var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
eddieck
July 31, 2009 12:13 AM
Moderate | Flag for review

Duplicate - see the last post.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wvFrugan
July 31, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually about a 16% unemployment economy & some % underemployed. Remember, when your unemployment benefits run out or you give up from frustration, you are no longer unemployed, just screwed.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
keepher
July 31, 2009 1:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wvFrugan: Heck, we've got 20% plus all around us. Wonder how many will be grabbing up that offer.

I did the math, my truck is worth more than the max they're offering. Even though its 15 yrs old. It isn't enough of a gas guzzler or giving me problems that would make paying car payments for the next whatever years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wvFrugan: You seem to be combining the % of people unemployeed and the # of people claiming unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics # takes into account people who are no longer elegible for unemployment benifits, as long as they are actively searching for employment.

Information on unemployment from [useconomy.about.com] :
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines unemployment as people who do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the past four weeks, and are currently available for work. It also includes people who were temporarily laid off and are waiting to be called back to that job. It doesn't count the jobless who:

* Didn't look for a job in the past four weeks.
* Are so discouraged that they have stopped looking for a job.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
July 31, 2009 1:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: It also does not include those who are underemployed or who are PART TIME

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wvFrugan
July 31, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo:
I challenge the ability to accurately count those no longer receiving unemployment benefits as well as how accurately the define \"actively looking & available\". What about those seeking part-time work? Or those who are employed part-time but want full-time?


Apparently a lot of people find the reported number unbelievable, google \"true u\" and one of the offered auto-complete terms is \"true unemployment rate\"


Here is one tidbit I found from my google (1st/top result):


\"True Unemployment Rate May Be Twice The Government Numbers


The official unemployment rate may also be dramatically inaccurate based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics method of calculation. Consider the chart below from Shadowstats.com.


If the government was still calculating the unemployment rate using the same criteria and methods that had last been used during the Clinton administration, the \"official\" unemployment rate today would be closer to 18%.\"


Note that this was in January '09, it's worse now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
July 31, 2009 2:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wvFrugan: No way exists to know who is still looking once their unemployment ends. Any state employment office would only have continued knowledge if they used that office on a regular basis for job searches. State employment agencies are generally worthless unless your looking for a job sweeping floors so most people are looking without any contact with the govt.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 2:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: The page I found on it said the stats are based at least partially on phone surveys

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
July 31, 2009 1:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: but phone surveys may not accurately capture some portions of the population. I'm not reflected in an unemployment rate. I never collected due to the fact I had to leave my job at the end of school when I moved back home. Now I have no job. Maybe I'm an outlier...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
July 31, 2009 5:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: This is true, and the problem really falls into an area of trying to put a black and white answer (yes/no unemployed) to a more complex question.

For example, say you're a professional of some type who could work at a low salary out of your field, but chooses not to do so, and are being somewhat choosy about employers. Or someone who is living with parents and would work if it fell in their lap, but isn't job hunting. Or someone who enjoys having some time off to spend with family/other pursuits and isn't seeking work right now, but intends to start that once funds run low?

Do you count these as unemployed or not. And that doesn't begin to touch \"underemployed.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
July 31, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@huadpe: \"For example, say you're a professional of some type who could work at a low salary out of your field, but chooses not to do so, and are being somewhat choosy about employers.\"

Or, perhaps more common, a professional with kids at home who can only find low-salaried work and so opts to keep staying home with the kids for now because the salary isn't enough to offset the childcare costs.

I know a lot of two-professional couples where one of them is currently home because they can't offset the childcare cost, but they're at least okay for now with only one salary. (And, yes, we should all be so lucky.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
July 31, 2009 1:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: wvFrugan's point is that what we call an \"Unemployment Rate\" is a really bad indicator of the level and quality of employment in this country. Under-employed people, those who have given up, and those who have taken big pay or benefits cuts are not reflected in the global \"unemployment\" numbers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 2:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: I took it to be he was implying those who are still looking but not getting unemployment benefits were not included in that number, but they are. That is not the case, so I was trying to clarify that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
eddieck
July 31, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Also, what does \"destroy the engine\" mean? Take a flamethrower to it? Put it in an industrial-strength shredder? Blend it? :P

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
July 31, 2009 12:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great plan. Swiss fucking watch.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
wvFrugan
July 31, 2009 12:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773:
The clunkers one or the dueling posts one? Shit Happens.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
PatrickIs2Smart
July 31, 2009 12:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm reading that it's kind of a \"rumor\" at this point, with no official announcement of the suspension of the program... While the article is definitely shocking, I think a little more caution should be exercised at this point until there is an official announcement.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
PatrickIs2Smart
July 31, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona: I realize that as a \"star\" commenter, you are inherently better than the average commenter, but I figured you would have at least taken the time stamp of my comment and your article into consideration... At the time of my comment, there was very little specific details in terms of who said what. All there was to go on was \"unnamed sources with no capacity to say anything official.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
missdona
July 31, 2009 9:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PatrickIs2Smart: Apologies, I just meant to update. No offense intended.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
EdnaLegume
July 31, 2009 12:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My husband is drowning in 'cash for clunkers' deals right now. he hasn't called to say he's free. Granted he hasn't called to say he's quit either....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DaveDidNotPay
July 31, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

From the USA Today link:

\"Dealers loved the extra sales, but some were already getting cold feet about the deals because of the difficulty in processing them.\"

We're talking about the same government that could potentially run our health care system one day. Issues like this when people are drooling over a new car are bad enough- can you imagine them when people need medical care?

Reply
16 replies
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
July 31, 2009 2:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: \"The government\" already runs three forms of health care. The VA, medicare and medicaid. Medicare's problems are largely due to some stupid intervention's from Congress and what Bush did with prescription coverage. Medicaid works fairly well in most aspects. The VA is far ahead of private for profit medicine in efficiency, electronic records and has better outcome rates.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
July 31, 2009 2:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Most people who are against government COVERAGE (not treatment) don't stop to think about the fact that they are going to be first in line for medicare when they get to that age.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
July 31, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: i've personally never dealt with the VA, but I have several clients who have and from my understanding it's terrible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
July 31, 2009 2:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: what about medicare and medicaide? I mean a couple of clients with one of the mentioned coverages doesn't mean much.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
July 31, 2009 12:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian:


Very reasonable, but falling on deaf ears. This hasn't been a fact-based debate for a long time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
July 31, 2009 2:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: Seems an aweful lot like what Massachusetts is going through with our health care reform: hospitals have yet to be reimbursed for a year's worth of expenses and have had to resort to suing the state to get money -- which they still haven't.

This, of course, is what the congressional health care reform bill has been compared to warmly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
vitonfluorcarbon
July 31, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: Yep, Government healthcare means crappier healthcare. Don't be fooled. Encourage your legislator to vote this crap down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
July 31, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vitonfluorcarbon: Yeah, and if that is your position I want you to tell your congress people to eliminate medicare, medicaid AND health care for the military. If you are consistent in your beliefs BE CONSISTENT. Let the troops use the free market like the rest of us.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
enderx
July 31, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: What I like is that there's a lot of you crying, 'You want the GOVERNMENT to run that?!' yet you're okay with the insurance company doing so - which btw, WANTS TO DECLINE ANYTHING YOU SEND THEM AUTOMATICALLY. Yah.

That sounds like a better alternative.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
merist
July 31, 2009 11:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@enderx:

Funny you should bring that up \"DECLINE ANYTHING AUTOMATICALLY.\" It appears that is what United Health Care does with ALL of my claims. First they decline, then they say the provider was out of network (They weren't.), then they finally pay it. (With the help of a third party advocate) Its kind of funny that my employer pays for a third party advocate to help its employees get what the employer contracted them to provide.

Yeah, thats efficient. Give me Gov't run health care any day over that fiasco.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
July 31, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@enderx: You need a different insurance company. You see, there's this thing called competition...if companies suck, you LEAVE and get that service elsewhere. Good grief.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
July 31, 2009 1:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: So I can go to any insurance company I want? Oh wait, how much would that insurance be? Since I will no longer be part of the group my EMPLOYER chooses I am charged an outrageous premium that does not cover anything. If THEY decide not to honor the contract it is up to me to sue them and fight it in court even though I pay them premiums. Of course I have to stick with the doctors THEY have a contract with, and next time you go in to the doctor ask them to give you the cost of everything PRIOR to it happening. Then tell the doctor, I will get this from you, and the doctor across the street is willing to give it to me for half that, and oh, this third doctor is even better on this procedure. THAT IS COMPETITION. No doctor would do it. They have a MONOPOLISTIC organization called the AMA that wants people confusedand unable to shop for the best deal

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
July 31, 2009 4:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: Unless, of course, you are one of those with an expensive medical condition, where the insurance companies cannot expect to PROFIT from your business.Then, the so-called competition doesn't matter a flying hoot, because they all either want to charge you some ungodly sum that nobody could ever afford, if they even want to insure you at all!

See THAT'S 'market forces' at work for you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 4:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BrazDane:
Here's the thing: people seem to think that they are entitled to medical insurance even if the amount they pay in premiums will never even come close to the amount of money the insurance company will expend for their care. To some extend, the point of insurance is to simply normalize the cost of healthcare. You pay a little over a large amount of time so that you don't have a huge spike each time you go to the hospital. While it's unfortunate that some people have conditions that are incredibly expensive to treat, I don't think insurance companies should be forced to insure someone that they know is simply going to be a huge hole in their balance sheet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
July 31, 2009 12:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: \"While it's unfortunate that some people have conditions that are incredibly expensive to treat, I don't think insurance companies should be forced to insure someone that they know is simply going to be a huge hole in their balance sheet.\"
Why do I get flashbacks to \"Logan's Run\" after reading this? Renew! Renew!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
July 31, 2009 4:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: But now let's imagine that the money that is now pure profit was also used for paying for treatment. Then, suddenly, they would be able to afford a whole lot more health care for the premiums people pay.
I have nothing against people working in the health care industry, it needs to be administered, and administered well, but it needs to be non-profit so people's premiums are actually used for treatment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
July 31, 2009 4:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: & this is why for-profit insurance companies need to be extracted from the equation.

you don't seem to entirely understand the concept of insurance. see, it's a socialist thing - everybody pays in & only those who need it take out. the idea is that one day when YOU need it, others who don't will be covering your ass.

it's not designed to be \"if you can't afford to pay, you can't come to the party\". that's just a diversion by insurers to by themselves some more time to stuff their pockets.

if you don't want gov't run healthcare, find a way to make the current system more sustainable, b/c right now it sucks for virtually everybody - including those who are insured. but if your answer is the status quo, then i'll happily take my spoonful from a gov't-issued spoon, b/c that's better than no spoon at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Missing in Vlissingen
July 31, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: Leave my health insurance company? Great idea, let me just... oh, wait a minute. I'd have to leave my job, because my employer gives me a choice of ONE insurance company.

But I'm glad we have a competitive, market-driven health system. Right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jokono
July 31, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Missing in Vlissingen: Those of us who don't want government-run healthcare aren't saying the current system isn't broken. It IS broken. Your post illustrates how it's broken. How the hell did healthcare become attached to the employer, anyway?

Health insurance should be like car insurance. Open-market, competition-driven. You don't like your car insurance provider? Find a new one. It should be the same way for healthcare.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
July 31, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jokono: Wait just a minute, it is NOT tied to competition. IT is REQUIRED that I carry auto insurance. What if I say to hell with that bullshit and self insure? Oh wait, you CANT do that in most states. Have you ever made a claim against your auto insurance? So when you make a claim for your kid breaking his arm, and then they determine you are now HIGH risk and you have to pay $1000 a month does not help the situation. In fact, if you think auto insurance is a good model for health care you might be the mnost foolish person ever.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
July 31, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Missing in Vlissingen: i'm assuming you voted for McCain then? his healthcare plan addressed the problems of associating healthcare options with employment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
merist
July 31, 2009 11:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Missing in Vlissingen: Seriously, this is a problem. My employer shops around for a new Insurance provider every couple of years. So, that means new provider lists (Often changing doctors.), new rules, new paperwork. Just so they can save a couple of bucks. Oh, and that IS the point. Whoever is cheapest, not whoever provides the best service. If the health care sucks - its the employees problem, not theirs.

In fact the HR dept couldn't keep up with the complaints and problems, so they outsourced complaining about UHC to HealthAdvocates.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
July 31, 2009 6:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Missing in Vlissingen: It's okay. Even if you *could* switch, your illnesses wouldn't be paid by the new insurer: pre-existing condition.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 2:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Missing in Vlissingen: I know, for real. But don't give up hope completely, we had luck a few years ago getting our company to change when we all complained. Of course what we were complaining about is driving 10 extra miles past the hospital that wouldn't take our insurance to the one that would, so it may have been them being afraid to get sued when someone doesn't get there on time and suffers permanent damage or dies. Worth a try to complain a lot if a big enough group has a problem with the current carrier.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wvFrugan
July 31, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay:
\"We're talking about the same government that could potentially run our health care system one day. Issues like this when people are drooling over a new car are bad enough- can you imagine them when people need medical care?\"


Ah yeah, sure. Just look at everyone on Medicare trying to get free transplants, amputations, & insulin needles. We are talking about a health insurance coverage for everyone system, not running the health care providers (as you imply with \"health care system\"). Typical right wing fear mongering just like with using terrorism to infringe on my rights. Let's use your word \"potentially\", shall we? You could potentially learn the concept of being forthright & making logical connections, but it is not very likely.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wvFrugan:
Seriously, did you just compare terrorism concerns to socialized medicine concerns?

@enderx:
At least the insurance company will read your claim and decline it, giving you the chance to appeal. You'll be lucky if the government ever actually gets around to responding.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
July 31, 2009 1:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: The only reason you can appeal it is because the GOVERNMENT requires it. Again if government run healthcare is good enough for the military, it is good enough for all.

As an aside, the fact there is a back log actually shows the program is a success.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
merist
July 31, 2009 11:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:
Yeah, because the Fire Dept won't put out fires, the police don't arrest people, the military isn't actually fighting two wars, the FAA doesn't actually provide a safe air transit system, the FCC doesn't actually regulate the air waves, NASA didn't actually launch any space craft, The CDC doesn't track communicable diseases... I am tired of people bashing the hard working Gov't employees that make this country one of the best in the world. People marvel at the feats performed by OUR Government agencies. Give me Gov't provided health care any day, over the crap I get from UHC, CIGNA, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wvFrugan
July 31, 2009 2:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:


I can only fix so much stupid today. I will refer you to the grade school activity that helps the slower members of the class form initial concepts of direct comparison vs. analytical concept comparison (fairly handy if logic interests you): apple is to tree as grape is to vine.


By the way, if I've cheated you thus far today for your posting of BS and I've failed to say it, here it is: you are a disingenuous FRAUD!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 2:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wvFrugan:
You really are rather childish. Also, I'm not sure why you think I'm a disingenuous FRAUD! I suppose it's because I have opinions that aren't in-line with yours or some of the other commenters. Perhaps you should reference terrorism again, as that always grabs people attention.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
July 31, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: I'd rather fill out a whole lot of paperwork to get health care than continue living without it altogether like I am now...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GC
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: As opposed to the medical care that they aren't getting now at all because it costs so friggin much?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
July 31, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: Move along folks, nothing to see here!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
July 31, 2009 1:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: Sigh. Well, *I* appreciated the effort...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
July 31, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unfortunately, some dealers will probably have to warehouse the clunkers until the paperwork is approved. It would be too expensive to destroy an engine and then find out (\"Whoops\") that the government made a mistake and didn't approve the trade.

I really don't see why anyone thinks this is a failure. The government announced that the cap was $1 billion and it seems wildly successful so far. My read of the press is that they are just suspending the program until they see how close they are to $1 billion.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
July 31, 2009 2:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: It's a big fail because it doesn't meet either of it's main goals, and is an enormous burden on the dealers trying to administer the deals.

CARS exists for two reasons, and fails at both. It's supposed to sell cars, and to \"get older, inefficient cars off the road\".

Well, we're down 9.5 million auto sales per year at this point, and this program's $1 billion only subsidizes the purchase of a 250 thousand cars. A 2.6% sales bump isn't going to save Government Motors.

As for the second point, a few MPG saved isn't going to make up for the crater of a \"carbon footprint\" that's created when you build an all-new car from scratch and toss the other one in the garbage. Any greenie should agree with that assessment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oregon
July 31, 2009 4:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery:
This program is following the same type of program being offered in Germany. Who after the initial offering went and added more money to the program.


You miss the point that with car sales down already there is a stock pile on new cars waiting to get sold.


The plants are not building cars to meet this program but selling new cars that are already built.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: \"A 2.6% sales bump isn't going to save Government Motors.\" Specially when the bump goes to foreign car makers with better MPGs.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
I Love New Jersey
July 31, 2009 12:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What else do you expect from idiotic wasteful deficit spending other than fail?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coralvillain
July 31, 2009 12:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: \"What else do you expect from idiotic wasteful deficit spending other than fail?\"

Well, usually under a Republican lead government I would expect a bunch of dead brown people somewhere. Thanks, but I'll take the car discount. As a matter of fact, I already did. Traded in a 98 Grand Cherokee that got 15mpg for an Elantra that gets 29mpg. Suck it haters.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
July 31, 2009 3:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: what didn't you know you shouldn't read legislation any more and just push forward ideas? Please don't blame only this administration for this crap Wiretapping + The Patriot act was pushed through with little effort or reading. And we saw how well that worked out.

At least this crap is beneficial and doesn't remove all of our rights as citizens in the name of security.

though instead of seizing the engines the government should've asked for partial credit on the sell of the cars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 3:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike:
I don't necessarily think he was blaming Obama, but the government as a whole. The Presidency/Control over the Congress has become nothing but an opportunity to make a power grab and see how much of your personal agenda you can force down everyone's throats. It has nothing to do with ideas, or what's good for the country; it has only to do with what will get the person pushing the ideas reelected. The Bush administration (and the Repub. congress) fucked up a lot off stuff; Barry O. and his Administration aren't off to a much better start.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 3:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike:
Touche. However, in THIS particular post....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
July 31, 2009 4:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It's funny I didn't vote for this guy and yet I find myself aggravated over people blaming him for everything.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 4:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike:
He's an easy target, and he does bring some of it on himself. However, it's not his fault that we're in the situation we're in. It's a LOT of people's fault, including Bush, fuckups who bought homes they couldn't afford, sleazy mortgage brokers who helped those people, bank loan officers who rubber stamped the applications submitted by said brokers, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
July 31, 2009 6:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: We should just burn down the government and start over. Thomas Jefferson would have wanted that way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gaywolverine
July 31, 2009 9:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Ok Einstein, burn down the \"government\" What is this entity the \"government? Where do they reside? Do they have a house? The government is made up of people. Those people were elected to pass laws. They passed the law. I am wondering ifyou like the Iranian way better idiot

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
August 1, 2009 6:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gaywolverine: Too bad that you only get to vote for a few of the federal government's many members.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 1:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey:
Agreed. Lets rush a program out without fully developing it, change the rules mid-stream (EPA standards) and then slam on the brakes right after it gets started because we finally realized how badly we fucked it up in the first place. Oh well, it's only $1bil right? We'll just raise the taxes on people who buy expensive cars to make up for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
July 31, 2009 1:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: I don't know that it was a failure. It sounds like it had two problems: 1) it was too successful and 2) They didn't plan out the paperwork before implementing the program (most likely because they were in a rush to introduce it). It the goal was to get people to trade in low mileage cars for higher mileage cars, it sounds like its working.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
coren
July 31, 2009 12:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Man, Ben, you and Laura are REALLY in sync today

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
July 31, 2009 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: After the comments with period puns on the tampon post, I read that differently :)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
waters511
July 31, 2009 12:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was actually about to participate in this, hopefully, on Saturday. I FINALLY got a job after almost a year and a half being unemployed and because of this program, I would be able to get rid of my current vehicle at 4x than it was worth. This is sad that our government is so unorganized. I feel like once again, the government implements a plan and then manages to pull the rug out from under the taxpayers that paid for it in the first place.

They also need to implement a sublaw that protects the consumers in case the money doesn't come through. People like me who are relying on this money and wouldn't be able to purchase a vehicle without one need a guarantee that the deal is null and void if it falls through.

I also want to add that dealerships, as they may be crying foul play in this deal, are guilty of raising prices and putting overpriced options on all of their vehicles, without an option of taking them off. A dealership here has suddenly decided that all vehicles coming off the truck are going to be installed with a $1400 option and there's nothing you can do about it. They have forced me to go 220 miles outside of my city to find a car without useless $1,000+ \"customer appreciation\" packages - which I find rather ironic that they call it that in the first place.

I find their timing of this sudden choice quite disappointing. This was essentially a welfare program for the dealerships and they're taking advantage of the people coming in. I feel sorry for those who get taken in or bend over and take it because they want that government money for their vehicle.

This whole thing is a mess and a obvious representation of what America has become.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
KingPsyz
July 31, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@waters511: well good for you they trippled the available funds, but honestly be careful what you get yourself into if you couldn't afford it without the program.


And this is a giant pain in the ass for dealers, we had to register to be allowed, can only use specific recyclers, and have to wait 10 days for the government money after you've already driven home.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Featherstonehaugh
July 31, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well I'm shocked.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
benh57
July 31, 2009 1:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Um.. 'doomed'? It was a huge success! A victim of its own success does not equal 'doomed'.

That all the money was snapped up so fast shows that it was a great program and should be expanded.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
July 31, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@benh57: Yeah, more deficit spending!

Read the article, and you will see why this program was DOA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AngryK9
July 31, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: It was so successful that they're working on passing legislation to pour another $2 billion of our tax dollars into the program to keep it going! Yay!


That's the American way, spend spend spend

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
August 1, 2009 6:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AngryK9: ...what part of this don't you (want to) understand? It's getting cars that probably have no business being on the road off the streets, and people are buying cars (that they probably would have anyways) that are more than likely safer and more efficient.

Lemme guess, a Paul supporter?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
I speak Jive.
July 31, 2009 3:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: No offense, but did you read it? There's absolutely nothing negative in there except for dealers who are afraid the program will go broke (again, because it's working). The one dealer who said \"The gov't did realize how big this would be\" doesn't equal DOA in my mind.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
July 31, 2009 6:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I speak Jive.: My mom got a new car, and got her old deathtrap held-together-with-spit-and-prayers gas guzzler sent to car heaven, where it sorely belonged.

Rousing success in many cases. People will always find loopholes and cheat and steal. It doesn't mean that anything is bad overall just because of a few bad apples (especially in a time where we can't really afford to throw out the whole bunch even if we wanted to).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
minsky
July 31, 2009 1:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

How many dealers are going to find a way around destroying the engines and end up reselling the cars on their lots or selling off to a wholesaler or shipping out of the country. If this has so many loopholes, you can bet the dealers will exploit it to their benefit.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 1:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@minsky: I still feel like they should be able to use the cars as spare parts, so people with me with old cars who don't have the money to take advantage of this can get a better price on repairs. Plus, it would be more environmentally friendly, which was supposed to be the whole point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
July 31, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: From what I read, they were supposed to strip out the usable parts before crushing the cars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
July 31, 2009 6:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: I think they don't mandate that the dealer has to kill the engine dead, dead, DEAD is because they're probably run across a used car salesman once or twice before and properly assume that if they didn't do everything short of burying the things in concrete, these guys would find a way to scam US taxpayers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 1:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@K-Bo: to clarify, I have the money, but I would have to make payments. My car may be ugly, but it is paid for and reliable, and 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vitonfluorcarbon
July 31, 2009 1:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This just tells me that people have money that they were holding on to until there is a good deal, and BOOM they are spending their money. This economy could have legs but it will take time to tell. This sounds like a good sign to me that things are looking up from here even though the stimulus did next to nothing except give our kids more crap to pay off later.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
July 31, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vitonfluorcarbon: I think there's some truth in this. People are saving their money (or trying to) and being judicious in spending it. The economy will have legs, but only if produces things people need or think are really, really important. I like to think that we've recalibrated a bit, and that there's less of a market for useless, flashy junk. So if companies don't adjust themselves, things will be slow to recover.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KingPsyz
July 31, 2009 11:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneandone:
Absolutely, it's actually what's been killing the car industry.


Those who can buy are afraid to or waiting for us to give away the lot. Those who couldn't finance a clue think we should sign them up because we're so desperate.


At least with this $4500 we can bring in those with near worthless trades and get them financed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
vitonfluorcarbon
July 31, 2009 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneandone: I would have to agree with you. I hope that the \"wasteful\" spenders are rethinking their approaches to purchases. We will probably become even more value oriented and be willing to sacrifice some convenience for cost.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
July 31, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneandone: Ack - forgot to close the tag. Time for coffee.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
July 31, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vitonfluorcarbon: I think people are thinking that a $4500 gift toward a new fuel efficient car is worth it when gas again gets run up to $4.00 a gallon by speculators. If this program had been tried 8 years ago alot less people would have participated.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
mike1731
July 31, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey, no complaints here, I submitted a trade this Saturday and it's in the hopper. However, reports on Autoblog (citing the Detroit Free Press among others) indicate the program is about to be suspended as there is fears that the funding may have run through.


What is more nerve wracking right now is that the dealership I bought from did 30 deals as of this afternoon, and the only feedback they've had was one that they'd transposed a VIN number on. Otherwise, nothing has been paid for. Yikes.


The dealership does not want to deliver the car until they know they can get their money from the government, and obviously I'm not letting them touch my trade until it's a done deal. Just hope to get ownership of the trade in another week or so (we're trading a third car so it isn't a crisis for us - making space for a soon to be licensed teen driver in one of our used cars).

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
July 31, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mike1731: Dealers were probably sucking the clunkers in without regards. Now they will be coming after people whose clunker applications get rejected for lack of money.


Can you say- spot delivery?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
mike1731
July 31, 2009 1:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, btw, the CARS.GOV website still shows only 10% of the funding as having been consumed at this time. I think they should trade in their \"speedometer\" for a more accurate model...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
July 31, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What does anyone expect though, regarding paperwork? Just check this box, and we'll send you $4500? As I recall, that's exactly what got us into this bank/loan/foreclosure crisis we are currently in...

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
July 31, 2009 4:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: Exactly.

And if the paperwork wasn't there to help prevent fraud, you'd see those same people, who are just pining for something to blame Obama for, criticize him for exactly that.
In their mind he can do nothing right, so I say let's just ignore the sore losers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
August 1, 2009 6:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BrazDane: \"In their mind he can do nothing right, so I say let's just ignore the sore losers.\"

drjayphd likes this.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
July 31, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, maybe it was a fiasco, but think of all of the cuddwy wuddwy widdle polar bear cubs it saved!

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
missdona
July 31, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Why Cash For Clunkers Was Doomed\"

Because it was administered by our government.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
July 31, 2009 2:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona: Really, so our military sucks too? How about Medicare? Or, the FAA? I'm so tired of this, \"teh gubment suckz\" line. Yes, they mess up sometimes. But if you actually bother to look at the reasons why they mess up, it's often because they were underfunded, not given appropriate authority or direction, or given rules that contradicted the laws.


So let me ask a few questions: How easy is it to get a rebate on something? Also, how easy is it to buy a car, or a house, or solve a problem with your cell phone bill or bank account? How easy is it to get something that should be covered by your insurance, actually covered if its been rejected. Those are all entirely private enterprises. Why don't you come up with a clever line about them?


/rant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
missdona
July 31, 2009 9:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The military is efficient because it's daily administration by skilled/competent people, and not by the bureaucrats in DC. It's also a miracle that the FAA is decent.

Medicare is a mess. Our seniors have to spend a small fortune in supplements and drug expenses.

What about the TSA? They've had nearly 10 years to get that straightened out and it's still is as awful as day 1.

Buying my condo was a simple process. I submitted the paperwork, got approved and took the keys. I was a first time home buyer on April 8 of last year. But I did not qualify for the first time home buyer credit, because the program started on April 9. They started the program retroactively, to a Wednesday in the middle of the month. It's so nonsensical it boggles the mind.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
July 31, 2009 4:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Couldn't have said it better myself!

No private company has any interest in you beyond what will get them the most profit right now. Private insurance companies are there to make a PROFIT off of you, not to give you health care. Their principal responsibility is to their shareholders and they actually pay out outrageously big bonuses to those employees who can make the most money - i.e. deny the most claims.
If government-run health care was a viable option, even if it wasn't the only one, we would have non-profit health insurance, and you could actually make a difference just by VOTING. Wouldn't that be nice? Imagine actually having power over how your money is spent! If you don't like how they treat you, help change the rules. Good luck doing that with a private company. They only respond if you can generate enough bad publicity so that giving you what you want is cheaper than what they would lose in business if they didn't. And that almost never happens, though we all like to see it in the media, when a shitty business has to change their tune, such as United Airlines who broke Dave Carroll's guitar.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShruggingGalt
July 31, 2009 3:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Medicare? The one where if you accept it as payment, you have to accept how much they pay you. Period. Nothing else, no cash payments or you're breaking Federal law. Like another poster said, it's rampant with fraud, the government doesn't like to pay for ambulance service for non-ambulatory patients unless you can prove 100% that the person couldn't go in a taxi.

I had 1 year experience with Govt healthcare. SCHIP thanks to CA having a huge income limit. The government contractor broke their own rules, couldn't fix it, I had to file a complaint with the state.

The state responded ONE YEAR later. And found I was right. But I never got my money back (I had to self pay for two visits) because they refused to pay me directly, they had to pay the doctor's office, and by then I had gotten out of Dodge, and it's not worth it to go back to file a suit against the doctor.

All because of their mistake. Had it been a private insurer I would have been able to file a lawsuit before the one year timeline. Tried suing the government?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 3:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt:
\"But THIS time it will be different, we promise!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 2:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:
The Military is terribly fucked up. Look at the issues with Halliburton and the other military contractors. Look at the issues they are currently having recruiting people. Look at the general issues they have with soldiers (abuse, substance abuse, etc.).

Medicare is a joke; it's rampant with fraud.

The FAA has its own set of problems. Lack of uniformity amongst the regions is one.

To an extend, you're right. The agencies themselves aren't necessarily to blame, Congress as a whole is. However, that's like saying a parent isn't responsible for their bratty kid who breaks shit in the store.

It's very easy to buy a house if you're properly qualified. Same with a car. As far as the cell phone, if you have half a brain and don't let some peon CSR jerk you around for an hour, it's not that tough to get stuff fixed. The primary reason people have issues is because they are 1) pushovers, 2) can't control their tempers or 3) are inarticulate.

As far as insurance, there are appeals processes in place, though this is most certainly your strongest point. However, there are good insurance companies out there and not all of them deny claims just for fun. They usually have SOME basis for denying it, though that basis isn't always accurate.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
July 31, 2009 6:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It's wryly amusing that you use Haliburton (a privatization scheme pushed by Conservatives) to attack our military. Or that, Boeing, say, is able to leverage the fact that they're the only contractor left standing so that the government HAS to deal with them, no matter how many times they're caught stealing (again, Conservatives fought anti-trust restrictions preventing consolidation and competition).
The worst aspects of our procurement system are largely the fault of the platform of today's GOP (not the moderates, obviously).
It's like a child surprised that playing with matches burned his house down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
boxjockey68
July 31, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona: and our government is clearly retarded

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
July 31, 2009 2:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Damn.


I was going clunker trading-in this weekend if the sun was shining.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
projoe1979
July 31, 2009 2:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And the government wants to run health care? Pass.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 2:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@projoe1979:
Aw, come on. Just give them a shot. I know they've done a terrible job running the post office ($7 billion dollar operating deficit?), the DTV coupon program (enough said), and virtually every other activity in which they engage, but let's give them $1 TRILLION dollars to try again with healthcare.

note: They are pretty good at building roads and parks and providing police and fire protection.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
July 31, 2009 2:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review


using a combination of the words \"cluster\" and \"fudge,\" except, of course, not fudge.


In the Army, we called that a \"Charlie Foxtrot\". Wonderfully obtuse, but everyone who needed to understood.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
JeromeEso
July 31, 2009 2:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cash for clunkers seemed to take about the same amount of time and paperwork as any other time I've bought a car. Dealership followed the questionaire on the cars.gov website and it gave them all the info they needed. Got $4500 for a pickup to buy a scion.

Although I don't quite understand the doom? It was a failure b/c people used it? Or b/c some dealerships have idiots running them? (I walked out of one dealership that knew less about the program than I did). Or b/c we have high unemployment we shouldn't try it b/c we don't want to stimulate any industry and of course, we all assume that only unemployed people will run out to buy cars b/c it's so easy to get loans without a job.

Two reports I've seen say one, it will be suspended to review the funds on Friday at midnight; but that was a rumor. The official website still says there is a quarter billion available. And both sides of the aisle in washington are interested in extending it b/c of it's success.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
rbb
July 31, 2009 3:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Boy, that's a shocker. How could such a well thought out program fall apart so quickly? I wonder how it will impact the rumored \"kash for kidneys\" program under the proposed 0bamacare program. I was hoping to take that money along with the bailout money I got for mortgage and parlay it into an even bigger house. It's gotta be Bush's fault...

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
I speak Jive.
July 31, 2009 3:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rbb: Fall apart? They are suspending it to catch up on a backlog of...people who successfully used it. How does that equal fall apart?

If you set out to reach a goal by Nov 1 and found that you reached said goal by Aug 1, would you call that a failure?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 3:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I speak Jive.:
I wouldn't use the word \"failure\" my self. I think \"severely fucked up\" is adequate. The fact it's so poorly run that they have to suspend it just to figure out where they stand speaks volumes about how well prepared they were and how well planned the program was.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 3:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rbb:
You won't be able to put it into a bigger house because you'll give a good portion of it back under the new wealth surtax program. We must ensure that no person is \"too rich.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
July 31, 2009 4:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I'd rather see a few thousand filthy rich people get a little less to stash away in tax shelters than I would see the millions of very poor people continue to live the way they do, with no health care and bad schools in run-down neighborhoods.
Did it ever occur to you that society will gain from helping poor people support themselves and have a decent life? With fewer poor people you could save a lot on police and crime prevention, not to mention the associated costs, such as jails and expensive treatment for victims. But that's probably too much logic and common sense for you at one time. After all, politics at the moment seem to be all about having strong opinions backed by no facts or experience whatsoever.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 4:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BrazDane:
I don't support taking from the rich and giving to the poor just so they won't be poor anymore. That's what private charities are for. While there is some connection, your connection between being poor and committing crimes is a little bit offensive. Not all poor people are criminals; there are plenty of people who are getting buy just fine and committing crimes. You don't frequently hear about people getting arrested for stealing loaves of break to feed their families.

I don't support GIVING people decent lives; I support people earning their own decent lives. Taking from those who work hard and giving to the poor doesn't encourage hard work; it encourages less work because if you're poor enough someone else just takes care of you, no need to work more than one job or to try and better yourself. Uncle Sam will be there with a check so you don't have to work.

And don't give me anything about how the \"rich\" don't work hard. Long days, lots of time and money invested in education, missed time with families, etc. The paychecks may be big, but they come at a price.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
July 31, 2009 4:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Well, you forget those people who just have no way out of their poverty. Even if they work two or three jobs, they barely get by. When none of those jobs provide them health care, they just can't afford to get sick - and that's plain inhuman. Nobody can choose not to get sick. There really has to be a safety net so that people who are already down don't get kicked again and again.

I am all in favor of people making their own fortune and not relying on welfare, so we agree on that. There is a difference, though, between helping someone to succeed enough to be a productive member of society, and just doling out money indiscriminately.

And my implication was not that everyone who is poor is a criminal, far from it! But I am sure you can see that most crime committed for monetary gain is committed by those who have very little or no money. It's not middle class parents who hold up liquor stores. So no, they don't steal bread, but they steal the money to buy it, and other consumer goods they see everyone but themselves have.

And I like your comment about the rich needing to invest a lot of time and money to get rich. Now take a look at the poor who are working two or even three jobs. They make the same sacrifices, but never become rich. Maybe if we provide everyone with better education they actually had a chance of succeeding. And by the way, I never said the rich don't work hard, I just said they prefer to keep as much as possible for themselves and be very creative about how to get around paying their taxes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 12:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BrazDane:
It seems we agree on at least one thing: the need for education. All the healthcare in the world isn't going to make a poor person rich. However, getting them a good education just might. However, since kids don't vote, Education funding is usually one of the first things on the chopping block when the govt. decides it wants to \"help\" the poor. I think it's well within the rights of the rich to want to keep as much as possible for themselves; they worked hard for that money. Our tax system is another story. If it were much more simple and fair, tax evasion would probably go down. But when you have some people paying literally no taxes (in some cases getting money back) and you have others paying 50% of their income, those paying 50% feel a little cheated.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
akiri
July 31, 2009 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I work at a car dealership and literally spent all day Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and today getting Cash for Clunkers deals submitted...and we ONLY had 14 of these deals on our plates. I really don't know how most dealerships got any of this paperwork processed. First verify that customers have provided all the information, then scan the 10 different types of documents and save them as PDFs. Then, if you're lucky, log into the system and HOPE that it doesn't crash on you in the middle. Maybe you'll be able to get more than one of the 10 attachments uploaded at once, but don't count on it.


Frankly, we were really relieved when the program got suspended. It probably would've gotten to the point where we would have hired a temporary employee JUST to deal with this.


The overtime I made was nice though....so stimulus goal accomplished...?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
scootinger
July 31, 2009 4:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The CARS program is a wasteful load of shit. Its purpose is more to appease auto industry lobbyists and sell cars than it is to help the environment and reduce oil consumption.

The dealers must destroy the engines of each car that is acquired by pouring a silica/sand solution into the engine, then running the engine until it seizes up. Then the rest of the car is destroyed for scrap; I don't think they are allowed to remove ANY drivetrain components in working condition from the vehicle.

This is insanely wasteful and bad for our environment and economy. (That is, unless you're an auto-parts manufacturer who stands to gain from the \"economic stimulus\" resulting from fewer used auto parts on the market.) A huge amount of energy and resources went into the manufacture of each one of these cars, and I would think that a good number of them have a decent amount of life left in them. While the point of this program is (supposedly) to take polluting and gas-guzzling cars off the roads, why can't they have been sent off for them to salvage engines/transmissions/other components? I figure they could have found some way to do this while still keeping the cars off the roads (i.e. give a salvage title where the car cannot be driven on public roads in any state).

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scootinger:
I think the primary purpose is economic stimulus; the environmental aspect is just a bonus (and a good talking point to get the hippies on-board).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 10:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: shhh, you're not supposed to tell anyone that. We all know its an attempt to get elected because everyone's happy about their new feel good car, despite the fact that car took more carbon emissions to make and ship than they will save for many many years.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Oregon
July 31, 2009 4:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What a flipping minute here.
The dealers started taking in trades before they read the rules and we are blaming the government for this..
I went to a dealer on Monday and they had the cars lined up with the notes on the windows for the service dept. to drain the oil and then add some gunk that would seize the engine, Before they hauled them away. (wilsonville toyota) So some of these dealers knew how to read and implement the program. All I am hearing is \"oh the paper work is so confusing\" from dealers that failed to pat attention to the details. They are giving these dealers $4500. and you thought it was coming without stings attached are you really that naive.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
meechybee
July 31, 2009 1:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oregon: Never underestimate the stupidity and greed of the dealers. I'm sure they oversubscribed the program and once the dust clears, many of the cars won't qualify. I can't imagine any dealer turning away a potential customer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
K-Bo
July 31, 2009 10:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oregon: My mom works in a field close to the auto industry, and she talked to dealers who were told \"the program will start in July, you will get paperwork and instructions 2 weeks later\" but they don't want to loose the money, so they are trying to go ahead while still protecting themselves( much like the ones who took trades but have not disabled them yet just in case)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
July 31, 2009 4:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oregon:
I don't understood how someone who can own and operate a fairly sophisticated business (a car dealership) can have so much trouble reading a set of rules and guidelines. Everyone always bitches about how hard all the \"paperwork\" is, but if you just slow down, read, and follow directions, it's not that god damned hard.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
July 31, 2009 4:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

FOXTROT UNICORN CHARLIE KILO!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
July 31, 2009 10:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: UNICORN? Must be the revised phonetic alphabet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
morlo
July 31, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: Has something to do with relaxing \"don't ask, don't tell\". Rainbows and unicorns have been introduced to improve morale

Reply
\"user-pic\"
militarydave
July 31, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: I believe the right terminology is UNIFORM.


if this is what our current-day military standards are... I fear for the future of this country!


-dave

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
P_Smith
July 31, 2009 4:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

At least this administration can admit when it makes a mistake, unlike the previous one that ignores its own failures (political, administrative, financial, military, social, ethical) and then just ploughs on through regardless while making things worse.


Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
missdona
July 31, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith: They haven't admitted a mistake. In fact, they think it's \"too successful.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
larkknot
July 31, 2009 6:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My main problem with the way the health insurance system works right now is how they force providers to charge people without coverage more moneyand, btw, this is NOT limited to health care, it is also the reason why sometimes car repairs are excessively expensive.


The insurance company will pay the provider a percentage - for example, 20% - of what the uninsured pay. My insurance refers to this as a \"negotiated discount.\" Therefore, in order to get the insurance company to pay for the actual cost of the procedure, the provider must charge the uninsured 5 times as much money. The uninsured get screwed royally by this system.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
July 31, 2009 2:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@larkknot: if you go to most ERs, at least in my area, they will give an automatic discount to the uninsured knowing full well they may not even get that. I've seen them drop 60% for the uninsured.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Ssscorpion
July 31, 2009 10:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is all Bush's fault.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
lannister80
July 31, 2009 11:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Damn it, I was going to buy a Pontiac Vibe tomorrow. Please reinstate!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Bahnburner
July 31, 2009 12:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

New Govt. crisis: Scrap cars environmental disaster...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HeatherLynn30
July 31, 2009 12:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love how there's seemingly a bottomless pit of cash for the banks, but programs to help the American consumer, environment and the auto industry and...whoops! $1 billion is suddenly too much.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
July 31, 2009 1:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cash for Clunkers was a good idea. Instead of just handing car companies 10, 15 billion every few months to stay in business, the consumer actually got about 15-20% off a new car, and it stimulated car sales.

No clue why they cut the balls off the program with only 1 B funding. Makes more sense to me to give CFC 15 billion funding, and give nothing directly to the car companies.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
smartmuffin
July 31, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You mean massive government intrustions into the private sector DIDN'T magically solve all of our problems? Shocking!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
August 1, 2009 6:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@smartmuffin: As shocking as unrestrained commerce run by morons (not everyone, obviously) torpedoing the global economy?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
mrearly2
July 31, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Government program. 'Nuff said.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Hoss64
July 31, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From the Car Guy Show email newsletter 7-31
By Jerry Reynolds

I don't we'll see any more action today on the CARS program.

Here are the facts as we know them. The House earlier passed a bill to put an additional $2 billion dollars into the fund to continue the program. The vote was 316-109 in favor of the funding. This was critical because the House recesses after today and will not be back until after Labor Day.

The Senate will take up the issue next week, where is it thought it will pass, but with a tougher fight. Arizona Senator John McCain is threatening to filibuster to keep additional money from going into the program.

So, for now the program continues and I see no reason to think that will change before Monday, but after that, the future of the program is very uncertain.

If you want to get in on the program, do so tonight or tomorrow to be safe. As I pointed out in the newsletter, please be patient with our dealers. They are doing all they can. CarGuy Show listeners still get the same special CarGuy Show pricing as always, even in this crazy car-buying frenzy!

We hope you'll join us for the show tomorrow. We'll be discussing this in-depth, and if you have time, I will also be discussing this on this afternoon's CBS 11 News and my regular segment tonight a little after 7 on the TXA 21 First in Prime News.

Have a GREAT weekend!

CarGuy

Jerry Reynolds

President, Car Guy Media

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
justwingingit
July 31, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"..the government has put $1 billion into this program, which when divided mathematically into the average rebate and the number of dealers participating nationwide, gives each dealer about 12 vouchers to use.\"

Maybe dealers should be able to buy, sell, and trade those vouchers like, you know, \"carbon credits.\"

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mrpthompson
August 23, 2009 3:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I see cash for clunkers as another bail out of the auto industry. The big difference with this one will be the ill effects consumers are yet to experience. Many people who participated in this program were not in a financial position to take on the debt of a new auto loan. In addition, new autos bring increased insurance premiums that will make it even more difficult to make the car payments. I fear we can expect to see an increase in auto loan defaults. Consumers will have to pay for the resulting costs of this, but the cash for clunkers money will stay in the auto industry's pockets.

Reply
");