Story Comments
Posted by: MRCOFFEECAKE 1 month, 2 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
73%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More efficient fuel vehicles burning 4million gallons a day (YES..FOUR MILLION GALLONS PER DAY) LESS GAS than before. (environmental benefit)
Reply
There are 14,845 dealerships presently open nationwide, employing over 850,000 Americans, and 650 of them that were scheduled for closure remained open strictly because this plan bridged these dealerships through the slow season.
(that would have been at least 20,000 more layoffs)
Presently there are 1,635,000 auto workers and there were 50,000 jobs saved because of this plan.
Why are you people so full of tunnel vision?
Do you really think we can waltz out of 7 years of Bush government expansion and deficit
spending, that virtually destroyed the value of the dollar without making sacrifices and spending some money?
You people are fools!-
-
-
-
100%
RedstateLib1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slate,
Reply
The New vehicle would still have to meet the improvement in fuel efficiency. So if the had an old 8 cyl. guzzler car and the bought a small 4 cyl SUV their would still be an improvement in the fuel economy. However I was selling cars at this time and all of my C4C deals were old SUV's and pickups being traded for 4 cyl cars. Do my 20 C4C deals trump three people you know?
http://www.cars.gov/faq
"The value of the credit given for the purchase or lease of a category 1 or 2 truck also generally depends on the difference between the combined fuel economy of the vehicle that is traded in and that of the new vehicle that is purchased or leased. If the new vehicle is a category 1 truck that has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 2, but less than 5, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new category 1 truck has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.
If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500. A $3,500 credit applies to the purchase or lease of a category 2 truck if the trade-in vehicle is a category 3 (work) truck that was manufactured not later than model year 2001, but not earlier than 25 years before the date of the trade in." -
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe you Slate..I'm not sure why that happened if it is contrary to the stated guidelines.
Reply
I think what redstate is saying covers the intent.
Overall, it worked to save gas use and hopefully there weren't unsavory deals struck just to get a sale.
Maybe a few slid under the radar, but overall it was a success..
This is a multi-tiered situation..
You build a house. It costs a lot. The foundation goes in first, but you CAN'T LIVE IN THE FOUNDATION..So, IN THIS CASE THE ORIGINAL HOME HAD TO BE REMOVED BEFORE
the foundation was even laid..
It is difficult to expect to always see results when there's a big mess to clean up first. Again, doing nothing was not an option, so let's just hope that he gets more than 50% of it right. I think he will..
But perfection was never a reasonable expectation.-
100%
slate1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no SUV that gets better gas mileage than a foreign compact. The dealers wanted to sell cars, any cars. They are hurting and any money i sbetter than no money.
Reply
You know, it's true about foundations and such. However, when you pay 10 times more for that foundation, any savings will take a very long time to recoup. Spending that sort of cash to get 'gas guzzlers' off the road in these hard economic times, makes little to know sense. No matter what the good intentions were. They have wasted yet another few billion dollars.
But hey, what's a few billion of anything?
Have you actually seen a billion things at on place? Most likely, at the beach as you look at all those individual grains of sand.
At 3 dollars a day that it takes to feed poor folks in impoverished nations or even here at a higher cost, just think what 'billions' actually means.
-
-
-
-
-
75%
TOD3961 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Do you really think we can waltz out of 7 years of Bush government expansion and deficit
Reply
spending, that virtually destroyed the value of the dollar without making sacrifices and spending some money?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, let's read this real slow. "...7 years of Bush government expansion and deficit spending...without making sacrifices and spending some money".
So there you have it, the actual beleif of how to get a handle on deficit spending. You just spend more.
And he calls us the fools...-
56%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It costs money to breathe..
Reply
Nothing is free.
Or are you a Communist now?.Or maybe you're a colonialist and think we should just take it from others?
This is going to require extensive effort, and yes SURPRISE cost money to fix..
Or do you want to give another 30 billion cash $ to Iraquis not to fight us too?
(by the way, they didn't use the money to buy peanut butter.
Al Sadr used the money to buy more weapons. -
50%
dunkirk1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes maybe you should go back and read the artiucle PC posted. ROFLMAO, its get pretty apparent he doesnt. Edmunds didnt count people they THOUGHT were going to buy new cars anyway driving the numbers up for cost since they removed people froim the base who bought. ROFLMAO, ya gotta love that fuzzy math. MrC is correct, the esteemed group of right wingers never complained about Bush spending us into the ground as long as the mney went to corporations, let the money go to the people and suddenly we see the shrill complaining the right is known for. Cash-for-Clunkers was a huge success, the right wing needs to get a reality check and start to realize the nation sees the Repugs as obstructionists and whiners. You're doing a great job continuing that trend.
Reply-
50%
pc251 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I actually posted what you said, fair and balanced not like you people. Edmunds is very specific in what they state. The majority of the people were going to buy cars regardless of C4C or not. The point of a stimulus is to get people to decide to buy something they had not planned for to STIMULATE the economy. The article is very specific in stating that.
Reply
A valid way to evaluate the program economically, it says, is to look at how many people purchased cars that otherwise wouldn’t have been bought.
Fuzzy math no.....You spent 3 billion to induce 125,000 people tto spend money that they were not going to spend.-
100%
tchef1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most of the people I know who took advantage of it did so because they were able to get a decent amount for their clunker. And if what state was true then why did the sales go up so much? And if you haven't noticed the sales have gone down significantly now that the program is over.
Reply -
100%
dunkirk1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would guess for the 30,000 with jobs pretty well. But if your so concerned about that trillion there a few of thoise missing in Iraq that didnt create ANY jobs. maybe we should use your logic and add those into the amount for Cash-for-clunkers to drive the cost per car up more. ROFLMAO
Reply -
50%
pc251 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you also spent $1TRILLION to create a whopping 30,000 jobs. Hows that been working out. Funny that the AP of all organizations called out the Obama administration on overstating that figure by several thousand. Christime Roemer testified last week that the major impetus of the stimulus was going to be felt in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of this year. The additional spending over the next 3 years would be spending to maintain the status quo, to keep the economy from sliding back. The stimulus boondoggle is basically every shelved Pork program that the Democrats just threw into the package. It was every whelved special interest pork program laying around Capital Hill for the last 30 years. The Dem Pork Fest. Meanwhile unemployment is stiill over 10% and as a number of experts have stated it is probably closer to 14% or 15% begin to include the people who have come off of unemployment insurance.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
2sidestoeverything
tchef
LumFan
deathray
Beau7890
fsev41
Sabretooth
dunkirk
CRYMTYPHON
DenCuddy
cowboygrandpa
DaneL
jimdoze
corl64
LOLbama
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.