08-03-2009 12:51 AM

So last week was the first for the dreaded Cash for Clunkers program and it’s been either wildly successful or a dismally mismanaged failure depending on how you look at it.First, the government thought it might run out of money too quickly. Overnight, a bunch of cars that once fell within the 18mpg or under [...]

{feed:content:encoded.}

More...

Saw this on IMAO.US

Pretty funny.

Finally, a black man I would cast my vote for!

I thought this video would be some type of joke but basically, it says everything I was going to write here.

Cash for Clunkers...another government handout gussied up as some type of enviornmentally friendly BS.

I spoke to a person the other day that thought it was a great idea, jumpstart auto sales and at the same time, cut down on emissions. I told him from what I read, the emissions are cut by 56 minutes out of a year on what we spew in this country. He then said that the $4500 was still good. I countered, if $4500 is good, why dont we double it, $9000 would be even better! Heck, better yet, $18,000 would be great, $36,000 fantastic!

Everyone could get a nice ride then! (I still dont think he fully understood, probably voted for Obama)

We have gone from land of the brave and the home of the free to the land of ignoring consequence.

Will

So 65 billion on the F22 Raptor program is fine. but 3 billion on a direct cash injection program that helps out the auto industry is wrong?

Your getting upset at the wrong things. Defense industry welfare dwarfs all of this kind of stuff!

Derek

Edited August 10, 200915 yr by Derek

So 65 billion on the F22 Raptor program is fine. but 3 billion on a direct cash injection program that helps out the auto industry is wrong?

Your getting upset at the wrong things. Defense industry welfare dwarfs all of this kind of stuff!

Derek

With respect sir, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States requires the Congress to "... provide for the common Defence..." (spelling and capitalization in the original)

There is no requirement for the Congress to prop up failing private businesses.

You're right Walter, but we now have more than 100 F-22s. And there isn't anything that can match them in the air, which begs the question: Why do we need more?

And the apparent answer is that we don't. Which is why funding for them has been cut off.

Here is one to consider...

At $3 Billion the C4C program is 96 hundredths of 1% of the 2009 Budget.

What drives me nuts about C4C is the premise of getting $4500 from Uncle Obama to buy a car means I go into debt covering the difference. All the $4500 does is cover what the vehicle depreciates when I drive it off the lot. It'll take 10 years of ownership for the fuel savings to make up for what I spent.

A better idea to help the environment would have been to shut the electricity off at Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee and start building the wind farm off the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport. Libs love going green as long as its everyone else doing it.

What drives me nuts about C4C is the premise of getting $4500 from Uncle Obama to buy a car means I go into debt covering the difference. All the $4500 does is cover what the vehicle depreciates when I drive it off the lot. It'll take 10 years of ownership for the fuel savings to make up for what I spent.

Yep. I love it when people talk mileage on their tow vehicles too. "I'm going to trade in my gas V8 F250 for a Cummins because I'll save $$$ on gas". You'd have to buy a LOT of gas to overcome just the surcharge they have for the diesel option on the truck, not to mention the cost of the truck itself. Even when gas was $4.50/gal it still would have taken a really long time to overcome the price difference.