And people want these people running our healthcare?

**Mechanic79** · 07-31-2009, 08:08 AM

is that really the gov't job to give peeps auto rebates? sounds more like subsidizing the auto industry at tax payer expense.

The gov't has an addicition and it's public money. They just can't get enough!

**busby** · 07-31-2009, 08:20 AM

**BigEvil** · 07-31-2009, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Mechanic79

is that really the gov't job to give peeps auto rebates? sounds more like subsidizing the auto industry at tax payer expense.

The gov't has an addicition and it's public money. They just can't get enough!

QFT

Why not just give people a tax deduction on a trade in of an older less fuel efficient vehicle when they purchase a new one? Did I miss something? Were the vouchers for cash, money off a new vehicle or what?

Isn't it funny how quickly the gov't will spend your money, but not let you keep more of your own?

**teufelhunden** · 07-31-2009, 10:04 AM

I wholly agree about the program not being needed or within the scope of what the government should be doing. Another dem handout - who is likely to be driving old POS's? The same poor people who could now get out the door on a car for under 10k - because they deserve a nice car.

I posted this because this is a tiny amount of money and of trivial importance and the government still fudged it up. Don't want them ruining health care.

**Lohman446** · 07-31-2009, 10:17 AM

While I agree with the comments pointing out that the federal government does not have the legal authority to do this (as is true of MANY federal programs) I would point out that it should not have been "so easy" to see coming. If we take your 750K number and consider the cars that had trade ins (obviously some don't) I think we would find most of the trade ins would not have qualified for the program. People are now trading in vehicles they would not have otherwise.

That being said I want to know where the money is coming from. Are we relaxing car loan standards as badly as we relaxed house loan standards to get some of the people driving brand new cars who will never actually make the payments? When are we going to get to bail the banks out for bad car loans that they made knowing full well they were bad loans? I think the trade in program may be the least of our financing private industry illegally through government channels that it causes.

**busby** · 07-31-2009, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Lohman446

While I agree with the comments pointing out that the federal government does not have the legal authority to do this (as is true of MANY federal programs) I would point out that it should not have been "so easy" to see coming. If we take your 750K number and consider the cars that had trade ins (obviously some don't) I think we would find most of the trade ins would not have qualified for the program. People are now trading in vehicles they would not have otherwise.

That being said I want to know where the money is coming from. Are we relaxing car loan standards as badly as we relaxed house loan standards to get some of the people driving brand new cars who will never actually make the payments? When are we going to get to bail the banks out for bad car loans that they made knowing full well they were bad loans? I think the trade in program may be the least of our financing private industry illegally through government channels that it causes.

where all the rest of the goverment's money comes from, taxpayers!!!it's 1 billion dollars from the stimulus package,which has allready run out,unless they revise it today before the one month vacation.there is really no such thing as free money as far as the goverment is concerned

**Lohman446** · 07-31-2009, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by busby

where all the rest of the goverment's money comes from, taxpayers!!!it's 1 billion dollars from the stimulus package,which has allready run out,unless they revise it today before the one month vacation.there is really no such thing as free money as far as the goverment is concerned

Oh, I don't doubt that, hence the point that it is not within the federal governments legal authority.

**busby** · 07-31-2009, 11:12 AM

the goverment should not own 60% of gm either,but it does.another bailout that cost us 100 billion.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124385428627671889.html

**drg** · 07-31-2009, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by teufelhunden

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101173_pf.html

Simple program. You trade in old car with low MPG, we (government) give you money for it. What is so difficult about that?

$1bn was budgeted for this program - at $4500 per "clunker" that works out to 222,222 rebates. Annual car sales in this country are around 9 million/year (now, not when the gettin was good a few years ago, when it was closer to 12 million). That equals 750,000 per month. And that's before the incentives. What did they expect?

Was Congress unable to find these easily attainable facts? Were they unable to do little baby math? I ask again, what did Congress expect?

How do they (m)uck this up? And why do people want to let them run healthcare? If Congress is stupid (which they will be) about some portion of destroying the capitalistic and competitive healthcare (which made ours the best in the world), are they going to say "Uh, we're suspending chemo treatments this month, sorry.." or "No money in the budget to fix that broken leg Jimmy, maybe next time be more careful on your school bus driven by an overpaid, under worked slob that hit a tree cuz she was texting!"

No thanks.

Is there anywhere in the world that's worth living in where I can actually make my own decisions and not have 535 mommies looking after me (well, 536 including the Mommy-In-Chief)? My education and skills are portable...

Wait so the program worked, and that's somehow proof of something wrong with the program?

Your math is laughably simplistic, the total number of car sales in the country is a completely invalid figure for analysis. The definition of clunkers is quite restrictive.

As a pilot program, this worked out spectacularly well, illustrating that people would use the program and its goals can be achieved, probably better than was originally thought.

The conservative spin is breathtaking in its dishonesty.

**Mechanic79** · 07-31-2009, 03:00 PM

The gov't is like Robin Hood. Except they steel from the working class/tax payer to distribute the wealth to themselves, the rich and the (so-called) poor. And we get to vote the thieves in!

Why do we need all these programs anyway? Roads and security, leave it at that.

**Lohman446** · 07-31-2009, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by drg

Wait so the program worked, and that's somehow proof of something wrong with the program?

Your math is laughably simplistic, the total number of car sales in the country is a completely invalid figure for analysis. The definition of clunkers is quite restrictive.

As a pilot program, this worked out spectacularly well, illustrating that people would use the program and its goals can be achieved, probably better than was originally thought.

The conservative spin is breathtaking in its dishonesty.

The conservative spin is this: The federal government does not have the legal authority or the moral right to take my money and give it to another private individual or company except in the very limited manners outlined in the Constitution. TAKING my money and GIVING it to someone who wants to trade in an old car is not within the authority granted them. OWNING stake in a private comapny is not in the authority granted. Using money that they take in a manner designed to help the company they own is not within the authority granted. Bailing out those too lazy to even attempt to be self sufficient on a government level is morally reprehensible and financially idiotic.

It has nothing to do with if the program is working or not, it has entirely to do with the program itself.

**maniacmechanic** · 07-31-2009, 04:09 PM

at this point I can't afford a car payment anyway, unless they just gave me the car

, what needs to happen is jobs , THIS COUNTRY NEEDS JOBS , NOT HANDOUTS , ok yeah some will say will this program helped save X amount of jobs due to the fact the cars had to be built
We need jobs that provide a product that is needed every day , We need go back to being a self - sufficient country , by making or growing the things we use
I'd bet you if we could put the unemployed back to work , & find jobs for 90% of the government benifit folks , why i'd bet taxes would go down , less taxes ; people spend more
or am I way off base

**blacklegionfreak** · 07-31-2009, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by maniacmechanic

at this point I can't afford a car payment anyway, unless they just gave me the car

, what needs to happen is jobs , THIS COUNTRY NEEDS JOBS , NOT HANDOUTS , ok yeah some will say will this program helped save X amount of jobs due to the fact the cars had to be built
We need jobs that provide a product that is needed every day , We need go back to being a self - sufficient country , by making or growing the things we use
I'd bet you if we could put the unemployed back to work , & find jobs for 90% of the government benifit folks , why i'd bet taxes would go down , less taxes ; people spend more
or am I way off base

i agree also i believe in only a consumption tax, you only pay for what yyou buy. if you are taxed by your income that creates class warfare, with a consumption tax it iliminates the cause for classs warfare

**Lohman446** · 07-31-2009, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by blacklegionfreak

i agree also i believe in only a consumption tax, you only pay for what yyou buy. if you are taxed by your income that creates class warfare, with a consumption tax it iliminates the cause for classs warfare

The argument against a consumption tax is it burdens the poor more based on percentages.

And people want these people running our healthcare?

And people want these people running our healthcare?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment