CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Cash for Clunkers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cash for Clunkers - Page 2

post #51 of 59
Anyone have an opinion about this, besides bashing the source? Especially those that thought Bush's Patriot Act was a bad idea. Oh wait.

Or FDR's poorly handled (and ignored) precedent.

Or reports that the "green benefits" won't amount to anything, and that the program isn't a popular choice?
post #52 of 59
Glenn Beck's paranoid ramblings? Seriously?

Dude.
post #53 of 59
It's easy to bash the source when the source is certifiably loopy as fuck and should be taken with a grain of salt that would give Sisyphus pause, even when merely giving directions to the men's room down the hallway.
post #54 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post
Where exactly is the government going to make up the lost 14 million per year(if my math is correct) in gas tax revenue? This also begs the question on other green vehicle mandates from this administration. If they keep herding us towards cars that run forever where is the lost revenue made up?
The fairest thing would move the tax up the oil production chain, 14 million is nothing compared to the multi billions they make every quarter. Of course I'm sure they would end up passing that down to the consumer in some way...
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Glenn Beck's paranoid ramblings? Seriously?

Dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
It's easy to bash the source when the source is certifiably loopy as fuck and should be taken with a grain of salt that would give Sisyphus pause, even when merely giving directions to the men's room down the hallway.
LOL. I knew I stayed outta the political threads for a reason.

I just wanted to discuss the points that were brought up, regardless of Beck's fervor.
post #56 of 59
Oh no, this is bad news;

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...peed-bump.html

Quote:
'Clunkers' Program Hits a Speed Bump

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: The effort to inject another two billion dollars into Cash for Clunkers has hit a potential road block in the Senate that could kill the bill.

Republiicans are throwing their support behind an amendment offered by Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, that would limit clunker rebates to individuals with annual incomes of 50 K or less. With Republican support the amendment stands a good chance of passing unless the majority of Democrats, who mostly favor the amendment, vote against it.

Why is that a problem?

If any amendment passes it means the House has to take up the bill again and the House, of course, has already adjourned for its August recess.

The Democratic leadership is now scrambling to get rank- and -fille Democratic senators to vote against an amendment almost all of them favor. It would be a very tough vote.

"It does seem to be out of character for Democrats to support allowing millionaires access to borrowed money to buy cars," said Don Stewart, spokesnan for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (WHAT AN IDIOT!)
post #57 of 59
Quote:
"It does seem to be out of character for Democrats to support allowing millionaires access to borrowed money to buy cars," said Don Stewart, spokesnan for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Where was this concern trolling when these guys were shitting themselves over Obama's tax plans?
post #58 of 59
My 1997 GMC Sonoma gets a combined "new" MPG of 19.

Shit.
post #59 of 59
Passed with no amendments. Glad I bought earlier because now the most popular choices are facing shortages and prices are going up. This is a big boon for auto makers since generally this time of year they are dumping prices to clear stock for new year models.

Hopefully they are not dumb enough to think the sales boon will last and overproduce to meet this spike in demand.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Cash for Clunkers