chasteh 0 #76 August 4, 2009 It is minimal compared to the cost of funding a giant illegal immigration expulsion. It is also cheaper than funding the construction of a wall and a police force to watch that wall. Oh wait, we already do have that police force. Since when did you give a shit about helping the poor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #77 August 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote You are correct in your assesment of where the monies were to go and what is was supposed to accomplish. Now we are learning this money is going to help Obama supporter groups like ACORN Pikers! They will get nothing like as much as Paulson sent to support Republican supporter groups like Wall Street bankers and AIG execs. Then all is ok then in your plastic inflatable world Au contraire. A mountain of debt is not a firm foundation on which to build a sound economy. But keep things in perspective; any money spent on clunkers or community groups is peanuts compared with the money sent to bail out Wall St., and those guys, whose recklessness led to the worst recession in generations, are still paying themselves bonuses bigger than you or I can expect to make in a lifetime. Absoulty but the perspective is more to why, than to how much. THAT is whay you and your inflated double personal fail to admit too"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #78 August 4, 2009 God help us. Maybe after ACORN gets the money they will lobby for fighter jet production and armament. Oops! The last conservative president responded to that already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #79 August 4, 2009 Quote It is minimal compared to the cost of funding a giant illegal immigration expulsion. It is also cheaper than funding the construction of a wall and a police force to watch that wall. Oh wait, we already do have that police force. Since when did you give a shit about helping the poor? Our poor I have not problem with. Mexico should take care of their own. If they become citizens? Same as my first comment If they are here illegally? Pack em up and send them home. Any other bs assumptions you have about me I can take care of?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #80 August 4, 2009 QuoteThey will get nothing like as much as Paulson sent to support Republican supporter groups like Wall Street bankers and AIG execs. And if guys you don't (Republicans) like are being fiscally irresponsible to help guys you don't like (bankers)...that makes it ok for guys you do like (Democrats) to do the same thing to help guys you do like (unions)? What happened to your fiscal responsibility, John? Only when convenient to your political causes? You sound a lot like George W. Bush, actually.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #81 August 4, 2009 QuotePikers! They will get nothing like as much as Paulson sent to support Republican supporter groups like Wall Street bankers and AIG execs. A purely emotional argument.... I'd expect better from you. Bailing out the banks was something I didn't agree with, but even Dems had loans and accounts in those institutions. And if they failed, then that money would have to be paid by taxpayers. By giving them loans, they might not fold, and we might get our money back. CFC is a program that will encourage people who have running cars to trade them in, many of those people will leave with a new car and NEW CAR PAYMENTS.... Going further into debt is never a wise economic model. And a good number of those are not in the economic situation where they should be buying a new car. NPR had a piece on this, they said it would take 5-8 years for the carbon offset to equal. AND it will take many, many miles of driving to make up in gas cost (at 4 MPG better) to break even on going from no car payment to now having a car payment. Plus, in 2010 MPG is supposed to go up to 27MPG... We are giving people 3500 tax payer bucks to buy a car that before it is even paid off will be BELOW the new standard."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #82 August 4, 2009 >Our poor I have not problem with. As long as they aren't cadillac queens. Then they need to stop being lazy socialistic liberal democrats and get jobs. >Mexico should take care of their own. Unless, of course, you were a crazy conservative citizen of Mexico. Then they shouldn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #83 August 4, 2009 Ford had the first increase in sales in 2 years last month. Sounds like this program is helping at least one domestic manufacturer. I would assume it is also helping local dealerships and sales people.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #84 August 4, 2009 QuoteThe only one that I see so far is the bill should have only allowed the credit to be used for domestic made cars. Keep the money in America!!! Support American jobs! How small minded, of you! Why do you hate Germans and Japanese? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #85 August 4, 2009 QuoteFord had the first increase in sales in 2 years last month. Sounds like this program is helping at least one domestic manufacturer. I would assume it is also helping local dealerships and sales people.... You are missing the larger point.... APR's and creative financing also sold more homes and helped builders and real estate agents. That does not mean it was a good thing in the long run."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #86 August 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteFord had the first increase in sales in 2 years last month. Sounds like this program is helping at least one domestic manufacturer. I would assume it is also helping local dealerships and sales people.... You are missing the larger point.... APR's and creative financing also sold more homes and helped builders and real estate agents. That does not mean it was a good thing in the long run. Winner! Plus, we're spending billions to take billions of dollars worth of productive assets out of use. What's the reasoning there?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #87 August 4, 2009 I must have missed where in the Cash for Clunkers deal there was wording that required lenders to approve everybody. The program does seem to be stimulating part of the economy. I also find it interesting that posters who usually say people need to be responsible for their own actions are against this program for the sole reason to protect people from themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,125 #88 August 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteThey will get nothing like as much as Paulson sent to support Republican supporter groups like Wall Street bankers and AIG execs. And if guys you don't (Republicans) like are being fiscally irresponsible to help guys you don't like (bankers)...that makes it ok for guys you do like (Democrats) to do the same thing to help guys you do like (unions)? What happened to your fiscal responsibility, John? Only when convenient to your political causes? You sound a lot like George W. Bush, actually. It's all a matter of scale. Something to do with motes and beams in eyes. Or put another way, don't sweat the small stuff. Or yet another way, penny wise, pound foolish. I like bankers just fine as long as they aren't capsizing the world's economy for their own greed, and then paying themselves huge bonuses using taxpayer $$. The CforC program is peanuts compared with the Wall St bailouts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #89 August 4, 2009 Quote I must have missed where in the Cash for Clunkers deal there was wording that required lenders to approve everybody. You must have missed that it is the business of a company to move a product... If it is a car or a loan, they must move product to make money. The products were created to be able to give out loans and cash in on the profits... You really think that a car dealer will not sell a person a car they don't need? There was no law that required lenders to loan to everyone that wanted a house, it was "encouraged". It is being encouraged here as well. You must have also missed that this program does not have loan guidelines in it. QuoteThe program does seem to be stimulating part of the economy. Yes, and so did toxic mortgages..... Should those be brought back? It is stimulating one part of the economy... But it is doing so in a way that encourages bad practices.... Where have I seen that before????? Oh yeah, the housing bubble! QuoteI also find it interesting that posters who usually say people need to be responsible for their own actions are against this program for the sole reason to protect people from themselves. Part of being personally responsible is to not encourage irresponsible behavior with my money. You have every right to do anything you want... till it affects me."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #90 August 4, 2009 QuoteOr put another way, don't sweat the small stuff. Or yet another way, penny wise, pound foolish. No single drop of rain wants to be held responsible for the flood."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrendaHupp 0 #91 August 4, 2009 QuoteHow small minded, of you! Why do you hate Germans and Japanese?Please show me where I said that I "hated" anyone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #92 August 4, 2009 Quote It is stimulating one part of the economy... But it is doing so in a way that encourages bad practices.... Just to point out, nearly our entire economy is based on the bad practice of borrowing money to buy things we don't need. I hope this part of the discussion makes it into the national dialog and isn't relegated to partisan forum threads. We should have had this discussion 15 years ago while the SUV insanity was going full bore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #93 August 4, 2009 Quotedon't sweat the small stuff. A couple billion here, a couple billion there--pretty soon you're talking about real money.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #94 August 4, 2009 Quote...nearly our entire economy is based on the bad practice of borrowing money to buy things we don't need. Absolutely true. From the federal government all the way down to the individual citizen, and everywhere in between. We need a serious wake up call.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #95 August 4, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/04/clunkers-programs-environmental-impact-debate/ QuoteDoes Cash for Clunkers Help the Environment? It's Debatable Some environmentalists argue that the harm caused by destroying the "clunkers" -- as required by the government's vehicle trade-in program -- may outweigh the benefits of exchanging pollution-spewing gas guzzlers for new, more efficient cars. FOXNews.com Tuesday, August 04, 2009 Used cars are seen in a dumpster to draw attention to the "Cash for Clunkers" program at Performance Chevrolet in Sacramento, Calif., Saturday, Aug. 1, 2009. (AP) Buyer's remorse may be setting in for some who question whether the government's cash for clunkers program is really all it's supposed to be. Sold as an economic stimulus and an environmental salve, the "cash for clunkers" program has succeeded in jump-starting the ailing auto industry. But some environmental and national security watchdogs are now arguing that the harm caused by destroying the used vehicles -- required by the government trade-in program -- may outweigh the benefits of exchanging pollution-spewing gas guzzlers for new, more efficient cars. "Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs," Gwen Ottinger, a researcher at the Chemical Heritage Foundation's Center for Contemporary History and Policy in Philadelphia, wrote in an opinion article published in The Washington Post on Tuesday. "It takes energy to shred and recycle metals; plastic components often cannot be recycled and end up as landfill cover; and the engine fluids, refrigerants and other chemicals essential to operating products end up as hazardous wastes," she wrote. Others say it also does nothing to reduce America's dependency on oil. "Cash for clunkers is a historic mistake for America because it misapplies billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize more fuel inefficient cars that are bad for our dependence on foreign oil and bad for the environment," said Edwin Black, author of "The Plan: How to Save America When the Oil Stops -- or the Day Before." Black told FOXNews.com that lawmakers had the right idea to get more fuel efficient vehicles on the road but executed it poorly. He said it's too early to say how many vehicles purchased get 18 to 20 mpg rather than 30 to 35 mpg. "It could have also formed the basis for a crash program of fuel switching in the event of an oil interruption, which is being threatened by Iran as recently as this morning," he said. "What we have now is a jobs program-bailout disguised as fuel efficient move." The Senate is weighing whether to pass a $2 billion extension of the program that the House approved overwhelmingly on Friday, tripling the initial cost. As of Monday afternoon, $536.8 million worth of rebates had been processed through the government program, representing 133,767 new vehicles, according to figures provided by the Department of Transportation. An additional 100,000 to 130,000 were expected to be processed to reach the $1 billion set aside. Another $2 billion is expected to generate the sale of about 500,000 more vehicles. Data released by the Obama administration showed the new vehicles purchased under the program were 61 percent more fuel-efficient than the trade-ins. The average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased under the CARS program is 25.4 mpg and the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in is 15.8 mpg, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson wrote in a letter to senators. "This improvement will save the typical buyer $700 to $1,000 per year in fuel costs," they wrote. "In addition to the money saved on gas, people using the program will have safer cars and lower repair costs, and they will dramatically reduce the pollution released by their vehicles." To date, 83 percent of the trade-ins have been trucks and 60 percent of the new vehicles have been cars, the administration officials wrote. "New cars under the program are 18 percent more fuel efficient than the average new car currently available. This means the program is raising the average fuel economy of the fleet, while removing the dirtiest and most polluting vehicles from the road." They added that nearly half of new vehicles purchased under the program are from the Big Three automakers. But the Obama administration is refusing to release government records to substantiate the claims. LaHood said his department will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes. Even so, the fuel efficiency gains helped sway Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine to maintain their support for the program they had originally sponsored. The three had complained that smaller rebates of $3,500 were going to people buying new cars that get as little as 4 more miles per gallon more than the gas-guzzlers they traded in. "The original intent of the 'clunkers' program was to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and the data so far tells us that's exactly what's happening," Feinstein said in a statement. "So I believe the right decision at this time is that the program should be extended." But Ottinger said lawmakers are not looking at all the data. "It's likely if you're trading something in for a much more fuel-efficient vehicle, then those costs are outweighed by the fuel efficiency over the vehicle's lifetime, but that depends on the vehicle's lifetime," she said, adding that several assumptions exist in the program's stated objectives. Ottinger told FOXNews.com that figures on energy costs in production and disposal were not readily available. "What I do believe to be the case is the running costs of an automobile -- the costs entailed in operating the vehicle-burning gas -- is probably the bulk of energy costs and the disposal and manufacturing is relatively less." Under the program, the government is advising car dealers to replace a trade-in's engine oil with a lethal sodium silicate solution and run the engine to ruin it before giving to selling the car to a scrap dealer. The Automotive Recycler's Association says that means more waste, since the damage prevents the resale of parts like pistons as well as smaller profits for scrap yards, since it can cost $700 to $1,200 to process a car, including transport and removing toxic items like mercury. ARA Executive Vice President Michael Wilson said that recycling auto parts saves 85 million gallons of oil per year in energy savings alone. The two parts most in demand on the resale market are the engine block and the drive train, accounting for 60 percent of used-parts sales, he said. But when cars are scrapped, the engine block is destroyed by the silicon, and the drive train can be sold only under certain conditions. "Why throw away good parts when the supply chain is in jeopardy? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense," Wilson told The Associated Press. But Jim Burton, a service manager at Randy Curnow Buick-Pontiac-GMC in Kansas City, Mo., said other parts of the vehicle besides the engine can be recycled and that will help people who can't or wont' trade in their cars. "Doors, hoods, transmission, interior components can be reused. But a lot of people still have these cars, they can't trade them or won't, but they're in pretty sad shape. This is going to give an opportunity for salvage yards and people to sell some of the components and maybe bring the car back to better condition," he said. He said some people have been calling him about donating the trade-ins to charities but he added he's required to disable them. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #96 August 4, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_cash_for_clunkers_transparency Yet another example of the most open transparent admin to dateAdd this withholding to his delaying of the economic data until after the Health Bill vote? Quote WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is refusing to quickly release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales. The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release electronic records about the program, and President Barack Obama has pledged greater transparency for his administration. But the Transportation Department, which has collected details on about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program. The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said the agency will provide the data requested as soon as possible. DOT officials already have received electronic details from car dealers of each trade-in transaction. The agency receives regular analyses of the sales data, producing helpful talking points for LaHood, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and other officials to use when urging more funding. LaHood said in an interview Sunday he would make the electronic records available. "I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't do it," he said. LaHood, the program's chief salesman, has pitched the rebates as good for America, good for car buyers, good for the environment, good for the economy. But it's difficult to determine whether the administration is overselling the claim without seeing what's being sold, what's being traded in and where the cars are being sold. LaHood, for example, promotes the fact that the Ford Focus so far is at the top of the list of new cars purchased under the program. But the limited information released so far shows most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles, and six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. LaHood has called the popular rebates to car buyers "the lifeline that will bring back the automobile industry in America." He and other advocates are citing program data to promote passage of another $2 billion for the incentives -- claiming dealers sold cars that are 61 percent more fuel efficient than trade-ins. LaHood also said this week that even if buyers aren't choosing cars made by U.S. automobile manufacturers, many of the Honda, Toyota and Hyundai cars sold were made in those companies' American plants. But there's no way to verify his claims without access to DOT's data. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has argued against quick approval of $2 billion for the program because little is known about the first round of $3,500 and $4,500 rebates. "We don't have the results of the first $1 billion," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. "You don't have them. We don't have them. DOT doesn't have all of it. We'd hate to make a mistake on something like that." "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,125 #97 August 4, 2009 Here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #98 August 5, 2009 Quote The average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased under the CARS program is 25.4 mpg and the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in is 15.8 mpg, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson wrote in a letter to senators. If true, this is more successful than I would have hoped for. But I'd like to see actual evidence too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #99 August 5, 2009 Quote Here. Do you use those to inflate the "other" kallend that posts here?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 August 5, 2009 QuoteQuote The average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased under the CARS program is 25.4 mpg and the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in is 15.8 mpg, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson wrote in a letter to senators. One groups percieved success causes XX groups to loose somehting. Gov mandates/programs ALWAYS creates poor consequenses somewhere. If true, this is more successful than I would have hoped for. But I'd like to see actual evidence too."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
