The #1 selling car in the 'Cash for Clunkers' program is....... by whozit

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
The whole point of the program was to payback Barrys boys (and girls) in the UAW.

Hmmm... and here I thought it was trying to stimulate the economy by getting people buying things...

And last week, they were saying the Ford Focus was #1 in sales. Wonder what happened.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:16 AM

LEADB

Actually, there were several 'ideas' behind the program.
1) To get folks into more fuel efficient vehicles. Seems like this move supports that.
2) To stimulate the world economy. Seems like this move supports that.
3) To stimulate the US economy. Let's see, Corolla sales in the US generate jobs for at Toyota dealerships (generally, US citizens work there). Generates jobs at US factories (yes, Corolla plants in the US, generally US citizen work there). Ok, the net profits go overseas, and any parts supplied from overseas doesn't help, but buying a chevy built by GM over in china and imported to the US probably doesn't help the economy much more. I'll put this as a Seems like this move supports that.

Now, I've seen a lot written about 'why' the program was put in place, but 'Payback Barry's boys in the UAW'... I don't recall seeing that... except perhaps on a few conspiracy boards and whine sites. So... just maybe the program is working as intended.

Now... do I necessarily think this is the best way to spend 2 billion dollars? Naw. Is the worst, given some of the other giveaways we've had to the financial sectors, etc? Naw.

Personally, I didn't participate because the only car I have that qualifies is my 1995 Mustang. I generally get 20 mpg (the 'official' combined mileage is 18, but my driving is highway biased) which I only put about 5k miles per year. And the car looks -good-. And has no problems. I just can't see sending it to the crusher even though I might get more than for trade in by about $1800... so I'll likely keep it two more years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:08 AM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The whole point of the program was to payback Barrys boys (and girls) in the UAW.

Hmmm... and here I thought it was trying to stimulate the economy by getting people buying things...

And last week, they were saying the Ford Focus was #1 in sales. Wonder what happened.

Mike

In that case, how about a "Cash for Coats" program. Or "Cash for Shoes", or "Cash for Cellphones, or "Cash for Furnature", or "Cash for Lawnmowers", or "Cash for TV's", or "Cash for DVD Players", or "Cash for Rist Watches". Why does Barry just want to sell cars?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:12 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
"Cash for DVD Players",

WHEN DOES IT START?????

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:41 AM

It's a moronic idea: taking functional cars and crushing them. Great. The carbon footprint in making a car exceeds its fuel consumption, but that's moot: converting an SUV to high mpg is not that hard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:46 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'd like to say I'm not a fan at all of these government bailout and stimulus programs. Not at all.

However, this Cash for Clunkers thing has had, at least to my eyes, the most visible, immediate, and positive impact of all the government stimulus programs. Just because I don't like the stimulus philosophy doesn't mean I can't recognize an idea that actually seems to be working. I know they funded it insufficiently, terminated it too soon, and have a website made of fail. Check, check, check. But you know what? I'll be damned if it isn't the best of their programs I've seen since before Bush left the presidency.

I gotta hand this one to the big bosses in D.C. The program has very little to criticize in terms of investment vs. returns. It's got to be working about a thousand percent better than all the other bullshit they've tried.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:49 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
However, this Cash for Clunkers thing has had, at least to my eyes, the most visible, immediate, and positive impact of all the government stimulus programs. Just because I don't like the stimulus philosophy doesn't mean I can't recognize an idea that actually seems to be working.

Working to do what exactly? Pump up an economy based on people going into debt to buy things they don't need? Even if that does "spur" the economy, I have a hard time seeing it as a positive. Kinda like giving drug addict a fix for a quick pick-me-up. You know, on their road to recovery... uhh.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:32 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hey Sarge,

I'm not hailing this thing as a good idea. Merely the best of their ideas so far. Which ain't exactly a ringing endorsement. But if I'm going to criticize the bailouts and stimulus plans, I'm NOT going to start with this one. This one is actually achieving its social engineering and immediate economic stimulus goals. It also has the benefit of allowing the consumer to impact the process. The consumer still decides which car to buy, or at least which car company to buy from. So it avoids disproportionate impact to some degree, while rewarding corporations for providing products that are in line with the current social program of the nation. It also rewards customers for making fuel economy choices that the government social engineering agencies have deemed to be appropriate.

Again, a philosophy I don't agree with, but I can still appreciate that it's being pursued as effectively as possible in this case.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The whole point of the program was to payback Barrys boys (and girls) in the UAW.

Hmmm... and here I thought it was trying to stimulate the economy by getting people buying things...

And last week, they were saying the Ford Focus was #1 in sales. Wonder what happened.

Mike

In that case, how about a "Cash for Coats" program. Or "Cash for Shoes", or "Cash for Cellphones, or "Cash for Furnature", or "Cash for Lawnmowers", or "Cash for TV's", or "Cash for DVD Players", or "Cash for Rist Watches". Why does Barry just want to sell cars?

Don't most states have "tax-free holidays" nowadays? I know Texas does. That one weekend per year (THIS weekend, which is why I'm not out in the crowds right now) when they waive the sales tax on may items? The idea behind it is to stimulate buying of things, I believe.

The funny thing is, it's been so successful that they're thinking of scaling it back. The funnier thing is, its success is based ENTIRELY on the idea that you're "putting one over on The Man" by buying something without paying the sales tax. Can you imagine how low the turnout would be if I were to have an "8.25 Off Sale!"? That's all the tax holiday is. That's how much you're "saving".

And it works, every single time.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:01 AM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
The whole point of the program was to payback Barrys boys (and girls) in the UAW.

Hmmm... and here I thought it was trying to stimulate the economy by getting people buying things...

And last week, they were saying the Ford Focus was #1 in sales. Wonder what happened.

Mike

In that case, how about a "Cash for Coats" program. Or "Cash for Shoes", or "Cash for Cellphones, or "Cash for Furnature", or "Cash for Lawnmowers", or "Cash for TV's", or "Cash for DVD Players", or "Cash for Rist Watches". Why does Barry just want to sell cars?

Don't most states have "tax-free holidays" nowadays? I know Texas does. That one weekend per year (THIS weekend, which is why I'm not out in the crowds right now) when they waive the sales tax on may items? The idea behind it is to stimulate buying of things, I believe.

The funny thing is, it's been so successful that they're thinking of scaling it back. The funnier thing is, its success is based ENTIRELY on the idea that you're "putting one over on The Man" by buying something without paying the sales tax. Can you imagine how low the turnout would be if I were to have an "8.25 Off Sale!"? That's all the tax holiday is. That's how much you're "saving".

And it works, every single time.

Mike

You're right, I give up. If I give you ALL my money, you'll give me a little to buy shoes, thank you. Barry has all the answers, he will lead us to freedom.....thank God.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:56 AM

LEADB

Quote:

You're right, I give up. If I give you ALL my money, you'll give me a little to buy shoes, thank you. Barry has all the answers, he will lead us to freedom.....thank God.

But that's the cool thing. He's not taking the money from you, he's taking the money from the folks buying US Government debt, which is folks from all over the world who, for their dear love of such investments, are willing to take a pittance of interest payments. The real question is, will we be able to pay it back, and the next question of how ugly will the interest rates get when our back is truly to the wall. But that's next month's problem. _NOW_ we have shiny new cars.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:19 PM

Oh, LeadB, you've got it all wrong - why would anybody want a shiny new car when they COULD have a shiny new WAR? C'mon, we all know the REAL Americans only want their nation to go into debt if it involves killing lots and lots of other people. Things like health care here at home or stimulating the economy are NEVER going to be as sexy or well-received as mortgaging our nation's future for a shiny new war. As a nation, what does it say about us that the senseless and brutal murder of other nations' people is seen as more "patriotic" than helping our own here at home?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:30 PM

LEADB

Ahh... I had hoped we'd be pulling out of Iraq, etc. more quickly... at least Iraq 'seems' to be headed in the right direction, as opposed to Afghanistan... but we are wondering far from the original thread....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:40 PM

AG05

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, LeadB, you've got it all wrong - why would anybody want a shiny new car when they COULD have a shiny new WAR? C'mon, we all know the REAL Americans only want their nation to go into debt if it involves killing lots and lots of other people. Things like health care here at home or stimulating the economy are NEVER going to be as sexy or well-received as mortgaging our nation's future for a shiny new war. As a nation, what does it say about us that the senseless and brutal murder of other nations' people is seen as more "patriotic" than helping our own here at home?

Mike

So irresponsible spending is OK if it's for a good cause?

I guess if I'm honest, really, I can't fault the Democrats for hypocrisy on this one (like I can the Republicans). I can't remember ONCE in the last election crapfest when the Dem's claimed to be the responsible spending party.

So now they mortgage our nation's future for the sake of other, better bullshit. Whatever. Fuck it, I don't care any more. So long as this doesn't kill the used truck market. Daddy needs a 4x4.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:46 PM

Is irresponsible spending okay if it's for a good cause? Well, if not "okay" exactly, at least "better" if it's for a good cause.

It's funny, though - the only two times in living memory when we've had anything close to a balanced budget or a budget surplus were both under Democrats - LBJ and Bill Clinton, to be exact.

So I'm really not sure how it is that the Republicans ever thought they could steal the "fiscally responsible" label, because it's for damn sure they've never once tried to EARN it.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:43 PM

AG05

Quote:
LBJ

Yes, and his war was shiny and new as well, wasn't it?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
Quote:
LBJ

Yes, and his war was shiny and new as well, wasn't it?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

Most certainly. Didn't Nixon run on a platform of getting us out of the 'Nam, though? How'd that work out?

Guess Obama has about 5.5 years left to get us out of Iraq before y'all start bitching about that, right?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:18 PM

Not getting pulled into a partisan debate, just Clinton hate: Selling off the country piece by piece and raiding the reserves does not count as fiscally responsible, even if it balances the budget, it's artificial, not a sustainable balanced budget.

Other thoughts, If Whozit knows the Vapors then he's like 40, that's sad man. Also, Whozit, no offense, but I can't make a logical connection between mike's post and your response. Jes funnin'

But in other news, tomatoes have become our strongest currency.

Republicans earned fiscally responsible because the competition was Democrats. That's like winning a beauty contest against Al Franken. How they did was by simply not spending money. Then, they forgot how to not spend money, and became what they are today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:25 PM

AG05

5.5? Here's hoping his stint is up in 2013.

This does bring up a good question though. Which is worse (or better).

A fiscally responsible war monger, who brings frugal spending and economic prosperity while at the same time raining death and destruction on his foes overseas,
Or a peacenik who aviods conflict on an international front while sinking the nation into generations of debt with questionable (in terms of cost/benefit) social programs?

Also, I've always wondered this about the Clinton years: Eron, Andersen, and all that other shit came out just after Bush took office, right? Which leads me to believe that they didn't just start cooking the books once Bush was in. It had to have been an ongoing thing, even during the Clinton years. Which makes me wonder: How much of the economic prosperity that existed under Clinton was fraudulent? I'm not asking with any political objective, it's just something I'm curious about.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:03 PM

Clinton boom 3 things:

1. Selling off america in parts, a bad idea
2. reckless lending in volume, terrible idea
3. the internet, good idea, but not his. or gore's.

Bush's economy did okay, remember, the president runs the next years budget, so bushonomics started in 2010. Still, it had problems:

1. Selling off america in parts, a bad idea
2. reckless lending in volume, terrible idea
3. a huge war debt.

Obama is different. He signed a lot of bailouts, and then used only about 500 billion in actual bailouts, and has kept a trillion something to run the got, so Obama is running the 09 budget because Bush left him with a useless "responsible" budget.

Of course, we don't live in a dictatorship, congress does most of everything, and they suck at it all the time.

Anyway, I'd vote for a fiscally terrible peacenik, over a responsible warmonger, because then I could move to somewhere not being bombed. A minimalist non-interventionist govt. would be better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:05 PM

Quote:

A fiscally responsible war monger, who brings frugal spending and economic prosperity while at the same time raining death and destruction on his foes overseas...

It's that part that makes it a false dichotomy. You speak as though a fiscal conservative CAN bring economic prosperity while raining death and destruction. You may not have noticed, but death and destruction are pricey items these days, and tend to be custom-tailored, not off-the-shelf ready-made items.

I'll take the peacenik. As Wall Street and George Bush have taught us, you can always just walk away from massive financial failure, and be thought a "leader" for it.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:51 AM

Quote:
death and destruction are pricey items these days

Good point, I missed that logical falacy

Edit: looks like we're all voting for *gasp* Reagan in this scenario.

You could argue that Clinton was a fiscally responsible warmonger if you count selling off american assets, ports, bases, liquidating our reserves of cash, gold, as fiscally responsible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I've got my doubts about CARS. Yeah, it's stimulated a lot of good stuff, but the environmental thing isn't something I appreciate, and is it just stimulating buying new cars in exchange for less buying of new cars down the line? When it runs out, do all the cutbacks and layoffs just start again? Or is it worth the aforementioned just to get some economic stimulus going?

To many contradictory things for me to jump off the fence one way or another. I guess we'll find out when the stimulus it's create wears off, eh?

I'll take the peacenik, too, by the way. I don't buy that Bush left us with a "good" economy, no matter what the argument. The fact is he put us tons in debt with a war only HE and his pal Cheney wanted which killed and imprisoned many innocents and left Afghanistan to Al Qaeda. And went into Iraq totally incompetently.

War stimulates economy, but it also costs more than it stimulates NOWadays, I'm thinkin'. And it does so at the cost of lives.

I do agree, however, that the Repubs have lost the right to the "fiscally responsible" title for some time to come, as have they lost the right ot the "family-values" title of late, which I admit has been fun to watch.

"My infidelity wasn't as bad as Obamas because I didn't break any laws"? Oh, c'MON...and that has yet to be proven, anyway. I'm sick of the superiority complex about "morality" the Repubs love to snuggle up to; would be neat if they got the concept that claiming superiority to that one wasn't really productive when proven false time after time...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
death and destruction are pricey items these days

Good point, I missed that logical falacy

Edit: looks like we're all voting for *gasp* Reagan in this scenario.

You could argue that Clinton was a fiscally responsible warmonger if you count selling off american assets, ports, bases, liquidating our reserves of cash, gold, as fiscally responsible.

In what possible universe can Reagan be considered fiscally responsible?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:37 AM

Quote:

"My infidelity wasn't as bad as Obamas because I didn't break any laws"

I think you meant Clinton, but what the hell...

And yeah, his was so totally not as bad, because he didn't break any laws.

Oh, wait - Did John Ensign just throw Senator David Vitter under the bus? After all, Vitter WAS breaking the law - he was paying prostitutes for sex outside his marriage.

So does Vitter have to resign now?

What about Mark Sanford, of "Sanford and Sin" fame? If he was using taxpayer funds to pay for his affair (as it certainly seems he was, given his travel schedule and who was paying for his trysts), does he have to resign as well?

It remains to be seen whether paying $96,000 for sex with the wife of one of your employees constitutes illegality in Ensign's case, or whether giving that staffer's 19-year-old son a position as a "policy expert" in your party's national office qualifies as a quid pro quo for "services rendered", but it definitely seems like there's been more than just a hint of impropriety at the least, if not downright illegality.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 10:48 AM

Niki,

Additionially, cash4clunkers encourages people to plow further into debt.

War was never good for the economy. WWII gave us 2 trillion in debt that has never been paid off a penny on principle, and we are all still paying the interest on it by way of federal taxes.

All tax receipts go to interest on the debt, almost all of the debt comes from wars.

The only thing in war that was ever profitable was selling weapons to other countries fighting wars, which we've done since WWI. But that only benefits the govt., and the defense contractors, but the next result seems to be that we end up paying more interest on more debt.

The Republican Party is a disaster, but that doesn't make the Democrats good. We're still at war in the middle east, still sending more troops, bombing more weddings in more countries, borrowing and spending more money, raising taxes, expanding executive power, cracking down on the little guy, granting more powers to the banks of the federal reserve and I fear we're about to hand a blank check to the medical industry. I suspect the solution is for the united or disunited states to collectively succeed from the capitol, and let them pay it off, and if they want to go to war with someone, they should do it themselves. Sorry about the rant.

Mike,

Quote:

In what possible universe can Reagan be considered fiscally responsible?

None. It was the fiscally wreckless peacenik. Now sure, you may say "on what planet was Reagan a peacenik" I just meant "he didn't fight a war" but if you prefer, we can have carter instead (giving reagan, or at least vp bush credit for iran/iraq war)

and mike, you're getting into a partisan bickering debate. I need to send you some links to cure you of this democrat thing at some point. First, check out wikipedia, start on the two issues that the democratic party was founded on, then you can go through president by president, and we can discuss them.

No, it's not a defense of the GOP, it's just that there's this rosy view some people seem to have of the democrats that makes them take part in partisan arguments. Christ, I'd rather have to defend the Saudis...

:)

But seriously, look into why there is a democratic party. what was the split about? c. early 1820s, and we'll go forward from there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 12:19 PM

RIPWASH

Just a quick thought on CARS . . .

I've been hearing that dealers have taken all these trade-ins, made the deals, sold the cars . . . and many have not seen a dime of the government funds. Some stopped the program voluntarily because they couldn't afford to accept the trade-ins and not get refunded. I saw one Toyota dealer this morning saying that not only does the government owe him somewhere in the vicinity of $500,000.00, but he also said that the government started it abruptly, giving dealers no chance to build up their inventory and therefore many dealers are running out of stock, which will cost them money.

Add to all of this, the government now has to spend even more money on the program in order to hire more staff to process the CARS claims faster.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 12:27 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

.... and this is what they want to do with healthcare...

wonder-fucking-full.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 12:39 PM

I have to wonder how much of the delays are due to salespeople trying to shortcut things a bit. I know, I know, a car salesman would NEVER try to cut corners, right? ;)

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
.... and this is what they want to do with healthcare...

wonder-fucking-full.

It is? They want to give you $4500 to trade in your old healthcare or your nonexistent healthcare?

Wulf, can you show me where or how the healthcare industry and insurance system we have now are really any better than this? I mean, people ARE still dying due to lack of care, yes?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 1:47 PM

Mike...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I have to wonder how much of the delays are due to salespeople trying to shortcut things a bit. I know, I know, a car salesman would NEVER try to cut corners, right? ;)

I just wanted to let you know that you are continuing to do a wonderful job of spinning for this administration. You are like RWED's Fox News.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 4:10 PM

Nobody,

not to pile on, but do even read mike on obama? he practically threw him to the wolves. More than i would. and it's *his* party.

At this point you're just being a detriment to your own argument. Maybe you should call of the attack, as much fun as we have...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 4:34 PM

Fox News had some criticisms of the past administration as well. I think it's to throw people off.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 5:25 PM

No, it's cause their australian and so don't understand the news. Sometimes they actually go out and report what is happening by accident

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:18 AM

BDN, in your desperation to argue with me about ANY point or comment I've tried to make, you really outdo yourself sometimes.

I'm not a big fan of the C4C plan, as I believe I've pointed out already. It's done a great job of jumpstarting car sales, but I'm not so sure it's a smart thing to do right now. It's gotten some half a million people or more to take on more debt when they should be paying down debt; as an environmental stimulus, I think it's more about a feel-good image than it is about really lessening a carbon footprint - after all, they're paying you to replace a car that's already been built and paid for with one that hasn't. And possibly worst of all, the system, the way it's set up, is ripe for abuse. For instance, my current car gets 33mpg in the city, 46hwy. As such, it's not eligible for the C4C program, since that's only for cars that get below 18mpg. So the program isn't rewarding people who've already been doing the right thing; in fact, it punishes us by forcing us to subsidize the bad habits of others. I'd love to upgrade my car to a Prius or Insight, but that's off the table now.

Even so, if I *did* have a car that qualified for the program, the way it's structured, I could actually trade in a car that gets 18mpg and buy a truck that gets 15mpg - and get a $4500 break to do it! Can someone tell me how THAT is supposed to help the environment, reduce carbon emissions, or lessen oil consumption?

So, as "bread and circuses" go, it's a raging success. As something real and meaningful? Not so much.

So somewhere in my snide comment about car salesmen trying to cut corners and game the system, you glommed onto that as "spinning" for the Obama administration, huh? Well, in that light, I can understand why you're still spinning for the Bush administration.

Fearless prediction? Cars brought in under the C4C program are going to be turning up on the streets again. Under the program, they MUST be scrapped - not resold (some very few parts may be reused). Their engines are supposed to be trashed, not parted out, the chassis crushed. How long will it be before the reports start coming out about C4C cars found back on the road after being resold by a few unscrupulous dealers?

I guess that will be all Obama's fault too, eh?

For the record again, I think mandating the cars be crushed is a bad idea. Once again, we're rewarding the rich (or more well-off, at least) and punishing the poor. Poor people buy old cars; take more than a half million old cars out of the loop, and you've just raised the prices the poor will have to pay for a smaller pool of used cars - all so other people can buy NEW cars and get more for their old cars than they're worth, in either bluebook value OR actual street value.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:25 AM

Just to wind up BDN a little...

Quote:

Add to all of this, the government now has to spend even more money on the program in order to hire more staff to process the CARS claims faster.

So you're saying the Obama administration has created jobs?! Are you spinning for them now?

I think maybe my standard response to the Obama-bashers ("He's not doing enough!" "He's doing too much!") should just be a number:

4338

That's how many American servicemen and women have died in Iraq so far. Every time someone wants to bitch and moan about what this administration has done, let's just ask ourselves how that compares to Bush's wanton and useless sacrifice of 4338 American soldiers.

Is C4C a great program? Is it The New Deal? Nope. But how many soldiers did it kill? How bad is it in the realm or really bad ideas?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just to wind up BDN a little...

Quote:

Add to all of this, the government now has to spend even more money on the program in order to hire more staff to process the CARS claims faster.

So you're saying the Obama administration has created jobs?! Are you spinning for them now?

Perhaps if you weren't so wound up yourself you would realize that the above quoted statement belongs to Rip. You might want to read a little slower to prevent such occurences in the future.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:30 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

NOT A QUOTE SO MUCH AS YOUR INCREASINGLY "DISTURBING" AVITARS.

Hate to argue your point bud, but you might not have the monopoly on the angriest man on the internet there. Anger manifests itself in many forms. I'm not refuting your claim outright... only stating that there is no proof positive evidence of the claim. While I'm able to admit that I am unable to offer the same towards you either in our limited capacity here, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt, extend my arm and say to each other that we're an Oligopoly of Equal Oppurtunity Anger on the Internets.

F the Real world. If I were living life on the internets instead of here I'd be advisor to the King.

Why not the King you ask?

Kings spend their days signing the papers that others tell them they should sign and usually live by rules and traditon, and sometimes get slain by pheasants unknown....

Sounds like a shitty gig to me, no matter how many helicopter rides to Broadway they give you as perks.

I don't envy the man. And though I support those gun demonstrations as long as they remain civil I would be wearing depends if I was him in some of these places.

Nope.... I'm perfectly copacetic being the man behind the curtain.

EDITED TO ADD:

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just to wind up BDN a little...

Quote:

Add to all of this, the government now has to spend even more money on the program in order to hire more staff to process the CARS claims faster.

So you're saying the Obama administration has created jobs?! Are you spinning for them now?

Perhaps if you weren't so wound up yourself you would realize that the above quoted statement belongs to Rip. You might want to read a little slower to prevent such occurences in the future.

Oh, I know Ripper posted that - I posted MY response simply to yank your tail and get you whining and pissing and moaning about "spinning for Obama". Worked like a charm, too. Fuess I should have included the "Originally posted by RIPWash" tagline on it, just to keep the slower members from getting confused. Wouldn't have helped, though - you're STILL confused.

Funny thing is, Rip, even on his most partisan of days, will see my response and get a laugh out of it. You, because you're so wrapped up in your worship of all things Republican, simply can't accept even the tiniest of jokes at their expense.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:41 AM

Ah, but Jack, my man - I copyrighted it. It's trademarked. It's mine. Kinda like Fox with "Fair & Balanced" or Coke with "The Real Thing"; it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, it only matters who hit the courthouse first.

'Course, I'd be willing to license it to ya for the right price...

Oh, and what's so "disturbing" about my avatar? I thought you supported gun rights? If I want to take my kitty to some range time, and I'm responsible about it, what's the harm?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:30 AM

what's so disturbing is that curiosity of the cat in this case killed the cameraman :)

I love your avatar, I think it was my recommendation, IIRC, if someone wants to take issue with it, point them out.

Kings are just like everyone else, they rule, unless they are attacked by semi-flightless game fowl.

But Mike, seriously, don't make me post that cartoon :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
what's so disturbing is that curiosity of the cat in this case killed the cameraman :)

Not if the safety was on, or the rifle was unloaded. ;)

Quote:

I love your avatar, I think it was my recommendation, IIRC, if someone wants to take issue with it, point them out.

Yes indeedy, it was your recommendation and you posted the pic. And I love it, too. He's a very cute cat; just don't piss him off. That's good advice for dealing with ANY cat, though.

Quote:

Kings are just like everyone else, they rule, unless they are attacked by semi-flightless game fowl.

And here I was biting my tongue about that...

Quote:

But Mike, seriously, don't make me post that cartoon :)

Oh, I won't be offended. Cat ping-pong is another good photo for this kind of "debate". :)

I poke BDN because he responds, and he responds because I poke - it's a cycle of perpetual motion.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Caption:

"Kitty finds out that Obama will be socializing vet-care.... prepares appropriate response."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:15 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Also, good caption:

"Now lets see that dog chase me again...."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, I know Ripper posted that - I posted MY response simply to yank your tail and get you whining and pissing and moaning about "spinning for Obama". Worked like a charm, too. Fuess(sic) I should have included the "Originally posted by RIPWash" tagline on it, just to keep the slower members from getting confused. Wouldn't have helped, though - you're STILL confused.

Now you are just spinning for yourself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Funny thing is, Rip, even on his most partisan of days, will see my response and get a laugh out of it. You, because you're so wrapped up in your worship of all things Republican, simply can't accept even the tiniest of jokes at their expense.

Keep spinning.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:47 AM

RIPWASH

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

Add to all of this, the government now has to spend even more money on the program in order to hire more staff to process the CARS claims faster.

So you're saying the Obama administration has created jobs?!

Dang! I knew that would jump up and bite me on the arse.

Aye, create jobs, but only temporary ones at that. And it was more brought up to point out how much government in general tends to underthink things and not plan ahead appropriately. Certain amount of funds were set aside for the program and . . . oops! . . . we didn't anticipate that THIS many cars would be sold, so we've got to pump MORE into the program than was originally intended.

Which is why I don't want government taking over more of healthcare than they already have. Yes, I understand the whole Medicare/Medicaid thing. And the way I hear it (yes, from biased sources, so bite me

) the government has nearly bankrupted those two programs as well.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:55 AM

Tell me, BDN, do I strike you as someone who isn't careful with his language and words? (Nice catch on the typo, by the way. I think you'll have to admit that it's a rare instance, and I'll be editing to correct it soon. Don't worry - I won't go back and change it and then claim that you edited your quote, like some have done around here recently.)

You'll notice that I'm addressing you directly, first-person. In my post earlier, when I referred to you, that was third-person ("Just to wind up BDN...") - and then I posted Rip's quote and a snidely condescending "spin" on it, since that seems to be what you so clearly want.

But sorry if you thought I was attributing things to you that you didn't say. I find Ripper to be a bit clever, and could never mistake you for him. You're not clever in the least.

Quote:
POSTED BY BDN:

Keep spinning.

Right back atchya.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:20 AM