A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800
gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480
gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million. We spent $8.57 to for every dollar saved. How good a deal was that ???
And they want us to let them take over our health care system.??
I think you also have to remember that the system was designed to increase the number of people buying cars. No idea on the specifics of the US cash for clunkers, but without similar schemes in the UK, Germany etc the Opel/Vauxhall part of GM would have most likely collapsed (unless there was another form of assistance from government). Also remember that this is an important part of the GM group, and so were Opel to fail it would have potentially caused further problems for the US GM group (which I believe has been in lots of trouble recently - but maybe that is due to the cars being ones no-one wants to drive). To me it seems like a very good scheme to keep some large companies (and remember they employ many people, often in areas where there are few jobs). Also I must ask you where you got your mileage figures from (both mpg and annual mileage). Whilst I have no idea on the conversion factor between imperial and US mpg those seem rather low to me for new cars.
However I will agree that on the face of it your figures do suggest that there won't be an immediate pay back on the investment - but whenever would there be an immediate pay back? However in 10 years this scheme will have become financially beneficial purely in terms of the narrow finances you explain (this is not including the fact that the oil price is predicted by most experts to be well over $150 a barrel by the middle of the next decade). However what is better - $3,000,000,000 being spent one year to support jobs in the US or $350,000,000 a year spent on importing oil from countries such as Iran, Venezuala, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Norway etc?
Finally, good job you pay so little on fuel - in the UK it is in excess of $8 a gallon.
I wrote a hub about this travesty:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Cash-For-Clunke … nistration
Nice stats. Now do out the world supply of oil at that high rate and find out it will only last about 100 years. Spending 3billion to save some of the supply is important because paper money can be remade or re earned. Oil can't be remade at this time and we can't produce enough other fuels from say Corn to run the world. It will lead to WARS over oil near the end.
Paper money can be remade or re earned (sic)...Whew !! I just don't know how to answer that...
Simple...Grow a tree.
Go try to grow oil, your gonna fail unless your harvest date is a few million years!
LOL. That's the Liberal's secret. Obama has a money tree that shades the picnic table in the back yard.
There were so many misconceptions in his post I did not bother replying to it
Well Misha, what im getting at is Oil isn't a bottomless pit. It will run out and if we don't conserve it now in all ways possible, it will be gone...
reEARNED omg....what? wow. please, tell me how?
It means, the world will be here (hopefully) for thousands more years, we made the whole debt system ourselves. Once that oil is gone its gone, how can you worry about a dollar value when you can't complete your daily functions because there is no more oil, and no more plastic.
how can you worry about oil, when you cant complete your daily functions, because someone else spent your money?
how does my money get re-earned?
That isn't up to us as we will all be dead by the time the oil supply runs out in 100 years. But I would imagine we would to the All American thing of TAKING the oil at the end, leaving us to pay nothing but Nukes to any country opposing us. That is why we have over 3,000 right?
Remember, nothing has a dollar value unless someone feels the need to own it.
We need to use up all the oil before we move on to more expensive fuels. Simple economics.
BTW, "remaking money" is called inflation and you'd better get ready for a whopping big gob of it real soon, thanks to Obama and Bush.
Cash for Clunkers was never designed to recoup its expense in terms of gasoline saved.
But we're talking a "measly" $3 billion of stimulus money (i.e. to get people to buy things, get the credit machine moving again, etc.)
Compare to $912 billion spent on the wars started by GWB so far. Benefit? I wish $350 million could somehow be extracted from that. (Money into Halliburton doesn't count)
well, if you only look at it for one narrow self indulgent angle.
But you fail to include the bump it caused for US automakers, work it gave families, commissions it gave dealers and salespeople and the "trickle down" effect it gave the economy. Oh, and it saves some fuel over a number of years not just the one year your calculation includes, helps middle class families afford better running cars, helps the states where cars were purchased with licensing fees, helps insurance companies with increased customers.
oh, and helps the environment a little too.
But even using your own calculation, it pays for itself in terms of fuel savings in less than 8 years. What is the life span of a new car?
BZZZZ! Wrong answer. Eight to ten years with some autos now lasting fifteen or longer.
And you are looking at it from a selfish narrow-minded angle. Cash for Clunkers damaged the used car business and the auto repair business. It was a violation of the constitution since the federal government is prohibited from passing laws that benefit a group or class of people to the exclusion of another group or class. Auto dealers and auto manufacturers are not entitled to nurse at the public teat while other industries starve.
What amendment to the constitution prohibits government aid to private entities?
I believe if you look at Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it declares what powers Congress do and do not have. Such a power as to give federal aid to private companies is not even vaguely listed.
This " power " is reserved for the States my English friend...
Too Big to Fail" is a phrase referring to the idea that in economic regulation, the largest and most interconnected businesses are so large that a government cannot allow them to fail because said failure would have a disastrous effect on the economy.
This means that it might encourage recklessness since the government would intervene (e.g. by bailing out the company) in the event it was about to go out of business. The phrase has also been more broadly applied to refer to a government's policy to bail out any corporation. It raises the issue of moral hazard in business operations.
The term is back to central stage since the start of the financial meltdown. The most important US company referred to as too big to fail is American International Group (AIG).
Some critics see the policy as wrong and counterproductive. They think big banks should be left to fail if their risk management was not effective.
What does this quoted reply have to do with government largess and its unconstitutional prerogatives..? Or don't you have a copy of the US Constitution over there..
"Too big to fail" was used as an excuse to prop up GM and AIG. We would have been much better off letting GM go through normal bankruptcy channels rather than flushing billions trying to save it.
The government though the process of bailing out large companies to big to fail have found a loophole in the system. If needed, the amendment can be added.
And no, I don't agree with the bailout of large banks and AIG.
I can't wait to see Capitalism: A love story by Mike Moore when it comes out Oct 2nd.
I agree here too thranax, I didn't agree with just giving money to large corporations like AIG and General Motors. It did nothing to help the taxpayer directly. (Maybe indirectly as a whole but only time will tell)
At least the Cash For Clunkers program was a billion dollar scheme that actual Americans could put their hands on and have it directly affect their lives.
Yes, a deleterious effect. All they did was move up all the purchases that would have happened anyway. The dealerships and manufacturers had a few good weeks and now they will suffer a long dry spell. Anyone who planned to purchase a car in the near future already did so.
The powers of the federal government are narrow and specific. Handouts to car companies ain't in there.
Odd, Article I Section 8 expressly gives Congress the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
And by the way, Article 1 is not an amendment, it is the actual document.
Well, considering it was used to rebut me, I think quoting the original powers was a reasonable response. However, I think both myself and congress will disagree with his interpretation of that passage regarding federal intervention into businesses.
But I am not unreasonable!
If we're willing to do away with all local and federal tax incentives for big business I am willing to declare cash for clunkers government perfidy.
You do realize that we've screwed anyone connected in any way to the auto industry for seven years, right? Also how many of the people who owned "clunkers" can afford to pay for a new $15,000+ car? It'll just be like the housing fiasco. If you think credit is frozen now, wait until those loans for the "clunkers" program go bad.
I wasn't aware that all used cars were exchanged for new ones. That would have to be the case for your statement to be correct, right? Do you have any sources detailing the impact on the overall new car and used car picture?
That's up to the banks to determine. They are certainly a lot more cautious now than they were a couple of years ago. Banks will have to start extending credit again, and some of those loans they extend will be bad. Do you have any sources to suggest how good the C4C lessees are for their loans?
U.S National Debt right now:
Going up 60-150,000 every 2 second refresh!
The estimated population of the United States is 306,968,651
so each citizen's share of this debt is $38,515.32.
All stats taken from:
I think that you are missing the point completely. The 'cash for clunkers' scheme is a government subsidy to encourage movement within the auto industry, has saved millions of jobs, and came about as a result of the failure of General Motors.
It has saved your country a lot more than $3bn. I am from the UK and I can understand this, why can't you? It has nothing whatsoever to do with oil consumption.
You can't understand it, so stop trying. Your grasp of US constitutional law is minuscule and your understanding of basic economics is tenuous.
And the UK isn't implementing the same scheme? The US and the UK stole the idea from Germany. This has nothing to do with energy efficiency, and you know this. I dont need to understand "US constitutional law" to see that cash for clunkers is an effort to stimulate auto sales. So shove your economics up your backside.
One should consider the ever present unintended consequences. If the additional funds are approved, 750,000 usable cars that can be used by those who cannot afford a new one will be gone. How many additional people will be laid off from the auto replacement parts companies with a significant part of their customer base gone? Have an additional 750,000 people just taken on additional debt that they would not otherwise have done? How many additional foreclosures and cutbacks in spending in other areas will result? This crisis was caused by excessive leverage and this only intensifies the problem.
I certainly understand the sentiment. But when we have an 180-degree opposite problem now that we did 2 years ago, then what should've been done then doesn't necessarily apply now. Right now the credit markets aren't out of control - they're dead.
That said, cash for clunkers was a relatively short-lived stimulus. We'll see if it ends up doing its part to revive spending and the extending of loans.
There's the problem I had with it. How many auto dealerships are now laying off all the extra people they hired for the program?
Loans got us in trouble in the first place. Irony?
Greed got us in trouble. Responsible lending wouldn't have. The really odd thing about all this is China was pouring money into our system which in turn made all these loans "possible." But what kind of bank lends money without any proof whatever that the borrower can pay it back?
Not a very good one.
The greed of borrowers looking for cheap money and their irresponsibility when it came time to pay it back, agreed.
The banks were pressured by Democrats in Congress to make loans to 'underrepresented' minorities who the bank knew could not pay it back. The banks were over-regulated, not under-regulated.
Not agreed! At all. Hell, had I gone to the bank thirty years ago (a wet behind the ears kid) and asked for a home loan and been turned down I wouldn't have been surprised.
And to blame individuals for bad business decisions by business is just silly.
Honestly, you really think the banks aren't a tiny bit responsible? I think they are monumentally responsible. They are obligated BY LAW to keep the best interests of their stockholders in mind. They didn't do that...not by a longshot.
Show me some links! The Republicans had control of both houses of Congress for years and the Democrats pressured the banks? How? With magic?
Google Barney Frank and Fannie Mac. Don't take my word for it. Mr. Frank asserted just last year that Fannie Mac was in good shape and in no danger of failing. oops.
It's "Freddy Mac" not Fannie. Fannie Mae is another program. By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are independent of the government now. You knew that right?
And it was Ben Bernanke not Barney Frank. Sheesh!
Where do you get your news; a cracker jack box?
You continue to expose yourself, but that's OK. Fannie and Freddie are supposedly private companies, but please don't try to get technical on me. They were controlled by Congress.
I suppose that you think the Post Office is private as well.
Oh my. <text removed - no personal attacks in the Forums.>
Name calling; the last resort of a Liberal.
Why not just admit you can't make an argument?
Just telling the truth. And the wonderful thing about morons is you really can't (or need to) argue with them. They are....morons.
You are asking the impossible from the incapable...
Ha. You guys are a laugh riot. Making arguments with made up news and parading it around as if it's real. You should all get a really small car, dress in loud clothes, and drive into the center ring of the circus, then you can make a grand entrance.
Actually, it was Barney Frank, not once but three times in public forums...
I don't know what Ben said, but I know what Barney said. Perhaps they both did.
It's been fun. I'm done here.
The Clintons passed regulations in the '90s that mandated banks to make loans available to those who couldn't afford to pay them back. It wasn't magic though.
And it took twenty years for that to take effect? Interesting.
Tell me about "credit default swap."
It was an artificial bubble created by the Clintons to use to specifically collapse the banks at a certain time. Bush warned about this coming crash for years and was ignored. So he bailed out the banks before Obama was in office with TARP. When Obama got into office, he and the democrats withheld the bailout money and the banks collapsed - again artificially. So what did Obama have to do? Use massive amounts of taxpayer money to "bail out the banks".
This is a commonly known socialist mechanism to take a democratic government to socialistic one.
And as for credit default swaps, that's how the banks leveraged the risk. There was no other thing they could do after being made to make so many bad loans - other than go under.
And if you think this is partisan, you haven't done your homework.
I think that you may be giving Clinton a bit more credit than he is due. He was a smart cookie, dont get me wrong, but surely you are not suggesting that he was that clever? This is a man that shoved a cigar up an orafice of his secretary, he was too busy having fun to plot something so sophisticated. Nobody on the planet could do something like that.
You guys get all your news from Pill O'Biley and Glynn Drek don't you? You might try watching the BBC news sometime. Or even *gasp* travel outside this country. Or *shudder* talk to them dam feriners.
How are things down at the trailer park?
You haven't made any significant rebuttal so far. Do you want to genuinely discuss this subject or sling insults?
Sorry, Madam...You will have to excuse the children and their limited vocabulary...
Sling insults. You folks aren't smart enough to recognize a rebuttal when you read one...so why bother.
My, aren't we all impressed with such atmospheric bloviating...I really get a kick out of the not so subtle arrogance and ignorance of some folks when intellectually challenged...
Not so subtle? Just being myself O'Wise One.
Tell you what, when you can demonstrate some independent thought, not just parrot what some nitwit with a dumb name has to say, I'll have an "intelligent" discussion with you.
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath though. I know better.
By the way you left out the part where Ben Bernanke said that Freddie Mac as in good shape, and was the first to say it. You know, he was in charge of the Federal Reserve. He was supposed to know.
But blame whoever repeated his crap instead of the source of the crap. Pointing in all directions screaming "it's his fault."
You've obviously never heard the term "dead cat bounce". Don't worry, you'll become acquainted with the term very soon now.
Not really. Any real student of history could tell you that the market always rebounds about 50% after a crash and then crashes again after the rebound. But I'd not expect you to know that.
Really. Your response was to a post I made that did not mention the economy, or C.A.R.S. or anything else financial for that matter. Making a statement about Bernanke's announcement is indirectly related to these things. That he made a (now obvious) error in his statement, and it was picked up and repeated, was the point I was making. But blaming the repeaters and not the original author is just disingenuous.
I was talking about the fickle finger of blame that hard-line Republicans like to point. It always points anywhere but where it should; firmly back at them.
The fact that you can say something like that only shows how economically illiterate you are. I'd not be too sure of what I think I know, if I were you if you believe that hogwash.
Ah yes...those Clintons were some fearsome legislators back in the 90s.
The Dems started the credit crisis? horrors. Oh well, revisionist history will continue to blame the Evil Rich.
Was I blaming the Evil Rich? No, just the irresponsible Republicans. (You've got to stop reacting to straw men in your responses to me.)
Clinton balanced the budget (something you're supposed to do when there's an economic boom). Bush plunged us into deficit again, well into another economic boom.
Sorry, I had to respond to this. Clinton balanced the budget as a result of dramatic increases in tax receipts which he had nothing to do with. He increased spending, just like Bush and Obama, but fortunately for him the economy was in hyper-drive for two reasons: the Y2K scare and the internet bubble. Clinton simply benefited from that.
And the recession started before Bush took office.
Keep on coming with the revisionist history and I'll set you straight.
Nicomp, you have a talent for responding to things I never said.
I never said Clinton delivered Bush an economic boom. He gave him a recession, much like Bush did to Obama (although, naturally, a much smaller one).
BUT during the long economic boom he presided over, he balanced the budget and put it into surplus. If you are delusional enough to believe this was a complete accident that he had nothing to do with, then you have to answer to the charge of revisionist history.
Clinton DID push through a tax increase on the very rich in his first year, which alongside spending cuts, paved the way for the reversal in growing deficits and a surplus in the final 2 years.
The boom was in part a consequence of better stewardship of the economy. That tax revenues increased because of a healthier economy was not an accident.
I take your point about the Y2K and Internet bubbles - fortunate timing for Clinton. But Bush was around for the much bigger housing bubble. He didn't manage to sock away money during that boom - he just started spending like he won the lottery.
What has U.S. Constitutional law to do with a stimulus plan called C.A.R.S.? Nothing.
Here is the basis of our problem. Right here. This is it.
Yep I have no clue. No clue whatsoever. Americas cash for clunkers had everything to do with energy efficiency, and nothing to do with stimulating the auto industry. Of course, you and Liam Bean can relate this directly to your special constitional law, and I will simply acknowledge that all you are doing is copying the European Union. Again, I dont need to know anything about US Constitutional Law to identify the obvious objectives of such a scheme.
I think you should read some of ryan's hubs before you pass judgment. And making jokes about running over a Prius with a Hummer is in poor taste. tsk tsk tsk
Your hubs must be pretty damn fantastic too Liam, with your current hubberscore. I noticed you as a featured writer, many congrats. I have yet to reach 100.... 99 a few times, but the 100 continues to elude me.
Thank you, but I think my hubscore is "stuck." The stats still aren't working and I suspect that's why it's the way it is. You'll get there. Your writing is quite entertaining.
Folks like "nicomp" with no apparent sense of humor (or any other type of sense for that matter) really don't count as critics. I'll bet he doesn't even understand that the majority of our "constitutional" law is British in origin.
I've been reading Ryan's hubs for quite a while. I know his reactionary tendencies and his propensity to inject himself into affairs on this side of the pond when he isn't well informed.
And I am happy to try to set you straight. Keep reading my posts and hubs. You'll get up to speed.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Cash-For-Clunke … nistration
http://hubpages.com/hub/A-Practical-Ana … ealth-Care
I'd be pleased to have you as my fan.
Hardly. I simply stated that the Cash for Clunkers stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with environmental management. It doesn't matter whether you are from the US or Europe, cars run on the same fuel in both places, and car firms make their money in the same way. I didnt need to know anything about US Constitutional law to observe that the OP was making reference to energy efficiency. The whole of Europe has been offering the same incentives, so I am more than qualified to have a general opinion on the scheme. If you read this short article, http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-200 … 08540.html
You will see that the UK issues are almost identical to the one facing the USA. Apologies for daring to discuss anything to do with the USA..... I will refrain from acknowledging your existance in future.
Lol, I refrained from using the 'A' word, substituting it for the word 'backside'.... surely hubpages will take into consideration my long deliberation and subsequent compromise Thats a vast improvement on my use of language.
This is only an accurate tally of costs and benefits if you assume the only goal of the Cash for Clunkers program was to decrease the amount of money the average consumer spends on gasoline in a year. This is not the case.
It was also a tool to help bolster local car dealerships during a downturn in people buying new cars. It was also a boon to American car companies (60+ percent of all cash for clunkers sales were American autos_.
Another driving factor was to simply get old, inefficient cars off the roads. The environmental crisis is every bit as real as the economic crisis, and the Cash for Clunkers program elegantly handled both at the same time.
The US government has also resolved to increase the average MPG of cars on the roads over the next twenty years. By encouraging the purchase of the fuel efficient autos while also eliminating gas guzzlers, the government is able to help keep its promise to the American people. On top of that, it does it in a fashion that makes it affordable to the American consumers while only encouraging they make a change rather than mandating it.
I think, on the whole, you are missing the forest for the trees here.
At the expense of other industries. If you owned a used car lot or an auto repair business you'd be hurting.
We as Americans have the right to drive old inefficient cars. It's part of that pesky "Pusruit of Happiness" phrase that Liberals so quickly forget.
A vehicle that gets 17mpg is not a gas guzzler.
Good point. The federal government took steps to stop me when they financed the destruction of over a quarter million of them.
They tinkered with the free market.
They picked winners and losers.
Yes, and because they are forced to bear some of the costs of the externalities of inefficient cars, they have a plausible interest in "tinkering" in such a way.
Don't worry. There are plenty of used cars for you to choose from. Really. Millions.
I have an '89 Acura Integra that gets 30MPG. I live in CA so I am required by law through smog testing to make sure it does not pollute worse than other cars. It has $350K on it and still runs great. Why should I trade it in?
Lawl..we just became anther 4 billion* in debt since this forum was started.
No one has taken that right away from you. No cars were confiscated. The government provided a refund for new, ostensibly better cars. If you're happy with a low mileage car, your argument has very little merit until the National Guard marches over and removes your jalopy at gunpoint.
As for state versus federal law, there has been a long history of tax breaks, public incentives, and refunds used to bolster businesses, programs, and other miscellaneous groups for the benefit of the people. This is hardly a radical liberal ideal, but a bipartisan reality that has been taking place for nearly the entire history of the United States.
Used dealerships may have a legitimate grievance. If you have any statistics on the effect of the Cash for Clunkers program versus the effect of decreased spending on new cars in favor of used, I would be interested in reading them.
Nope, the federal government artificially removed 250,000 units of useful property from the economy, thereby damaging businesses that sell such property and damaging folks who traditionally purchase that property.
There's a long history of slavery too.
The cost of a used car, similar to what the federal government subsidized the destruction of, is up several thousand dollars.
Ironically, the so-called party of the working poor has harmed the working poor by increasing the cost of basic transportation commonly purchased by them.
Lower prices (recently) were a consequence of high inventories of both new and used vehicles. Cash for Clunkers resulted in a draining of new inventories, raising prices for new cars and, by extension, used cars.
So this is very much the intent of the program. It was never the intent of C4C to keep prices of cars low by keeping inventory levels high.
If you're annoyed by this beyond your typical partisan anger directed at Obama and the Democrats, maybe it's because you didn't buy a car a few months ago when stocks were high and prices low?
So I take it you like when prices rise? And you think it is exactly what is needed to take care of the poor in this country?
There's a price rise and then there's a price rise. Right?
When there's overcapacity and a resulting glut of inventory and manufacturers shed jobs by the millions then yes, prices could afford to rise as inventory tightens.
Obviously inflationary price rises are bad. Not our current problem, though.
As for the used car dealers and mechanics, I agree the Cash for Clunkers program was not designed to help them. But they are hurting already from the current economy.
Then again, most used car dealerships are owned by the Auto Industry already (at least in California, I don't known about the rest of the Country)
So, it does help them. Moving cars off the lines and putting them on the roads help them in the long run. Moving the economy helps them.
where i live, everything is getting shut down. cfc killed off all hopes of buying a car. politics and save the world aside, not everyone can afford a new car. most dealerships here, are failing.
If you feel that incentives and tax breaks that benefit corporate interests can be compared to state sanctioned ownership of another human being, even as an example of government mistakes, then I can only leave it at we have grossly different views on the situation that are unlikely to be reconciled.
A bunch have failed here as well. As for they would have been purchased later anyways argument, that is true, they would have been. But how many jobs were saved by pushing up the sales? Even if for just a few weeks. Another paycheck or two means something to those families who got them. It means something to the dealers and salespeople. It also gave time for the economy to improve a bit before they went down, in the hopes they wouldn't.
Used cars will always have a market. Mechanics will always have a market. The US Auto Industry was failing despite bailouts and this was a way to buy some time, moves some cars, make a little money and help the environment for 3 billion. And it worked which makes some people even more upset. And it wasn't a bailout, only a small incentive which provided huge gains in the short run and long run. Money well spent if you ask me.
The Australian government gave a cash handout to each tax payer as a stimulus package. Thats great when you are getting it, and it has an immediate effect stimulating the economy as money is quickly spent.
It can be argued that if a government is spending so much to kick start an economy, it should get some say in where it goes.
The primary goal of this program was stimulus. The execution is a bit of a tokenistic offering, but it will do some good as well as raise awareness about the gas guzzling culture of Americans and their massive cars. In the initial calculations there was no mention that those fuel savings will occur next year, and the year after, and continue as long as those cars stay on the road.
There are worse ways to stimulate a flagging economy
And there are much better ones too. Tax cuts for one. The more money people have to spend the less sluggish the economy. Going into more debt on a car is not exactly the best way for people to have more money.
Tax cuts have been shown to be a very slow way to stimulate an economy. Slow is not really an option in the current environment. I would have to vote for a straight cash handout well ahead of tax cuts.
You must be a Republican - tax cuts are their answer for everything. Economy doing well.... we can afford a tax cut. Economy doing poorly.... better cut taxes.
Slow but steady is the only way to achieve true and lasting recovery. Reining in government spending enables tax cuts. More money in the hands of the people stimulates spending and subsequently economic recovery. This is basic economics which is non-partisan.
Our massive cars are wonderful. Try crashing a Prius into a Hummer.
The fuel savings are imaginary; people will just drive more. There will be mo measurable fuel savings.
I'd just love to run over one of those smart cars with my SUV but I don't want to go to jail. They really do ask for it
I knew the trailer park comment would get a rise out of some of you. But you know, it fits so well.
Now are we back on the moon yet? Has the "Bush trip to Mars" succeeded. I don't read the same news sources as you folks (obviously) so I'd really like to know.
Have we won the war yet? Mission Accomplished and all that.
This is the funniest thing about you. You get your "tool" caught in the works and the first thing you do is blame the works...certainly not yourselves.
I can clearly see you pointing in all directions saying "It's his fault." Cute, really cute.
Something new that's going to kill off car dealerships
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1
Looks like this cash for clunkers idea has been around for a while, it was a bad idea then and it's a bad one now:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/cash-f … 009/09/08/
I hope this suffices for your need for sources. You may wish to read them, you might learn something.
by nicomp really7 years ago
Presenting 3 points to support both sides of the issue.Pro:1. The auto industry is hurting. People aren't buying new cars. Dealerships are closing and cutting back. Cash for Clunkers (C4C) encourages consumers to...
by TimTurner5 years ago
The stock market has risen about 15% in the last 3 months and about 80% in the last 8 months. Seriously?We are still losing close to 200,000 jobs a month and small businesses are hurting. The economic data...
by TimTurner7 years ago
In another failed government attempt, the Cash For Clunkers program was billed as an environmental initiative. It turns out that almost one-third of the $3 billion deals made were swaps of old trucks/SUVS with new...
by spiderpam7 years ago
Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) - Cash for Clunkers BillThe purpose of the bill is to remove older, inefficient cars from the road, and stimulate the auto industry, which has fallen on hard times. A similar program...
by PrettyPanther5 years ago
http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/ … age=entireThis article articulates perfectly how I feel about certain libertarians and conservatives. I recently moved from a blue state to a red state, and I see...
by MikeNV6 years ago
"WASHINGTON – The government is handing out nearly $2 billion for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.The two companies...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.