Cash for Clunkers engine destruction procedure

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:15 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

The truly needy folks out there who could benefit greatly from a clunker are left behind.

So who are these people that are being left behind. I am assuming you are talking about people who can't afford to buy much better than $500 used cars?

So lets spin this another way. The government buys a bunch of cars that don't get great mileage, but do have life left in them. Then then effectively give them away to people, but we would have to come up with some rules that say "poor people" get them. All of this as tax payer expense? How far would that idea fly?

The majority of these "clunkers" are worth well over $500. Well, you could start with a list from the IRS of families that qualified last year for the EITC and who also own a car with some level of need based on age/issues. I'm guessing it wouldn't be anymore expensive than the massive bureaucracy surrounding this current program...

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:21 pm

Not to appear to be in love with this program here are my complaints…

The term “Cash for clunkers” should never have been tied to this. This is not about getting old beat up cars off the road. As pointed out above, if you can’t afford to buy a new car now, getting a great trade in on your old piece of crap is not going to really help you. This is about getting middle America to buy new cars. That is why you see usable cars being traded in.

I am all for finding ways to help the economy. I am also all for finding a way to get people to be less dependent upon fossil fuels. I also generally agree this is not the right way to go about this.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a Dem vs Republican argument. It's too late for that. It is NOT too late to be sure we're all informed about policy decisions being made, and at least attempt to understand how programs get into law.

Again, I'd suggest everyone reread the Constitution or at least become re-acquainted with the ideals. Try to understand what this country is founded on and what made it great in the first place. Question _everything_ the federal government does these days in those terms.

One interesting question I would have for everyone -- so I understand that the "reason" for cash for clunkers is to reduce greenhouse gases, plus a lot of other political BS. So what ways would you rather the US government spent $4b to improve our country's energy status?

For one, I would have rather seen $4b be put into modernization of the grid. Or an additional $4b in incentives for alternative energy. Fund some home solar panels. Pay for some more windmills. Something, anything must be both more effecitve for the end goals, and not be directly destructive to value in the process.

So what would *you* do with $4b to reduce greenhouse gases or improve our country's energy situation? If it was yours to spend?

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:49 pm

MikeWhitney wrote:

So what would *you* do with $4b to reduce greenhouse gases or improve our country's energy situation? If it was yours to spend?

Nuclear power plants.

Jason Tower · **Joined:** Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:31 pm **Posts:** 1173

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Unless you've been brainwashed by the republicrats to think there are only two options, there were other people on the ballot.

very true, unfortunately none of those other people stood a statistically significant chance of being elected, but your point is well made. like many people i'm hopeful that we'll eventually see >2 parties active in the US political system.

your statement reminds me of how i feel when people discover i don't use windows. "oh i didn't know you were mac user". strike two

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:23 pm

Jason Tower wrote:

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Unless you've been brainwashed by the republicrats to think there are only two options, there were other people on the ballot.

very true, unfortunately none of those other people stood a statistically significant chance of being elected, but your point is well made. like many people i'm hopeful that we'll eventually see >2 parties active in the US political system.

That's part of the problem. As long as you* feel that way, you'll feel pressured to vote status quo and nothing will ever really change the direction that we're headed in. *You in general. Not you personally.

Quote:

your statement reminds me of how i feel when people discover i don't use windows. "oh i didn't know you were mac user". strike two

I also use linux.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

MikeWhitney wrote:

Again, I'd suggest everyone reread the Constitution or at least become re-acquainted with the ideals. Try to understand what this country is founded on and what made it great in the first place. Question _everything_ the federal government does these days in those terms.

I'd recommend the Federalist Papers too. Other than that, stock up on guns and ammo.

Graham Jagger · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:53 am **Posts:** 1718

Jason Mauldin wrote:

MikeWhitney wrote:

So what would *you* do with $4b to reduce greenhouse gases or improve our country's energy situation? If it was yours to spend?

Nuclear power plants.

As much as I would agree on this. The typical answer is NIMBY. So we would never actually get one built. Even the solar panels and windmills get poo-pood by people. They are unsightly...

I'd throw that $4b into buyback incentives for Heat and AC units for homes. You get a big rebate for trading in your 5-10-15 year old unit. Those things run on peoples homes day in and day out. Replace them with more efficient units and drop the overall load on the grid.

Jason Tower · **Joined:** Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:31 pm **Posts:** 1173

Jason Mauldin wrote:

That's part of the problem. As long as you* feel that way, you'll feel pressured to vote status quo and nothing will ever really change the direction that we're headed in. *You in general. Not you personally.

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_ ... Washington

Quote:

your statement reminds me of how i feel when people discover i don't use windows. "oh i didn't know you were mac user". strike two

I also use linux.

the contrarian in me wants to say that i use bsd but that'd be stretching the truth a little bit

steve remchak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Wes Eargle wrote:

MikeWhitney wrote:

Again, I'd suggest everyone reread the Constitution or at least become re-acquainted with the ideals. Try to understand what this country is founded on and what made it great in the first place. Question _everything_ the federal government does these days in those terms.

I'd recommend the Federalist Papers too. Other than that, stock up on guns and ammo.

stocking for defense or offense Wes? :roll:

$4B builds a bunch of racetracks. :twisted:

personally i believe wind power is under-utilized. Costa Rica produces enough power to actually have spare electricity to sell to neighboring countries.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:22 pm

steve remchak wrote:

stocking for defense or offense Wes? :roll:

Does that mean you have the food and water?

steve remchak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:49 pm

Graham Jagger wrote:

Jason Mauldin wrote:

MikeWhitney wrote:

So what would *you* do with $4b to reduce greenhouse gases or improve our country's energy situation? If it was yours to spend?

Nuclear power plants.

As much as I would agree on this. The typical answer is NIMBY. So we would never actually get one built. Even the solar panels and windmills get poo-pood by people. They are unsightly...

I'd throw that $4b into buyback incentives for Heat and AC units for homes. You get a big rebate for trading in your 5-10-15 year old unit. Those things run on peoples homes day in and day out. Replace them with more efficient units and drop the overall load on the grid.

now that the Oil Barons are out of office, things might be different.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:55 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124922988694299529.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us

The implication at the moment is that the extension of this program is not a done deal in the Senate. In any event, I sure hope people, dealers, etc, aren't left holding the bag on this one if they didn't get processed before the funds ran out since the whole entry system has been backed up for a few days apparently.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:59 pm

Graham Jagger wrote:

Jason Mauldin wrote:

MikeWhitney wrote:

So what would *you* do with $4b to reduce greenhouse gases or improve our country's energy situation? If it was yours to spend?

Nuclear power plants.

As much as I would agree on this. The typical answer is NIMBY. So we would never actually get one built. Even the solar panels and windmills get poo-pood by people. They are unsightly...

I'd throw that $4b into buyback incentives for Heat and AC units for homes. You get a big rebate for trading in your 5-10-15 year old unit. Those things run on peoples homes day in and day out. Replace them with more efficient units and drop the overall load on the grid.

OMG THE WORLD IS NOW SPINNING IN REVERSE. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH GRAHAM ON THIS......... :shock:

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:00 pm

Graham Jagger wrote:

As much as I would agree on this. The typical answer is NIMBY. So we would never actually get one built.

So we just don't bother?!? Seriously, people were a LOT more afraid of nuke plants back when we built the first big wave of them, yet it happened. It would take some work, but we have designs for MUCH safer plants we could build today. We just need to do it.

Realistically we would need to spend a good bit of money on handling nuclear waste first. Fix THAT problem and I think a LOT of the nuke opposition goes away. And it can be fixed.

I do like the subsidy for upgrading your home HVAC. Perhaps you could add in help for other *significant* energy saving upgrades, like better windows, attic insulation, etc.

--Donnie

THSCC Forums

Cash for Clunkers engine destruction procedure

Who is online