Come gather 'round T_Jorge Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'.
Thank you for proving my point....... The UAW actually were too good for their employees and now current workers are paying the price.
Are you unable to read? .... you stated the same thing that I wrote in my original post. Don't argue just to argue... seriously.
actually, I think it is YOU who is stating what I originally posted. thanks for nothing Obama{c4c}UAW{everything you said} are you even arguing that c4c is a good program? because if you're not, then it's agreed.......
That was my concern as well - why not make the MPG restrictions more strict as long as you're doing it anyway? But as it turns out, it's worked pretty well: http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/clunkers_continues/?postversion=2009080711 According to government figures, compact cars and hybrids have been the top sellers so far. With at least $775 million already spent, the kinds of autos flying off the lots include the Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla and Ford Escape. The government and an independent analysis by Edmunds.com show different results for which cars and trucks are the top sellers. The sales results indicate that consumers are buying more fuel-efficient vehicles than most people expected. The average combined city and highway fuel economy of the 10 cars ranges from at 27 to 33 miles per gallon, depending on which versions people choose. While critics had feared that car shoppers would use the program mostly to buy trucks, in fact 83% of the vehicles traded in have been trucks and SUVs while 60% of vehicles purchased were passenger cars, according to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. The broad category of SUVs includes many small car-like crossover SUVs, including the Escape. Last month, many of the vehicles with the biggest reported year-over-year sales gains were small crossovers, a fact that several of the top automakers attributed to the Cash for Clunkers program. The average fuel economy of new vehicles being purchased under Cash for Clunkers is 25.4 mpg, LaHood said, and the average fuel economy increase from the old vehicle to the new is about 61%.
well, if CNN said it's working.....it must be true. again, Major.......it's a band-aid on a bullet wound. This isn't going to save the auto-industry.......or the economy. There are MILLIONS of jobs in the used car industry that are going to suffer from this. Sucks that CNN won't report on that. go down to your closest auto dealer and ask the GM how he feels about c4c. better yet.....go ask your closest pre-owned dealer, I guarantee he has a ton of free time on his hands.
You claimed the following: if you understand the stipulations of c4c, the enviornmental benefits are marginal at best, If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to think a bunch of guzzlers are being traded in for green efficent vehicles.....then be a sheep. It's not the case. The facts say you're wrong. The reality is that large fuel efficiency increases ARE being realized, despite the fairly low standards required by the law. Sucks for you, but you don't get to make up your own facts. I never suggested it would. In fact, my post didn't even reference the economic impact at all. Blah blah blah. None of this has anything to do with whether its having an environmental impact.
A. I never claimed anything as fact. B. I always take CNN's "facts" with a grain of salt. so you are okay with compromising millions of jobs in order to reduce fictitous global warming? of course blah, blah, blah is easy for you to say.....this stupid legislation won't directly effect your sole source of income.
I don't even have a problem with these people trying to help 'fictitious' global warming, but they're not...they should at least be honest about it and do something about global warming. This program is a joke. From CARS.gov: 4 miles per gallon? 4!? 4 or more miles per gallon differences gets you that kind of money? Give me a freakin' break. You want to do cash for clunkers right (environmentally right), you require that the new car have 40mpg minimum. This program is full of crap and has little to do with the environment. Just because people take free money doesn't mean the program is a success. You want the car dealers to sell even more cars? Start handing out $4500 dollars to everyone so they can buy a new car... Oh...What's that?...You care about the environment? Oh...well then hand out $4500 dollars to everyone who will be a car that gets at least 40mpg.
i agree with who you quoted and also with what you said. both sides each call each other sheep. but how can two groups of people think that every single thing that one person does is either all wrong or all right. is there no gray area? for example how the hell do turn two people being freed from prison in n korea or a taliban leader dying into a bad thing? and how can you not at least admit that "cash for clunkers" does have some downsides with the positives, (used car dealers all across america are hurting bad) can some people not be logical and look at things at somewhat of a case by case basis? seriously???
Some people can... For instance, in my post above...I mention global warming. I'm not big on global warming and I'm not convinced that we are the cause of it. We may be, who knows. Further, I'm not convinced that I should go out of my way to screw up my life to help the 'earth' when countries like China won't have their people do the same. That said, I said fine, you want to do the global warming, reduce emissions, get better gas mileage thing...fine. Then do it. Require that these stupid new cars get at least 40mpg. Help the environment if that's your goal, don't make this half-@ss program that's full of crap and doesn't do much.
i dont know a ton about it. but is it boost the economy some auto industry wise, while at the same time saving said owner of new car money from gas. i wonder how much this will save the average new car owner over a period of a few years?
That is what's wrong with politics. Something is either right OR wrong, good OR bad. Neither side is hardly ever willing to admit when the others did something positive, or admit the flaws in a piece of legislation they've passed. It's about scoring political points in the lead up to Mid-Term elections, and nothing else.
4 to 10 miles per gallon is stupid. At least do 10...make that a requirement. AP says the program is designed to take some of the least efficient cars off the road...and do what? Replace them with cars that get 4 more mpg? Whoopty-doo. This is a joke.
