Cash For Clunkers- A Simple Minded Scheme

Well, the one billion dollars allocated for the “Cash for Clunkers” program, a program ostensibly to get inefficient autos off of the street, was supposed to last until October. It lasted four days, as Hussein’s idea to load people up with more debt and begin a cascade effect on our economy has worked even better than the Anti- Christ had hoped.

Just as the home mortgage crisis set off the financial mess we are in, the Resident wants to keep the hurt going, so he can “save” us from ourselves. I want to know just who is a big enough fool to go out and put themselves in debt when they had a car that worked just fine and was paid for? Okay, if your car was old and showing signs of dying, perhaps then, although a brand new car is one of the worst things to buy, as it retains less resale value than almost anything else made in this world. 

What this program is really doing is (1)- causing us to accumulate more debt, and (2)- reducing the number of used cars on the car lots, thus reducing our choices of something other than new cars.

It is interesting to note that if the thought was to help out GM and Chrysler, neither of these automakers has one car on the top ten, and seven of the top ten new cars bought with this C4C program  were foreign cars, and the top model was a Ford.

Does this scheme remind anyone of Barney Frank’s scheme to get poor people into homes they could not afford? Remember? That was the Genesis for the mess we are in now- and now the Liberals want to do it to us with cars- bury us in debt, so we beg the Resident to save us from repossession.

What’s next?  Everyone deserves to have a boat?

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Americans oppose any further funding for the federal “cash for clunkers” program which encourages the owners of older cars to trade them in for newer, more fuel-efficient ones.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 33% of adults think Congress should authorize additional funding to keep the program going now that the original $950 million allocated for it has run out. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

These numbers are virtually identical to the findings in mid-June just after Congressfirst approved the plan when 35% favored it while 54% were opposed.

Men favor continuation of the program more than women. African-Americans like it more than whites. Lower-income Americans, not surprisingly, are more supportive of it than those who earn more.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans and 51% of adults not affiliated with either major party are opposed to continuing the “cash for clunkers” program. Democrats are closely divided over the question.

rasmussenreports.com

The numbers are not good,Hussein- you might want to re- think the whole take over idea. Generally the governments of this world are not run by the village idiot, but in your case, I guess the blind pig did indeed find the ACORN. 

So you are going to ” Fundamentally Change America” as we know it. You want to change America from what has made it the greatest nation in the world, to what would lower it to third- world status, because you were taught mindless pap by your college professors and worthless Marxist friends, and you have never been out in the real world enough to know that all of that theory does not work.

The bad part about all of this is that there are a bunch of airheads that think as you do, and really do not care for America and what has made us great- they have grown up with their hippie philosophy, and have never matured in their thoughts since then- their logical development has been retarded, as in “held back” from maturing. I know, I have friends like that, God bless their little liberal hearts.

This is just another thread by which the mental Lilliputians try to tie down the Giant that is America. I have to say that they already have a bunch of threads tying us down, and it is becoming harder and harder to rise from this ridiculous position.

I listen to politicians on the left, and I feel as if they have their own brand of Jabberwocky- speak that makes sense only to the senseless, and I wonder if I have slipped down the rabbithole.

If so, it is time for a tea party.

Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

7 Responses to “Cash For Clunkers- A Simple Minded Scheme”

  1. Bunny Colvin says:

    “Does this scheme remind anyone of Barney Frank’s scheme to get poor people into homes they could not afford? Remember? That was the Genesis for the mess we are in now”

    Glad to see you’re still spewing falsehoods around here, Blake [redacted – strike 1]. Of course, it was the poor people- they are the ones who got us into this mess!

    No coverage of the fraudulent birth certificate? I thought you and Dog [redacted -strike 2] were birthers!

    *Blog owner note. This was edited to remove insults. Bunny now has two strikes and about ten thousand warnings. He is a typical liberal in that he has trouble following instructions. He has one more strike.

    • Big Dog says:

      No Bunny, the poor were irresponsible or not intelligent enough to enter into binding contracts. The people like Frank enabled them to do that. Force banks to give loans to people who could not afford them and allow lending institutions to take advantage of the people they were forced to give loans to. This is well known and documented. The libs like you are trying to change history, a job you all always take on.

      We are not birthers. That is a pejorative term invented by liberals to discredit people who believe in the Constitution and expect it to be followed. Obama could very well have been born in Hawaii. Until I see proof of that then I don’t know. McCain showed his BC as soon as the question was raised. Obama has been hiding his.

      Why? Where are the college papers so we can see if he was allowed in school on a foreign scholarship? Transparency means everything but since he already broke that promise then why would we expect him to be transparent with his personal documents. No, we are not birthers. We are people who want the Constitution followed. We have a right, as citizens, to know. Why do you suppose he will not show it?

      Is it because if shows he was not natural born (which he was not since his daddy was Kenyan and a British subject) or is it because the BC lists someone else as daddy or has other embarrassing info on it. After writing Dreams of My Father it would be pretty embarrassing to have another daddy listed on the BC.

      • Darrel says:

        BigD: “Is it because i[t] shows he was not natural born (which he was not since his daddy was Kenyan and a British subject)…”>>

        DAR
        14th amendment:

        “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

        Since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen regardless of who the papa is.

        D.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel, I am more concerned with the other parts of his life which he will not reveal- for all I know, he trained at Al-Qaida camps in Pakistan. That’s possible- we do not know, and he has not helped his case, has he?

        • Big Dog says:

          Darrel, it helps if we follow what the people who wrote the 14th intended it to be:

          Present U.S. anchor baby “policy” is an abuse of the 14th Amendment. This amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the civil rights of native-born black Americans, who had recently been freed from slavery and whose rights were being denied. The amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” The clear, original intent of the 14th Amendment was spelled out in 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of its citizenship clause, who wrote “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Clearly the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to encourage foreigners to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Sadly the amendment is now being employed to do just that.

          The framers never intended people to have dual citizenship. Daddy Obama was a British subject and his mom was American. She was not old enough to confer citizenship to him under the laws of the time if he were born outside of the US and if he were born in the US then he had dual citizenship which means he is not natural born.

          Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school. In order for him to attend the school he had to be a citizen of Indonesia. At that time they did not allow foreigners to attend school. When Obama was older he traveled throughout the Middle East to countries where US citizens were not allowed to travel. If he had a US passport he would have been refused entry. If he had a foreign one he renounced his citizenship (assuming he was one) and there is no record that he ever became one again.

          I don’t know what his status is but he could clear it up with a $10 certified copy of his real BC. I will be happy to pay the $10.

          If he cleared it up then it would all be over. If this ever surfaces later and he was determined not to be eligible we would have a Constitutional crisis. If they pass a law requiring people to prove citizenship before running (why don’t they already have that) then he would be in trouble for his reelection. That is one reason such a law will never pass before 2012.

          I find it amazing that each time Bush farted liberals wanted an investigation into the facts of the case. Any allegation was worthy. The Plame case wasted money and only showed she was not covert, her husband was a liar and the source was no one in the WH. But liberals went nuts demanding investigations.

          All we want is proof that he is eligible in the form of his long form, original birth certificate.

          That is not too much to ask considering we are citizens and are his boss.

    • Blake says:

      AAh Buns- we have sorely missed your liberal rantings- no, it was Barney the rainbow dinosaur that began this mess by lowering the standards by which people could own a home.
      There are rules for a reason, and he tried to change the rules, with this result. No falsehoods here, buns- all the lies are on your side.
      As for “birthers”- well, it seems to drive you all crazy, and from my point of view, it doesn’t take much to do this, does it?

      • Blake says:

        It also seems that the “birther” scenario is pushed by the left more than the right. I feel that it is a distraction to the real problems (and no- they are not “issues”, they are problems) that King Hussein the Incompetent keeps throwing at us as if they were feces.
        I’m really tired of his disrespect to the American people.