Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

This doesn't detract the fuel savings which reduces our dependency on foreign oil and the reduced emissions harming our environment. Even if you don't buy into global warming, the reduction of foreign oil dependency should be universally appreciated.

 

This did nothing for fuel savings. Those "clunkers" would have been off the road eventually anyway. The difference is that we, our children and our granchildren would not been on the hook for paying for it.

 

Then the fuel savings is between now and eventually.

Our grandchildren had a debt they couldn't pay long before cash for clunkers came on the scene. Every budget since Clinton has consisted of deficit spending.

Republican's claim to be fiscally responsible is their way of not funding programs when they are not in power. Reagan quadrupled the deficit and no one mentioned a word about generational theft. It was not until it was obvious the last election was lost that the Republican's turned on Bush. When Bush and Reagan gave corporations huge tax cuts no one was asking how we were going to pay for them or why our grandchildren should pay these corporations taxes.

I can respect the attitude of now is as good as time as any to become responsible with government spending but the process of control will take time. Right now we need jobs and American's earning to pay more taxes or the debt on our grandchildren will be even higher.

 

Oh you like Kool-aid alright, just a different flavor. But it's still kool-aid.

 

....you know you're off topic.

But since you are:

Let's be honest. Carter cut defense. Reagan could chose to continue the cut or to repair defense cuts. He chose to repair... which cost us money. But....the Berlin Wall came down; we had no terror incidents on American soil: No saber rattling and sending troops to fight perpetual wars for industry and inverstor growth.... scuzzz me... for D mock racy and oil!

This administration is following the very plot that took place before the last administration left.... and that is to reward with American dollars, deficits, tax revenues, the very private and public industries and investments and the people in charge of them that manipulated our current financial snafu.

At the same time this administration is rewarding those who are parties to setting up these crisis of public persuation and intimidation and manipulation..... it is also NOT concerned about funding and keeping the military strong.... for the defence of our country. It is very much willing to direct funding into the military, blackwater's equivalents, and local police to secure control of our population.

I wonder why?

As long as our government has faithfully represented the people....even when there was disagreement...... OUR government has had no reason to fear the people other than failure to be reelected.

It is a part of our right and our heritage to rise up and throw off any rule which would upsurp the power and the rights which God has given to the people and which would try to take God's place in the lives of free men.



Reagan and deficits to secure our defense VS Obama and deficits to secure private investment and popular 'gifts' to select groups of citizens.

NO DOUBT IN MY MIND WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORE DEFENSIBLE!!

This is one of the silliest scams I've ever heard of to add to the deficit.... and it destroys useful vehicles and places many people in the position of added personal debt which might not be prudent under this economy.

And........ it is immoral to commit ourselves, and our prosperity to debt and obligations which we can neither pay nor hope for them to pay off. Debt is a form of enslavement...... whether a mortgage, a credit card, a pledge, a bond, or a deficit.

--------------And many of us are building bigger church buildings right now........"capitalized' with debt.

 

Targus is the one who said our grandchildren would have to pay for the klunkers program. I simply responded to the allegation.

This is an ideological opinion and nothing else. There is absolutely no fact in this statement except to say Carter cut defense and Reagan increased it. To play this game would mean admitting Bush ruined the economy and Obama has to spend to fix it.

The wall came down when the Soviet economy collapsed and we had no terrorist incidents under Carter either. I hope you don't think it was Reagan speech demanding the walls come down? However, what we did get with Reagan was an incoming president who sold arms to an outlaw regime in Iran in order to secure the release of hostages and then took that money to fund a central American war and had Oliver North lie about the whole thing to congress. Oh, the Oliver got his own program on Fox, the only unbiased news station. I'd say Reagan came in spending but not all that money went to defense...

 

I drive a car that gets a combined EPA rating of 21mpg. My car does not qualify for the CARS program. It's a clunker but not statistically. I'd love to get an extra $4500 off a new vehicle purchase. Ain't going to happen.

Is this why I resent the tar out of helping 250,000 people buy new cars? My goodness. I must have clunker envy. Folks with clunkier cars than mine get a pocket full of MY TAX DOLLARS so they can drive their new car right past my not-clunky-enough model.

I have a better idea. Since I am a share holder in GM why don't GM lower the prices of their cars - say - $4500? I might be a player AND have a late model car to trade. :thumbsup:

 

I hear you Padre, I had a 92 Bonneville that was rated at 17 MPG until a couple of months ago. A friend has been driving the car for the last 4 years (he borrowed it until he could get him some transportation) and we continues paying the insurance. The wife finally insisted I sell him the car so I did for $1.

Now my daughter is 16 and I was showing my wife a little Chevy for $11K. We could probably swing the basic model with that $4500 discount but oh no, she insisted I sell him the car.

If only she would learn to be patient and wait on the Lord.

 

In the immortal words of Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much." I should have kept the Suburban! I should've kept the Blazer or the Roadmaster! I had a Dodge van that got such poor mileage it could qualify for two gas guzzlers.

 

I don't know much about Roadmasters but my old Buick Roadmaster '92 got 32 mpg on the open road and 26 in town. So if these cars are on the list then mine must have been a rarity

 

The EPA rates the Roady at 18 mpg. It is eligible! I don't think your car was a rarity. I think you didn't spend enough time mashing the big pedal on the right. :tongue3:

 

What, were you driving Ms Daisy?

 

Amen to that.

And today, I just found out that a friend who sells used cars had his worst month ever. He will probably have to let people go. Thanks, Barack. And we are also creating a shortage of used cars that will hurt truly poor people down the road.

"It's my money" is a concept foreign to the comrades in Washington.

 

We saw a comercial a few days ago for a truck, it's gas milage was less then our 1992 car. Imagine that, the governement buying trucks for people and my old car has better milage, sure helps out on gas consumption a lot.