jnhay Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Unfortunately 2 billion dollars of our money is going into this program and was resumed today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_go_co/us_cash_for_clunkers Why is that unfortunate? It seems to me that we should've put more money into this program rather than some of the crap that was put in the stimulus bill. 2 billion doesn't sound like much to me as long as it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why give up a perfectly functioning muscle car or SUV for an Obama Motors environmental friendly vehicle that can't comfortably seat 4 tall long legged people? Don't do it if you don't want to. No one is making you participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why is that unfortunate? It seems to me that we should've put more money into this program rather than some of the crap that was put in the stimulus bill. 2 billion doesn't sound like much to me as long as it works. Because it is fiscally irresponsible...true it is better than much of the stimulus,but only being a little foolish is still foolish:) I wonder how many this convinced to buy cars they cannot really afford? I look forward to seeing studies done on the true costs vs rewards as it unfolds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why is that unfortunate? It seems to me that we should've put more money into this program rather than some of the crap that was put in the stimulus bill. 2 billion doesn't sound like much to me as long as it works. It is extremely wasteful. I ranted in my other posts about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Flames Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I just found out the other day my '01 Grand Cherokee qualified for the program, and now i can't do it? What a crock of BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I just found out the other day my '01 Grand Cherokee qualified for the program, and now i can't do it? What a crock of BS. The House added 2 billion to the program,long as the Senate goes along(and they love giving away money:chair:) you are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Where are they getting that number from? Not saying they are wrong. But have not seen this.He's quoting the sales manager for a Ford dealership in Bloomington, Ill?:doh: I swear, people will believe just about anything as long as its written down. Do you think we might need a somewhat more reliable source than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Engine death for your viewing pleasure, tax dollars at work. And the best one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjBilHH5z2A All of these engines worked fine and can no longer be used. Yes these vehicles could have been donated to the needy, charties, other countries, auctioned off, or a million of other uses. The comments on the volvo death are pretty good, I get angered watching engines being destroyed like that. I dont get how the KBB value of the volvo was under $4500. That looks like a very nice car, almost new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 It is extremely wasteful. I ranted in my other posts about it. It doesn't seem that wasteful to me. People are making big purchases, paying taxes on those purchases, and many will be getting service and bringing more business to dealerships. It also can't hurt the American car business. EDIT: Are clunkers just cars that don't work any more (I thought they were just old, bad mileage cars, but the youtube videos have me wondering)? I admit I have little clue of what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 It doesn't seem that wasteful to me. People are making big purchases, paying taxes on those purchases, and many will be getting service and bringing more business to dealerships. It also can't hurt the American car business. I bet the independent mechanic shops are crying though. Springfieldskins...there goes your vacation money:hysterical: Ever wonder what the carbon footprint and cost to the environment is of manufacturing a new car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I bet the independent mechanic shops are crying though.Springfieldskins...there goes your vacation money:hysterical: Ever wonder what the carbon footprint and cost to the environment is of manufacturing a new car? Yeah, but then you'd have to compare the increased output from the stimulus to the pollution output during normal periods or during the current economy. Too damn complicated if you ask me. Also, I guess for the long term it would help change demand and have car manufacturers focus more on better mileage because of consumer interests, not just the government's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 It doesn't seem that wasteful to me. People are making big purchases, paying taxes on those purchases, and many will be getting service and bringing more business to dealerships. It also can't hurt the American car business.EDIT: Are clunkers just cars that don't work any more (I thought they were just old, bad mileage cars, but the youtube videos have me wondering)? I admit I have little clue of what I'm talking about. Not only is it wasteful by using my money to help by someone elses car (I understand that not everyone agrees on that part) but it also destroys the engine (as seen in the videos) and car, which has to be in working order, ie, it has to be driven, not towed to the dealer. This program at this point, in my opinon, is a shot in the arm for the car industry, sales will nosedive when the program is over. Hopefully this program does not put more people in debt, but I think it will. By definition of clunker, according to govt, vehicle has to be drivable, get under 18 mpg, insured and owned by you for at least one year, not older than 25 years old. I am truly shocked by that Volvo video, that car probably was nicer than most of the cars that other fellow skins fans have here on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 So 'we' paid to make them. And 'we' paid to sell them. they did this in germany and now its expected and hits 5billion a year. it used to be, "Remember the Alamo" Now its: Remember the bridge to nowhere, when 200 million was horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Ya'll also might want to double check it qualifies since the EPA changed it's figures http://www.lead.org.au/lanv3n2/smh.gif From CNN: In some cases, car buyers say, dealers are backing out of sales they’ve already made because the EPA changed the fuel economy figures on their trade-in. “My wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn’t qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4,500 or return the new car (and get our old car back),” Greg Straka wrote Tuesday on a message board at the Edmunds.com… automotive Web site. http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/autos/clunker_mpg_switch/ OOPS :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I'm enjoying watching Tailgate conservatives suddenly discover the joys of strict environmentalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I'm enjoying watching Tailgate conservatives suddenly discover the joys of strict environmentalism. Ha, I'm greener than most greenies...just not as foolish about it. Enjoying the excesses are ya?...tis a bizarre world where libs get amnesia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Ever wonder what the carbon footprint and cost to the environment is of manufacturing a new car? As opposed to the cost of operating a vehicle that gets half the mileage (and possibly be the guy who's burning a quart of oil a week?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 As opposed to the cost of operating a vehicle that gets half the mileage (and possibly be the guy who's burning a quart of oil a week?) I kindly included the impact of a normal car's use,perhaps ya'll need to catch up to our standards here since the vehicle you describe would not be allowed on the road...WE have standards:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 By definition of clunker, according to govt, vehicle has to be drivable, get under 18 mpg, insured and owned by you for at least one year, not older than 25 years old. I am truly shocked by that Volvo video, that car probably was nicer than most of the cars that other fellow skins fans have here on this site. I know nothing about cars, so how do the dealers figure out your mpg and why would people destroy their engines? I'm pretty sure I'm setting myself up with that question:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Ya'll also might want to double check it qualifies since the EPA changed it's figureshttp://www.lead.org.au/lanv3n2/smh.gif From CNN: In some cases, car buyers say, dealers are backing out of sales they’ve already made because the EPA changed the fuel economy figures on their trade-in. “My wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn’t qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4,500 or return the new car (and get our old car back),” Greg Straka wrote Tuesday on a message board at the Edmunds.com… automotive Web site. http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/autos/clunker_mpg_switch/ OOPS :hysterical: "I could have sworn you ordered the metallic pete?? Davenport, get Mr. Griswald his car back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Don't do it if you don't want to. No one is making you participate.Liberal Thinking in a nutshellI am FORCED to participate by PAYING TAXES to support this BS I am FORCED to buy a new car if I want MY MONEY BACK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Engine death for your viewing pleasure, tax dollars at work. And the best one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjBilHH5z2A All of these engines worked fine and can no longer be used. Yes these vehicles could have been donated to the needy, charties, other countries, auctioned off, or a million of other uses. The comments on the volvo death are pretty good, I get angered watching engines being destroyed like that. I dont get how the KBB value of the volvo was under $4500. That looks like a very nice car, almost new. That was depressing. Couldn't watch more than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Liberal Thinking in a nutshellI am FORCED to participate by PAYING TAXES to support this BS I am FORCED to buy a new car if I want MY MONEY BACK Here's some Liberal Thinking: how do I get my money back from the Iraq war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Is increasing taxes always bad and decreasing them always good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Is increasing taxes always bad and decreasing them always good? Depends on how well it is utilized. It can both provide critical functions and depress productivity,taxes remove money from society so it is important that they are used wisely. You get different bang for ya buck by what you do with it. A example The $2 billion was siphoned from stimulus funds earmarked for a federal loan program encouraging the use of environmentally friendly technologies. Which would have been a better use of funds???(that we do not have ,and pay to borrow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.