Patterico's Pontifications

7/30/2009

Imagine What a Tax Cut Would Do (Updated)

Filed under: Government,Obama — DRJ @ 8:13 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Obama Administration’s Transportation Department has announced it will suspend the Car Allowance Rebate System (cars.gov) aka the Cash-for-Clunkers program because too many people are using it.

The program started July 1 but it did not officially launch until July 24, 2009, after the rules were released. Initial estimates were that it would result in 220,000 car sales:

“The government estimates the program will help finance up to 220,000 new car purchases, or about 12 per dealer in the United States. The program is not expected to boost manufacturing output unless it is extended beyond $1 billion.”

Perhaps Congress will increase funding and the program can be re-started but, for now, this program officially lasted one week. That may be a record for a government program but promising Hope and Change is a lot easier than delivering it.

UPDATE: Is it suspended or not?

“Transportation Department officials called lawmakers’ offices earlier Thursday to alert them of plans to suspend the program as early as Friday. But a White House official said later the program had not been suspended and officials there were assessing their options.

“We are working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said of the Car Allowance Rebate System. “Auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that all valid CARS transactions that have taken place to date will be honored.””

The link indicates there may have been an average of 13 cash-for-clunker sales per dealership in the first week of the program, or one more per dealer than the Administration estimated for the term of the program.

I sure hope these aren’t the same people who will be allocating funds and resources for America’s health care program.

— DRJ

81 Responses to “Imagine What a Tax Cut Would Do (Updated)”

  1. There’s not a dealership in America that doesn’t have costs sunk into marketing this. Real people had made real plans. I know them and so do you. Barack Obama is to business what Kanye West is to paparazzi I think.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  2. Just another Obama lie. Is there any promise that he will fulfill?

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  3. As Tom Cruise is to vagina? Just trying to help…

    Gazzer (409de8)

  4. Imagine how well they’re estimating Obamacare.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  5. Tax cuts is simply a codewords tó disguise overt or even unacknowledged racism. I know this because Rich Puchalsky, Joshua, and Karl “I am not a porn star” Steel told me so.

    JD (a79349)

  6. Why would we be giving $4000 credits to people who can afford to buy new cars? If we really want to retire gas-guzzlers, send gmen out to buy up on the open market and crush as many $500 POJ’s as they can. That will give you some bang for the buck. Of course, it means poor people will pay more for cars – but we’re talking environmentalism here!

    Mahon (5e03e9)

  7. Gee…This sounds a lot like those stimulus jobs that last a whole 35 hours…

    The Obama bunch is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight if there ever was one…

    Bob (99fc1b)

  8. We can only hope that any other government programs Obama comes up with have as long of a run.

    Dana (57e332)

  9. This story is screwed up. Do the math.

    $1 billion in cash back.

    You get either $3500 or $4500 depending on the spread in the gas milage between your new car and your tradein.

    Average it at $4000, and the program had enough money for 250,000 cars.

    No way that many cars were sold under this program in one week. In the Breitbart article it reported sales in the first week under the program of 22,000+ cars.

    I think the problem is that the rush created a huge backlog of claims against the government. As I understand it from reading a story about a local dealer, the dealers knock the price off the new car, and then the dealer applies to get the money from the Gov’t. The problem with the program is that the Gov’t can’t respond fast enough to the dealers — which means they are out-of-pocket the amount of the rebate until the gov’t can get around to paying them.

    I suspect the rush of sales caught everyone by surprise, and this is simply a “Time Out” until the program is better ready to roll.

    Frankly, I think its a good idea because it helps and ailing industry while providing the collateral benefit of getting a lot of junk off the streets.

    Shipwreckedcrew (7f73f0)

  10. The program will seriously hurt the poor but who cares about that? Obama does not care about these people and it is more obvious every day.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  11. Hi Mr. Shipwrecked you may have missed this what Mr. Reynolds linked and then he updated with this. I think it sort of suggests where you’re going there is probably right.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  12. Obama’s web site points out that the $98 million spent as of last week on the “Cash for Clunkers” program has created or saved over 37,000,000,000 jobs during July alone.

    The program, a popular success, was ended early when Democrat leaders realized that they were finding very few “clunkers” inside of major coastal metropolitan centers, which meant that the program, while delivering huge benefits, was delivering them to the wrong people.

    Obama, schooled and toughened in the precepts of the Neo-Chicagoan School of Economics, indicated in his weekly six-hour speech last night that he felt he ought not encourage “all the bitter rednecks to be selling their mamas’ mini-mobile homes” just to unfairly reap the program’s benefit.

    Vice President Biden later announced that the C-4-C program will be restructured and re-introduced with a different focus. Biden spoke enthusiastically about the new program, which is tentatively being called “Cash for Old NPR Charity Drive Pamphlets.” Said Biden, “the money will go to those who need it the most, the communities will be cleaner for it, and we won’t have to pay to ship all those damn dead cars down to Mexico for auction.”

    bobby b (4baf73)

  13. Is anyone really surprised by this?

    First, seriously, does anyone know of a government program that works efficiently with an outcome that benefits the recipient?

    Second, I’m trying, unsuccessfully so far, to buy a new car. I know what I want and I’m willing to pay cash. Every time I talk to a car salesman, they want to know if I have a car that meets the standards for the program.

    Nope, I don’t. Despite the fact that I have a 1996 Ford F-150 with an eight-cylinder engine that looks as if it was run over by a tank. I also have a 1999 Honda Odyssey. Neither qualify.

    You know what, I really don’t care about this ill-conceived attempt at trying to save the earth.

    What I really care about is this: The same government that implemented this scheme, at my expense, wants to oversee my health care while declaring to have my best interests at heart.

    Why, in God’s name, should I entrust the health of my children to a government that can’t even run a used car business?

    I await the usual suspects’ replies.

    Ag80 (99168f)

  14. See, actually I found the title a little weird.

    Since tax cuts are aimed mostly at the sort of people who already own a car or two and a nice house and a business and some stock, etc, the effects of a tax cut are supposed to spur investment, not purchasing. It’s why they call it supply side economics.

    Here, the rebate was mainly aimed at middle class people who bought ridiculous SUV’s years ago and were looking to get rid of them for something more efficient. It was a “demand side” spending, which is why it worked.

    Occasionally tax cuts help investment, but in a deep recession where unemployment and down housing values crushed middle class demand, the stimulus and programs like this are supposed to increase demand, thus taking up slack in the economy.

    This program was win/win (for car dealers, car makers, the environment, consumers…just successful all the way around). Be sad if they can’t can’t find some more cash. I say look in the defense department’s budget. One F-22 not needed bomber could find the program for another couple of months.

    timb (8f04c0)

  15. oh. Except the part about it helps and ailing industry while providing the collateral benefit of getting a lot of junk off the streets.

    That’s not correct I don’t think.

    It doesn’t help industries to retard their ability to remain profitable while scaling operations up or down, and there are many other reasons besides why this policy is not helping an ailing industry, but let’s just throw out the “opportunity cost” argument and move on.

    About getting junk off the roads. With respect to that the program is FAIL. I am tired so I will be succinct and just get you to where you can see where I’m going. What would happen if everyone with cars what get bad gas mileage and drive x miles a week traded cars with people who have cars what get good gas mileage and drive less than or equal to x/2 miles a week?

    It’s about allocating resources effectively, this “problem” of getting “junk” off our streets. Eliding effective allocation of resources from the discussion I think betrays a lack of appreciation for how much fiscal jeopardy Barack Obama has put our little country in.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  16. I’ve updated the post because the White House says the program may not be suspended.

    In addition, here are the first week’s numbers from the linked article:

    “Through late Wednesday, 22,782 vehicles had been purchased through the program and nearly $96 million had been spent. But dealers raised concerns about large backlogs in the processing of the deals in the government system, prompting the suspension.

    A survey of 2,000 dealers by the National Automobile Dealers Association found about 25,000 deals had not yet been approved by NHTSA, or nearly 13 trades per store. It raised concerns that with about 23,000 dealers taking part in the program, auto dealers may already have surpassed the 250,000 vehicle sales funded by the $1 billion program.”

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  17. Ag80, at happyfeet’s link, Instapundit shares your concern re the very same government overseeing your healthcare,

    “Don’t worry, though — I’m sure they’ll do a better job with your prostate.”

    Dana (57e332)

  18. hi DRJ can you please check the filter? – I think there may be a couple comments of mine in there – just the second one of mine you find is the one that needs to get rescued I think

    happyfeet (42470c)

  19. thanks!

    [You’re welcome. Sorry I didn’t see it earlier. — DRJ]

    happyfeet (42470c)

  20. “There’s not a dealership in America that doesn’t have costs sunk into marketing this. Real people had made real plans. I know them and so do you. Barack Obama is to business what Kanye West is to paparazzi I think.”

    Did any of these businessmen take the time to calculate how much the 1 billion would be spread out? If its 12 per dealer, that’s not going to justify THAT much advertising.

    “That may be a record for a government program but promising Hope and Change is a lot easier than delivering it.”

    Looks like it delivered pretty much what it aimed. Only problem seems to be that people want more.

    imdw (c5488f)

  21. OK, timb, let’s look at this program for a second.

    It was aimed at middle-class people who bought ridiculous SUVs at some point. Except, have you looked at the cars eligible for the program?

    It wasn’t a win/win for dealers because they’ve made deals based on the promise of the federal government that they would be compensated for the trade-ins.

    Except, it’s has been suspended. After a week. Because too many people tried to take advantage of the program. And, the dealers are left holding the bag.

    Let’s look at the Defense Department’s budget, wait, I saw a squirrel.

    C’mon do a little better. Don’t insult my intelligence, and more importantly, don’t insult yours.

    Ag80 (99168f)

  22. I like my ridiculous SUV.

    JD (7bdd7f)

  23. I love my gas guzzling SUV but this looks like the only successful economic stimulus program in America right now. I hope they keep it going for awhile and help some of these struggling workers and businesses.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  24. This kind of market manipulation is what Ford should expect when GMC starts struggling again.

    JD (7bdd7f)

  25. timb,

    Some people will use a tax cut to consume and others will use it to save or invest, but we need both spending and investments for a systemic economic recovery. In addition, if a targeted stimulus like cash-for-clunkers works, just imagine how well a tax cut would work that frees people to decide how to spend the money.

    After all, not everyone has a clunker that qualifies for this program, nor does everyone want a smaller, more efficient car. But everyone has something they need or want, and putting more money in their pockets might convince them to go buy it.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  26. Tax cuts are racist.

    JD (7bdd7f)

  27. Neither Tim not Obama understand economics. The “clunkers,” like the 1996 low mileage Nissan pickup I gave my daughter and her husband, are economical cars that are paid for. They are both starting graduate school and the last thing they need is a car payment. Once again, the Democrats promote consumption by inviting people to buy something they cannot afford.

    It never seems to end. A fool and his money is soon parted.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  28. I don’t want a new car, but I’d love the cash. If you want a demand driven recovery, people have to have money to spend. That means they have to have jobs, which the stimulus, errr, stabilization bill was meant to provide in 2013 or thereabouts if people had actually looked at it and listened to Republicans. Tax cuts spurring investment to create investments leading to job growth would put money in peoples’ pockets – what a concept.

    timb once again demonstrates that the left does not understand economics.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  29. Of course there is no oversight.

    Who can guarantee that the money was not looted? AFter all, this is a govmint program.

    Patricia (48ec63)

  30. That’s a lot of lap dances Patricia.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  31. What’s really bothering me is I hear all these ads on the radio for “Cars for Kids”. Now I don’t think it’s right to trade in a child for a car. It’s immoral and it likely violates the 13th Amendment. And what do the dealers do with those children? Sell them to adoption mills? Send them to vocational schools where they will be trained to be mechanics and car salesmen? It’s something I never thought I would see in America.

    nk (1c27b4)

  32. We need a “Cars for Wives” program…………

    krusher (791666)

  33. Do the math:

    250,000 cars in a country of 300,000,000. That is 1 car per 1,200 people. Or for a family of 4, 1 car per 300 families. I wonder how many actual registered cars meet the program requirements (not models, but actual registered units on the road).

    Just goes to show that $1 billion ($3.33/person) is not so much anymore.

    Dr. K (eca563)

  34. #32: Only if you can trade your wife for an equally hot (or not) car.

    Dr. K (eca563)

  35. Drove out of my dealer’s lot with a brand new fuel efficient vehicle recently thanks to this program. Thanks Obama!

    GOP08_DOA (39c6d4)

  36. GOP08-DOA Congrats, sycophant.

    JD (95dba1)

  37. Can’t it also be used to buy a foreign car? If not, does it run afoul of our trade agreements?

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  38. My middle class brother turned in his 2002 Chevy Trailblazer on Monday for a 2009.

    He could have afforded it even without the credit, but decided to pounce while the getting was good.

    Meanwhile, his Trailblazer, which was in decent condition, is to be scrapped, not resold to a poorer person who couldn’t afford either the upfront cash or new debt required to buy a brand-new car.

    The whole program strikes me as terribly regressive.

    Techie (482700)

  39. er, a 2009 Malibu.

    Techie (482700)

  40. Read this article: The Real Reason for the “Cash for Clunkers” Suspension. The ex car salesman blog shares exactly why they stopped the program. Even reports that some sales managers are calling asking for the money back because they were denied the rebate when the final paperwork was submitted but their car was already ruined by dumping a solution in the engine. They now have no car. Scary. See: http://tinyurl.com/ml9sdo

    Sally (4f073a)

  41. That’s a lot of lap dances Patricia.

    Comment by daleyrocks

    LOL. OR Maybe a $700K conference, like the Social Security folks did?

    Folks, I’ll eat my hat if this isn’t fraud, pure and simple.

    Patricia (48ec63)

  42. #39 – you hit the nail on the head. What about the people who depend on quality used vehicles?

    I wonder who’s keeping track of the makes/models/mileage of the “clunkers” being turned in, and if that information will ever be shared.

    Kind of reminds me of why my FIL is collecting SS and debating Medicare – “might as well get it while I can!”

    Em (7139fe)

  43. Just dropped the kids of at day camp in the NEW CAR! Gotta say, the Obama sticker looks great on the bumber!!

    GOP08_DOA (39c6d4)

  44. Typical Obama voter actually, thinks he can just vote for more free crap.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  45. Typical republican thinks a considerable savings on a new vehicle, a car loan for the banks, a sale for the car dealer, an incentive to move towards energy conservation — is “crap.”

    GOP08_DOA (39c6d4)

  46. So, you subscribe to the “Broken Window” theory or economics, then?

    Techie (482700)

  47. a car loan for the banks

    I can’t see any potential downsides for government incentives leading people to take on additional debt that they might not have otherwise. Nope, nosiree.

    Techie (482700)

  48. DRJ’s initial post, the follow-comment in No. 23 and GOP08 DOA’s comments, particularly No. 46, pretty much sum up my views.

    Cash for Clunkers is stimulus that works. Initial estimates are that 200,000 cars have been sold.

    This has effects up and down the economy. I live in a military town with plenty of car dealerships and they are uniformly ecstatic.

    This should have replaced the auto bailout.

    The rest of you I suppose would have killed the iPod b/c the initial demand outstripped supply. Silliness. (But I know your main gripe with C-For-C is that the Obama Administration proposed it.)

    If you maybe venture out beyond a computer screen every now and then you might better understand the value of the program and its impact on the lives of actual Americans.

    Myron (98529a)

  49. It is a yammering sycophant, nothing more.

    JD (42a8c3)

  50. If you maybe venture out beyond a computer screen every now and then you might better understand the value of the program and its impact on the lives of actual Americans.

    You mean, like my brother who I mentioned only about 10 posts up?

    Techie (482700)

  51. I predict many repos next year. Why? I think this offer appealed mainly to the impulse buyer judging by the people I saw interviewed on the news.

    So now they’ve gone from probably a paid off vehicle, to a high monthly payment, higher insurance, and higher registration (especially here in Calif).

    Chances are if they were driving a clunker in the first place, cash flow was probably already an issue.

    So now the taxpayers have overpayed $1B for clunkers just to put people further into debt.

    TakeFive (7c6fd5)

  52. Techie: If your point from No. 51 is that, after this program, there will be no cars for lower income people to buy — and I’m sure you REALLY care about them — I suggest you take a look at the classifieds.

    Myron (98529a)

  53. Techie: I meant your post from No. 39.

    Myron (98529a)

  54. TakeFive: Careful, you’re talking about Techie’s brother. You seem to know a lot about him. I guess you’ve met him.

    Myron (98529a)

  55. Funny, that Apple didn’t need such a rebate system, if they couldn’t anticipate demand on such a small scale, what hope is there they would be able to manage 1/6 of the US economy with any confidence.

    narciso (996c34)

  56. Cash for Clunkers is not stimulus that works. It’s just a government redistribution program.

    It creates no wealth.

    By scrapping perfectly working automobiles it actually destroys wealth.

    This is not how one grows an economy. Promise.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  57. I helped a new Indian grad student in our research group buy a 1998 Mercury Sable for $2200 last month. Too bad the program wasn’t in place then, the painter he bought it from could have turned it in for TWICE that. If the program expands, what’s the incentive for resale, when Uncle Sam essentially has set a base value for used cars?

    Techie (482700)

  58. DRJ said: “… but this looks like the only successful economic stimulus program in America right now. I hope they keep it going for awhile and help some of these struggling workers and businesses …”

    JD et al. who believe this is the worst program in the world: Feel free to hurl at DRJ the invective you’ve directed at myself and others. That is, if you truly have a conviction about this and aren’t just playing a partisan game. In other words, show some integrity for once in your miserable, blogging lives. I’m calling you out.

    Myron (98529a)

  59. Techie is smart you should listen to Techie I’m gonna go make some coffee.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  60. Actually, in a way he’s right.

    My brother went from a car he had paid off and owned outright, to now having a bank loan w/ interest to pay off. Fortunately, he has a good steady job and, as aforementioned, could have just bought the car and take on the debt anyway. But what has the housing market told us about a non-trivial percentage of this country to manage debt effectively?

    Techie (482700)

  61. if they couldn’t anticipate demand on such a small scale, what hope is there they would be able to manage 1/6 of the US economy with any confidence.

    OK, narcisco, you have once again weighed in with a legitimate concern. I balance that against those who are rushing in to claim the program is automatically “crap” b/c Obama proposed it.

    Myron (98529a)

  62. OK, Techie: Point conceded. I do hope your brother does not face a repo next year, however.

    Myron (98529a)

  63. Me too, I’d have to have the jerk living on my couch.

    Techie (482700)

  64. Myron – You are lying, again, about me. I have never said anything closer to this being the worst program in the world. I know you prefer to argue against caricatures, but damn.

    JD (42a8c3)

  65. Wow, dj, starts invective with a visitor! Color me shocked.

    Oh, and by the way, dj, in addition to being unbelievably rude, you alo use the word “lie” more than happyfeet uses the term “dirty socialist.” Invective and ad hominem seem to be your default settings, pal.

    Here come the apology demands from dj, always the most entertaining part if the day

    timb (449046)

  66. you also use the word “lie” more than happyfeet uses the term “dirty socialist”

    that’s a damn lie

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  67. Crawl back under your rock, you creepy little vermin. I am still at a loss as to why I was ever kind to you. Big mistake. Myron was called a liar because he lied. Should he not lie, he would not be called a liar. It is really rather simple. Much like Rich Puchalsky calling me and Patterico a racist. Now, be gone … Go stalk someone else. Go put that law degree to use.

    JD (42a8c3)

  68. I especially love the leftist tactic where they get to call names and be overtly dishonest, and if you call them on it, you are being whiny and it proves their lie to be true.

    JD (42a8c3)

  69. JD: OK, you did not call it specifically the “worst program in the world.” I was using hyperbole and thought it might be obvious. But for claiming you said those specific words, I apologize and stand corrected.

    You did suggest it was a bad program and called a supporter of the program — though I’m not sure which supporter — a “yammering sycophant” — which, to me, suggests that you believe that one’s support of the program cannot be based on its merits.

    I have to roll, but I am sorry report to those who think the program is bad that an emergency $2 billion has just been appropriated for it.

    Myron (98529a)

  70. They can have my ’87 Cutlass Supreme Classic when they can survive a front end collission in their Prius against it.

    nk (4b2d69)

  71. I answered my own question:

    You may trade in or buy a domestic or a foreign vehicle.
    http://www.cars.gov/faq

    This is not just for the Big Three. A lot of these subsidized sales are going to Honda and Toyota.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  72. though I’m not sure which supporter — a “yammering sycophant” — which, to me, suggests that you believe that one’s support of the program cannot be based on its merits.

    Not necessarily – he called it a “yammering sycophant” because of this kind of Tourette’s Syndrome/Dog Whistle/Cultish/MindNumbing/JimJonesian/Emptyheaded post:

    Just dropped the kids of at day camp in the NEW CAR! Gotta say, the Obama sticker looks great on the bumber!!

    Now that’s an insightful and articulate POST! Because nothing screams importance like CAPITALIZING YOUR POINTS! Then it further beclowns itself by actually talking about a bumper sticker (what?). It’s either a rampaging parody or a troll/Moby astroturfing under the bridge – your choice.

    GOP08_DOA

    Never mind – we have a definitive answer.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  73. Dmac correctly noted that is was specifically responding to a particular yammering sycophant, and said description was quite apt. Myron, I am neither opposed to or in favor of this program. It seems to have worked in the short term, but seems to be poorly managed, and a form of a transfer payment. If it keeps autos moving in the short term, that is a good thing. Too bad you guys don’t look at taxes the same way.

    JD (42a8c3)

  74. JD: OK, you did not call it specifically the “worst program in the world.” I was using hyperbole and thought it might be obvious.

    It is NEVER obvious to that one, Myron. he needs every last meaning wrung out of every last word. He learned from his blogging heroes. It’s a dishonest tactic and one of his favorites.

    I demand an apology from you, dj. You lied about where I live (I live in a house) and you are never kind to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the narrow consensus of the your little world. You are all insults and genderless pronouns.

    As for the last, I’m sure I’ll put it to better use than the faux B.A. you received from State U.

    timb (449046)

  75. See, it is all full of hate hate hate and anger and dishonesty all the time. I should have never been kind to it.

    JD (42a8c3)

  76. Who drives most of the clunkers in the LA Basin? Illegals happy to cash in on your beneficence and just loving that $4500 tax donation you gave them.

    John425 (eae6ea)

  77. JD: OK. Thanks for clarifying.

    Myron (98529a)

  78. “The rest of you I suppose would have killed the iPod b/c the initial demand outstripped supply. Silliness. (But I know your main gripe with C-For-C is that the Obama Administration proposed it.)

    If you maybe venture out beyond a computer screen every now and then you might better understand the value of the program and its impact on the lives of actual Americans.”

    Comment by Myron — 7/31/2009 @ 9:55 am

    No, I am not against it because Obambi proposed it. And I understand very well its impact on the lives of actual Americans. I am against it because it is just another form of wealth redistribution.

    Why should my tax dollars that the government is stealing from me go to pay for another persons car? I don’t have a car that would qualify, because I originally bought a car that gets good gas mileage, not a damn ridiculous gas guzzling beast.

    I am against it because it rewards people for their stupid actions in buying the damn things in the first place. Why should I be penalized with extra taxes for having the foresight to buy a car with good MPG? Especially, when they bought the damn oversize beasts as a status symbol in the first damn place.

    I am also against them because it is just another socialist scheme. But in this instance, it doesn’t just take from those who have to give to those who don’t have, it takes also from those who don’t have and gives to those who have. After all, most of those that have taken advantage of this program didn’t need the help, but saw an opportunity and took it. After all its FREE MONEY.

    WTF IS GOING ON WITH THIS COUNTRY?

    peedoffamerican (7483d1)

  79. “The rest of you I suppose would have killed the iPod b/c the initial demand outstripped supply. Silliness. (But I know your main gripe with C-For-C is that the Obama Administration proposed it.)

    If you maybe venture out beyond a computer screen every now and then you might better understand the value of the program and its impact on the lives of actual Americans.”

    Comment by Myron — 7/31/2009 @ 9:55 am

    No, I am not against it because Obambi proposed it. And I understand very well its impact on the lives of actual Americans. I am against it because it is just another form of wealth redistribution.

    Why should my tax dollars that the government is stealing from me go to pay for another persons car? I don’t have a car that would qualify, because I originally bought a car that gets good gas mileage, not a damn ridiculous gas guzzling beast.

    I am against it because it rewards people for their stupid actions in buying the damn things in the first place. Why should I be penalized with extra taxes for having the foresight to buy a car with good MPG? Especially, when they bought the damn oversize beasts as a status symbol in the first damn place.

    I am also against them because it is just another socialist scheme. But in this instance, it doesn’t just take from those who have to give to those who don’t have, it takes also from those who don’t have and gives to those who have. After all, most of those that have taken advantage of this program didn’t need the help, but saw an opportunity and took it. After all its FREE MONEY.

    WTF IS GOING ON WITH THIS COUNTRY?

    [note: fished from spam filter]

    peedoffamerican (7483d1)

  80. Obama just trying to spread the cash around. This is the biggest fraud in history.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5314 secs.