Should Congress Continue to Fund the Cash for Clunkers Program?

Should Congress Continue to Fund the Cash for Clunkers Program?

  • Total voters
    0
#2
#2
I voted no since it already feels like they made a mess of it. Plus they are removing affordable/potentially dependable cars from the car lots in a time when people actually may need that option.
 
#6
#6
Hell no. I don't see why I(or anyone else) should be helping another person buy a car. To add to this, for some reason I am choosing to have cars destroyed? Unreal. Additionally, I can't imagine a more untrustworthy pair working together, government and car dealers.
 
#7
#7
first off, I am against it. MY wages were reduced 17% by my company, and I am losing my expenses for a grand loss of $1300 a month gross income. For my situation, that is death. So, I am in no way comforted to know that my tax dollars are allocated to help others go in debt and buy cars they probably still can't afford after the rebate. So, several months from now the ugly situation our economy faces now will become BF ugly. This will cause more economic harm down the road as the immediate demand for crap metal to make cars will disappear just as quick. False indicators, that's all. The upside is that Repo will get an entire season's worth of new shows just getting back these cars. If you can't afford the payment on a $24,000 car, you probably can't afford the $19,000 payments after the rebate. Throw in cars makers that are matching, plus you still get the factory rebates, so you are seriously devaluing cars worse now than before when you drove them off the lot.

Second, I manage 2 scrap metal yards for my company. The dealers are in a cluster f***. The feds cranked up a program they can't administer effectively. There are more deals pending than they have money for, because dealers in dire need of sales acted irresponsibly in making deals and getting them wrong per the rules. They have 7 days to turn in the disposal letter I give them to get their money. So, they all enter their deals frantically trying to get in before the money disappears and I have a backlog of cars at 12 dealerships to get picked up by one driver before their 7 days expires and the deals kicks out and they have to start over.

nothing but idiocracy in my book.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
allvol123 said:
Hell no. I don't see why I(or anyone else) should be helping another person buy a car. To add to this, for some reason I am choosing to have cars destroyed? Unreal. Additionally, I can't imagine a more untrustworthy pair working together, government and car dealers.
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#9
#9
I drive an old clunker that gets great gas mileage (high enough that it doesn't qualify for squat) and now I am being punished by doing so.
 
#10
#10
Weezy said:
I drive an old clunker that gets great gas mileage (high enough that it doesn't qualify for squat) and now I am being punished by doing so.
Click to expand...

how are you being punished? You are driving a car that is paid off (I assume anyway) which means you won't get some new car loan you don't need or can't really afford and you are doing find in gas mileage.
 
#11
#11
utvolpj said:
how are you being punished? You are driving a car that is paid off (I assume anyway) which means you won't get some new car loan you don't need or can't really afford and you are doing find in gas mileage.
Click to expand...

He wants a handout, too.
 
#12
#12
utvolpj said:
how are you being punished? You are driving a car that is paid off (I assume anyway) which means you won't get some new car loan you don't need or can't really afford and you are doing find in gas mileage.
Click to expand...

He is suffering discrimination. Oh the horror of this administration!
 
#18
#18
09-31b-cartoon.jpg



The Constitution is an obstacle to Obama's plans.


"Thinking about today's massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy?

Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years.

During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts.

It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. ...

Here's my question: Were the presidents in office and congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?" --economist Walter E. Williams

-----------------------------
"After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.

When that person is the President of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited. Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on.

But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief.

He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts....

This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available.

That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites -- and ultimately the number one elite, Barack Obama himself.

Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the capabilities of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power."
--economist Thomas Sowell
---------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD
"The administration has fulfilled a promise to cut spending by trimming $100 million from the 2009 budget. That's right -- $100 million with an 'm,' an imponderably small slice of this year's expenditures.

Back in April, the White House stressed that President Obama, during his first Cabinet meeting, 'made clear that relentlessly cutting out waste was part and parcel of their mission to make the investments necessary for recovery and long-term stability.'

Department heads were 'to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets.' Three months later, he has gotten his wish: The White House announced on Monday that the goal has been reached.

To say such a cut is negligible is an exaggeration in the extreme. To fit that description, a cut first has to be visible.

Though it was initially promoted as a seminal moment, this cut doesn't come close to meeting even the most reachable of benchmarks.

In fiscal 2009, our federal government will spend nearly $4 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget's historical tables.

The $100 million cut represents 0.0025% -- less than one one-hundredth of 1% -- of those outlays. ...

Now, thanks to the administration's 'relentless' belt-tightening, the deficit will be $1.79999 trillion rather than $1.8 trillion." --Investor's Business Daily
----------------------------------

"How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

That's the argument that needs to be won. And, if you think I'm being frivolous in positing bureaucratic regulation of doughnuts and vacations, consider that under the all-purpose umbrellas of 'health' and 'the environment,' governments of supposedly free nations are increasingly comfortable straying into areas of diet and leisure. ... Freedom is messy.

In free societies, people will fall through the cracks -- drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care and much else.

But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high. Government health care would be wrong even if it 'controlled costs.'

It's a liberty issue. I'd rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices." --columnist Mark Steyn

--------------------------


"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism....

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.

To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." --English writer Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)



-----------------------------------

"The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it.

America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world.

Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system -- which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care -- has pauperized the entire population.

This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment.

But a pauper must accept what he is given. Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality.

But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. ...

In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality.

After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced.

But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe. There is no right to health care -- any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month."
--British physician Theodore Dalrymple
 
#20
#20
WASHINGTON – "Cash for clunkers" could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren't impressed.
Click to expand...

`Cash for clunkers' effect on pollution? A blip
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top