I was running an errand and had Michael Smerconish on the radio and a caler called in and made this analogy.


"Look at what the government did with this program: imagine what they will do with healthcare "

It meant well:
Stimulate car sales [ will the taxpayor now and forever subsidize this program ?]
Get fuel efficient cars on road and fuel inefficient cars off the road
The poor [ or at least those who drive clunkers ] benefit

Win win right ?

It was underfunded. Less than 2 weeks and the money has run out. It was suppose to last several months.
All carmakers, not just GM or Chryslers the ones taxpayors are bailing out, benefit.
Now some in congress want to ensure that those cars bought are truly more fuel efficient.
Now these consumers have acquired more debt, assuming their clunker was paid for.


Does this increase or decrease your confidence that new healthcare legislation, should it pass, will actually help you and this country ?







G&P

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but as I stated in another thread, I have a minvan that gets 40mpg highway. 200,000 miles, and it's paid for.

I can't see trading that for a 400 per month payment. I don't spend that in gas.

I didn't even come close when gas got up to almost $6 per gallon.

Plus I have sort of an emotional attachment to my old girl.. Yea, the government doesn't like her, but you know what, they don't like me either, so we get along good.

Why junk the old cars?
I am sure Cuba could use them.

I totally agree they can't come up with a good plan for converting everybody to the shoebox cars so how will they afford our health care.
The other day Philadelphia had a town hall meeting and some woman screamed that out loud and clear to Murtha and Kathy Sebeles How do you expect to run healthcare when you can't even get the clunker thing right.

I wish I could find a video on it.


Here is an article on the healthcare bill.

U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis

I distinctly remember Obama saying a few months ago that if things didn't go as he promised he would step down.
He promised tax change and now he is changing up on the tax change he promised so I guess he did keep his promise of change
Since he is always changing.

NO guarantee taxes won't go up
Now didn't he guarantee they wouldn't go up but now there is NO guarantee that they won't go up.

Hmmmm I think he has change down pat!

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up - Yahoo! Finance

Forget Cuba... what is going to happen to the price and availabilty of used parts for your clunker when the cars that would normally be canabalized and salvaged for their parts are junked and destroyed ?

Do you know that part of the provisions of this law is that they pour some disabling fluid into the engine so it can never be used again. I have not found ot yet what toxic brew it consists of but I'm sure it is environmentally friendly.

Does this program really help the poor ? Higher prices for used parts ;those who buy into the program need to maintain a payment program as Andrew said ;and insurance premiums shot through the roof!

Does this program help the dealers ? In theory yes... some increased inventory to push the program and offered additional incentives. However ;if they don't get a timely reimbursement then they are in a difficult cash flow problem .
I listened to a news report from Boston from a dealer who was already several hundred thousand dollars in the hole with no idea when the gvt. Cash was coming in . Cash flow can be a small business killer .Not only that... but now he could not even turn around and sell the clunkers in the used cars market .

But hey ;the program is working so well ,that here in Canada they are considering a similar program.[ Btw Up here they are driving the same mix of autos that we do in the states. I see few hybrids and smart cars ;but many SUVs pickups vans etc.]

I don't get the math here either . Congress initially put aside $1 billion for the program . At $4000/clunker ,that shouldve been 250,000 new sales. The program went broke in a week. But ;during good economic times we were averaging 125,000 new car sales a week ;and as you know... slumping car sales was one of the reasons for the program. Did they really double the sales volume of a good year with this incentive ? I don't think so!
If we assume that it didn't then where did the money go ?

The best thing to come out of the health reform bill is the legislators are back home and catching some serious heat for it.
We had rallies here and with the tax hike on the middle income trying to be pushed threw the tea parties are back.

I want to trade in my Congressional clunker . How much can I get for him ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

forget Cuba ....what is going to happen to the price and availabilty of used parts for your clunker when the cars that would normally be canabalized and salvaged for their parts are junked and destroyed ?

Do you know that part of the provisions of this law is that they pour some disabling fluid into the engine so it can never be used again. I have not found ot yet what toxic brew it consists of but I'm sure it is environmentally friendly.

---

I'm sure the cash for clunkers put a minor dent in the used car inventory. Having to disable them seems so wasteful. There are so many lower income families who could use a cheap dependable car, even if it uses a little gas, and God forbid, leaks a quart of oil every 1,000 miles.

I guess they will just drain all the oil out, and fill the engine to the valve cover with water, turn it over and watch the poor car seize right up.

"Another one bites the dust"

The good news is, I'm still seeing a lot of old used cars on the road, especially here in good ole Appalachia. And you have to remember, most people around here, and I suppose in small towns across the country, do good to make $30,000 per year. With rent, and other expenses, they do good to get a used $4500 car. Most have to settle for a geniune $500 special "clunker"

I saw the picture on the front page of the Roanoke Times the other day, one of the "clunkers", a nice looking F150. Pitty, I could use a good truck. But I ain't going to spend $30,000 for one.

How's this for removing our carbon foot print...

Why not bring back some of our jobs from Mexico and China, put them back in these small towns, where people don't have to drive 70 miles one way to work, that's if they are lucky enough to have a job to drive too. Renfro (a sock company that moved to Mexico) is about 500 yards from my house. Those in my neighborhood could walk that's right WALK to work if that place were still in production. In fact, this whole side of town was built for Jefferson Mills (just right down the road), most of these houses were built WITHOUT A DRIVEWAY because when they were built back in the 20's-50's, it WASN'T NECESSARY TO HAVE A CAR! You didn't have to drive 10 miles to the county interstate exit where the WALMART is to get stuff, you just went right down main street, a stones throw from your front door.

But you can't tell anybody anything...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I want to trade in my Congressional clunker . How much can I get for him ?

---

You'd have to pay someone to take Schumer.

"I meant well..."

I hate that phrase. It generally means that someone who should have known better decided to do something that screwed things up. The words "I meant well..." are supposed to absolve the cupable party of any wrongdoing.

It's sort of like the words "Good try" or "Great effort." They generally mean that you didn't succeed at your intended task. You failed.

In our current society, someone somewhere along the way decided that we're not allowed to tell people that they failed, do better next time. We have to treat adults who fail at a task like children.

Screw that. If you failed, you failed. You don't get points for effort. Get off your butt and fix it, or put someone else who can do a better job in a position to fix it. Or get rid of it.

Cash for clunkers has FAILED. Either fix it or get rid of it.

The stimulus bill has failed. Fix it or get rid of it.

Obama doesn't get points for his failed programs. Especially when they fail THIS spectacularly. The fact that he "meant well" doesn't grant him dispensation.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

forget Cuba ....what is going to happen to the price and availabilty of used parts for your clunker when the cars that would normally be canabalized and salvaged for their parts are junked and destroyed ?

Do you know that part of the provisions of this law is that they pour some disabling fluid into the engine so it can never be used again. I have not found ot yet what toxic brew it consists of but I'm sure it is environmentally friendly.

Does this program really help the poor ? Higher prices for used parts ;those who buy into the program need to maintain a payment program as Andrew said ;and insurance premiums shot through the roof !!

---

Forget Cuba... I stole the idea of off one of the talk show guys substitute...

Part of the provisions of this law is that they pour some disabling fluid into the engine so it can never be used again. I have not found ot yet what toxic brew it consists of but I'm sure it is environmentally friendly.

Anything to the lefties is highly toxic so I agree... what hypocrites

What is going to happen to the price and availabilty of used parts for your clunker when the cars that would normally be canabalized and salvaged for their parts are junked and destroyed ?

That is their intent... they don't want you to get your 'clunker' fixed... same as the old 60's cars they did away with... only the people that can afford the upkeep on them to keep them in pristene condition have them anymore. I know I sure can't find an old muscle car unless it is one in mint condition any others are very rare.

Does this program really help the poor ?

... Just one of MANY reasons I say the gov. ain't out for the poor.

Just read an article. The disabling concoction is either liquid glass or come silicate like methylsilicate. Well, apparently, they can sell parts from the clunkers, just no drive train or engine parts, but that's where the salvage money is.

No matter what you do, your going to gur someone down the road, someplace. Environment - up Stumulus - UP; hurts poor maintaining their vehicles; hurts salvage yard profits

Short term stimulus. Long term environment. Hurts poor in long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I wish I could find a video on it.

---

Here's the video, it was Sebelius and new Democrat Snarlin' Arlen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewc24301

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but as I stated in another thread, I have a minvan that gets 40mpg highway. 200,000 miles, and it's paid for.

I can't see trading that for a 400 per month payment. I don't spend that in gas.

I didn't even come close when gas got up to almost $6 per gallon.

Plus I have sort of an emotional attachment to my old girl.. Yea, the government doesn't like her, but you know what, they don't like me either, so we get along good.

---

But some in congress want you to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, even if the cost is higher for the taxpayor [ who is paying for this and every government expenditure ] and for you [ like higher premiums ].

There is talk about PREVENTITIVE health care. We all know this makes sense. Don't smoke, don't drink to excess, don't become obese, exercise regularly, eat a low fat diet, reduce stress, get enough sleep etc.

How is government healthcare using our tax money going to make an someone [ for example some overweight smoking couch potato ] CHANGE BEHAVIOR?




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't get the math here either . Congress initially put aside $1 billion for the program . At $4000/clunker ,that shouldve been 250,000 new sales. The program went broke in a week. But ;during good economic times we were averaging 125,000 new car sales a week ;and as you know ...slumping car sales was one of the reasons for the program. Did they really double the sales volume of a good year with this incentive ? I don't think so !!
If we assume that it didn't then where did the money go ?

---

Is this a foreshadowing of government run healthcare?

Underfunded = less healthcare i.e. rationing

Additional funding? = higher taxes.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Here's the video, it was Sebelius and new Democrat Snarlin' Arlen.

---

I didn't see the part where the woman screams out about the clunker cars being an example of how they would run health care though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I didn't see the part where the woman screams out about the clunker cars being an example of how they would run health care though

---

Sorry, try this one.

Speaking of cash for clunkers, the most transparent administration ever is stonewalling on requests to release the data on the 'success' of this program.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate—or undercut—White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release electronic records about the program, and President Barack Obama has pledged greater transparency for his administration. But the Transportation Department, which has collected details about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.

The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. But the public and Senate Republicans demanding more information will have to wait for details because federal officials running the program don't have time to turn over data delivered by car dealers, said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

---

Why would they stonewall on this? What do they not want us to know, that most of the sales were not American made cars? That it isn't the screaming success it's being portrayed as while they push for more money for the program? That the administration is too incompetent to get the data out? What?

And speaking of health care, the White House wants to monitor the discussion...

Quote:

---

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to...

---

So the Obama White House is fishing for informants... remind you of anyone?

157,000 rebate requests x $4500 (max rebate allowed)=$706,500,000... there still should be plenty of money left unless they are saying that they need almost $300,000,000 for administering the plan.

Note also from the link that most of the buyers are not choosing Government Motors cars. Ford has a slight boost ,but most of these deals are going to Toyota ,Hyundai ,and Honda.

This is like a "no duh" - see NK's link to The Daily Show on Ex's cash for clunker's link.

Like it or not Obama cannot rescind the laws of supply and demand when it comes to auto sales or healthcare.

Increase the demand [ offer cash incentives in the case of auto sales , or decrease health consumer out of pocket costs ] and you need to increase the supply or the cost of the supply will go up or the supply will simply dry up and then you have shortages.

How does this apply to healthcare?
Well there is already a shortage of primary care providers, in some areas worse than others. Aging boomers will increase demand.
Salary cap for doctors, years of training, malpractice will decrease the supply of doctors. THen you will truly have healthcare rationing as well as lack of access to healthcare.

This already evident in most state medicaid programs. There is minimal out of pocket costs for medicaid recipients compared to privately insured or no insurance, so demand [ doctor visits go up ] for things like school exscuses or colds or minor aches and pains - conditions that resolve whether you see a doctor or not. Most who have private insurance with co-pays and even more so with those without insurance who pay 100% of a whole visit, self restrain when it comes to health care consumption. This is good for the whole system because it decreases demand.

Those utopian views of not having to pay for their own healthcare will lead to increase demand and woth supply diminishing there will be rationing and shortages or increasing care by mid level providers [ nurse practitioners and PAs, which is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to routine care ].






G&P