Hello:

I don't know. Here's a plan from Washington that's working... So, the Republicans want to end it. It's kind of simple, really. You turn in an old car that get's BAD gas mileage, and you get around a $4,000 check towards the purchase of a new car...

Since the program has been going, car dealerships have been busy for the first time in months, the average milage increase between the cars turned in, and the ones going out is 9 miles per gallon... NINE MILES PER GALLON! And, the checks offer immediate stimulus.

Yet, the Republicans want to kill it...

excon

You're going to have to offer us some quotes or something, ex. What did they say?

You're going to have to offer us some quotes or something, ex. What did they say?Hello Steve:

Happy to oblige. Because it's been such a hit, it's up for renewal. Speaking about that, Senator Jim Demint of South Carolina said, "This is CRAZY to rush this thing again... We gotta SLOW it down." John McCain remains "strongly opposed".

excon

So should the taxpayor continue to subsidize the auto buying sector of the economy?

With tax revenue down, can taxpayors of this and future generations continue to subsidize increasing government spending?

Where does it end?

Is owning a vehicle now a "right?"



G&P

To play devil's advocate here---I'd rather pay for someone to get a new car that saves on gas--which is beneficial for EVERYONE, including the environment--than on one more pregnant teenager, or bailing out banks that made stupid decisions regarding who got a mortgage to begin with.

So should the taxpayor continue to subsidize the auto buying sector of the economy?Hello in:

I don't think those are the right questions to ask. I could, of course, in reply, ask you should the tax payer continue to support the home buying public with a subsidy that allows them to deduct the interest?? Renters don't get squat! And, THAT subsidy, by the way, has been going on a lot longer than our present crisis.

The question is, in my view, as long as it's agreed that government should BE the spender of last resort, and I agree that it should, then shouldn't the money be spent in the most POSITIVE way possible?? I think it should, and I think this is a VERY positive way.

excon

Ah, at least I now have somewhere to start (http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=JimsJournal.Detail&Blog_ID=dc61f43f-c5a2-c263-1c27-d5004bc0c845)...


DEMINT: This is another bill that congressman and senators didn’t even read. The federal government getting in the used car business -- and we think, “Hey, this is working great.” But my children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for these cars, and we’re helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren’t getting the help. The role of the federal government is not to run the used car business. And it’s clear. You can look at Amtrak or the post office, and now “cash for clunkers.” The federal government went bankrupt in one week in the used car business, and now they want to run our health care system. I just think this is a great example of the stupidity that’s coming out of Washington right now, and I think Americans realize the numbers that we’re throwing around don’t work. We estimated this would cost $1 billion. Now they’re saying we need $2 billion more. Our children and grandchildren can’t afford to make these car dealers well right now.

WALLACE: Real quickly, because it sailed through the House in a day -- it’s going to come up to the Senate next week -- are you going to be able to block it?

DEMINT: Well, we’re definitely going to debate it. And I’ve heard John McCain is going to stand up and try to stop it. And I’m going to work with him every way I can, because...

WALLACE: That means a filibuster?

DEMINT:... it makes no sense. I don’t know what it means right now, Chris, but this is crazy to try to rush this thing through again while they’re trying to rush through health care, and they want to get on to cap and trade electricity tax. We’ve got to slow this thing down.

I think it's crazy, too. But maybe that's because I need a new truck and my old one doesn't qualify, it's not a "clunker" it's an "antique" according to their rules. Way I see it a few thousand pounds of scrap metal is worth about the same whether it's 25 years old or 30. And mine is probably WORSE for the environment than the ones that do qualify.

And so Demint and McCain think this is crazy, is it also crazy for them to fight for a few thousand car dealerships being cut loose by Government Motors and Chrysler?

I think it's crazy, too. But maybe that's because I need a new truck and my old one doesn't qualify,Hello again, Steve:

I think you're right... But, if it's CRAZY, and it does't work, why did you look into participating in it?

excon

Hello:

I dunno. Here's a plan from Washington that's working.... So, the Republicans want to end it. It's kinda simple, really. You turn in an old car that get's BAD gas mileage, and you get around a $4,000 check towards the purchase of a new car....

Since the program has been going, car dealerships have been busy for the first time in months, the average milage increase between the cars turned in, and the ones going out is 9 miles per gallon.... NINE MILES PER GALLON!! And, the checks offer immediate stimulus.

Yet, the Republicans want to kill it....

excon

First of all, according to the reports I have read, not one single deal has actually been approved by the program. All of the dealers are still waiting for their approvals and reimbursements and they say that it is really hard to get approval.

Second, twice now the project was underfunded. The government assumed that there would be enough money to last for several months... the first time the money lasted 5 days. The second time it lasted two weeks. Talk about mismanagement of a budget.

So exactly how are you defining this as a program that "works"?

It's funny... your definitions of "success" and "failure" are about as skewed as can possibly be. Iraq, in which pretty much every goal set by Bush has been met and which is experiencing relative peace, is a failure. But cash for clunkers, which has twice now had to shut down because of a lack of funding and in which no dealer has yet been paid for the program, you define this as a success.

As for the "9 miles per gallon"... pure BS. You are misinterpreting what one proponent (I forget who, but it might have been Boxer) said about the program... she said that on average the cars being purchased under the program have an IMPROVED EFFICIENCY of 9 mpg over the cars being traded in. She did not say that the clunkers were doing 9 mpg. There haven't been cars that get 9 mpg on the road since the 1920s. The worst cars on the road are getting better mileage than that. Anything that inefficient would never have been approved by an emmissions inspector.

One of the main problems of the program is that it's going to cause people who otherwise would not be buying a car to purchase one and have to borrow in order to buy it. People are going to borrow money that they can't afford to borrow. The program incentivizes unnecessary borrowing... the very thing that got us into the mortgage crisis. The result won't be as bad... the dollar amounts are much lower, for one thing. But I would think that you'd be upset by anything that causes people to be subjected to "predatory lenders" like auto lenders and their pet repo-men.

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

I think you're right... But, if it's CRAZY, and it does't work, why did you look into participating in it?

Um, my momma didn't raise no fool. If someone wants to help pay for my new truck who am I to refuse? :D

the average milage increase between the cars turned in, and the ones going out is 9 miles per gallon.... NINE MILES PER GALLON!!

she said that on average the cars being purchased under the program have an IMPROVED EFFICIENCY of 9 mpg over the cars being traded in. She did not say that the clunkers were doing 9 mpg. There haven't been cars that get 9 mpg on the road since the 1920s. Hello again, El:

Like cutting boards, I suggest reading twice before commenting.

excon

There haven't been cars that get 9 mpg on the road since the 1920s.
There's a 2002 GMC Safari sitting in my driveway that is used regularly and passes all tests but gets less than 9 mpg in the city (15 long-distance).

excon,
I apologize. I misread your post.

Um, my momma didn't raise no fool. If someone wants to help pay for my new truck who am I to refuse? :DHello again, Steve:

That "someone" would be ME! Why should I pay for your truck? I drive a Volvo, and I recycle. Why is it fair for me to buy your truck, when you don't want to pay for my kidney? What's up with that?

If the Republicans as a group really wanted to KILL these programs, when the government opened the cash window, they wouldn't be in line.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

That "someone" would be ME! Why should I pay for your truck? I drive a Volvo, and I recycle. Why is it fair for me to buy your truck, when you don't wanna pay for my kidney? What's up with that?

If the Republicans as a group really wanted to KILL these programs, when the government opened the cash window, they wouldn't be in line.

excon

I agree. The same reasoning applies to both programs.

I happen to be against both of 'em... they both suck.

Hello again, Steve:

That "someone" would be ME! Why should I pay for your truck? I drive a Volvo, and I recycle. Why is it fair for me to buy your truck, when you don't wanna pay for my kidney? What's up with that?

If the Republicans as a group really wanted to KILL these programs, when the government opened the cash window, they wouldn't be in line.

And that's my complaint as well, I don't want to pay for your kidney or your new truck. But that's the problem with government entitlements... when they give away stuff everyone gets in line. This CARS thing was a done deal, if I need a new truck and don't have the money I'd be a fool to not get a few thousand bucks for a truck I couldn't sell for a thousand anywhere else.

Here's a little something to think about. After 8 years - actually it's still continuing to this day (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/mobs-r-us_b_250482.html) - of posturing over the ruthlessness of Karl Rove, who can blame the Republicans for pushing back against the "fist to the nose" tactics of the Obama administration and Rahmbo?

Rep. Issa fired off a letter (http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=625) to Rahm pushing back at him today...


Following reports that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been orchestrating an effort to intimidate members of Congress and Governors who raise legitimate concerns regarding the effectiveness of the stimulus, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to Emanuel saying “While this type of scare tactic may work In Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other Members of the United States Congress.”

“I and others have dared to bring these facts to the attention of President Obama, the Congress and the American people,” Issa wrote. “You’ve unfortunately reacted by once again resorting to the playbook of the Chicago political machine.”

Last month, Politico reported that Emanuel had “launched a coordinated effort to jam” Senator Kyl and other Administration critics… “[A]fter seeing Kyl and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) again paint the legislation as a failure on Sunday talk shows, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to [Governor] Brewer, according to two administration officials.”

Issa noted, “The fact that the letters were coordinated by you to maximize the level of intimidation is supported by the timing, structure, and content of each letter. Not only were the four letters all sent the day following Senator Kyl’s remarks, but they were also remarkably similar in tone and sentence structure.”

Letter from Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation:


On Sunday, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren’t presently underway. I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know [emphasis added].


Letter from Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior:


Some key Republican leaders in Congress have publicly questioned whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working and suggested cancelling all projects that are not currently in progress. I believe they are wrong. The stimulus funds provided through the Recovery Act are a very effective way to create job opportunities throughout the Country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to Arizona, please let me know [emphasis added].


“At what point do you believe your practice of Chicago-style politics violates a public official’s right to speak out in favor of alternative policies,” Issa asks. “The American people have a right to know what role you played in developing the threatening letters to Governor Brewer and whether you intend to continue to engage in these tactics in the future.”

In order to assist the Committee with its investigation of this issue, please provide the following information by close of business on Tuesday, August 11, 2009:


1. Your response to Politico’s report that “White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to [Governor] Brewer, according to two administration officials.”

2. A full and complete explanation of the development of the four July 13 letters from the cabinet secretaries to Governor Brewer, including but not limited to the role you or any other White House official played in writing the letters or encouraging the writing of the letters.

3. All records and communications between you and Secretary LaHood, Secretary Salazar, Secretary Donovan, and Secretary Vilsack referring or relating to the decision to send the July 13 letters to Governor Brewer.

4. A full and complete explanation of the role of the Democratic National Committee and the White House Office of Political Affairs in authoring, encouraging, facilitating, or directing the four July 13 letters from the cabinet secretaries to Governor Brewer.


You can view a copy of the full letter to Emanuel by clicking here (http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/letters/20090804EmanuelStimulus.pdf).

I think I'd say no, too.

Hello in:

I don't think those are the right questions to ask. I could, of course, in reply, ask you should the tax payer continue to support the home buying public with a subsidy that allows them to deduct the interest???? Renters don't get squat! And, THAT subsidy, by the way, has been going on a lot longer than our present crisis.

The question is, in my view, as long as it's agreed that government should BE the spender of last resort, and I agree that it should, then shouldn't the money be spent in the most POSITIVE way possible??? I think it should, and I think this is a VERY positive way.

excon

Apples to apples, cars to cars and houses to houses.

Renters don't pay [ direct porperty taxes ]
How many renters actually improve or maintain the place they live in compared to if one owns a home ?

Isn't the $8000 first time home buyer TAX CREDIT another new subsidy, and even with historically low interest rates, the housing market is barely improving.
Hey was it not the government's messing around with the housing market via things like CRA and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, a huge part of the current housing bubble and collapse?

In the short term [ 1 week , ha ha ] this is good, but what is the long term out look, a repeat with a car bubble and collapse ?





G&P

You Americans sure are lucky getting $4500 for old cars. There is a program called retire your ride in Canada and I only got $300 for getting rid of my old car. Rock On!

Republicans aren't saying no they are sitting back watching how it is a shamble with more vouchers out than money available.
If it works great but look at the fiasco now

Scrap yards aren't liking it
YouTube - Scrap yards not crazy about "Clunkers" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G031vZAU9DQ)

There are videos on YouTube to turn your vehicle into a clunket to get the money

How many of these saps are turning in a car that they can afford to buy something that they cannot afford to pay for? Why do we have to say thanks to the auto workers for putting that dunderhead in office? This is simply another tax payers funded thanks to the auto workers for their votes in November. Wasn't the 500 million buyout enough already?

Well, for me, the only logical way to make this work, would be if I had just purchased a brand new gas guzzler, with many years still left to pay on it. Then I could trade it in for a more fuel effient vehicle if I wanted to, and take advantage of the tax credit.

But I maintain it's still better for my "personal economy" to stick with my clunker.

But to be fair, the government is not "making" people trade in cars. It's still optional.

What I see as the debatable point is it's another example of billions or dollars being thrown around.

WE ALL will be penalized for this spending, be it good spending or bad. The country is long out of money, and we are on borrowed time. Even if Obama doesn't raise ANY taxes, rest assured, if this massive government spending doesn't slow down, inflation will have our asses, and we may not be paying a $3 tax on a $1 loaf of bread, but we will be paying $5.50 for the loaf anyway due to inflation.

What I see as the debatable point is it's another example of billions or dollars being thrown around.Hello a:

This isn't ANOTHER billion or so. It's the SAME billion or so that was already authorized in the stimulus. And, if they're going to throw it around, throwing at THIS program, which sells cars, reduces our need for foreign oil, reduces pollution, and employs people, ain't a bad place to throw it.

It needs to be reemphasized that the government is spending this money to PREVENT The Great Depression II. If you didn't think he government should have stimulated the economy, then you're not going to like this program no matter what.

But, if you're a believer in the notion that the government needed to spend because NOBODY else was, then this is a GOOD program.

excon

there are videos on youtube to turn your vehicle into a clunket to get the money
I like that, "clunket" -- sort of like a "clunkette"?

:( I can't be perfect ALL the time can I?

Well ex,

I hope you are correct, because Obama is really playing his cards now. If this money we spend doesn't work, then we will still be left with a troubled economy and high inflation to boot.

I'm confident, this presidential term will end one of two ways, on a healthy road to recovery, or a second depression.

I don't think there will be any middle ground, there is too much at stake.

Now if you REALLY want to save at the pump- get a Scooter. I had one once, loved it. Drove it all over the place. Got 100 MPG on it.

Disadvantage is, you can't drive it on the interstate.

I only sold it because my family would fuss and carry on when ever I would go for one of my long country rides on it.

But it was so nice, put three dollars worth of gas in it, and ride it all day.

You can get one for about $1,000 brand new. If I had to drive my own vehicle to and from work, I'd be riding one of these.

Now if you REALLY want to save at the pump- get a Scooter. I had one once, loved it. Drove it all over the place. Got 100 MPG on it.Hello again, andrew:

Had me an Allstate Super Cruisair when I was 14. Cost me $300 back then. Crashed it and broke my arm.

excon

Ex I thought you had some business savvy.

Here you have dealers filling their inventories;putting major $$ down on advertising ,trading for cars they normally would not touch ,wrecking them instead of resale,fronting the $4500 to the customer from their own pockets,sometimes matching the gvt. Program with additional incentives... all on the promise that the gvt. Would reimburse $4500 on a timely basis (you do understand cash flow right ?).

Now a couple of weeks into the program most have not seen any money from the gvt. And have no reasonable expectation that they will see it any time soon. The gvt. Instead needs more emergency funding for the program with a refusal to release any adequate accounting the billion already in the kitty.

As I have already mentioned elsewhere this program is hammer time for the used car ,and parts business . Lets say you have people like Andrew and Saph who can't afford to get in the program or have done the calculations and decided to keep their clunkers on the road. What do they do for parts when most of that business is recycling scrap ? This plan destroys one sector of the economy to give a theoretical temporary boost to another .This plan would make Frederic Bastiat proud.

And yes, it is at best temporary. Recall when the car companies did the employee discount incentive.That program temporarily brought up the sales volume .But afterwards ,everyone who was going to buy a car had already purchased them under the program ,and a big sales slump occurred.

Only someone reading the stuff from lib bloggers(or listening to the Prez.) could think that computers crashing ;web sites with the wrong information ,dealers in the hock for hundreds of thousands of dollars ,and taxpayers in the hock for another $3 Billion means the program is working .Yet ,when I think about it ;wasting a billion in record time must be a libs wet dream.

[I donated my clunker last month to a charitable organization that cleans them up a bit and auctions them]

Jon Stewart details the process by which a Fox News talking point seed is planted and fertilized before coming to life (in this case Cash for Clunkers):
Jon Stewart Breaks Down Fox's Outrage Generating Ecosystem | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central (http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/08/04/jon-stewart-breaks-down-foxs-outrage-generating-ecosystem/)

Canadian link: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart : August 3, 2009 (http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/august-3-2009/#clip199842)

I love the way Stewart , just splices out seconds of different clips to make a point.

Sadly funny is his reference to "greenbacks for grannies" program.

He is hilarious with whatever cah for... segment.



Thanks


G&P

Did you notice how he showed that those town hall disruptions are actually organized by paid lobbyists, in coordination with Fox News. TPM has been covering it: Industry-Backed Anti-Health Care Reform Group: Yeah, We're Packing And Disrupting The Health Care Town Halls | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/anti-health-care-reform-group-yeah-were-packing-and-disrupting-the-health-care-town-halls.php?ref=fpa)

Yes, Stewart does do a good job as well.

Did you notice how he showed that those town hall disruptions are actually organized by paid lobbyists, in coordination with Fox News. TPM has been covering it: Industry-Backed Anti-Health Care Reform Group: Yeah, We're Packing And Disrupting The Health Care Town Halls | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/anti-health-care-reform-group-yeah-were-packing-and-disrupting-the-health-care-town-halls.php?ref=fpa)

Yes, Stewart does do a good job as well.

Really?

The DNC put out a memo making that claim yesterday. Robert Gibbs made that claim as well.

So... Who is doing the organizing? Who has gotten paid to show up at a town hall meeting? Cany anyone name names?

Perhaps instead of trying to claim "conspiracy" where none exists, the Dems might instead try finding answers to the questions being asked at these meetings. And if they can't adequately answer the questions, perhaps they should amend the health care bills or withdraw their support until the answers are made available. And perhaps the Dems should try organizing themselves instead of worrying about how the Reps are organizing themselves.

When Sybellius tries to avoid answering basic questions about the health care plan she supports by claiming she's not a member of Congress, there's a problem, and it ain't with the fact that the meetings are being packed by opponents of the legislation.

When Arlen Speculum claims that decisions on a 1000+ page piece of legislation that affects 20% of the economy need to be made "quickly", but can't explain WHY, there's a problem, and it isn't with the fact that meetings are being packed by opponents of the legislation.

When the Administration can't get their position straight on whether they intend to raise taxes or not in order to pay for the budget deficits and national debt caused by this spending and all the other spending this government has done, there's a problem, and it isn't with the fact that meetings are being packed by opponents of the legislation.

If the Dems had answers to these questions, it wouldn't matter whether someone tried to pack the town hall meetings or not. But they don't. And so regular citizens are becoming angry that their questions aren't being answered.

After months of Obama packing his town hall meetings with those who support his positions, and after months cherry picking questions from those who support his legislation and that demonstrate the riteousness of his positions, he and the Dems are finally having to start answering hard questions, and they don't like it.

These town hall meetings are being packed by organizations. They're being packed by regular Americans who have serious questions and no longer are willing to accept the propaganda and careful engineering of Obama's press managers at his press conferences.

After all the organized pressure (read: threats) put on elected officials by Rahmbo behind the scenes, and after the kid-gloves treatment of Obama by the press and the engineering of all of Obama's press events, it's nice to see some hard questions being asked, and to see some elected officials being forced to question their positions.

It's called DEMOCRACY. It's called FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. And at least for now, they still exist in this country. People are demanding an accounting from their elected officials. That's how things work in a democratic society.

Elliot

Did you notice how he showed that those town hall disruptions are actually organized by paid lobbyists, in coordination with Fox News. TPM has been covering it: Industry-Backed Anti-Health Care Reform Group: Yeah, We're Packing And Disrupting The Health Care Town Halls | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/anti-health-care-reform-group-yeah-were-packing-and-disrupting-the-health-care-town-halls.php?ref=fpa)

Just one more thing to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy of the left (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/04/obamacare-the-grassroots-are-always-greener/)...


Democrats would like to play the victim card (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25765.html) in response to the hostile pushback (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/03/three-videos-show-why-obamacare-is-in-trouble/) against their proposed government takeover of the US healthcare system. The word has gone out from Sen. Democratic Whip Durbin (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/03/durbin-townhalls-gone-wild/) to a raft of lefty blogs to discredit anti-ObamaCare critics and protesters as vicious mobs ginned up by “lobbyist-run groups” like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks (Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/which_reporters_will_get_snowed.php) gets bonus points for going all the way with the Nazi allusion). From lefty blogs, the message goes directly to the Politico’s Glenn Thrush (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Doggett_calls_protesters_a_mob.html), Keith Olbermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/32276833#32276833) and CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/03/eveningnews/main5210109.shtml) — though CBS conceded that the “turnouts also reflect the real fear over the increased taxes and government controls that are part of the health bills being considered in Congress.”

The role of established conservative groups may be more of following and facilitating (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html) the protesters. But even if such groups are becoming more involved in organizing opposition to ObamaCare, the hypocrisy here is rather staggering, given the amount of astroturf involved in trying to sell ObamaCare to an increasingly resistant public. As Michelle Malkin (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=579006) noted upon the launch of the lefty campaign:


On Thursday, a national “grassroots” coalition called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) will march on Capitol Hill to demand universal healthcare. The ground troops won’t have to march very far. HCAN, you see, is no heartland network. It is headquartered at 1825 K Street in Washington, DC — smack dab in the middle of Beltway lobby land.

In fact, 1825 K Street is Ground Zero for a plethora of “progressive” groups subsidized by anti-war, anti-Republican, Big Nanny special interests. Around Washington, the office complex is known as “The Other K Street.” The Washington Post noted in 2007 that “its most prominent tenants form an abbreviated who’s who of well-funded allies of the Democratic Party….Big money from unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the Internet-fueled MoveOn, has provided groups like those at 1825 K Street the wherewithal to mount huge campaigns.”

MoveOn, of course, is the recreational political vehicle of radical liberal sugar daddy George Soros. The magnate’s financial fingerprints are all over the HCAN coalition, which includes MoveOn, the action fund of the Center for American Progress (a Soros think tank), and the Campaign for America’s Future (a pro-welfare state lobbying outfit).

Indeed, HCAN (http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/who_we_are/) includes all of the aforementioned groups, plus the AFL-CIO, ACORN and more. HCAN is conducting a joint campaign (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/ad_62_back_obama_health_care_efforts.php) with Organizing for America (OFA), the Democratic National Committee-run vestiges of President Obama’s campaign. The astroturf has been on public display (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070100950.html) at events like Pres. Obama’s healthcare town hall meeting in Northern Virginia, where all of the live questions came from members of SEIU, HCAN, and OFA. Heading into the August recess, the White House and the Congressional Democratic Leadership are working in close coordination (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32987) with outside groups, including but not limited to, HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, and AARP.

If there is anyone putting their own interests (http://www.morris.com/blog/2009/07/09/obama-will-repeal-medicare/) ahead of those they claim to represent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121982/Seniors-Skeptical-Healthcare-Reform.aspx), it is the AARP. If there is anyone who should not be whining about vocal anti-Obamacare protests, it is the muscle for money crowd at SEIU and ACORN (http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/ACORNs-Muscle-for-Money-does-the-bidding-of-SEIU--50091427.html). If there is anyone who knows about shouting down their critics (http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQ1NGYzZTYzOTVjMmNmYzhlY2Q0NzFmNDUyOGY0ZWQ=), it is OFA. If there is anyone without standing to complain about activists getting in people’s faces (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/18/2008-09-18_obama_fires_up_democrats_i_want_you_to_a.html), it is Pres. Obama.

The Community Organizer in Chief, advised by master astroturfer David Axelrod (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm), has amassed a campaign that dwarfs the efforts of the Right (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFDKwtv6wxJsxHUqUj9GO0kWkq1QD99FDAPO1). But they are currently outnumbered and out-messaged on a shoe-string budget, primarily because of the merits of the issue. And that, more than anything, is what has the Left demonizing dissent from ObamaCare.

And don't accuse me of not citing my sources. Since Karl's post, Huffpo has joined in on the smear campaign (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/mobs-r-us_b_250482.html) as well. And perhaps even more disturbing is the White House Ministry of Propaganda is looking for snitches (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/cash-clunkers-healthcare-383173-2.html#post1902453).

Try again, NK.

And one more thing, it was a Republican that co-sponsored the legislation and the main purpose was to get clunkers off the street and get drivers into more fuel efficient vehicles, not rescue auto dealers. In fact, fuel efficiency is mentioned roughly 50 times in the bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1135).

Try again, NK.
Dear Steve,
Read your buddy ET's post above yours. Apparently packing the hall with organizations is OK, just like in the 60s.

Perhaps instead of trying to claim "conspiracy" where none exists, the Dems might instead try finding answers to the questions being asked at these meetings. Hello again, El:

These aren't meetings, and there are no questions. They're planned disruptions... And, if you believe they're spontaneous, I'm accepting bids on the bridge your cross each morning.

excon

Ex and NK, you act as if planned disruptions and packing the hall is a bad thing. When the left does it it's democracy in action (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/04/this-is-what-mob-rule-looks-like/). When the right gets out it's a threat to democracy or "mob rule (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/04/dnc-hammers-republican-backed-mob-rule/)" as the DNC calls it. Oh, and I repeat for the third time, this White House is looking for snitches (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/). You guys need to open your minds and your eyes.

I just read the memo sent out by Bob Macguffie These are organized disruptions. So instead of having an a serious discussion Bob is pretty much telling the people to act like children at these town halls. How do these people expect to be taken seriously? It makes the right (not the people on here) look crazier and more childish by the day. Here is a link to the memo if you didn't read it.

Memo Details Co-ordinated Anti-Reform Harrassment Strategy | TPM Document Collection (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordinated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1)

Dear Steve,
Read your buddy ET's post above yours. Apparently packing the hall with organizations is ok, just like in the 60s.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

Elliot

These town hall meetings are being packed by organizations. They're being packed by regular Americans ...This is what you wrote ET.

Hello again, El:

These aren't meetings, and there are no questions. They're planned disruptions... And, if you believe they're spontaneous, I'm accepting bids on the bridge your cross each morning.

excon

No questions?

I heard some very strong questions about in the Specter/Sebillius video why members of Congress feel that they can pass a piece of legislation that they haven't read. Sebillius refused to answer saying that she's not a member of Congress. Specter's response was "we have to make quick decisions".

I heard some strong questions in the Specter/Sebillius video about who is going to pay for this plan. Are taxes going to go up? Are services going to go down? And Sebillius couldn't answer them.

There were very clear questions, excon. You just don't like the questions or the reaction from the crowd when these political hacks couldn't answer them.

There were questions. There will be MORE questions. And accusations of some sort of conspiracy are not going to stop those questions from being asked. And if elected officials can't answer these questions, then they need to question their own support for the bill. And if they continue to support the bill, they can expect people to vote against them in upcoming elections.

Elliot

I heard some very strong questions about in the Specter/Sebillius video why members of Congress feel that they can pass a piece of legislation that they haven't read. Sebillius refused to answer saying that she's not a member of Congress. Specter's response was "we have to make quick decisions". Hello again, El:

How come I didn't hear you sniveling about the Patriot Act that didn't get read? It's hundred's of pages were passed after 5 minutes...

I guess democracy in YOUR WORLD, is a ONE WAY street.

excon

Hello again, El:

How come I didn't hear you sniveling about the Patriot Act that didn't get read?? It's hundred's of pages were passed after 5 minutes....

I guess democracy in YOUR WORLD, is a ONE WAY street.

excon

Actually, the USA Patriot Act was picked apart with a fine-tooth comb before it was passed.

Furthermore, it has since been passed several more times, sometimes with amendments. The thing has been picked to death, both before it became law, and for several years since. It has been thoroughly debated.

Elliot

Edit: I just looked up the legislative history of the USA PAtriot Act. The bill was first introduced to the House on October 12 2001, and was then signed into law on October 26. However, opponents were given the chance to debate against the bill, and in fact Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy both spoke up against the bill. There was plenty of time to read it and protest it and some did. There was also time to debate it again before it was re-approved in June 2005. Several changes were made to the bill during that re-approval process.

And finally, the most important thing is that the USA Patriot Act had specific sunset provisions built into it. Any "damage" caused by the bill would not be permanent because of those sunset provisions.

What sunset provisions are there on Obama's health care bill?

Are taxes going to go up? Yes. And insurance premium payments will go way down, some may not need any additional insurance at all. That's the way it works. Did you not know that? I believe I have mentioned it to you a few times yet you still ask the question.

Yes. And insurance premium payments will go way down, some may not need any additional insurance at all. That's the way it works. Did you not know that? I believe I have mentioned it to you a few times yet you still ask the question.

Only because you refuse to accept the fact that the amount that you pay in taxes is MUCH HIGHER than the amount I pay for insurance premiums... even when I'm paying full cost for my insurance.

Only because you refuse to accept the fact that the amount that you pay in taxes is MUCH HIGHER than the amount I pay for insurance premiums... even when I'm paying full cost for my insurance.
Hehe, you don't know how much I pay in taxes or how much private insurance would cost yet you claim some sort of victory. LOL!

Hehe, you don't know how much I pay in taxes or how much private insurance would cost yet you claim some sort of victory. LOL!

I know what Canada's tax rates are. And the rates in the UK and France and Sweden, for that matter.

Oh, sure, it's possible that you have no income and are getting your health care for free. But that would just make you a leech... nothing to be particularly proud of.

But I'm making the assumption (based on your statements that you "make a good living" and "still manage to save some money") that you make at least average wage for Canada, and are being taxed accordingly.

So the calculations aren't that hard.

Unless you wish to dispute any of those assumptions... then we can talk about the economics of health care in the cases of individuals. Waste of time since it doesn't answer any questions about the system as a whole. But hey, I'm game.

Elliot

But I'm making the assumption (based on your statements that you "make a good living" and "still manage to save some money") that you make at least average wage for Canada, and are being taxed accordingly.That's right and it's nice! I don't have to worry about being denied, about pre=existing conditions, about dealing with lawyers. I guess I'm just a positive guy and appreciate things that are good while you look for the negative in most everything.

Only because you refuse to accept the fact that the amount that you pay in taxes is MUCH HIGHER than the amount I pay for insurance premiums... even when I'm paying full cost for my insurance.

Not in my instance... I've seen your figures and I isn't paying that. Not even close.

Not in my instance... I've seen your figures and I aint paying that. Not even close.Ditto.

When Dems organize it is democracy in action .But when their opposition organizes it is tea bagging and astroturf . Ok MSM run with it ;Rachel Madcow has given you the talking points.

Don't forget the ultimate in organization


A C O R N





G&P

Actually I gave too much credit to Madcow. The DNC constructs the talking points heard here

This is an email from Jen O'Malley Dillon of the DNC





There's been a lot of media coverage about organized mobs intimidating lawmakers, disrupting town halls, and silencing real discussion about the need for real health insurance reform.
The truth is, it's a sham. These “grassroots protests” are being organized and largely paid for by Washington special interests and insurance companies who are desperate to block reform. They're trying to use lies and fear to break the President and his agenda for change.
Health insurance reform is about our lives, our jobs, and our families — we can't let distortions and intimidation get in the way. We need to expose these outrageous tactics, and we're counting on you to help. Can you read these “5 facts about the anti-reform mobs,” then pass them along to your friends and family?



5 facts about the anti-reform mobs

1. These disruptions are being funded and organized by out-of-district special-interest groups and insurance companies who fear that health insurance reform could help Americans, but hurt their bottom line. A group run by the same folks who made the “Swiftboat” ads against John Kerry is compiling a list of congressional events in August to disrupt. An insurance company coalition has stationed employees in 30 states to track where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings.
2. People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. These crowds are being riled up by anti-reform lies being spread by industry front groups that invent smears to tarnish the President's plan and scare voters. But as the President has repeatedly said, health insurance reform will create more health care choices for the American people, not reduce them. If you like your insurance or your doctor, you can keep them, and there is no “government takeover” in any part of any plan supported by the President or Congress.
3. Their actions are getting more extreme. Texas protesters brought signs displaying a tombstone for Rep. Lloyd Doggett and using the “SS” symbol to compare President Obama's policies to Nazism. Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil was hanged in effigy outside his district office. Rep. Tim Bishop of New York had to be escorted to his car by police after an angry few disrupted his town hall meeting — and more examples like this come in every day. And they have gone beyond just trying to derail the President's health insurance reform plans, they are trying to “break” the President himself and ruin his Presidency.
4. Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation. Protesters have routinely shouted down representatives trying to engage in constructive dialogue with voters, and done everything they can to intimidate and silence regular people who just want more information. One attack group has even published a manual instructing protesters to “stand up and shout” and try to “rattle” lawmakers to prevent them from talking peacefully with their constituents.
5. Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on the thuggish crowds. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a statement applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to “a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress.”
It's time to expose this charade, before it gets more dangerous. Please send these facts to everyone you know. You can also post them on your website, blog, or Facebook page.
Now, more than ever, we need to stand strong together and defend the truth.
Thanks,
Jen
Jen O'Malley Dillon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

^
She's got it right.

That's right and it's nice! I don't have to worry about being denied,

Tell that to the 63% of Canadians who say otherwise and HAVE been denied treatments.

^
She's got it right.

No, what's true is what tom and I have both said, to you guys when the Dems organize it's Democracy in action, and when we organize it's a "charade," a threat to Democracy, "mob rule." What's true is is Dems don't want any debate, they want to stifle any debate that doesn't fit their agenda.

Tell that to the 63% of Canadians who say otherwise and HAVE been denied treatments.Link?

Link?

Provided SEVERAL times in the past. You ignored it then or claimed that the sources were biased... even though the studies were from your own government talking about its own program. Go back and look for it yourself. I haven't got the time.

For your reading pleasure --

Heard a radio interview with David Gratzer while driving home from work last night --

From Amazon: The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care by David Gratzer --

"Drawing on personal experience in both the Canadian and U.S. systems, Dr. Gratzer shows how paternalistic government involvement in the health care system has multiplied inefficiencies, discouraged innovation, and punished patients. The Cure offers a detailed and practical approach to putting individuals back in charge. With an introduction by Milton Friedman, The Cure will be required reading for anyone who wants to know what is really wrong with the modern health care system."

from Amazon: The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care by David Gratzer --
The reviews on Amazon are interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Cure-Capitalism-Save-American-Health/product-reviews/159403219X/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Hello again:

I'm a free marketeer. IF we HAD unfettered markets, I believe, like my conservative brethren, that prosperity and happiness would ensue...

But, apparently the free market wasn't a good enough place to compete, so industry started courting government favor... Of course, once they GOT government favor, they're not going to continue to compete in the marketplace anymore... Why would they? Nooooo, they're going to compete for more government largess...

And, that's the state we find ourselves in. Certainly one look at how much the health care industry spends on lobbying instead of competing in the marketplace, should be a clue.

So, are we ever going to get BACK to what it once was, which was a health care system that WAS the best in the world, and affordable by everyone?? Nope... Once the system begins to erode the quality of life for average Americans, instead of boosting it, like capitalism is SUPPOSED to do, then it's time to change it...

So, the only solution in my book, is for the government to take it over...

It's just like the oil industry... I can't be the only one who knows that we're not going to let them bankrupt us either.

excon

So, our insurance premiums are supposed to get lowered? HA! So, why did my insurance company agent tell me that if I had one of those little farting cars my premiums would be higher than the Jeep that I own now? The reason cited by my insurance lady was the fact the little cars cost more to repair. So I'm not buying the "our insurance premiums are going to go down" baloney.

Also, didn't you guys figure out that the reason they are pulling the $4,500 trade in so that they can keep the low end price cars off the market completely? That means that there won't be many $1,000 or $1,500 affordable cars out there anymore for folks who don't make a zillion dollars a year. That means that if there are no "cheap" or reasonably priced vehicles out there to buy that everyone will have to be saddled with a monthly car payment. Great idea. Only Washington morons could dream up this dribble. Make everyone (or force them) have a nice, new farting little car with a huge monthly payment hung around their necks like millstones. Hats off to you Washington for this brilliant idea to enslave America further.

Yeah that is what worries me for ONE
I know I can't afford any $200. Or more a month car payment for some vehicle I don't even like.
I can't even imagine what it would look like if it got into one little accident. Probably totalled at 25 mph and then your insurance sky rockets

So, our insurance premiums are supposed to get lowered? HA! So, why did my insurance company agent tell me that if I had one of those little farting cars my premiums would be higher than the Jeep that I own now? Hello twink:

I don't know. Are you going to be so happy when it takes $165 to fill your tank, when I can drive up in my farting little car and fill up for $1.27?

It's OK if you hit me, too. I got my fenders off an old bumping in car I bought from the amusement park.

excon

Hello again:

I'm a free marketeer. IF we HAD unfettered markets, I believe, like my conservative bretheren, that prosperity and happiness would ensue....

But, apparently the free market wasn't a good enough place to compete, so industry started courting government favor... Of course, once they GOT government favor, they're not going to continue to compete in the marketplace anymore.... Why would they? Nooooo, they're going to compete for more government largess...

Wow have you got it backward.

You actually think that banks courted government interference to force them to make loans they didn't want to make. And the auto manufacturers WANT agencies like OSHA and the EPA messing with them. And that drug companies want the FDA deciding what drugs they can make.

Practically every industry has a lobbying group to keep the government OUT of the industry. The American Bankers Association, for instance, is there to fight AGAINST government interference in the industry like the CRA legislation. But you think that these companies want government interference.

Talk about revisionist history.

Since 1942, this country hasn't had an industry in which the government hasn't poked its nose. Since the Wicckard V. Filburn case, the US government has used "interstate commerce" as an excuse to regulate every industry, but most especially the financial industry. But you think that these industries have been looking for government interference.

What a crock.

Study some history, excon. Then we'll talk.

Elliot

Hello twink:

I dunno. Are you gonna be so happy when it takes $165 to fill your tank, when I can drive up in my farting little car and fill up for $1.27?

It's ok if you hit me, too. I got my fenders off an old bumping in car I bought from the amusement park.

excon

Excon,

Can you think of any scenario in which oil becomes so scarce that the price becomes $165 to fill up a tank, but the price of any othjer form of energy (especially electric) stays as low as $1.27?

When oil prices rise, it causes the price of OTHER FORMS of energy to rise as well. Whether it's because of greater demand for those other forms of energy in lieu of gasoline and oil, or whether it is because the higher price of oil means that it costs more to produce other forms of energy, the result is the same. When oil prices go up, electricity prices and natural gas prices go up too.

Your scenario is, as usual , ridiculous.

Elliot

That reminds me. I heard on the news that California has gone so broke that they are now willing to drill for oil. What's up with that that they can change up when it is convenient to them to do so?

That reminds me. I heard on the news that California has gone so broke that they are now willing to drill for oil. Whats up with that that they can change up when it is convenient to them to do so?

Its called hypocrisy, and it's common among ALL politicians of all persuations.

I'm glad that they're at least willing to consider the possibility.

Elliot

Wow have you got it backward.

Practically every industry has a lobbying group to keep the government OUT of the industry.Hello again, El:

I'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS?? Dude!


Can you think of any scenario in which oil becomes so scarce that the price becomes $165 to fill up a tank,

Tell me, Mr. rightwing economist, just how much do you think the last barrel of oil is going to be worth? ME?? I think it'll be worth several MILLION $$$'s. You?

excon

Hello again, El:

I'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS????? Dude!



Tell me, Mr. rightwing economist, just how much do you think the last barrel of oil is gonna be worth? ME??? I think it'll be worth several MILLION $$$'s. You?

excon

I think it won't be worth much of anything. Because by the time we get to the last barrel of oil the economy will have already collapsed or we will have switched to some other form of energy. I'm betting on the latter.

And tell me, oh Font of Wisdom, if we are down to our last barrel of oil, how much will electricity be selling for?

If we haven't found another source of energy with which to create electric power by powering the electrical generators that feed the national grids, electricity will be just as scarce as the oil is.

Elliot

And tell me, oh Font of Wisdom, if we are down to our last barrel of oil, how much will electricity be selling for?

If we haven't found another source of energy with which to create electric power by powering the electrical generators that feed the national grids, electricity will be just as scarce as the oil is.Hello again, El:

I thought it was the rightwingers who had faith in the American Entrapranurial spirit. It seems to be missing from your mantra. You actually have NO faith at all, that we can find our way out of this dilemma, and make ourselves stronger in the process?? You really don't, do you?? And, you call yourself an American.

I see that the conservatives out there agree with you... I'd be ashamed, if I was you.

excon

Hello again, El:

I thought it was the rightwingers who had faith in the American Entrapranurial spirit. It seems to be missing from your mantra. You actually have NO faith at all, that we can find our way out of this dilemma, and make ourselves stronger in the process??? You really don't, do you??? And, you call yourself an American.

I see that the conservatives out there agree with you.... I'd be ashamed, if I was you.

excon

Where, exactly, did you get that from?

Repeating my comments...

I think it won't be worth much of anything. Because by the time we get to the last barrel of oil the economy will have already collapsed or we will have switched to some other form of energy. I'm betting on the latter.

What are you reading?

Elliot

So, our insurance premiums are supposed to get lowered? HA! So, why did my insurance company agent tell me that if I had one of those little farting cars my premiums would be higher than the Jeep that I own now? The reason cited by my insurance lady was the fact the little cars cost more to repair. So I'm not buying the "our insurance premiums are going to go down" baloney.

Also, didn't you guys figure out that the reason they are pulling the $4,500 trade in so that they can keep the low end price cars off the market completely? That means that there won't be many $1,000 or $1,500 affordable cars out there anymore for folks who don't make a zillion dollars a year. That means that if there are no "cheap" or reasonably priced vehicles out there to buy that everyone will have to be saddled with a monthly car payment. Great idea. Only Washington morons could dream up this dribble. Make everyone (or force them) have a nice, new farting little car with a huge monthly payment hung around their necks like millstones. Hats off to you Washington for this brilliant idea to enslave America further.



Good points reiterated by others in the citizenry. Are you part of the "mob" that Nancy P is talking about ? ;)



Letters - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html)





The “clunkers” being crushed were the next generation of used cars capable of supplying the middle class, minimum-wage earners, students and the poor with transportation necessary to keep this nation moving forward.

This government giveaway is only for those who qualify for a car loan and who choose to go into debt at a cost of hundreds of dollars a month in payments, plus insurance, in order to help an industry we’ve already spent billions of tax dollars bailing out.

With America still reeling from the collapse of the housing market brought on by teaser loans promising people homes they couldn’t afford, the government now comes along with a program that does for car ownership what was once done for real estate.

Crushed cars. Loan defaults. Repossessions. No transportation to get to lost jobs. It’s the next recipe for disaster that the experts, government officials, media and talking heads don’t see coming. I betcha.

Marguerite Quantaine

Ocala, Fla.


The “cash for clunkers” program required the government to accurately estimate the demand for trading in a car, and based on that to provide adequate funding for the program (“‘Cash for Clunkers’ Runs Out of Gas,” page one, July 31). The government failed in its analysis.

One might argue that the program was a success, given that the money ran out after four days, but that would be missing the larger point. Based on cash for clunkers, there is no reason to believe President Barack Obama and Congress have the ability to properly estimate the infinitely more complex supply, demand and cost of providing health care. And when they get it wrong, the outcome will be far more dire than simply having to keep one’s clunker a little while longer.

John C. Katz

Falls Church, Va.

Wow I this op is all over the place ! #28 I showed that the program is not this great success and I see no rebutal.

Ex yes the free market will find viable alternatives eventully to oil and the market will adopt those alternatives when they become commercially viable. Mandating it isn't going to make it happen no more than if the gvt. Had regulated whale oil lamps out of existence before Edison's breakthrough. Did the gvt outlaw them years before electric lighting became viable ? Of course not. Like it or not we are wed to petroleum for the immediate future so we better start securing our sources... instead of watching while the Ruskies make deals with Cuba to drill off Fla.

Wondergirl I heard Gratzer in an interview and intend to read his book.Being a former Canadian physician gives his an insight from a different perspective.
For a preview ;here is an op-ed he penned last month.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Regulation-not-size-is-health-cares-biggest-problem-51371957.html

If the Republicans as a group really wanted to KILL these programs, when the government opened the cash window, they wouldn't be in line.

excon

We all have to share

Enjoy your security

Lower taxes as of now

It's really nice to have someone else make your down payment for a new car!

Not ethecal, but nice.

Let's push for hydrogen technology.

So should the taxpayor continue to subsidize the auto buying sector of the economy?

With tax revenue down, can taxpayors of this and future generations continue to subsidize increasing government spending?

Where does it end?

Is owning a vehicle now a "right?"



G&P


I couldn't have said it better myself. I completely agree.

The "gimme gimme gimme" mentality will lead us down a road that is far worse than the one we're on now, it already it. When healthcare, housing, automobiles are all rights - there is a HUGE problem. This is the government's underhanded way of enticing everyone to go green, at tax payer's expense. I do believe we need to take care of our environment, however, I don't believe using tax payer dollars like this is wise. There is talk of monitoring everyone's heating/cooling as well as enforcing laws so you can't sell your home unless it's "green". Where is our freedom? Where is our personal choice? I fear this administration. In 2012 I will say "I told you so". Just sayin'

There is talk
Yup. Lots of that going on right now.

Yup. Lots of that going on right now.


How incredibly mature of you. Do you have your head so far up your that you can't see what's truly going on? This administration is scary. I have disagreed, obviously, with presidents, senators, administrations but this is the first time I have ever been literally scared.

Obama is not unicorns and ponies and green trees and the end all be all to a "better" America.

I believe in smaller government, working hard for what you have, using Welfare/hand outs to rehabilitate people, liberty, the constitution and lower taxes. If that pisses you off and you want to retort with childish, impish remarks so be it. Perhaps open a book or do some research and come back with why you're so displeased with my comment. Until then, please refrain from typing to me.

Perhaps open a book or do some research and come back with why you're so displeased with my comment. Until then, please refrain from typing to me.
I'm a registered Republican. I have done research. I have listened to other Republicans as well as Dems and have listened to middle-of-the-roaders. I read everything I can get my hands on, pro and con. I work in a public library. There IS a lot of scary talk going on now--talk by Republicans who have the facts all wrong and are twisting the truth. That's why I commented on your comment that "there's talk."

How can we be sure the Republicans have the facts all wrong when the Dems are so anxious to push everything through without reading it?

I am not about to believe that everything is going good until years later when I see the true results. Until then I don't trust a thing they are doing or trying to do.

How can we be sure the Republicans have the facts all wrong when the Dems are so anxious to push everything through without reading it?Hello N0:

Let's start with, the Democrats want to kill your grandma... Now, you don't have to like Democrats. You don't have to agree with Democrats... But, even you can't believe they're doing that...

So, as long as the Republicans are running around harping THAT crap, WE can be absolutely SURE they have the facts wrong.

You HAVE been following this particular argument on the other thread, haven't you?? The Wolverine and I took it apart and put it back together again. Only the sadly misinformed could have walked away from that argument believing that granny's days are numbered...

So, any Republican who says that is dead wrong.

excon

There is no such thing as a free lunch, I just don't understand how it is a government or people can't understand that.

On the surface this looks like a great idea, stimulate auto sales, that is; give your new business a little helping hand with public money and at the same time reduce the carbon footprint of all those cars. A Win-Win situation. It would be if the new cars bought were actually new models but they aren't, the new models aren't available yet, all that is happening is existing stocks are getting cleared out. It's sort of like firing a shot though the barrel of a rifle that hasn't been used for a while. Yes, some 1990's models might get retired but some of those might have been more efficient than the guzzlers around today

When will you learn not to listen to the hype, what is happening is people are borrowing money to buy new cars at a time when their future is uncertain, a good deal because you got a discount on an over priced model. It's just the same old horse trading with a new twist, give the sucker more than the old clunker is worth and he will run to buy the new one off the dealers lot, then the government's motor company can start pumping out more

There truly is one born every minute and I bet I know where they live.

Hello N0:

Let's start with, the Democrats wanna kill your grandma.... Now, you don't have to like Democrats. You don't have to agree with Democrats... But, even you can't believe they're doing that....

So, as long as the Republicans are running around harping THAT crap, WE can be absolutely SURE they have the facts wrong.

You HAVE been following this particular argument on the other thread, haven't you??? The Wolverine and I took it apart and put it back together again. Only the sadly misinformed could have walked away from that argument believing that granny's days are numbered...

So, any Republican who says that is dead wrong.

excon

We'll see

ABC news reported yesterday that this is killing the low end used car business . A lot owner sarcastically said that they are considering asking for a government bailout . No doubt it is also negatively impacting the auto repair industry.

there is no such thing as a free lunch, I just don't understand how it is a government or people can't understand that.

On the surface this looks like a great idea, stimulate auto sales, that is; give your new business a little helping hand with public money and at the same time reduce the carbon footprint of all those cars. A Win-Win situation. It would be if the new cars bought were actually new models but they arn't, the new models arn't available yet, all that is happening is existing stocks are getting cleared out. It's sort of like firing a shot though the barrel of a rifle that hasn't been used for a while. yes, some 1990's models might get retired but some of those might have been more efficient than the guzzlers around today

When will you learn not to listen to the hype, what is happening is people are borrowing money to buy new cars at a time when their future is uncertain, a good deal because you got a discount on an over priced model. It's just the same old horse trading with a new twist, give the sucker more than the old clunker is worth and he will run to buy the new one off the dealers lot, then the government's motor company can start pumping out more

There truely is one born every minute and I bet I know where they live.

Exactly. This is about moving cars, if you really want to reduce your carbon foot print, don't drive. Walk. Move out of the subburbs and closer to your job. You can have an old truck that gets 10 mpg, if you live around the corner from where you work, you will still burn less gas on the drive that someone who drives a hybrid 70 miles one way.

Common sense. Want to save gas? Don't drive! It's not rocket science.

Oh, and America is all about hype. It's one thing we are still good at producing. And the funny part is, it's our biggest export, and the world can't get enough of it!

Let's start with, the Democrats want to kill your grandma... Now, you don't have to like Democrats. You don't have to agree with Democrats... But, even you can't believe they're doing that...

So, any Republican who says that is dead wrong.

All we've done is quote the people behind the "reform," like the president (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7919991)...


Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

Or this guy...

qsx_QILgzjc


Remember, our population is aging. And with the very, very elderly, the costs go down, so that percentage should be falling, and it’s not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much, so at the same percentage, it’s worth a lot more. So let’s go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness, which we’re supporting. That’s where that can have a big impact. It’s not only there, but that’s where the waste is. That’s where people are using technologies that really either don’t work at all or keep people alive for for very limited [time] and [at] very high cost.

Hospice is one option, but we do need take account of the cost — you know,
I hate to say it, the cost-benefit of some of the things we do. And either we can do it directly, or we can do it by bundling the payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it’s a combination of the delivery system dealing with it, or, and/or providing more information for people to make the right decisions, both for themselves and for the care.

Exactly. This is about moving cars, if you really want to reduce your carbon foot print, don't drive. Walk. Move out of the subburbs and closer to your job. You can have an old truck that gets 10 mpg, if you live around the corner from where you work, you will still burn less gas on the drive that someone who drives a hybrid 70 miles one way.

Common sence. Wanna save gas? Don't drive! It's not rocket science.

Oh, and America is all about hype. It's one thing we are still good at producing. And the funny part is, it's our biggest export, and the world can't get enough of it!

So... what do you do if you happen to live someplace like Texas or Nevada, or Indiana, where your job may be 40 miles away, and there's no reliable public transportation? How do you NOT drive in such a situation.

I love it when people come up with these "brilliant" solutions to not using oil. "Don't Drive". Some people don't have that option. Your brilliant solution doesn't work if there are no options.

Hello N0:

Let's start with, the Democrats wanna kill your grandma....

As I have said in there past, the Dems don't want to kill her. They just don't want to save her. And both Obama and Ezekiel Emmanuel have said it publicly.

So it AIN'T false. It is in fact 100% true and demonstrable from the statements of the people who wrote and support the bill.

Next accusation of falsehood please...

Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“
More republican falsehoods:
PolitiFact | Lungren says Obama would have government require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/03/dan-lungren/lungren-says-obama-would-have-government-require-c/)

More republican falsehoods:
PolitiFact | Lungren says Obama would have government require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/03/dan-lungren/lungren-says-obama-would-have-government-require-c/)

NK, where did I say government would "require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker?" I didn't, I just quoted Obama's words as printed in ABC news, so don't portray me as spreading "Republican falsehoods."

If you can't take what the supporters, sponsors and the bill itself say for what it is that's not my problem. When Obama says AARP endorsed his plan and they haven't, that he plans on cutting Medicare and Medicaid spending by $500 billion while saying he won't cut benefits, that we will have choice when we won't, that he's never support single payer when he has, then you need to rethink where the falsehoods are coming from. In fact, he should be reported to the Whitehouse Un-american Activities Committee at [email protected].

Dude you are a lying SOB. That text does not occur in the ABC news transcript as per your post: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Cash for Clunkers works, so Republicans say Nooooo (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1918810-post87.html)

I urge everyone to check it out. At no point does the text “Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“ appear there. You added it in.

Absolutely pathetic.

Dude you are a lying SOB. That text does not occur in the ABC news transcript as per your post: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Cash for Clunkers works, so Republicans say Nooooo (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1918810-post87.html)

I urge everyone to check it out. At no point does the text “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“ appear there. You added it in.

Absolutely pathetic.

By golly you caught me red handed... relying on an inaccurate or outdated link instead of the video.

U-dQfb8WQvo

You're such an a$$, more interested in destroying me than the veracity of the quote.

By golly you caught me red handed...relying on an inaccurate or outdated link instead of the video.

That's the edited video that you guys propagate, here's the complete one: YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm take a pill (long version in context) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw)

Now show where in the ABC link you posted does the text you quoted appear.

That's the edited video that you guys propogate, here's the complete one: YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm take a pill (long version in context) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw)

Now show where in the ABC link you posted does the text you quoted appear.

So... did he tell her to take a pill or not? Seems to me that he did, even in this longer "in context" version.

Or are you saying he never said it?

Face it, NK. You've been punk'd by your own words. Give it up now.

Elliot

That's the edited video that you guys propogate, here's the complete one: YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm take a pill (long version in context) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw)

Now show where in the ABC link you posted does the text you quoted appear.

I guess you don't get the idea of an innocent mistake or understand the word veracity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veracity).

Speech, you and ET should consummate your relationship. :)

speech, you and ET should consummate your relationship. :)

Unlike you, NK, neither Speech nor I go that way.

Oh I see - you're saying I'm a homosexual! Hahahahahahha! Got me there!

Oh I see - you're saying I'm a homosexual! Hahahahahahha! Got me there!

As opposed to you saying that Speech and I are homosexual?

Nahhh. That would be a sexual slurr.

speech, you and ET should consummate your relationship. :)

I've been happily, heterosexually married for 25 years thank you.

I've been happily, heterosexually married for 25 years thank you.

How'd you pull that off?

:D

Elliot

Oh, and America is all about hype. It's one thing we are still good at producing. And the funny part is, it's our biggest export, and the world can't get enough of it!

Actually Andrew it's an urban legend in America that the world needs more american hype, we are full up to here already with the "hype" produced by Mc Donalds, KFC, Burger King, GM, Matel, Ford, Chrysler, should I go on. I really don't need a JeeP. We even had Arnie selling cars in our TV ads. I actually think there would be no TV advertising here without american companies and that would be an improvement.

What we need you to do is listen to your own hype and pull yourselves out of your mess without any help from us

How'd you pull that off?

:D

Elliot

Well I didn't say there wasn't a little work involved :)

So... what do you do if you happen to live someplace like Texas or Nevada, or Indiana, where your job may be 40 miles away, and there's no reliable public transportation? How do you NOT drive in such a situation.

I love it when people come up with these "brilliant" solutions to not using oil. "Don't Drive". Some people don't have that option. Your brilliant solution doesn't work if there are no options.


Simple: Do not live in such a place.

It CAN be done, believe it or not, having a car is a very recent trend. For 4,000 years, humanity seemed to chug along without them.
Now in the last 50 years we can't live without them...

Actually Andrew it's an urban legend in America that the world needs more american hype, we are full up to here already with the "hype" produced by Mc Donalds, KFC, Burger King, GM, Matel, Ford, Chrysler, should I go on. I really don't need a JeeP. We even had Arnie selling cars in our TV ads. I actually think there would be no TV advertising here without american companies and that would be an improvement.

What we need you to do is listen to your own hype and pull yourselves out of your mess without any help from us

Fear not, half that stuff you listed is not longer produced here anymore anyway.

And a big Mac IS NOT an "American Cheeseburger"

You want an "American Cheeseburger" stop off at the Citgo station off exit 114 on I81 in VA. KFC, isn't american food either, you want real chicken, I can direct you to a nice market in Radford that still serves up fried biscuits with honey.

THAT is American food!

Fear not, half that stuff you listed is not longer produced here anymore anyway.

And a big Mac IS NOT an "American Cheeseburger"

You want an "American Cheeseburger" stop off at the Citgo station off of exit 114 on I81 in VA. KFC, isn't american food either, you want real chicken, I can direct you to a nice market in Radford that still serves up fried biscuits with honey.

THAT is American food!

Well I'm glad to hear it all isn't american food but who thought it up, not us I can tell you. Chicken was a delicacy before the Yanks brought KFC here and hambergers were great big things full of real food before McDonalds turned up. I don't want an american cheesberger, I prefer beetroot and lettuce and tomato with my mince meat

So all you have proven is you have exported your junk to the rest of the world along with your industries which as I said we don't need anyway and we don't need fries with that, another outdated american concept

So all you have proven is you have exported your junk to the rest of the world along with your industries which as I said we don't need anyway and we don't need fries with that, another outdated american concept

You make it sound like it's forced upon you. If there were no market for Micky D's there ,they would pull up stakes and go home.

Simple: Do not live in such a place.

It CAN be done, believe it or not, having a car is a very recent trend. For 4,000 years, humanity seemed to chug along without them.
Now in the last 50 years we can't live without them...

OK... so all of the people living in MOST of California (which is the most populace state in the union, but doesn't have a reliable statewide transit system) should move into the cities like LA and San Francisco.

People living in the northern part of NY State should all move into the city of New York or Buffalo, two of the most densely populated cities in the nation.

People from all the rural or suburban parts of the country should move to urban areas.

All so that they can stop driving cars and save gas.

Gee, that won't cause any problems at all, will it?

With higher population density in already populated cities, we won't see any issues with increased crime, disease, or demand for basic products like food, clothing and shelter, will we? Not to mention greater demand for energy in order to heat/cool all those new homes that would have to be built to accommodate these people.

And where would food be produced and by whom, if everyone is living in the cities in order to have public transportation? Who would do the farming?

Where would all these former ruralites and suburbanites find jobs if they all moved to the cities?

What about overpopulation in already densely populated urban centers?

What about overtaxing the already overstressed infrastructure of the cities... the electrical system, the water works, sewage systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS...

Your silly solution, andrew, is incredibly short-sighted, and actually creates more problems than it solves.

It is easy to say that for most of history we did just fine without cars. But it misses some basic facts of modern society. For most of history we lived in an agrarian society. We live in a modern (post)industrial society now, which means that travel is REQUIRED as part of our day-to-day responsibilities for work.

In the old days, families grew enough food to feed themselves and a little extra to sell in the markets, if they were lucky. And essentially, they did it in their own backyards.

Today, NOBODY except professional farmers produces enough food for their families, and are REQUIRED to purchase their food. In order to do so, they must work at a job that is either industrial or service-based. Either of these require that they travel. They must travel to the place where they will provide the service, or they must travel to the centralized location where they perform the task required to complete the industrial task required of them. Either way travel is a requirement for their jobs.

Another fact that you completely ignore is that we have never before in our history had as many people on the planet as we do today. There are 6 BILLION people on Planet Earth. There are 307 MILLION of them in the USA. The agrarian-based economy that worked for 1 billion people world-wide 200 years ago cannot work today. What worked for 7.25 million people in the year 1810 (actual census number) cannot work for 307 million today. Travel is required because the basis of our economy is different today.

The horse-and-buggy worked fine when you were born, lived your life, and were buried all within a 20-mile radius, with your entire family within walking distance, and your "work" (ei: your farm) was right outside your back door.

Today, in a world in which people travel literally hundreds of miles every day to go to and from work, and in which travel across the country to meet clients is required for many jobs, the horse-and-buggy system cannot possibly work.

The world has changed. We went through this thing called the "Industrial Revolution", and it changed how the economy works. Your pre-industrial concepts cannot apply to modern society.

Elliot

I always find it amusing when others complain about us exporting our junk to the rest of the world, it isn't us keeping them afloat in your country. Someone in Australia must appreciate McDonald's presence, their sales jumped almost 14 percent last year (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24972856-2862,00.html) to $6.5 billion, so don't blame us, Clete... that's a hefty chunk of change you guys willingly dropped on our "junk."

So the deal is that for trading in gus guzzlers you get a break on buying fuel efficient new cars... right ?

Wrong .

Included in the eligible vehicles are the Cadillac SRX 6 cyl. Model ,the Ford 150 truck ,the Lexus RX 350 ,Lincoln MKX,the BMW X3 crossover utility vehicle;and yes even the Hummer H3T.
Many of these get worse gas milage than the vehicles eligible for trade in.

SPIN METER: $3 billion buys not-so-green vehicles - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_clunkers_not_so_green;_ylt=ApKD._hnvW636crk9mWd Dmms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM2b3I5MTQzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkw ODEzL3VzX2NsdW5rZXJzX25vdF9zb19ncmVlbgRjcG9zAzIEcG 9zAzUEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xr A3NwaW5tZXRlcjNiaQ)

Hello Elliot, your post was long, so I will cover each response one by one, my response in italics.

OK... so all of the people living in MOST of California (which is the most populace state in the union, but doesn't have a reliable statewide transit system) should move into the cities like LA and San Francisco.
Only if they want to. I personally wouldn't want to live in a big city like that. However there are numurous smaller cities with smaller cost of living outside of California, if I lost my job tomorrow, I can think of several metropolitan areas off the top of my head where I can most likley find a job with an apartment or trailer somewhere within a 10 mile radius of my work place. Roanoke, Winston Salem, Charlotte NC, possibly Charleston WV, Bristol, Knoxville.... etc...
But those who are fine with the commute are free to do as they wish, it is afterall a free country. Personally, if gas was FREE I still wouldn't want to drive 50 miles one way to work every day.

People living in the northern part of NY State should all move into the city of New York or Buffalo, two of the most densely populated cities in the nation.
Again, only if they want to, but who says they have to move to NYC? I'm sure there are smaller cities and towns with gainfull employment opertunities.

People from all the rural or suburban parts of the country should move to urban areas.
Perhaps, around here they are one in the same. If you live on a road where farms are abound, you are never far from some out of the way suburb.

All so that they can stop driving cars and save gas.
Yup, if they so desire. You can also get a scooter.

Gee, that won't cause any problems at all, will it?
Sure it will. All methods cause problems. What we have now causes problems. Electric cars will have their issues too. The trick is to learn the lesser of several evils, and find what works for each indivudual.

With higher population density in already populated cities, we won't see any issues with increased crime, disease, or demand for basic products like food, clothing and shelter, will we? Not to mention greater demand for energy in order to heat/cool all those new homes that would have to be built to accommodate these people.
There are still things to do out in the rural areas, farms to tend, "good ol boys" will fix up old cars for money. I'm not convinced that EVERY person would just up and leave the rural areas to live in the city, nor do I think everyone should. By some people's standards, where I live, all be it, in a chartered town, may still be considered "rural". However for the time being, I have gainful employment here, don't know for how much longer, but as of today, it's still here. And if I lost my job tomorrow, then I suppose I would have to move to an area where I could find a job, it may be a small town of 2,000 people, it may be a larger city. But I have to keep food on the table.

And where would food be produced and by whom, if everyone is living in the cities in order to have public transportation? Who would do the farming?
My comment above covers this.

Where would all these former ruralites and suburbanites find jobs if they all moved to the cities?
The idea is to move closer to your job. I was assuming they already have a job to move closer to. Are you suggesting they had a job in the suburbs? Then why the 50 mile commute?

What about overpopulation in already densely populated urban centers?
If a cup is already runneth full, a couple more drops probably won't hurt anything. I wouldn't expect everyone to just run to the city, it would be gradual, and I feel the city would accomidate to it. And like I said earlier, there are still job prospects in the rural areas, so not everyone would move.

What about overtaxing the already overstressed infrastructure of the cities... the electrical system, the water works, sewage systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS...
I don't think they are as overtaxed as the media would have you beleive. I feel it's a tactic they use to sap tax dollars. As in the federal government, there is wasteful spending right down to the local level.

Your silly solution, andrew, is incredibly short-sighted, and actually creates more problems than it solves.
Maybe silly to some, but it works for me, and frankly, that's where my concern ends. I'm not burning up $500 per month in gas, not to mention the hours lost on the road.

It is easy to say that for most of history we did just fine without cars. But it misses some basic facts of modern society. For most of history we lived in an agrarian society. We live in a modern (post)industrial society now, which means that travel is REQUIRED as part of our day-to-day responsibilities for work.
Agreed- but who said we have to drive everywhere. 50 years ago, people rode the train. The train that rolls downtown now don't stop here anymore. We have no passenger station. I personally feel that rail would be a viable solution. Almost every small town in America has a rail line running through it.

In the old days, families grew enough food to feed themselves and a little extra to sell in the markets, if they were lucky. And essentially, they did it in their own backyards.
And imagine how nice things would be if they still were done that way, I have a lot of people around me that take pride in their home grown produce etc. I myself am working towards that. Most people even then had a job of some sort, however the super market had yet to be conceived. Home preserving was the only way to get through the winter. Some people still live by that today.

Today, NOBODY except professional farmers produces enough food for their families, and are REQUIRED to purchase their food. In order to do so, they must work at a job that is either industrial or service-based. Either of these require that they travel. They must travel to the place where they will provide the service, or they must travel to the centralized location where they perform the task required to complete the industrial task required of them. Either way travel is a requirement for their jobs.
Agreed

Another fact that you completely ignore is that we have never before in our history had as many people on the planet as we do today. There are 6 BILLION people on Planet Earth. There are 307 MILLION of them in the USA. The agrarian-based economy that worked for 1 billion people world-wide 200 years ago cannot work today. What worked for 7.25 million people in the year 1810 (actual census number) cannot work for 307 million today. Travel is required because the basis of our economy is different today.
Perhaps we need more wars to kill some of these pesky people off... J/K: Actually, I think my comments above would about cover this. However you seem to forget that there is no free lunch. This is being proven today. People who can not afford the drive to work, don't work, they go on food stamps, or welfare, that is until Uncle Sam runs out of money and they can't buy the food anymore. Personally, I feel that we are getting near (if we haven't already gotten there) to the point where our planet will no longer be able to support everyone. We will soon run out of resources, even renewable, because it can't grow fast enough.

The horse-and-buggy worked fine when you were born, lived your life, and were buried all within a 20-mile radius, with your entire family within walking distance, and your "work" (ei: your farm) was right outside your back door.
How old do you think I am? I've never even rode a horse. Jefferson Mills (a sock factory - moved to Mexico) is practically in my back yard. If they were still in production, and I worked there I probably would walk to work.

Today, in a world in which people travel literally hundreds of miles every day to go to and from work, and in which travel across the country to meet clients is required for many jobs, the horse-and-buggy system cannot possibly work.
I'm not talking about direct business related travel, such as to meet clients. All that is done in the nature of the business. I'm simple referring to the commute to and from work. I myself drive a service van, but as I don't pay for the gas, it is not an expense I factor in my personal budget.

HOWEVER- They allow me to take the van home BUT if they didn't then I would certainly move closer to Roanoke where the home office is at. Currently I am 50 miles from there, and service areas close to my home. But like I said, if that ever changed, then I woudln't think twice about finding a place to live in or around Roanoke. Like I said- it's a personal CHOICE.

The world has changed. We went through this thing called the "Industrial Revolution", and it changed how the economy works. Your pre-industrial concepts cannot apply to modern society.
I'm not an idiot, I know what the "Industrial Revoltution" is. And that is CERTAINLY" not taking place in America, I'd argue we are going through an "Unindustrial Revolution".
I also know that the industrial revolution had its roots in the late 1800's. Most people didn't start owning a car until the 30's and 40's. Some even later than that. Id say the age of the 50 mile commute even later.

So all you have proven is you have exported your junk to the rest of the world along with your industries which as I said we don't need anyway and we don't need fries with that, another outdated american concept

Well, if the rest of the world doesn't want our factories, then I personally wouldn't mind seeing the back home. No argument here. To that I say, if people don't want our American crap- then stop buying it. but it's all made in other countries now anyway, so the point is invalid. Turn off the satillite. Do you're Australian thing.

Tell me, do you speak for all of Australia? Because you have quite an "anti American" tone about you. I always thought the two got along good.

I always find it amusing when others complain about us exporting our junk to the rest of the world, it isn't us keeping them afloat in your country. Someone in Australia must appreciate McDonald's presence, their sales jumped almost 14 percent last year (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24972856-2862,00.html) to $6.5 billion, so don't blame us, Clete...that's a hefty chunk of change you guys willingly dropped on our "junk."

It's the kids you know, no savvy. The secret of Mcdonald's success is bigger car parks. Your corner take away doesn't have that luxury and of course we are a very mobile society always going hither, thither and yon

Well, if the rest of the world doesn't want our factories, then I personally wouldn't mind seeing the back home. No arguement here. To that I say, if people don't want our American crap- then stop buying it., but it's all made in other countries now anyway, so the point is invalid. Turn off the satillite. Do you're Austrailian thing.

Tell me, do you speak for all of Austrailia? Because you have quite an "anti American" tone about you. I always thought the two got along good.

It's hard to stop buying your junk we have such a thing as a FTA with you so all sorts of things turn up here like out of season cherrys. Personally I don't buy it if I have a choice but with labeling the way it is how can you be sure of the origin of anything. I expect the expensive stuff is local and so it's a good guide.

As to the anti american tone, I was abused by one of your "diplomats" in my own country early in my career and came to understand what you truly think about us, so the feelings mutual

Well, paraclete, andrewc24301 hasn't done anything to you, I'm just a simple man trying to get through life like everyone else. You are not buying "my" junk. I don't even produce things, I fix other people's junk for a living, no matter what country it came from.

You should not hold an entire nation accountable for what a handful of people do. One thing America is, is diverse. There's idiots in every nation, even Australia.

There are even a small handful of people who think I know what I'm talking about!

You're feelings about America sort of echo mine from China, we get all their crap. But it's not the Chinese people, like me, and you, they are just trying to make a living. Nothing wrong with that, and I sometimes have to remind myself of that when another plant closes up and ships hundreds more jobs overseas. It's not the people's fault, it's the powers that be.

Well, paraclete, andrewc24301 hasn't done anything to you, I'm just a simple man trying to get through life like everyone else. You are not buying "my" junk. I don't even produce things, I fix other people's junk for a living, no matter what country it came from.

You should not hold an entire nation accountable for what a handful of people do. One thing America is, is diverse. There's idiots in every nation, even Austrailia.

There are even a small handful of people who think I know what I'm talking about!

You're feelings about America sort of echo mine from China, we get all their crap. But it's not the Chinese people, like me, and you, they are just trying to make a living. Nothing wrong with that, and I sometimes have to remind myself of that when another plant closes up and ships hundreds more jobs overseas. It's not the people's fault, its the powers that be.

Yes, Andrew, the Chinese people are nice and helpful and their government is a crock, so I expect they have a lot in common with Americans on that count
But shipping your industries offshore so you can buy crap versions of what you made well yourselves doesn't make sense. Hey, I know, we did it too and now it's hard to find anything other than cars that are made here. It is imperialism/communism by stealth, after all; Marx or one of those said we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself, and I expect that rope is chinese made of US Dollar bills. So our governments have forgotten the lessons of history and are marching us in lockstep to our doom. So much for conspiracy theories, but the current approach to recession is all wrong. When you cannot afford something borrowing the money to buy it isn't always a good idea

Well, you won't hear me argue the point that our entire government is a crock. Both democrats and republicans.

But back to borrowing money to buy stuff you can't afford. Unfortunately, that seems to be the American way. Of course, many Americans are toning down their spending. I wish I could say the same for our federal government.

I understand the cash for clunkers concept. But the whole thing just seems so wasteful. To disable a completley good car, and reduce it to scrap and junk. It will surely create a slight supply and demand problem when these cars from the late 90's and early 2000's would have come into my market. (I buy my cars when they have exceeded 100,000 miles, normally for around $2,000 or less). I have yet to own a car that's year model was past 1997. 1994 seems to be a popular year for me latley. Eventually I will break the 2000 threshold, but thanks to this new big idea from DC, the pickings will be smaller.

I'm not convinced that this whole thing is about the environment. I feel it is meant to move cars out of showrooms and onto the streets. If it were really about the environment, then we'd be doing something about all these trucks on the interstates, and make better use of an alternative system. Such as rail. But not the old rail lines of the 1800's that our system uses today. And updated rail system, that can carry electricity to power the locomotives, simillar to a model rail line. Granted, the electricity to move the cars may be from coal fired power plants, but as time progresses, we will being finding cleaner sources of electricity.

These clean rail cars are what can propell folks like Elliot from LA to where ever he lives. Transportation infrastructure? All we have to do is build it! 200 years ago, all that was in the western states was wilderness. Look at it now! If we can burn through billions of dollars a year for God knows what, why can't we apply some of this money to some actual infrastructure upgrades as opposed to just throwing money at people so they can go to walmart an buy more Chinese flat screet TV's.

Now, sit back and lets here it from the "nay sayers" who will list 100 reasons it won't work. What they won't say is we are doomed to fail anyway. Why not give it a shot?

So the deal is that for trading in gus guzzlers you get a break on buying fuel efficient new cars .....right ?

Wrong .

Included in the eligible vehicles are the Cadillac SRX 6 cyl. model ,the Ford 150 truck ,the Lexus RX 350 ,Lincoln MKX,the BMW X3 crossover utility vehicle;and yes even the Hummer H3T.
Many of these get worse gas milage than the vehicles eligible for trade in.

SPIN METER: $3 billion buys not-so-green vehicles - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_clunkers_not_so_green;_ylt=ApKD._hnvW636crk9mWd Dmms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM2b3I5MTQzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkw ODEzL3VzX2NsdW5rZXJzX25vdF9zb19ncmVlbgRjcG9zAzIEcG 9zAzUEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xr A3NwaW5tZXRlcjNiaQ)


I'm not convinced that this whole thing is about the enviorment. I feel it is meant to move cars out of showrooms and onto the streets.

-Andy

Andrew,

You are now saying that the solution you posed... don't drive... is an OPTION.

Fine. I agree with that 100%.

But that is not what you said in your original post. You stated it as "THE SOLUTION" to the problem. And the only way for something like that to work is for EVERYONE to do it. Otherwise, it doesn't solve anything, does it?

So, if you are saying that you feel that people should be free to CHOOSE lifestyles that don't require them to drive... great. Wonderful. I'm all for free choice.

But if you are saying that everyone should be required to make that choice, I will gladly point out why it wouldn't work.

As for your "drop in the bucket" comment, in which you said that the overpopulation of cities won't be all that much of an issue...

Here are some statistical facts. As of 2007, the 10 largest cities in the USA, with their populations, were:


1 New York, New York - 8,274,527
2 Los Angeles, California - 3,834,340
3 Chicago, Illinois - 2,836,658
4 Houston, Texas - 2,208,180
5 Phoenix, Arizona - 1,522,259
6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,449,634
7 San Antonio, Texas - 1,328,984
8 San Diego, California - 1,266,731
9 Dallas, Texas - 1,240,499
10 San Jose, California - 939,899


That's roughly 25 million people.

That leaves roughly 282 million that don't live in large cities. MOST of them live in suburban areas and rural areas rather than smaller cities.

The migration of 90% of the population of the USA into cities that are already densely populated, just so that they don't have to drive to work, would be much more than "a drop in the bucket" in terms of overpopulation.

One last point... you talked about how nice it would be if we all got back to farming. Then we wouldn't need to drive to work.

Do you know how modern farming is done? They no longer use oxen or horses to drive their plows. Even organic farmers use modern equipment like combines to do their plowing, planting, harvesting, etc. Combines use a lot of fuel. If EVERYBODY became a farmer, they'd be using equipment that requires MUCH MORE FUEL than a car does, and they'd be using it for much longer during the day. The net result would be MORE fuel usage, not less.

Plus the non-organic farmers need to spread chemicals to keep the food from being eaten by bugs while still in the ground, chemicals to keep the weeds from choking out the plants, chemicals to help the plants grow better, etc. All of that requires machinery that uses a lot of fuel.

The organic farmers don't use as many chemicals... but they have to plant three times as much land in order to get the same level of crops as a non-organic farmer. (Ask any Amish farmer, if you don't believe me. Or any other organic farmer. The Amish don't use modern machinery to farm, they still use oxen. But other organic farmers use modern equipment.)

In order to take care of 3 times as much land, you need three times as much fuel to use the machinery necessary to cultivate the land, plant, harvest. Killing the weeds without chemicals takes additional machinery, which also requires fuel... more fuel than it would take to just spray the area with weed killer.

Your ideas SOUND very pretty... until you get into the details. Then they kind of break down in the face of reality. It actually takes MORE fuel to accomplish what you are proposing than it would to simply drive to work and let the professional farmers just do their jobs.

Elliot

it's the kids you know, no savvy. the secret of Mcdonald's success is bigger car parks. your corner take away doesn't have that luxury and of course we are a very mobile society always going hither, thither and yon

That still doesn't make it our fault. You guys are the one's spending the bucks there and keeping them in business.

Elliot:

Everyone is required to choose something. I'm not suggesting everyone follow my lead and live life the way I do. My lifestyle won't work for everyone. But if you are not required to choose something, then you are required to have a decision made for you.

You have lost me on one thing though.. how exactly did we get on this discussion from clunkers anyway? All I said was I thought it was wasteful to ruin all those good cars. The bottom line is about saving money, and once you have a car paid for, you save lots of money to the bank. Even enough to make up for fuel charges.

I'm not going to debate how to fix every problem in the world, there are people a lot smarter than me and still they can't even figure it all out. One thing is for certain, the system we have now is failing. And Obama better pray that his plans work, otherwise we are all going to be in big trouble.

Okay, I see where it came from now...


Exactly. This is about moving cars, if you really want to reduce your carbon foot print, don't drive. Walk. Move out of the subburbs and closer to your job. You can have an old truck that gets 10 mpg, if you live around the corner from where you work, you will still burn less gas on the drive that someone who drives a hybrid 70 miles one way.

Common sence. Wanna save gas? Don't drive! It's not rocket science.

Oh, and America is all about hype. It's one thing we are still good at producing. And the funny part is, it's our biggest export, and the world can't get enough of it!

Okay, I stand by my post. It's accurate, however there are sacrifices you make, I have made them. It's a choice. Although the intent of the comment wasn't to step on a nerve.

Scooters are very fun to ride though...

I understand the cash for clunkers concept. But the whole thing just seems so wasteful. To disable a completley good car, and reduce it to scrap and junk. It will surley create a slight supply and demand problem when these cars from the late 90's and early 2000's would have come into my market. (I buy my cars when they have exceeded 100,000 miles, normally for around $2,000 or less). I have yet to own a car that's year model was past 1997. 1994 seems to be a popular year for me latley. Eventually I will break the 2000 threshold, but thanks to this new big idea from DC, the pickings will be smaller.

I'm not convinced that this whole thing is about the enviorment. I feel it is meant to move cars out of showrooms and onto the streets. If it were really about the enviorment, then we'd be doing something about all these trucks on the interstates, and make better use of an alternative system. Such as rail. But not the old rail lines of the 1800's that our system uses today. And updated rail system, that can carry electricity to power the locomotives, simillar to a model rail line. Granted, the electricity to move the cars may be from coal fired power plants, but as time progresses, we will being finding cleaner sources of electricity.


Andy you would like it in New Zealand they used to have a law that all freight over 100 miles had to travel on rail and the trucking industry never recovered, the long distance roads over there are free of trucks, of course it is more expensive to live there.

You must travel a lot less that we do and have good weather I would expect a car to reach 100K in five years and be clapped out due to rust

Yes electric trains are more efficient but rail infurstructure can be very expensive and these days takes a lot of concrete which brings us back to manufacturing pollution

Okay, I see where it came from now...



Okay, I stand by my post. It's accurate, however there are sacrifices you make, I have made them. It's a choice. Although the intent of the comment wasn't to step on a nerve.

Scooters are very fun to ride though...

Bring back the bicycle for city transport, solves the obesity problem too

Clete ;good point .The US subsidizes a national rail service and it is a money loser . Across the country local mass transit faces the same problem even as the recession has made travel by rail and buses more popular than ever. In DC, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, is facing a $176 million budget gap at the same time their customer base is increasing . They are considering cut backs in service and personel . Other cities are considering eliminating routes and reducing frequencies include Denver, Phoenix, Baltimore, and San Diego. Many are raising fares making travel by rail less competitive.

Meanwhile I content that if the Volt and other electric plug in's ever did take off it would crash the grid. There are very few locations in the country that are increasing electric generating capacity;and very little of our generation is not fossil fuel based.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-electric-cars-wreck-the-grid

One possible alternative to supplement the electricity needed is being developed by Michelin tire. Their new “Active Wheel” concept would put an electric generator in the wheels of a hybrid capable of an output of 30 kilowatts of power—per wheel.

Tom I cannot get excited at a car generating it's own power there is the law of thermodynmanics which basically says some energy is lost in closed system, you cannot get 100% efficiency, so ultimately it winds down to zero. Anything you get will be a small percentage of input

I also heard that 20% of your generation is nuclear so you could use that to charge the cars, a little more expensive than coal of course but fully green so exchange uranium for oil and make me rich

Clete is correct, 30 kilowatts would be enough to power the car, however then what you have is a pepetural motion machine, which to date, is considered impossible. Everything must burn some kind of fuel to operate. There is no free lunch.

Consider the horse power that would be needed to turn 4 generators to produce a total of 120 kilowatts. (4 wheels) I'm sure it would be enough to stall the car.

It's the same concept of using a generator to power a motor to power a generator. Effiency is lost, and the machine stops.

It takes 746 watts to equal one horse power. A quick search of the internet reveals a hybird may produce about 175 hp, 175X746=130550 (130kw) Each 4 tires moving at full speed, full throttle, producing 30kw each, equals 120kw. Leaving you with about 10kw left over to power the car. 10kw/746= 13.40HP.

About the size of my riding mower. In other words, these generators would put a considerable drag on the car. Like towing the queen mary. In fact, I'd argue it would be better used as a breaking system in the snow...


I'd put my stock in solar and wind. Emphisis on solar. Nuclear isn't off the table as long as it's respected and built to the highest standard.

All this doesn't even factor the inefficencies of the internal combustion engine which can loose up to 75% of its energy in heat lost.

I also realize that in my above post, at the end, you still have produced 130kw, but I argue that due to efficiencys in the car, engine, etc, you would erode any power gained just trying to keep the car moving along. There are people who have claimed to create a machine that generates more wattage per horse power. Some have claimed to produce several hundred kw from a single HP. Nobody has yet to prove it to the US patent office though. I wish I could remember the guys name, I'd provide a link. Looked into it a few years back.

After about a month of reserch, determined the guy was a fake.

Andrew a few Years ago I had contact with an inventor who claimed that once he got the machine started he could produce electricity continuously. The output of his device was extremely small and he couldn't scale it up. Some things can be done in small scale prototypes but all they do is prove theories, the reality is a long way away and without megabucks of research and years of experimentation nothing happens. I expect Michellen's device is one of these, theoretically possible but not scalable otherwise we would be knee deep in free power by now. The guy I had contact with claimed he was drawing power from another dimension or something like that. Needless to say I didn't invest

As far as I know it takes energy to make energy so nothing is going to be perfect. Michelin's idea sounds like it's worth considering to me.

And of course I clearly said that the Michelin Active wheel was to "supplement " the electricity . In no way did I suggest that it would replace extenal sources.

As for the Chevy Volt ;at $40 grand I want a kick a$$ Bose sound system and an AC /heating system that works . Guess that's out of the question.

Nuff said

NY Dealers Pull Out Of Clunkers Program - Automotive * US * News * Story - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/32478468)

Just heard that the NY auto dealers association has pulled out of this debacle. What does that say for Government control of anything?

Yep, cash for clunkers is still working...


Here's one economic indicator that's flashing green: used-car prices (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703787204574442963304106596.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird).

Prices for second-hand cars took a hit late last year, along with the prices of many other assets. But since the start of this year, a combination of tight supplies of both new and used vehicles and higher demand from a frugal public have pushed average used-car prices to the highest levels in years, industry watchers say. Demand seems particularly strong for used SUVs, analysts say, reflecting lower gas prices.

That should be good news if you are selling or trading in a well-tended used vehicle over the next couple of years. It might not be so welcome if you are trying to buy one.

One widely followed measure of used-car prices, the 14-year-old Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index, will likely hit a record when data for September are released in early October, says Thomas Webb, chief economist for Manheim Consulting, a subsidiary of Cox Enterprises Inc.

What kinds of used vehicles are selling? All kinds, but particularly "gas guzzlers," says Katharine Kenny , vice president of investor relations for CarMax Inc. the big used-vehicle retailer based in Richmond, Va.

Let's see, people quit buying new cars so car makers cut production and cash for clunkers takes 700,000 used cars off the market, so used car prices may hit a record and what are people buying? Gas guzzlers. I love it, lol.

Yeah, and what happens when all those people who really couldn't afford a new car but bought one because of the subsidized down payment default and all those cars come back to the bank?

Yeah, and what happens when all those people who really couldn't afford a new car but bought one because of the subsidized down payment default and all those cars come back to the bank?Hello gal:

You know that shortage of cars in the used car market that Steve mentioned right above you?? It'll reverse that, for sure...

But, don't you see those vast empty lots that USED to house your local car dealer?? I'll bet the towns in Texas have more of 'em than Seattle has. There's a few live ones left, though, but they're on their last threads... I'll bet they only survived because of this program... Maybe you know a secretary, or a mechanic that works there. Isn't it BETTER to keep them open rather than board 'em up. You do know what boarded up stuff looks like, don't you? It looks like the ghetto. Do you want that?

Look, gal. I'm not saying that it won't turn into that anyway. I'm just saying there are results of this program that you can SEE, right in your home town, TODAY. On the other hand, boarding up your town is going to KILL it, for sure.

excon

Yeah, and what happens when all those people who really couldn't afford a new car but bought one because of the subsidized down payment default and all those cars come back to the bank?

Yep, could be another problem.

Excon,

So your solution is to bail out EVERYONE.

Keep them all afloat regardless of whether they are viable or not.

Don't let them fail, or else they might have to be... >gasp<... boarded up.

And in doing so, we make sure that instead of ONLY the business that not viable failing, we instead make sure to bring the rest of the economy to the point of failure too.

What a brilliant solution... kill the entire economy instead of just letting go of the parts that don't work and SHOULD fail.

As it so happens I have three failed used auto dealerships in my loan protfolio right now. The owners abandoned the properties and we foreclosed and took ownership of them.

Y'know what? All three properties have interested buyers looking to start their own dealerships. All three will end up sold to NEW owners. All three will become viable businesses again.

Instead of propping up bad businesses, we allowed them to fail on their own. Oh, we tried modifying the loan terms for the original owners, but they continued to be unable to maintain the business, and we let them go as painlessly as possible.

And the result will be new businesses to take their place.

The result of going out of business is not "boarding up the neighborhood". The result is new business with better capitalization, fewer liabilities, and a better chance of success.

Letting old, badly-run businesses go makes way for the NEWER, stronger businesses.

Elliot

But, don't you see those vast empty lots that USED to house your local car dealer??? I'll bet the towns in Texas have more of 'em than Seattle has. There's a few live ones left, though, but they're on their last threads... I'll bet they only survived because of this program... Maybe you know a secretary, or a mechanic that works there. Isn't it BETTER to keep them open rather than board 'em up. You do know what boarded up stuff looks like, don't you? It looks like the ghetto. Do you want that?

Look, gal. I'm not saying that it won't turn into that anyway. I'm just saying there are results of this program that you can SEE, right in your home town, TODAY. On the other hand, boarding up your town is gonna KILL it, for sure.

Yeah, but I still think it's hilarious that after pushing all those fuel efficient vehicles the demand for gas guzzlers has gone sky high. The Goracle must be reeling from that news.

Excon,

So your solution is to bail out EVERYONEHello Elliot:

It's getting more and more difficult to argue with you, because you distort written words. This is just another example of it.. You apparently DISTORT my support for the Cash for Clunkers program as support for the bailout of, how did you put it, EVERYONE??

The discussion then, instead of being about the issues, devolves into accusations of who said what... The crazy thing about that, is that our writings are left to posterity, and the truth in them becomes evident to anyone who cares to read them...

So, I'm going depart from your "through the looking glass" world you've created for yourself, where up is down, and one thing means another... If you wish to resume discussing real life stuff, let me know, but I'm not going to dignify your hysteria with further responses.

excon

PS> I'm going to copy this post, and paste it where ever necessary in the future. I have a feeling that it's going to be VERY necessary.

Hello Elliot:

It's getting more and more difficult to argue with you, because you distort written words. This is just another example of it.. You apparently DISTORT my support for the Cash for Clunkers program as support for the bailout of, how did you put it, EVERYONE???

Oh... did you just mean all the car dealers?

Because what you said was that cash for clunkers saved the car dealerships. You didn't diffrentiate between them.

You said that if a car dealership is up and running (and you specifically mentioned the large number of them still up and running in Texas as opposed to Seattle) it is because cash for clunkers saved them. And you said that if cash for clunkers had failed, those dealerships would have been closed down, boarded up, and the neighborhoods would have become blighted.

Did you not say that?

Yeah, you did.

As you say... the words are right there for everyone to read.

You said that cash for clunkers saved the car dealerships... WHETHER THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED OR NOT.

And my response, which you have ignored, is that those dealerships SHOULD have been allowed to fail rather than being propped up, because the result would have been newer, stronger, better-capitalized car dealerships.

But you, as usual, ignore substance and instead attack people for answering what you actually posted. Not what you THINK you posted. Not what you MEANT to post. But what you actually posted.

And we both know that the only reason you do it is because you don't have a response for the SUBSTANTIVE parts of my posts. The facts of economic reality keep getting in the way of your Keyensian fantasies, and you have no response to those facts. And so instead you attack.

Post your attack wherever you wish. I'll follow it up with this response.

Elliot

Obviously you were not one of those who got the rebate check... if you were than your computer is now the property of the US Government and all file and pictures contained therein. Oh, and not to mention all foreign governments also.
Good Luck!

Hello sweetpea:

I see you got the right wing emai. Cool. Just checking.

excon

PS> So, it didn't bother you when George W. Bush had the National Security Agency READ your emails and listen to your phone calls, ALL without a warrant?? No, huh?

PPS> The stuff I mentioned REALLY did happen. The stuff you mentioned DIDN'T.

Hello sweetpea:

I see you got the right wing emai. Cool. Just checking.

excon

PS> So, it didn't bother you when George W. Bush had the National Security Agency READ your emails and listen to your phone calls, ALL without a warrant???? No, huh?

PPS> The stuff I mentioned REALLY did happen. The stuff you mentioned DIDN'T.

And does it bother you that those little Obama helpers may also read your emails?

Maybe Obama will just shut you off from the internet if he doesn't like what you post. (Internet neutrality)

Maybe Obama will just shut you off from the internet if he doesn't like what you post. (Internet neutrality)Psst... that's not what Internet Neutrality means. Research it.

Psst...that's not what Internet Neutrality means. Research it.

You think?

We now live in tha age of Newspeak.

What doe the concept of 'net neutrality have to do with Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak?)

What doe the concept of 'net neutrality have to do with Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak?)

I made the newspeak comment because I don't trust anything this administration says.

When the govt says it wants to control anything, just what do you expect? Greater freedom, or less freedom?

The concept of freedom demands that the government keep its hands off the internet. It is just about the last avenue for the free expression of ideas still available to the public.

Hello in:

I don't think those are the right questions to ask. I could, of course, in reply, ask you should the tax payer continue to support the home buying public with a subsidy that allows them to deduct the interest???? Renters don't get squat! And, THAT subsidy, by the way, has been going on a lot longer than our present crisis.

The question is, in my view, as long as it's agreed that government should BE the spender of last resort, and I agree that it should, then shouldn't the money be spent in the most POSITIVE way possible??? I think it should, and I think this is a VERY positive way.

excon

You know, ex, this whole question of tax and cross subsidy can be easily fixed. You abolish all the deductions and lower the tax rate. But in order to do this you have to have a focus on advantaging the poor, not making it easier for the rich. That is too revolutionary a thought for the capitalists who have forgotten that it is the poor who spend every dollar they get. So you make the population the spender of the last resort and you get prosperity, you make government the spender of the last resort and you get stagnation.

You know, ex, this whole question of tax and cross subsidy can be easily fixed. You abolish all the deductions and lower the tax rate. But in order to do this you have to have a focus on advantaging the poor, not making it easier for the rich. That is too revolutionary a thought for the capitalists who have forgotten that it is the poor who spend every dollar they get. So you make the population the spender of the last resort and you get prosperity, you make government the spender of the last resort and you get stagnation.

Actually, Clete, Conservatives have long been fighting for lower tax rates (real tax custs), as opposed to tax rebates. We criticized Bush's tax rebates in 2008 for just that reason... but agreed that it was better than nothing. We also opposed the $13 a week tax rebates in the Obama Stimulus Bill... which he called a "middle class tax cut" but was actually a rebate, not a cut. And because at $13 per week, it really was "nothing".

Where have you been? We've been all for tax cuts from day one.

Elliot

Actually, Clete, Conservatives have long been fighting for lower tax rates (real tax custs), as opposed to tax rebates. We criticized Bush's tax rebates in 2008 for just that reason... but agreed that it was better than nothing. We also opposed the $13 a week tax rebates in the Obama Stimulus Bill... which he called a "middle class tax cut" but was actually a rebate, not a cut. And because at $13 per week, it really was "nothing".

Where have you been? We've been all for tax cuts from day one.

Elliot

Elliot, I said nothing about lower taxes or reductions in government revenue, what I said was do away with (exchange) deductions for a lower tax rate to get rid of cross subsidies because the cross subsidies disadvantage the poor. $13 a week might be significant to the poor even though it is meaningless to you or I. I seen a lot of crackpot tax ideas originating in the US tried here and they all have detrimental results so they must be equally bad for you, but fortunately, we had the good sense to implement a Goods and Services Tax which has resulted in significantly lower rates of Income Tax because the cheats couldn't get out of paying tax when they spent their money, and incidentally you might wonder which economy faired better in the GFC.
We didn't have mortgage securitisation, cash for clunkers, bank bailouts. Insurance bailouts, panic stations to name a few.

Elliot, I said nothing about lower taxes or reductions in government revenue, what I said was do away with (exchange) deductions for a lower tax rate to get rid of cross subsidies because the cross subsidies disadvantage the poor. $13 a week might be significant to the poor even though it is meaningless to you or I. I seen a lot of crackpot tax ideas originating in the US tried here and they all have detrimental results so they must be equally bad for you, but fortunately, we had the good sense to implement a Goods and Services Tax which has resulted in significantly lower rates of Income Tax because the cheats couldn't get out of paying tax when they spent their money, and incidently you might wonder which economy faired better in the GFC.
we didn't have mortgage securitisation, cash for clunkers, bank bailouts. Insurance bailouts, panic stations to name a few.

I'm actually in favor of a Goods & Services tax or a consumption tax instead of an income tax. That is the basis for the Fair Tax that I support. We happen to be in agreement on this point.

Elliot

I think we have to be cautious about any tax other than the income tax, UNLESS THE INCOME TAX IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Otherwise, the Left would later bring back the income tax on top of any other tax that might be implemented.

That's right . The so called progressive income tax has to be repealed.

I think we have to be cautious about any tax other than the income tax, UNLESS THE INCOME TAX IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Otherwise, the Left would later bring back the income tax on top of any other tax that might be implemented.

You have to have a social compact in these things, taxation isn't an end in its self, it is the means by which government funds the programs your democratically elected representatives have approved, therefore if the revenue is sufficient there is no need to increase income tax when a consumption tax is in place. The consumption tax is a growth tax far more so than income tax because capital transactions are involved. Increases in income tax would bring retribution at the polls

that's right . the so called progressive income tax has to be repealed.

Very progressive thinking

you have to have a social compact in these things, taxation isn't an end in its self, it is the means by which government funds the programs your democratically elected representatives have approved

Our social compact says that the Federal Government has enumerated powers to tax and anything beyond that is a usurpation of power.

Our social compact says that the Federal Government has enumerated powers to tax and anything beyond that is a usurpation of power.

Yes I could understand how you are focused on usurpation of power rather than sensible provisions to solve a problem. Your founding fathers had a little thing about taxation and such issues. Maybe it's time for another tea party, you can have a consumption tax without taxing tea, you know

Maybe it's time for another tea party, you can have a consumption tax without taxing tea, you know

Watch the news, they're already happening. Nowadays, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. Lots of elitists try dismissing them with scorn and ridicule, but the people are still gathering.

Watch the news, they're already happening. Nowdays, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. Lots of elitists try dismissing them with scorn and ridicule, but the people are still gathering.

Well I certainly agree with that idea, I have bought enough FA-18's and tactical weapons and I don't need a government contrived ETS bought with the tax I no longer pay:)

It cost us all $24,000 PER CAR for the Cash for Clunkers program. Forget Corollas .We could've given a Camry away with every trade in.

Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm)

Cash for Clunkers works, so Republicans say Nooooo
Tell me again how Cash for Clunkers works??

It cost us all $24,000 PER CAR for the Cash for Clunkers program. Forget Corollas .We could've given a Camry away with every trade in.

Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm)

Tell me again how Cash for Clunkers works ??????????????????????

I'm not sure how it works, the Dems are obviously not very good at math or economics.

I would have loved a new Camry, but my 27 year old truck is an "antique," not a clunker. I'll just keep clunking down the highway expanding my carbon footprint :D

Porkulus works, too. Obama plans to announce (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28925.html) today that it has "created and saved at least 1 million jobs."

I'm starting to see a pattern here, with Obama someone declares it to be so and it's so. That would explain the Nobel, the success of CFC, ending the rise of the oceans, restoring America's standing in the world, a million jobs "created and saved" and his having already had "one of the most productive first years (http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2009/10/20/D9BF2EVO0_us_obama/) of any administration in decades."

It cost us all $24,000 PER CAR for the Cash for Clunkers program. Forget Corollas .We could've given a Camry away with every trade in.

Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm)

Tell me again how Cash for Clunkers works ??????????????????????

And I just shelled out eighteen grand for a work truck. Can I get a "upgrade," exalted one?

Hello:

I dunno. Here's a plan from Washington that's working.... So, the Republicans want to end it. It's kinda simple, really. You turn in an old car that get's BAD gas mileage, and you get around a $4,000 check towards the purchase of a new car....

Since the program has been going, car dealerships have been busy for the first time in months, the average milage increase between the cars turned in, and the ones going out is 9 miles per gallon.... NINE MILES PER GALLON!! And, the checks offer immediate stimulus.

Yet, the Republicans want to kill it....

excon

Hey ex I know this is onl news but latest reports say this scheme replaced old gas guzzling SVU with new gas guzzling SVU how is this a success

Another example of an Obama program that 'works.'

Painting a street green hasn't stimulated one new job


In Baltimore, the 300 block of East 23 1/2 Street is getting patched up in time for winter. One economic stimulus program is paying to insulate 11 rental rowhouses, another is paying for furnaces and a third is covering the cost for reflective roofs to be installed by prison inmates in a job-training program.

The block is part of one of the biggest initiatives ever undertaken by the federal government, a nationwide push to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. But as the national unemployment rate crosses into the double digits and Republicans question the stimulus program's impact, the work on East 23 1/2 -- even with all of its activity -- has so far not produced a single job (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110603919.html?nav=rss_business).

Nine months after Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus package, there is little tangible to show for one of its biggest single areas of investment, the $25 billion energy-efficiency effort. That points to one of the central tensions of President Obama's landmark stimulus package: His goal was to inject money quickly into the economy while at the same time laying the groundwork for his broader, transformational agenda on energy, education and health care.

$25 billion and it hasn't produced a single job. I'm sure Obama and the Dems are fine with that as long their "transformational agenda" pushes forward.