Ah poor Subby, bitter much?


One word, Move!

If the world now favors those who make bad decisions then wouldn't it make sense to make bad decisions ? And those smart enough to make good decisions should have no problem adapting because they are obviously smart enough.

fta

"offers vouchers of up to $4,5000,"

so that's how they plan to pay for it, huh, extra digits, and hope no one notices.

Baggins: Ah poor Subby, bitter much?

I'm not the submitter, but yes. Can you see a reason why I shouldn't be?

One word, Move!

That is indeed one word. What it has to do with anything, I don't know, but it certainly is one word, and no one is denying that.

Baggins: Ah poor Subby, bitter much?


One word, Move!

It would seem that you are one of the non-productive members of society living off those who do produce, thereby being in total agreement with actions such as this.

If you were one the people that actually paid taxes, this should piss you off, too.

/also not subby

They're going to give money to people who voted for Bush in 2004?

Congressional leaders attached the legislation to a $106 billion spending bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does anyone else find this type of legislative procedure slightly abhorrent?

Baggins: One word, Move!

I seem to remember those on the Left thinking that when Bush supporters said that type of thing it was bad.

There are plenty of good reasons why this is a bad bill, but it is not a bailout and has nothing to do with good or bad decisions.

ne2d: There are plenty of good reasons why this is a bad bill, but it is not a bailout and has nothing to do with good or bad decisions.

Oh, really?

Offering hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies for people who buy cars ONLY from dealerships isn't a subsidy for faltering U.S. auto dealers?

Yeah, bullshiat.

KaponoFor3: Does anyone else find this type of legislative procedure slightly abhorrent?

Hey, when you know your shiat won't stand on its own, tack it onto a bill supporting the troops.

Again, it's bullshiat.

I had my last car for 11 years before buying a new one. I literally had pieces falling off of the last car, I drove it until I couldn't drive it any more and I wish I could have driven it a few months longer. How does that constitute a "bad decision"?

Oh, right...

ne2d: There are plenty of good reasons why this is a bad bill, but it is not a bailout and has nothing to do with good or bad decisions.

If you already own a fuel efficient car, you get nothing (except to help pay for this). If you've been driving a gas guzzler, you get free money to get a new car.

Of course it's a bailout and of course it's about good and bad decisions.

Under the program, trade-in vehicles, 1984 models or newer, must have average fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon. And the new car or truck must get better gas mileage than the one that was scrapped.

The payoff grows depending on the difference in the fuel efficiencies of the old and new cars. For instance, a new car getting at least 4 more miles per gallon than the old car will be eligible for a $3,500 voucher. A new car getting at least 10 more miles per gallon would get a $4,500 voucher.

To guarantee vehicles are actually roadworthy -- and not just sitting on cinder blocks -- trade-ins must be registered and insured to the same owner for at least a year.

Won't this be a problem, since a lot of the people who drive 1980's clunkers that get 8 mpg don't have enough money to buy a new car and still can't afford it even with that rebate?

But since credit is so easy to acquire, they'll just get it anyway and then default on the payments, creating a massive blackhole of debt again.

Or am I missing some glaring fact here?

/drunk


And lawmakers point to the success of Germany's program as indication that vouchers can turn dismal auto sales around. At the end of the program's first month, sales in Germany were up 21 percent from a year before. During the same period, U.S. sales slumped 41 percent.

Yea but people here already buy fuel efficient cars and actually want to buy the cars that are built here. The reason we did it was because the implosion of the U.S. economy tanked our exports, leading to a huge surplus of cars. So to solve the problem they offered rebates on trade ins until the end of the year. So of course everyone and their mother takes advantage of it. It's a different situation. It's not like the implosion of the economy tanked your GM exports and left them with surplus cars. The implosion simply increased the stock of cars that no one wants to buy in the first place.


As far as I can tell from the article, the program in the U.S. applies to all new cars, and not just U.S. built models, so I don't see how that'll help the domestic companies at all. Since the rebate is based on difference in fuel efficiency and the foreign (particularly Japanese) imports are better than the domestic models, won't everyone just flock to the foreign imports since that will offer the greatest rebate?

Isn't this like GM double shooting themselves in the foot?

/again drunk, so I'm probably missing some glaring fact

No worries - people driving clunkers cannot afford a new car, which is why they drive clunkers. AND, clunkers are usually paid off versus a new car buy which is another piece of debt to get into AGAIN.

I looked into this handout - my 1999 4x4 truck is worth about $7k and falls under this handout, since I'd be getting a new truck that gets 5MPG more - BUT, it must get scrapped, which means I do not get the tradein value over and above the coupon value from the dealer...so, it's an empty gesture to get me to buy a new one. I'll keep my "clunker", which is still quite serviceable in the heavy snow and for hauling my building materials and towing my trailer.

Had they given the Blue Book tradein plus coupon, I'd be at the dealer as soon as Obama's pen hit paper. I'd be getting into debt, as the current truck is paid off, in exchange for that $4 grand.

Like the other stimulus package, Congress is so freaking out of touch with consumers, they might at well get a job with GM's marketing department when their terms come up.

Nothing will come of this spendingwise, other than a few UAW votes.

I told the boss that he should sell the employees our old trucks. (2002 GM w/225,000 and 257,000 miles respectively are just two of the oldest ones.) Have us buy new ones using the rebate. Then sell them back to the company.

I wonder if there is anything in the legislation disallowing that?

oldebayer: They're going to give money to people who voted for Bush in 2004?

They aren't going to breed a supermajority without the ability to buy massive carbohydrates, are they?

KaponoFor3: Congressional leaders attached the legislation to a $106 billion spending bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does anyone else find this type of legislative procedure slightly abhorrent?

That's how the republic has always worked. So no. Unless you're disingenuous or ignorant.

So they're bailing out more banks and raising property taxes?

KaponoFor3: Baggins: One word, Move!

I seem to remember those on the Left thinking that when Bush supporters said that type of thing it was bad.

One word, snot!

California should impose an extra fee on the registration for new cars that get poor gas mileage and weigh over a certain amount.

While I don't like rewarding poor decisions, this is a good idea and is a long time coming.

DarnoKonrad: That's how the republic has always worked. So no. Unless you're disingenuous or ignorant.

Ummm.... you are an idiot, I never said that I didn't know that it was commonplace. I just said I find it abhorrent.

I think you are the one who is disingenuous and ignorant.

Crosshair: f there is anything in the legislation disallowing that?

Yes.


I don't have a car, but I'm proud to spend my tax money paying for somebody elses.

Republicans and now this. And the horrible thing is, its still far better than Republican rule. We are farked.

For you stupid Farks who feebly attempted to make an issue about Republicans who voted against the war funding bill:

Congressional leaders attached the legislation to a $106 billion spending bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Congressional leaders...those would be Democrats. Manipulating a bill on war spending for a liberal nanny state program.......

how so NOT shocking........

equally not shocking are those farkers who completely didn't get or completely ignored the point of someone voting against it.

It is stupid, but most of the folks driving cars old enough to qualify won't be buying new cars soon.
Another feel-good do-nothing POS from the overpaid twits in DC.

KaponoFor3: DarnoKonrad: That's how the republic has always worked. So no. Unless you're disingenuous or ignorant.

Ummm.... you are an idiot, I never said that I didn't know that it was commonplace. I just said I find it abhorrent.

I think you are the one who is disingenuous and ignorant.

I think his point probably is that you most likely are like a lot of Americans and didn't find it nearly as abhorrent when your team did it.

That is why it continues to happen.

But yeah, its abhorrent that we keep electing people who do this.

The best way to handle this is an arrangement between siblings.

Assume two brothers - one works hard, plays by the rules... the other speculates wildly, and abuses gov't handouts like candy.

They SHARE their wealth, thus averaging the two strategies and averaging the risk and reward.

HA!

PascalsGhost: I think his point probably is that you most likely are like a lot of Americans and didn't find it nearly as abhorrent when your team did it.

Well he's wrong, but I don't know why I should expect people on FARK to appreciate nuance or do anything other than paint people with a broad brush.

Unsung_Hero: Assume two brothers - one works hard, plays by the rules... the other speculates wildly, and abuses gov't handouts like candy.

Goofus and Gallant?

KaponoFor3: PascalsGhost: I think his point probably is that you most likely are like a lot of Americans and didn't find it nearly as abhorrent when your team did it.

Well he's wrong, but I don't know why I should expect people on FARK to appreciate nuance or do anything other than paint people with a broad brush.

Remember, you have a recorded Fark history through the previous administration.

acanuck: No worries - people driving clunkers cannot afford a new car, which is why they drive clunkers. AND, clunkers are usually paid off versus a new car buy which is another piece of debt to get into AGAIN.

I looked into this handout - my 1999 4x4 truck is worth about $7k and falls under this handout, since I'd be getting a new truck that gets 5MPG more - BUT, it must get scrapped, which means I do not get the tradein value over and above the coupon value from the dealer...so, it's an empty gesture to get me to buy a new one. I'll keep my "clunker", which is still quite serviceable in the heavy snow and for hauling my building materials and towing my trailer.

Had they given the Blue Book tradein plus coupon, I'd be at the dealer as soon as Obama's pen hit paper. I'd be getting into debt, as the current truck is paid off, in exchange for that $4 grand.

Like the other stimulus package, Congress is so freaking out of touch with consumers, they might at well get a job with GM's marketing department when their terms come up.

Nothing will come of this spendingwise, other than a few UAW votes.

I can't believe the government won't buy your car from you no strings attached. UGH STUPID GOVERNMENT SO OUT OF TOUCH!! I wanted to sell them my Xbox games but ebgames gave me way higher trade in value!! GOD WHY DID I VOTE FOR NOBAMA!!

Do you know those idiots a couple years back who were buying those crazy trucks they didn't need with gas mileage in the single digits? The ones you laughed at and told they'd be sorry when gas went up, while you bought cars responsibly?

We're now helping to buy them new cars.

In 2004, Alice_Liddel, a farkette, remarked that she was going to have start using her buttplugs so she'd be ready to take it up the ass for the next couple of years. I think that was the best advice anyone on Fark has ever given.

SchlingFocker: Goofus and Gallant?

Gallant brings enough condoms for all of his friends.
Goofus uses a plastic sandwich bag.

PascalsGhost: Remember, you have a recorded Fark history through the previous administration.

I'm well aware. Try to find something where I even remotely attempt to say this type of legislative proposal is OK or something that I am fine with the GOP doing. If you have followed my posts even during the Bush admin, you'd know that I've long railed on rampant spending (even when the GOP was in power), which this is just another example of.

If I'm going to buy other people's vehicles, I want to waste a lot more than $4500. Maybe GM will come out with an SUV that burns hundred-dollar bills.

Well the Chicago PD will be getting these in a few years since the dipshiats have shiat loads of big SUVs
/past two days I seen about 80 of them

deltabourne: acanuck: No worries - people driving clunkers cannot afford a new car, which is why they drive clunkers. AND, clunkers are usually paid off versus a new car buy which is another piece of debt to get into AGAIN.

I looked into this handout - my 1999 4x4 truck is worth about $7k and falls under this handout, since I'd be getting a new truck that gets 5MPG more - BUT, it must get scrapped, which means I do not get the tradein value over and above the coupon value from the dealer...so, it's an empty gesture to get me to buy a new one. I'll keep my "clunker", which is still quite serviceable in the heavy snow and for hauling my building materials and towing my trailer.

Had they given the Blue Book tradein plus coupon, I'd be at the dealer as soon as Obama's pen hit paper. I'd be getting into debt, as the current truck is paid off, in exchange for that $4 grand.

Like the other stimulus package, Congress is so freaking out of touch with consumers, they might at well get a job with GM's marketing department when their terms come up.

Nothing will come of this spendingwise, other than a few UAW votes.

I can't believe the government won't buy your car from you no strings attached. UGH STUPID GOVERNMENT SO OUT OF TOUCH!! I wanted to sell them my Xbox games but ebgames gave me way higher trade in value!! GOD WHY DID I VOTE FOR NOBAMA!!

LOL, it is hilarious. Since it doesn't help him out, its a stupid handout to the UAW. Otherwise, it'd be cool.

Idiots like this are why the country is the way it is.

KaponoFor3: PascalsGhost: Remember, you have a recorded Fark history through the previous administration.

I'm well aware. Try to find something where I even remotely attempt to say this type of legislative proposal is OK or something that I am fine with the GOP doing. If you have followed my posts even during the Bush admin, you'd know that I've long railed on rampant spending (even when the GOP was in power), which this is just another example of.

LOL, no, your outrage level was not nearly the same under Bush. Give it up. I don't really care, but don't get all pissed when farkers tend to judge you on the whole of your posts.

libbynomore2: For you stupid Farks who feebly attempted to make an issue about Republicans who voted against the war funding bill:

Congressional leaders attached the legislation to a $106 billion spending bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Congressional leaders...those would be Democrats. Manipulating a bill on war spending for a liberal nanny state program.......

how so NOT shocking........

equally not shocking are those farkers who completely didn't get or completely ignored the point of someone voting against it.

From TFA: "The simple fact is that we need to get Americans into car showrooms, and this is the bill that will do it," Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement.

/Partisan-Hack-Fail

This bill will only do 2 things
Raise the sticker price of new cars by $4,500
and make old beater cars worth more

Crosshair: I told the boss that he should sell the employees our old trucks. (2002 GM w/225,000 and 257,000 miles respectively are just two of the oldest ones.) Have us buy new ones using the rebate. Then sell them back to the company.

I wonder if there is anything in the legislation disallowing that?

Yes.

libbynomore2: For you stupid Farks who feebly attempted to make an issue about Republicans who voted against the war funding bill:

Congressional leaders attached the legislation to a $106 billion spending bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congressional leaders...those would be Democrats. Manipulating a bill on war spending for a liberal nanny state program.......

how so NOT shocking........

equally not shocking are those farkers who completely didn't get or completely ignored the point of someone voting against it.

I didn't see any Republicans claiming they were against the appropriation because of this. They were complaining about the $5 billion seed money for ~$100 billiion in IMF spending.

I'm a Japanese car maker, so I'm getting a kick out of this...

yeah, this just raises the price of new cars by $4500 for those of us who already have old, fuel efficient vehicles.

My brother and I were out shopping today. The clunker program is his best chance to get a fuel efficent car for several years. Given his 80k mile a year driving patterns, 10 mpg is a huge difference. Aces to Congress and President Obama for this bill.

fark the gawddamn idiots that bought gas guzzlers in the first place. Seriously, sink, rot, whatever. It's bad enough you drove up gas prices with increased demand for your monstrosities and have had taxpayers subsidizing your dumb shiat for years. Now you want more??? This kind of shiat just makes me want to slap the shiat out of anybody who utilizes this farked up resource and was stupid enough to buy some inefficient POS.

Sen. John McBitterCain via Twitter

Cash for Clunkers - one of the biggest lemon's ever sold to the taxpayers:

The obvious intent here is to get some excess inventory off of car lots, the same way the $8000 tax credit was meant to stimulate the real estate market. Additionally, streamlining the civilian fleet for more efficient gas consumption can only be a good thing.

What exactly is the problem here that republicans have, besides everything?

Earlier:
JohnMcBitterCain


Introduced a resolution with Senator Lieberman today expressing support for the Iranian people - I hope all Americans will support it!!


Campaign McBitterCain

Bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb Iran.

"Under the program, trade-in vehicles, 1984 models or newer, must have average fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon. And the new car or truck must get better gas mileage than the one that was scrapped."

God damn it, I drive an '83 Hurst/Olds.

Unsung_Hero: The best way to handle this is an arrangement between siblings.

Assume two brothers - one works hard, plays by the rules... the other speculates wildly, and abuses gov't handouts like candy.

They SHARE their wealth, thus averaging the two strategies and averaging the risk and reward.

HA!

I think I've heard that story somewhere before... maybe Karl Marx.

BlippityBleep: fark the gawddamn idiots that bought gas guzzlers in the first place. Seriously, sink, rot, whatever. It's bad enough you drove up gas prices with increased demand for your monstrosities and have had taxpayers subsidizing your dumb shiat for years. Now you want more??? This kind of shiat just makes me want to slap the shiat out of anybody who utilizes this farked up resource and was stupid enough to buy some inefficient POS.

Are you on crack, or is your brain broken?