Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Cash for clunkers' breaking down, but not before hurting lower-income buyers, auto recyclers
The Oregonian ^ | Friday July 31, 2009, 9:10 AM | Elizabeth Hovde

Posted on 08/01/2009 8:12:57 AM PDT by PureSolace

Press reports late Thursday said the government's Cash Allowance Rebate System could already be out of money, hitting a major speed bump and possibly causing dealers some drama.

...

CARS works this way: Owners of a 1984 or newer vehicle getting 18 mpg or less in combined highway/city ratings can trade in their so-called "clunkers" for more fuel-efficient new cars (in some cases only a few extra miles are required). For their trouble, owners get $3,500 to $4,500 of taxpayer money and their old vehicles' engines are destroyed so they won't end up back on the road.

That last part, the destruction of engines, is causing heartburn for more than a dozen already hurting auto-parts suppliers who have had to file for bankruptcy this year. As Michael Wilson, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association, told a reporter, "Why throw away good parts when the supply chain is in jeopardy? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense." Catherine Tsai, in a story she wrote for Associated Press, reports that engines and drive trains account for 60 percent of recyclers' revenue from a used vehicle.

Tsai quotes various auto recyclers who prove the point that the government program benefits those who have enough money to pour into a brand new vehicle while hurting people who need help the most. Norm Wright, the CEO of Stadium Auto and Truck Parts Inc. in Denver, said of the program to destroy perfectly good vehicles, "Now you're removing cars people could afford, and they're not available anymore." He added, "There will be less cars to pull from, so the price of parts will go up."

It's unbelievable that the government has set aside $1 billion of taxpayer money to remove roughly 250,000 drivable vehicles from the road.

(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; bho44; bhodot; cash; clunkers; doom; for; greens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 08/01/2009 8:12:57 AM PDT by PureSolace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PureSolace
When the welfare checks go out someone is always crying where's mine.
2 posted on 08/01/2009 8:16:09 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

They allocated another 2 billion — so 750,000 affordable cars are going to be destroyed. If you don’t want to buy a new car, used cars just got more expensive. If you are a low wage worker or need an inexpensive car for a teen or as your second vehicle — this hurts you.


3 posted on 08/01/2009 8:16:10 AM PDT by Woebama (Never, never, never quit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

Another thing to recall about the “Cash for Clunkers” program is how it hurts the poor. The program will take these “clunkers” off the street and give them to the government to destroy. But these are precisely the kinds of cars that poor or fixed-income people tend to purchase. Most of these “clunkers” are of course in fine shape, but they are not “green” enough according to government determinations. So poor people who cannot afford to purchase new, government-approved (and thus artificially expensive) automobiles will be told to “go take a hike” – literally!
The government having melted down these “clunkers,” the market in low priced used cars will dry up, thus driving up cost and further hurting poor and working people as well as seniors and others on fixed income. Grandma who just needs a cheap old car to get down to the pharmacy for her prescriptions will thus be forced to walk or hire a cab, as the finance companies will take a look at her social security income and say “next!”
Cash for clunkers is an attack on the poor for the benefit of government-connected Big Auto big-wigs and GMAC-style bankster/moneylenders. As with most government programs, the poor get the short end of the stick.


4 posted on 08/01/2009 8:17:04 AM PDT by all the best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woebama

New car buyers(like us) with no clunker trade in need to step back from the market. We stopped our purchase and will wait til they run out of money for this program. No sense competiting with buyers with $4000 of the govt’s money to throw away. They won’t be getting the best deals.
Additionally this is a tax on the poor..higher prices for used beaters.
There are better ways to run this type of program, but I’m sure that no one in congress took a serious look at other countries.


5 posted on 08/01/2009 8:19:56 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Woebama
They allocated another 2 billion — so 750,000 affordable cars are going to be destroyed. If you don’t want to buy a new car, used cars just got more expensive. If you are a low wage worker or need an inexpensive car for a teen or as your second vehicle — this hurts you.

Unless you live in Massachusetts, in which case they'll just BUY you one, complete with insurance and AAA membership.
6 posted on 08/01/2009 8:20:18 AM PDT by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

Ah....but having all the poor walking instead of driving will cut down on the obesity problem. Another triumph for our skinny president and his central planning czars!


7 posted on 08/01/2009 8:21:10 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: all the best

From the videos I’ve seen, Volvos, Jeeps and the like are being destroyed — good used cars. The cheap new cars are Kia and Hyundai. This seems like a stimulus program for Korea and an America highway uglification program.


8 posted on 08/01/2009 8:24:37 AM PDT by Woebama (Never, never, never quit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
I was upset with the bail outs. I was angry with the stimulus. At first I didn't really care about the Cash for Clunkers. When I found out they were destroying vehicles that functioned just fine, I became IRATE. We are purposefully and intentionally destroying wealth. We are taking an item worth $2000, $3000, $4000, etc. and turning into something worth $0. They have convinced us that the real reason to do this stupid thing is to save the earth.

I envision a scene in my mind where the auto dealers conduct a sacrifice of the vehicle. They ceremonially destroy the car while dancing, chanting and praying to the earth-god asking her to spare us from global warming.

9 posted on 08/01/2009 8:29:34 AM PDT by nitzy (Take your pick: Globalism OR Limited Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: all the best
Most of these “clunkers” are of course in fine shape, but they are not “green” enough according to government determinations.

And how much energy will be used and pollution generated to destroy perfectly good cars? This is a bad idea no matter how you look at it! Even if I were a die-hard environmentalist, I'd be hard-pressed to find the benefit of this program.

10 posted on 08/01/2009 8:35:10 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Woebama
As always in the end the liberals stick it to the poor people than cannot afford a better car.
11 posted on 08/01/2009 8:36:23 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
I was upset with the bail outs. I was angry with the stimulus. At first I didn't really care about the Cash for Clunkers. When I found out they were destroying vehicles that functioned just fine, I became IRATE. We are purposefully and intentionally destroying wealth. We are taking an item worth $2000, $3000, $4000, etc. and turning into something worth $0. They have convinced us that the real reason to do this stupid thing is to save the earth.

Worth Repeating!

12 posted on 08/01/2009 8:37:08 AM PDT by PureSolace (Trust in God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace; org.whodat; Woebama; all the best; kittymyrib; OCCASparky

I just had a brilliant idea (hey, most of the times I’m humble)...

You know the way you have to have an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before you can undertake any significant development project? Well I think we should require an EIR (ECONOMIC Impact Report) for any government program. And a requirement must be to follow Henry Hazlitt (”Economics in One Lesson”) guidelines in analyzing them, wherein a detailed study of the consequences is undertaken. It should aim to spell out who loses, who gains, how much and what’s the net effect. Like the environmental report there should be a review and comment period by the public before it gets voted on.

The CBO does some rudimentary study like that today but it can be ignored - moreover, the review and approval process is not the same.


13 posted on 08/01/2009 8:37:50 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woebama
They allocated another 2 billion — so 750,000 affordable cars are going to be destroyed. If you don’t want to buy a new car, used cars just got more expensive. If you are a low wage worker or need an inexpensive car for a teen or as your second vehicle — this hurts you.

I'm fairly certain that this is part of a well thought out scheme. Too many things are being blamed as "unforeseen" or "unintended consequences." What if some of these consequences HAVE been foreseen and intended, and certain actors have been playing this like a game of chess, looking 3 or 4 moves ahead.

They purposely exclude the oldest vehicles from the program, knowing that the vehicles they're destroying would probably have been the next step up vehicles for those at the low end of the income spectrum. This makes it less and less likely that the poor will be able to have their own vehicles in the future. It also (as you stated) will drive the cost of used cars up, and make maintenance more difficult and expensive for those who have cars in that age range.

I believe that this is a concerted effort by "environmentalists" to try to reduce urban sprawl - without cars, people will be forced to move into heavily urbanized cities. And without the ability to travel at will, they (the authoritarians who have taken up the mantle of "environmentalists") will finally have complete control over the majority of the city dwellers.

One of the things that has really set American people apart from the rest of the world is that we've had a level of personal freedom that is really unknown anywhere else... We've been able to just pick up and move somewhere else, jumping in the car and taking a ride. Have you seen what happens to a senior citizen when it becomes obvious that they're no longer capable of driving safely, and they have to stop driving? They go into a deep depression. Even worse is if you have to take their keys away from them, because they refuse to give them up on their own, but you know they're a danger to themselves and others on the roads (we just had to do that with an 85 year old aunt - she was in a minor accident and got a ticket for driving on the wrong side of the road on the same day!). Having your own vehicle brings one a level of independence and freedom that we haven't given much thought to. And the people in many other countries have emulated us in this respect. But I don't believe that any other country has a "car culture" that's so heavily integrated into their national psyche. And those who wish to control us know that the first step on total domination of the population is to take away our cars, and force us to live where they want, in order to use "public transportation."

Mark

14 posted on 08/01/2009 8:38:08 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

I can see it now: low income earners with a clunker, will be sucked into buying a new car....low interest rates....then a few months down the road, the guy losses his job, hence unable to make his payments...guess what, the Lone President will ride up, announce a program to assist the unemployed to keep his car...


15 posted on 08/01/2009 8:39:49 AM PDT by thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woebama

New cars just got more expensive too if, like me, you don’t own a clunker but want to buy a new car. And the geniuses that brought you this bill and much of the mortgage mess now want to increase their regulation of the banking and healthcare industries. And according to John Conyers they are not even reading the bills on which they are voting. Why does anybody trust Congress to display competence in any field of endeavor?


16 posted on 08/01/2009 8:40:16 AM PDT by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

Ah....but having all the poor walking instead of driving will cut down on the obesity problem. Another triumph for our skinny president and his central planning czars!

Yes, either lose weight, or drop dead. A Twofer!


17 posted on 08/01/2009 8:40:27 AM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

Well I think we should require an EIR (ECONOMIC Impact Report) for any government program.
____________________________________________

How much energy is used to produce a new car? I wouldn’t be surprised if the environmental impact of this program is negative in that it increases energy use.


18 posted on 08/01/2009 8:41:03 AM PDT by Woebama (Never, never, never quit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: all the best

That’s exactly right. I was reading about that 1988 BMW getting murdered (haha) and I was thinking “Man, I would like to have that car to put around town”.


19 posted on 08/01/2009 8:41:13 AM PDT by autumnraine (You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
Correct, actually the stupid democrats have stepped in a big pile here, lets see how many republican can figure out how to use it against them.

Destroying wealth, adding cost to poor people, taking away tax dollars to states and local governments. Good thought out move by the democrats central planning committee. Wonder what the central committees ten year plan is.

20 posted on 08/01/2009 8:42:55 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

This was a very well thought out, but worrisome, comment.


21 posted on 08/01/2009 8:43:02 AM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie
Yes, either lose weight, or drop dead. A Twofer!

Wrong, the democrat want you to lose weight and drop dead and stay out of the hospital unless you are a minority democrat voter.

22 posted on 08/01/2009 8:44:30 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Woebama

The Senate won’t get around to this crisis until next week. Contact your Sens to kill this program.


23 posted on 08/01/2009 8:44:48 AM PDT by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

I posted this on another thread but it’s highly relevant to this type of program:

It’s the fallacy of the broken window. A thug breaks a window in a store. The store owner buys a new window. Presto, the economy has benefited because the glass seller has a profit. Should we go around breaking windows (or destroying cars) to help the economy?

NO!

The storeowner would have bought something else with the money for the window, say a new accounting program to make his life easier. He would have had the window and the new accounting program and been better off, while his spending would have been the same.

In this case a new car is sold and an old car is destroyed. The tax money to overpay for the old car and destroy it could have been spent on something useful — so the economic effect would be the same — and we’d still have an old car on the road for people that can’t afford a better auto.


24 posted on 08/01/2009 8:45:21 AM PDT by Woebama (Never, never, never quit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Woebama

The Democrats love to steal from the unborn!!


25 posted on 08/01/2009 8:46:50 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

They purposely exclude the oldest vehicles from the program, knowing that the vehicles they’re destroying would probably have been the next step up vehicles for those at the low end of the income spectrum. This makes it less and less likely that the poor will be able to have their own vehicles in the future. It also (as you stated) will drive the cost of used cars up, and make maintenance more difficult and expensive for those who have cars in that age range.
________________________

I heard a caller from France on talk radio who said that Americans have it wrong. They think that people overseas are all about the environment when, in fact, if they can afford a car the only car they can afford are the tiny ones. It’s not that they like them; it’s that they’ve been boxed into a corner.


26 posted on 08/01/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by JavaJumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Woebama

As we all know, the supposed “energy savings” is a smokescreen for something else. When I think of all the parts that are going to be made unusable, it sickens me. The parts remanufacturing industry was one of the first “recyclers” and is very efficient. Don’t think for a moment that your old cars have been going into landfills complete. The figure on how much energy they save would be astounding.

Obviously, this is an indicative of a plan...but for what?


27 posted on 08/01/2009 8:49:57 AM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat
We stopped our purchase and will wait til they run out of money for this program.

Good move.

Wait 6 months to a year and the used car lots will be stuffed with almost brand new vehicles that have been Repo'd.

28 posted on 08/01/2009 8:53:42 AM PDT by SnuffaBolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Woebama
I posted this on another thread but it’s highly relevant to this type of program:

It’s the fallacy of the broken window. A thug breaks a window in a store. The store owner buys a new window. Presto, the economy has benefited because the glass seller has a profit. Should we go around breaking windows (or destroying cars) to help the economy?

NO!

The storeowner would have bought something else with the money for the window, say a new accounting program to make his life easier. He would have had the window and the new accounting program and been better off, while his spending would have been the same.

In this case a new car is sold and an old car is destroyed. The tax money to overpay for the old car and destroy it could have been spent on something useful — so the economic effect would be the same — and we’d still have an old car on the road for people that can’t afford a better auto.

...except in this case, the government is offering money to "have the windows smashed."

29 posted on 08/01/2009 8:56:18 AM PDT by PureSolace (Trust in God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
I envision a scene in my mind where the auto dealers conduct a sacrifice of the vehicle. They ceremonially destroy the car while dancing, chanting and praying to the earth-god asking her to spare us from global warming.

I wonder how much longer it's going to be before they start taking living victims?

30 posted on 08/01/2009 8:58:20 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("Baldrick, to you the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

I have old appliances. Will there be a cash for old appliances program?


31 posted on 08/01/2009 8:59:20 AM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie
It's just far too easy to say that those who may just want to enslave us are just stupid or incompetent. You can bet that people like George Soros doesn't support morons, and that he and his ilk are in on the strategy sessions from day 1.

Mark

32 posted on 08/01/2009 8:59:54 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

I bought a new Fusion in May. I had an ‘88 car that would have qualified as a clunker, I think, but took the re-bate and gave the clunker to somebody who needed transportation.

I was attached to my clunker... it is still a good car that didn’t need to be crushed.


33 posted on 08/01/2009 9:00:02 AM PDT by lonestar (Obama is turning Bush's "mess" into a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey
I have old appliances. Will there be a cash for old appliances program?

Shhhh! There will be after they read that!!! LOL!

34 posted on 08/01/2009 9:01:31 AM PDT by lonestar (Obama is turning Bush's "mess" into a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Woebama
They allocated another 2 billion — so 750,000 affordable cars are going to be destroyed.

Damn shame. But wait. The fools that think they are making a real deal now have a car payment for something that is a headache. Clunker was probably paid for and probably had more miles. Dealers are upset that now they have a clunker that they cannot salvage parts. Same as goes health care. Maybe they will allow salvaging parts of the old that are let to die with a pill instead of life saving care.

35 posted on 08/01/2009 9:01:35 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

***It’s unbelievable that the government has set aside $1 billion of taxpayer money to remove roughly 250,000 drivable vehicles from the road.***

that is the point! Keep the poor into mass transit!


36 posted on 08/01/2009 9:02:39 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

Destruction is the name of the game.
That fact that the cornerstone of this ‘program’
involves stripping the ‘clunkers’ of their most valuable
parts, thereby removing a huge part of the livelihoods
of people who’ve been in this industry probably for generations, tells you a LOT about the Leftist, Big Government mindset, and how COMPLETELY they want the
advantage of a ‘clean slate’ and how far they’re willing to
go to get it.
Not so oddly, the same mindset was in operation when the
few remaining “electric cars”, fifteen or so years ago, which had lots of people excited in California because of their potential, were ordered DESTROYED by a special Board of the State in CA, never to be thought of , or referred to again.


37 posted on 08/01/2009 9:08:14 AM PDT by supremedoctrine (Time is the school in which we learn that time is the fire in which we burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

The program could easily destroy 2 or 3 million cars a year if it became permanent. In a decade, that would be 20 or 30 million older cars taken off the road. I think this would be a very noticeable change in car “demographics”. There’d be fewer older sub-$4500 cars and more smaller, newer cars. Just like Europe!

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the lefty groups have thought this through with particular social ends clearly in mind. It’s ironic and unfortunate how nicely the left’s social engineering tendency fits with the corporate world’s anti-competitive tendency and willingness to snuggle up with the government if it decreases their risk. The clunker program has the trifecta of pleasing leftist social activists, opportunistic politicians, and the auto companies, and is therefore very likely to become permanent.


38 posted on 08/01/2009 9:16:28 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

Get this,

My son works at a dealership.

Cash4Clunkers Step 1——>Seize the engine so it cannot be used again by pouring chemicals in the carb to seize rods and bearings.


39 posted on 08/01/2009 10:00:18 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace
That last part, the destruction of engines, is causing heartburn for more than a dozen already hurting auto-parts suppliers who have had to file for bankruptcy this year. As Michael Wilson, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association, told a reporter, "Why throw away good parts when the supply chain is in jeopardy? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense." Catherine Tsai, in a story she wrote for Associated Press, reports that engines and drive trains account for 60 percent of recyclers' revenue from a used vehicle.

And, how much will a recycler offer me for my engine? $50?

How much would they charge me to buy my engine back?

How much will a recycler offer me for my entire car? $250?

How much would they charge me to buy my car back?

IMO, recyclers, a.k.a. junkyards need to put up or shut up.

40 posted on 08/01/2009 10:01:37 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
When I found out they were destroying vehicles that functioned just fine, I became IRATE.

So, you're mad at what the owners of these cars, i.e.: private property, are doing?

Are you equally mad at the drivers in a demolition derby for destroying their perfectly good cars, too?

How about guys who race cars and wreck them on the track or burn up their engines?

Who are you to say what anyone else does with their own property? If I want to sell my car to the government, knowing full well, that it will be rendered useless, then what business is it of yours?

Since you seem to feel so strongly about it, perhaps you could pony up a few billion dollars to buy them, instead.

41 posted on 08/01/2009 10:11:52 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
The program could easily destroy 2 or 3 million cars a year if it became permanent. In a decade, that would be 20 or 30 million older cars taken off the road. I think this would be a very noticeable change in car “demographics”. There’d be fewer older sub-$4500 cars and more smaller, newer cars. Just like Europe!

How many cars from the 1930s are still on the road? From the 1940s? 1950s? 1960s? 1970s?

Guess what? This happens even without a government program.

42 posted on 08/01/2009 10:14:43 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Dealers are upset that now they have a clunker that they cannot salvage parts

No the junk yards are upset that they didn't get a freebie, just think, how many really good parts they would have had for free, if they only paid poundage for the car. These were suppose to be sold directly to the crusher to prevent the junk yard owners from recycling and playing games with id numbers and titles...

43 posted on 08/01/2009 10:37:19 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Since you seem to feel so strongly about it, perhaps you could pony up a few billion dollars to buy them, instead.

Since you seem to feel so strongly about it why don't you and your other union supporters just pony up the money and pay the tax payer back and have a real free market.

44 posted on 08/01/2009 10:39:50 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

It would probably have been cheaper and wiser for the government to stimulate the economy by giving each TAXPAYER $2500 for us to spend as we wish. Or how about a two month holiday from paying federal taxes? It’s good to spread the wealth around (or so I’ve heard.)


45 posted on 08/01/2009 10:42:46 AM PDT by carmody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Guess what? This happens even without a government program.

No it doesn't. The program pays people to crush cars years before they would normally get crushed. This means fewer older cars on the road than without the program.

Not too hard to understand in my opinion.

46 posted on 08/01/2009 10:42:54 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Okay, now I get it. You’ve got some kind of grudge against Big Junkyard.


47 posted on 08/01/2009 10:48:31 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

No one is mad at the car owners and the dealerships. If the govt offers you $4500 to crush a $1000 car, it’s only rational to have it crushed.

The problem is the government paying people to do this. Are you okay with the government using your tax dollar to subsidize other people’s car purchases? As a conservative you shouldn’t be.

This is nothing but a subtle leftist wealth redistribution program undertaken to accomplish certain political and social ends. It’s unprincipled, it distorts the market, it’s the Democrat-controlled government trying to look beneficent by handing out your tax dollars.

Your instinct should be to oppose this.

But you’re angry at your brother-in-law who owns a junkyard and that’s got your mind all warped.


48 posted on 08/01/2009 11:05:10 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lonestar
I also bought a new Fusion, got it last Saturday . I got rid of 96 Crown Vic that was going to drive itself to the junkyard . I never got any Gubmint money before, I hope don't start reading KOS and DU . Wooo! I feel faint, NO......Barack is god
49 posted on 08/01/2009 11:14:19 AM PDT by Freak Flag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PureSolace

Obama is playing the same economy destroying games that FDR played.


50 posted on 08/01/2009 11:18:31 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Quick justice for the senseless killing of Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Crutchfield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson