Pajamas Media

65 Comments

1. Meryl:

Where’s the grocery stimulus?

I want a 35% cash rebate when I buy groceries that were raised in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

I also want a tax credit for changing my food purchase profile as I increase my San Joaquin Valley purchases by $10 a month.

In addition, I want Receipt for Seedlings Swap coupons. They will work like this: for every $5 of San Joaquin Valley purchases made, I can take that receipt to my local participating nursery and receive 2 free vegetable seedings of my choice, along with a bag of organic soil (also free).

This will support both “Buy American” AND the Dumbdown California Education ESL System.

Maybe this will be part of the health care plan.

Jun 22, 2009 - 3:34 am 2. fear Obama:

Thank you pres. Hopenchange-

Now homeless people sleeping in back of old vans and trucks can trade in those old stinky clunkers and get to sleep in new vehicle smell.

That is until the first government car payment comes due.

But that is why Henry Ford invented tires and steering wheel-

We can always move to another state and homeless parking lot-

Preferable one that has a wireless internet connection.

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:15 am 3. john from cinncinatti:

so i turn in my car,which i don’t make payments on, and get 4500 dollars of credit. then i get a payment of 450 due each month, on a vehicle that has an inflated price tag. how do i win here? i’m patriotic and pay my taxes but i got a better plan. how about i get 4500 dollars and i repower my car with one of those european diesels, that are illegal in the USA, that get 45 miles to the gallon. Jerry Maguire “show ME the money”

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:44 am 4. Gary Ogletree:

Good news for Ford and Toyota.

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:47 am 5. eon:

I rather suspect that many retirees (like myself);

1. Couldn’t afford a new, “green” car even with a $4,500 “credit” (there’s still a big gap to fill, and many pensioners won’t be able to qualify for the necessary loan on the basis of their monthly income);

2. Cannot physically get into or out of a “politically correct” micro-vehicle for health reasons (I’m six feet tall, have a 32-inch inseam, and also have rheumatoid arthritis- figure it out); and

3. Also require a vehicle that can actually transport things other than themselves (my last there vehicles have been a station wagon, a 4X4, and a minivan, and each one has been “full” at least once a week- and not with people, either).

The logical choice, for someone like that (me), is a good, “pre-owned”, larger vehicle. Exactly the sort of vehicle this “clunker” of a law is supposed to ensure is no longer on the road.

Once more we see that laws are being written by limousine liberals according to their pet theories and dogmas, with no input from reality wanted or permitted.

I wonder- will said limousine-riding “elites’” carefully exempt themselves from this law, as they have done so often in the past?

clear ether

eon

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:57 am 6. eon:

I rather suspect that many retirees (like myself);

1. Couldn’t afford a new, “green” car even with a $4,500 “credit” (there’s still a big gap to fill, and many pensioners won’t be able to qualify for the necessary loan on the basis of their monthly income);

2. Cannot physically get into or out of a “politically correct” micro-vehicle for health reasons (I’m six feet tall, have a 32-inch inseam, and also have rheumatoid arthritis- figure it out); and

3. Also require a vehicle that can actually transport things other than themselves (my last three vehicles have been a station wagon, a 4X4, and a minivan, and each one has been “full” at least once a week- and not with people, either).

The logical choice, for someone like that (me), is a good, “pre-owned”, larger vehicle. Exactly the sort of vehicle this “clunker” of a law is supposed to ensure is no longer on the road.

Once more we see that laws are being written by limousine liberals according to their pet theories and dogmas, with no input from reality wanted or permitted.

I wonder- will said limousine-riding “elites’” carefully exempt themselves from this law, as they have done so often in the past?

clear ether

eon

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:58 am 7. eon:

Darn. Sorry about the double post.

cheers

eon

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:59 am 8. Parabellum:

Who will determine how many miles per gallon my clunker gets?

Will they take my word for it?

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:01 am 9. Mike2:

Mr. Douglass, good way of looking at it and you are right, how many are going to want the extra burden of car payments in this time of rising unemployment or can even afford to buy another car under any circumstances. Also, how many are going to want to get a vehicle from either Chrysler or GM now that bunches of their workers are being laid off in the downsizing and who knows what kind of quality problems the new vehicles will have due to assembly line sabotage.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:04 am 10. Meryl:

8. Parabellum

Good question. Maybe this is part of the “saving and growing jobs” stimulus as well, and the government will pay people $15 an hour to stand around car lots and take clunkers for 100 mile drives to check mileage.

The value of the gasoline burned on the Clunker Mileage Check Drive will then be subtracted from your Cash for Clunkers Check. This task will be performed by a clerical person on the lot (being paid $20 an hour for their math abilities).

See? It’s all good.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:13 am 11. Bilgeman:

This is the most cockamamie notion I’ve heard in quite some time.

Uncle Sam is going to give me $4,500 of my own money for a qualifying trade-in, IF I agree, (and qualify), to take on at least $20,000 in auto debt? (To say nothing of the additional cost to insure a financed vehicle).

And naturally, the vehicle that they would REALLY, REALLY, like me to buy would be one woefully inadequate to my needs.
For the record, I have a family, a house in the country, and where I live, the hilly roads don’t always get plowed…sometimes for DAYS.

This is a feature of life in rural and suburban America that obviously Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Schumer are totally unacquainted with, (although I’d have expected Ms. Collins, being from Maine, should dimly remember).

This is nothing more than yet another auto industry bailout with a “Save the Earth” bumbersticker slapped on it.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:26 am 12. John:

A company doing real market analysis on something of this order would find that it would be a pretty silly waste of advertising and incentive money.

This is government reasoning at its most idiotic. No one in the Green world ever asks why people purchase larger automobiles. To them its some sort of phallic substitute… or ego trip. Of course Greenies reproduce as little as possible, if at all, and certainly don’t live outside of the urban/suburban high impact squalor of their sacred cow cities.

They want electric cars, without a clue as to where the electricity is going to come from, or the drain on the grid of plugging in all of those battery chargers for their 40 mile range the next day. Do they use A/C? Do they use deodorant?

Gee, maybe if the government just cut taxes on individuals and businesses and let people who need a new car, purchase a new car they’d see a turn around start?

Wowsers… but then they wouldn’t be “in control” would they. People would go out and purchase a car that would suit the needs of their family of five, with two six foot 200+ pound boys and a daughter who would appreciate breathing while riding.

But then I gave myself away. My trip to church on Sunday with a family two kids too large for the Greenies’ tastes. We also won’t talk about girth… So we are get failing grades from the Left on so many levels. I am so profoundly sorry….NOT!

When you add all of this up, what you find is that a segment of the population has arbitrarily decided to impose its chosen lifestyle on everyone, regardless.

This stupid idea is just part of the master plan to make everyone a drone… who grazes at the government trough… failing to breed, failing to thrive, failing to succeed… in everything but following orders.

“We” are being herded into a “Brave New World” of “1984″ from which there may never be a “Logan’s Run”.

r/John – TMF

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:28 am 13. Jacquie:

The site fueleconomy.gov determines how many MPG your current vehicle gets. I’m going to trade in my old 1991 Toyota Previa minivan for a new Honda Fit through this program. I feel a bit dirty doing so, but then I pay taxes so I’m going to view it as a one time tax cut. Probably the only one I’m going to see under a Democrat President.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:29 am 14. morgan:

clunkers should qualify as anything 15 mpg or less, replace with anything getting 20+ mpg, new or used(2004 or newer)and should be able to use voucher for car clunker to purchase more efficient car, truck, suv, etc …. as long as mpg and year fits criterias. Why be only car for car, truck for truck?
Open bill to 15 mpg or less, used vehicle qualify, and more people who really need to get rid of their guzzlers can afford to do that, as well as include more of the seniors, unemployed, etc.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:49 am 15. Anonymous:

Will the credit count as income when April 15 roles around, just like that last “stimulus” check?

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:59 am 16. David Adams:

You forgot to include the qualifiers; if you are single and make more than $30,000/year you are not eligible. If you are married there is also a ceiling on how much income you can make before you qualfy for this ‘deal’. This ‘program’ cannot be used by the folks designated as ‘rich’. In other words, you cannot trade in the extra autos you have in your car-studded garage.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:22 am 17. Steve:

My Vehicle is a 1993 GMC Jimmy S15 four wheel drive with a V6 262 cubic inch (4.3 liter) and from the the federal government http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm it shows that my vehicle get combined 16 miles per gallon of 20 highway and 15 city using premium gasoline. My vehicle runs on regular gasoline quite well and gets almost 23 miles per gallon highway (which is what I mostly drive). I have never calculated city driving since I do so little but would feel safe in saying 17 miles per gallon.

I guess that according to the EPA mileage estimates that this vehicle would qualify but I believe that the legislation as passed would qualify me to trade it in on a new vehicle, which would be over $20,000 and under $35,000, but since I an currently unemployed I would not be able to get a loan, so this legislation to me and probably many others is worthless, and I also understand that when these vehicles are traded in that they are sent straight to the salvage yard to be crushed and can not be resold (I could be wrong). So why don’t they just offer to give to $3500 or $4500 at the local salvage yard if they want such vehicles off the road?

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:34 am 18. Delia:

I don’t get it.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:50 am 19. Patrick:

Obama isn’t getting my 1986 Chrysler for $4500. That wouldn’t pay the taxes on a new minicar in greed-bastard Kansas.
The public is trying to avoid adding new debt. When will we ever be smart enough to elect leaders who are at least as smart as we are?

Jun 22, 2009 - 7:22 am 20. Delia:

19. Patrick:

“The public is trying to avoid adding new debt. When will we ever be smart enough to elect leaders who are at least as smart as we are?”

Uhhhhhhm. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, uh…er,,,uhmmmmm…there’s a LOT of stupid in our Country. That’s how we got here. A plethora of ST00PID on a grand scale.

Jun 22, 2009 - 7:34 am 21. John:

Just think.

“Hi!! We are your friendly neighborhood Federal Government. Here’s $4,500 of your money so that you can go into debt for $400 a month to buy a Federally approved FlexFuel-electric skate.”

[Blank Stare... blink... crickets chirp]

I suppose that some drones will be thrilled at the prospect. I can hear their chanting and bowing in front of the revolutionary art icon of The Obamessiah…

Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to pay off their existing car loans, and keep what we have until this mess gets sorted out.

r/John – TMF

Jun 22, 2009 - 7:35 am 22. Delia:

21. John:

“Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to pay off their existing car loans, and keep what we have until this mess gets sorted out.”

Yeah, and we will steam-rool over the ‘new-fangled 0bamobiles’ with our ‘old-fashioned’ ‘merican cars of yore.

Jun 22, 2009 - 7:47 am 23. Delia:

’steam-rool’? GAH! ‘Steam-ROLL’

Spell-check on isle nine! Clean-up required!

Jun 22, 2009 - 7:48 am 24. bobdog:

So I trade in my 2005 Explorer with 80,000 miles on the meter for some “I’m intellectually superior to YOU” estrogen-powered golf cart. Does anybody actually think that Explorer is going to get crushed into a cube? No. It will be sold to somebody else at a steep discount, who will happily drive it for another 100,000 miles.

And I end up buying a Toyota, or a Honda, or a VW, none of which do a damn thing for Government Motors. Now we’ve got two cars on the road, belching all that icky carbon dioxide, and another $25,000 added to our trade deficit.

How many of our Congress critters are going to start driving to work in a chauffeur driven Smart Car?

Jun 22, 2009 - 9:04 am 25. Promoguy:

These are the same people who want to control how you receive your health in order to live.

Jun 22, 2009 - 9:17 am 26. Paul of Alexandria:

Delia (23)
I don’t know, “Steam-rooling” sounds appropriate, somehow.

Jun 22, 2009 - 9:31 am 27. Patrick Greene:

I looked up my 1994 S10 and the site says the EPA mileage has been revised. What will Obama Motors look at? The original or the revised?
Old MPG 18 city, 23 highway, 20 combined.
New MPG 16 city, 22 highway, 18 combined.

If I did do this I would trade on a Ford Ranger, 4 banger manual, the lowest cost fuel on the EPA site,

21 City 26 highway, 23 combined

this would be an improvement of 5 mpg combined based on the “new ratings”.
It being a Ford no cash would go to Obama Motors.
It is rated at $1592 annual fuel cost on the EPA site, the lowest listed (the Mazda version is of course the same cost).
Based on the Ford site the cost is $14615 after $2500 cash incentive.
Subtract the Obama clunker cash – can’t figure if I would get the $3500 or the $4500 but go big $10115 plus tax lic etc. This is basically the same money I paid for the same vehicle back in 1999 when I got back from Korea. I paid cash and no trade in. So the way I understand it is that Ford is charging almost $5000 more 10 years later for esentially the same vehicle – no real design changes over that time period.

Even the best case in this clunker cash thing leaves me cold – I have to fork over $10,000, pay higher insurance premiums, and get nervious about parking lot bangs and bumps. Sorry, Obama, I think I’ll just stay debt free.

Jun 22, 2009 - 9:34 am 28. Jake:

So you’re car has to be a 1984 or earlier model and get less than 15 mpg? And the people who drive these vehicles are going to have enough money to buy even the cheapest new car, even with $4500 off of the sticker? Obviously this kind of buyer is not going to be able to roll into a dealership and cut the salesman a check for the remainder of the balance, so they’ll have to take on a car payment. IF they can get a loan for that remainder, they’ll then have to pay insurance on their new wheels, which is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than what they were paying before. This is just for the “simple” insurance. They’ll also have to carry things like collision premiums that they probably didn’t have to carry on their clunker. I think even the 250,000 number is optimistic.

Jun 22, 2009 - 9:52 am 29. Delia:

26. Paul of Alexandria:

“Delia (23)
I don’t know, “Steam-rooling” sounds appropriate, somehow.”

Ah-ha-ha! I guess if it ‘rool’ were pronounced ‘rule’, you’re right! Good catch. *giggles*

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:17 am 30. Войска ПВО:

11. Bilgeman wrties:

“This is the most cockamamie notion I’ve heard in quite some time. Uncle Sam is going to give me $4,500 of my own money for a qualifying..”

Yeah, isn’t it wonderful? And, out here in California, Ah-nold is going back on one of the things that helped Gray Davis get thrown out and him elected: he’s re-tripling the ad valorem auto registration fees. So, you not only have the new car payments, you get to pay the back the $4,500 clunker rebate to the California government in three or four easy annual installments.

“You shovel 16 tons and waddya get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
St Peter called me but I can’t go..
..I owes mah soul to th’ company sto’”

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:18 am 31. johnb:

More Obamabamboozle at work.

I live in a city of 250,000,,, I wonder how many cars or light trucks are still on the road from 1984 and earlier? Probably not too many, certainly not enough to make any real difference on overall fuel savings.

Further,,, in reading this blog entry I didn’t get the sense of what this $4,500.00 clunker deal really is. Is it a government rebate in the form of other peoples tax dollars, or is it a tax credit against your own earned income? If it’s my tax dollars helping someone else to buy a new car, color me pissed off, that’s called redistribution of wealth. If it’s a tax credit, most folks driving a 1984 car don’t pay taxes anyway.

Like I said, more Obamabamboozle.

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:25 am 32. Delia:

25. Promoguy:

“These are the same people who want to control how you receive your health in order to live.”

True dat. Can you imagine quibbling over body parts instead of car parts? YIKES!

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:34 am 33. JMS:

Funny, I drive a ‘96 Bronco that gets 11 miles/gallon, so I really studied this program and even put off some repairs until I found out if this legislation can help me. The truck is worth about $3,500 – $4,000 and is still in pretty good shape despite its 155,000 miles.

This bill does nothing unless you drive a vehicle with zero-to-very-little trade-in value AND are in the market for a NEW car. I don’t know too many people that drive an ‘87 chevy truck that are all the sudden in the market for a new car, especially in this economy. Since the voucher goes directly to the dealer, it seems designed first to help the dealer and then secondarily to help the small sliver of the population that meets the above criteria.

In essence it encourages mostly lower-income people to go out and buy a new car. I guess we didn’t learn from the subprime mortgage crisis that encouraging people to live above their means is not smart. Maybe I am more the exception since I work at home and do not have to drive many miles to and from work every day, but if they want me to trade in my Bronco, which has been paid for for 8 years and is dirt-cheap to insure, they would have to give me the voucher ON TOP OF my trade in value to make it worth my while, especiallly to jump into a new car payment.

In a broader sense, this is what’s wrong with big government today. I could have afforded a new car, but I wanted to be sure the roof over my head was paid for first and foremost. I bought a house at the peak of the bubble and have lost any equity I had in it to begin with, yet partially beacause I did not by a new car, I still have enough money to make the mortgage payments. Now that I am having to contribute to the bail out of others who also bought houses during the bubble, many of whom undoubtedly insist on driving new cars, it seems to me that in retrospect I would have been better off NOT being financially responsible. The only difference I can see between myself and the financially irresponsible is that they get to drive around in a new car while I am stuck driving an old jalopy.

Is this the incentive we really want to create? Do the people that write these bills have any clue as to what they are doing?

Jun 22, 2009 - 10:36 am 34. Hanzie:

Hey folks! Don’t worry about it!

This one won’t work, so there is going to be a less restrictive deal later to make up for the egg on face problem of nobody buying this one.

The UAW is going to scream for it. I wouldn’t get a Ford, though. All the UAW has to do is bankrupt Ford and king Hussein 0th will put it in their christmas (Oops, Kwanzaa) stocking.

Remember, you can buy a Honda, Toyota, or a Mistake-a. I wonder if Kirkham Motorsports vehicles will count for this. Probably not, since they don’t have official epa numbers.

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:07 am 35. Delia:

33. JMS:

“In a broader sense, this is what’s wrong with big government today.”

The insidious part is that our current ‘government’ is a reflection on ‘us’. We have slowly but surely let bigger and bigger government creep up on us by BOTH parties. It’s borderline criminal what is happening to our Country and its citz.

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:11 am 36. Eric Florack:

My compliments to the editor.

No question that Brian put up a great piece, but I wonder how many understand the rather delicious irony of using a pic of a Chevette… Chevy’s answer to Jimmy Carter gas prices… as the ‘clunker’.

Jun 22, 2009 - 11:55 am 37. Meryl:

36 Eric Florack

“but I wonder how many understand the rather delicious irony of using a pic of a Chevette… Chevy’s answer to Jimmy Carter gas prices… as the ‘clunker’.”

yeah! That’s funny. A Chevette was the very first “totally new” car I drove off a lot. Within a month, our family had nicknamed it “BOB”, short for Bucket Of Bolts. Within a year, I traded for a Citation which was a CAR I loved! (This was early 1980’s)

The Chevette was a clunker the day you took it home.

Jun 22, 2009 - 12:11 pm 38. Self-hating Boomer:

If you wanted to structure a program to get the most polluting smoke bombs off the road, you’d give a voucher to buy a used car with. That’s the stated objective, but it’s clearly not the real objective. The real objective is more “stimulus”.

Why stop with autos? Let’s have vouchers for riding mowers. That’ll be stimulative, won’t it? How about barbecues? Or yard flamingos? I know, everybody needs a GPS!

Jun 22, 2009 - 12:52 pm 39. Steve:

Here’s what you can drive and without excessive insurance and possibly even buy two of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo

Jun 22, 2009 - 1:19 pm 40. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

Or you could get a pair of Tatas. I always wanted a pair of Tatas. Something new to play with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano

Jun 22, 2009 - 1:37 pm 41. Steve:

Oh yeah you could click my name and then click the play button for the You Tube video on my personal website, and if you wish click a link to go on to my main site (warning unless you are into PHP and PHP Nuke it might be boring but you can blog there, if you join)!

Jun 22, 2009 - 1:49 pm 42. Sebastian Shaw:

The government is not going to make lemonade from these horrible lemons. This is the reason why government should not be running any businesses; businesses cannot be run like bureaucracies. President Obama is going to have one big lemon on his face with this debacle.

Jun 22, 2009 - 2:08 pm 43. Chuckt:

Yep, the govt. offering return $4500 of YOUR money to go another $15-20K in debt isn’t the smartest of marketing ploys, particularly when you can barely afford to keep driving the clunker you have now; the savings reaped in gas mileage won’t even touch your payment. But that’s what you get when this I’m-from-the-govt-and-I’m-here-to-hope-and-change administration sticks its nose where it doesn’t belong.
Yeah, these people deserve to be in charge of our health care.
Imagine: Need a heart transplant? Obama: If your income doesn’t exceed $30K, you’re under 50, you worked for ACORN, and you’re from Chicago, go to the front of the line, where Dr. Bureaucrat is waiting just for you. Everyone else? Sorry, go to the end of the line.

Oh, and Delia: Spell check on aisle 23! Clean up required! Aisle, not isle.

Has anyone spotted an Obama bumper sticker lately? All the ones seen before the election are now gone . . . . hmmmm, let’s see if we can piece this mystery together. Stay tuned . . .

Jun 22, 2009 - 2:14 pm 44. Delia:

39. Steve,

The Soda-Can-Mobile! LMFAO!

Jun 22, 2009 - 2:16 pm 45. Delia:

43. Chuckt

“Aisle, not isle.”

You mean I can’t shop on my own private spell-check island? lol

Thanks. *slaps self with a cold Bass*

Jun 22, 2009 - 2:39 pm 46. Steve:

Actually Chuckt I have noticed lately that I have seen very few of those bumper stickers, but still see McCain Palin stickers that is an interesting observation, but it might also be that I am unemployed and do not drive unless absolutely necessary. There weren’t too many of them here anyway to begin with, and there are still the Nobama stickers around here in Tennessee.

Jun 22, 2009 - 2:46 pm 47. Jim Baker:

Hey, we elected this guy and his party’s agenda. Don’t ask me to figure out fixes to the social engineering problems they cause. Just vote these clowns out as soon as possible and don’t buy the BS anymore.
Has anyone looked at the US Forest Service website lately? It looks like a third grade global warming seminar. This stuf is everywhere, folks, a Pandora’s box.

We are now Borg.

Jun 22, 2009 - 2:52 pm 48. SukieTawdry:

No, it doesn’t seem like a “splendid idea.” The details are immaterial. How could using taxpayer money to subsidize for a select few purchases of personal property from select members of the private sector possibly ever be a splendid idea? Good night nurse, is there nothing we taxpayers who have paid our own way through the years (in addition to forking over as much as 50 percent of our income to federal, state and local tax collectors) won’t be made to subsidize? This kind of crap is what’s wrong with government. This kind of crap is why we have Tea Parties.

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:44 pm 49. Self-hating Boomer:

the car or truck must be a 1984 or later vehicle to qualify

That disqualifies that ‘82 Skylark in your picture.

WTF is the rationale behind that restriction, anyway? The really old clunkers are the worst offenders of all. Especially the old VW buses with Grateful Dead bears that drip oil all over from their split crankcases.

Jun 22, 2009 - 4:48 pm 50. Delia:

49. Self-hating Boomer:

“WTF is the rationale behind that restriction, anyway? The really old clunkers are the worst offenders of all. Especially the old VW buses with Grateful Dead bears that drip oil all over from their split crankcases.”

LMAO! Don’t forget all the clunkers one of my neighbor’s kept in his backyard forEVER.

Stupid↑, stupid→, stupid←!

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:08 pm 51. Meryl:

33. JMS

“Do the people that write these bills have any clue as to what they are doing?”

No.

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:40 pm 52. Banned by Huffpo:

Well, let me think about this one . . .

Okay, I turn in my (paid for) 2002 E-150 that has 178,000 miles on it, gets crummy gas mileage, but pulls my boat (oh, sudden thought — how soon before recreational boating is illegal? That would sure help the unemployment stats) and hauls my family of five around plus a ton of cargo. And the dogs. (Maybe The One will outlaw pet ownership, except for the intelligensia? They do poop a lot, and exhale. . bye-bye, Purina! Sorry about all those fired workers . . but I digress.)

For a . . . . what? Spend $30K on an “acceptable” SUV that gets 2 or 3 more MPG, plus higher insurance premiums? Made in Korea, no less.

Hey Obama, are you familiar with the term “KMA”?

Jun 22, 2009 - 5:51 pm 53. Notan Idjit:

I see a lot of commenters are focused on the “obvious” fact that poorer folks cannot afford to avail themselves of this program. All of you are missing the point of program.

Despite what the politicians tell you, this program is NOT designed to help *you* get a “better” car or to save jobs or oil.
Nope.
This program exists so the limousine liberals can get *themselves* a new car, partially paid for by *your taxes*.

Jun 22, 2009 - 6:01 pm 54. Delia:

53. Notan Idjit [not an idiot],

I concur but, it’s more like a months worth of caviar, champagne and ‘Wagyu Beef’. They already have all the trains, planes and automobiles that our tax dollars can pay for.

Jun 22, 2009 - 8:02 pm 55. Bilgeman:

Y’know, gang, it occurs to me that you may be able to get the credit if you change the chip or re-program the computer in your pre-1984 vehicle to meet the required mileage parameter.

I’ve had my eye on a primo 1973 Pontiac Grand Prix with a 455 cid V-8, 25k original miles…

http://www.4goldstar.com/used-inventory/vehicle-details.htm?vehicleId=1f5284e94046381e00e9c0a806d63abd#

Certi-fly-ably pimpalicious!

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:52 am 56. Delia:

55. Bilge:

“Certi-fly-ably pimpalicious!”

Thanks a lot. My keyboard will never be the same again. LMFAO!

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:01 am 57. VT Steve:

Aside from the idiocy of this bill, the cost, according to the details, is $4 billion? Isn’t that roughly 3 times what Congress cut out of missle defense just last week?

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:08 pm 58. comatus:

“1984 or later.” As the Current Resident always says, let me be clear on this.

Do you mean the vehicle must be 1984, 1985, 1986 etc, or 1983, 1982, 1981, etc? This makes a bid difference.

Certainly US cars of the 70’s were unloved and unlovely for the most part. But anyone using tax dollars to destroy the classics of the 60’s and before is a God-damned Communist pure and simple.

Also keep in mind that this steamer has been floated in the punchbowl since the 70’s by noted war hero and New School rube Bob Kerrey. It’s not from Yerp; it’s home-grown WJ Bryan sos’lism.

Jun 24, 2009 - 5:47 am 59. Self-hating Boomer:

Umm, Bilge. ‘73 cars didn’t have computers. If you’ve never heard of one, Google “carburetor”. They’re kinda cool. They managed to vaporize gas and mix it with air without a computer or injectors. Some didn’t even use electricity.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:41 am 60. vvp39:

“Do the people that write these bills have any clue as to what they are doing?”

Yes. They think it will help them get re-elected.

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:00 am 61. Scott:

Gee this sounds vaguely familiar to the the theory “Everyone should own a home”……..So here is how I see it happening: They start all kinds of programs and tricky financing etc to get people qualified. People who cant afford cars(homes) will somehow miraculously get approved by dealers(mortgage companies), then drive their new cars for 6 months, then default on their car(home) and we will have another auto(home) meltdown. But all is well since the dealer(mortgage co.) will pocket the 3500 to $4500 bucks, and the government will bail out the financing companies bad loans by just printing more money. See it all works great……let’s all go car shopping!!

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:24 am 62. Paul:

The best thing is that with the increased mileage on a new vehicle most people just drive more, or drive faster.

No net change in fuel consumption.

(Nobody can spend billions with no effect like da gooberment. Urban Renewal, Slum Clearance, Model Cities anyone? War on Poverty anyone?)

Jul 5, 2009 - 6:04 pm 63. Sean:

I’d rather think of this as revenge of boomers on their kids. Think about it, if you are a boomer in your 50’s, you’ve been driving that old paid for, kid hauling clunker while you helped put your kids through college. Your liberal kids help elect a liberal president and congress who can’t help but give things away (even though you will ultimately foot the bill in your taxes). So even though your kids might be paying off student loans, their pay is low as they are starting their career, they might be saving for a house or struggling to make their morgage, they have health insurance that barely pays for the medical expenses of their own children and they really could use a little extra money to upgrade an old subcompact to something more suitable to a growing family, their liberal elected representatives have created a windfall for boomers with big old cars, nearly paid off mortgages and highest earning years of their careers. So thank your liberal kids, go out and trade that old SUV or minivan for some small sexy thing to help you through your mid-life crisis. Its the best “payback” you’ll get until you kids have children of their own.

Jul 5, 2009 - 6:27 pm 64. Crisnconee:

I have a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo with 160,000 miles…own a home that is upside down…and we are in an arm that is 7.5 and going higher I suspect…..ahmsc are a bunch of crooks…( I dare anyone to compare the Libor rate in the NY times to the rate the day American home mortgage servicing company AHMSC raises rates…In order to refinance..we have to put up 10 to 12 thousand in cash…so we pay our 8.5 + adjustments like good republicans…….however…I am taking advantage of OBAMA’S little incentive…..we do, every now and then…have to use a tire iron to bang the battery cable if it does not start…and…our driveway is littered with oil marks..we just paid off a pontiac vibe…365 a month car payment…we felt relief to have that gone…if we could refinance our house…and get a consistent rate…we could feel comfortable buying a new (2nd) car..however…skanks…like bruce rawen with drew mortgage in MA…switched us into a Adjustable rate mortgage at the closing table……(imagine that)…740 credit score…(why did that happen) and now we are just hanging until we can get equity…cause 5 years later…the market has dropped….bottom line is this…we haven’t dumped our mortgage like everyone else…we got shanked by a lying mortgage broker who should be jailed…so WE will cash in and take the $4500. and get screwed by some car dealer who has convinced us to by a jeep patriot for 15500 with the cash for clunkers trade in…which is what someone without the cash for clunkers would pay…bottom line is….unless you are a savvy sob…you are going to get screwed.

Jul 21, 2009 - 10:17 pm 65. Chevette:

Eric Florack mentions the CHEVETTE as the Ironic clunker in #36 above. Have you checked the clunker websites?
My son has a licenced and insured drivable 1985 chevette that traversed Washington state from East to West in a huge snowstorm last winter. It does NOT qualify for the program because it gets over 18mpg, unlike many of the cars you CAN BUY with the program. Delicious irony indeed…..Ron Paul told ya so…………

Aug 2, 2009 - 4:42 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: