised with and I initially had written that for this post but then switched it to the above. Good eye.

  11. Anonymous says:

    As a car salesman I can tell you it was not all fun and games for the car lots. Big G did it at a time when supply was at an all time low. We waited Months to get a lot of money that we floated the whole time. Volume sales worked but over 90% of the dealers were not stocked with qualifying cars. They did not bother to tell the "ailing" automotive companies before they did it. So much for the therory that it was for Detroit.
    But if you look at it from the Green Terroist's and a Bigger Govt. is better perspective it did exactly what they wanted and did it with tax money. It was the engines they wanted destroyed. They did not care if you drove a "clunker", they did not care about the auto industry, even the UAW saw through that. They wanted that engine gone. It was NEVER a public assistance program. Pelossi never said this is meant to help out the single mom with an unsafe clunker for a car. Most of those cars did not qualify anyway. They got too many MPG when they were new 18 years ago.
    They've tried to convince you to buy their story over the last few years, but the free market would not listen.
    Now with a lot less competition (lower mpg "clunkers")
    you have no choice but to look for a newer and more emission friendly vehicle.

    Interesting thought: if the former President tried something as arrogant as this it would have been called a richman's bennefit, furthermore taking a whole class of cars away from what most of working America drives. What is it called now?

    Yes prices shot up on cars that qualified because THERE ARE A LOT LESS OF THEM. It is the same thing with oranges in Feb.

    I am addicted to your site Walter I hope the switch goes easy.

    Erik

  12. Matt Picard says:

    This might have already been said. I didn't read all of the comments.

    But I'd like to add that the cash for clunkers program forgot to consider the resources and energy used in producing all of those new cars.

    The whole climate change piece was the treat in which the pill for our failing automotive industry was stuffed.

  13. Farmerbob1 says:

    If the only qualifying requirement was that the car had to be able to get up to highway speed under it’s own power, and got less than fifteen miles per gallon new, I might have been able to get behind the idea. I used to own a 1976 Ford F100 that got 7 miles per gallon. It was not kitted as a work truck. It was just a really old, inefficient, worn out truck. That sort of vehicle would have been an appropriate target for a real, beneficial cash for clunkers program.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This Blog will give regular Commentators DoFollow Status. Implemented from IT Blögg