Yeah, fuck people who are hungry. The should buy a sandwich. And fuck kids who can't read good. They should be ashamed of themselves for not reading better. And fuck old people who can't get good health care. Maybe they're fucking alzheimers made them forget to get it. And fuck kids with autism, pfft, little brats just need a good smack. And fuck people who trade in their gigantic SUVs for fuel-efficient cars. What idiots! And fuck people who smile at each-other instead of scowling all the time. And fuck paper bags too, for that matter.

Stupid lefty neolibs with all their brain-washing, feel-good, self-improvement bullshit. Don't they know we like the world just the way that it is right now? Fucked up! YEAUGHHY. HAIL SATAN!

the cash for clunkers program is a simple yet effective and very smart program. over 700,000 old polluting,gas guzzling clunkers taken off the roads and replaced by new, fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles. 45% of the new cars are big 3 cars.this is jobs all up and down the chain.toyotas and hondas sold in the program are madde in the usa.
cash for clunkers saves lives. get a new vehicle with airbags,antilock breaks etc.in short it stimulates auto sales.makes us more efficient and safer. only backwards looking worn out old republicans oppose these programs. many other countries in the world do this. not just us,we must also keep up with the rest of the modern world. there are many instances where the governmet must protect us from ourselves. i.e. seatbelt laws. child restraint laws. etc. ron paul is an idiot.....idiot. these people and all who listen to them want to drag us back to the dark ages where people believe that a 500 year old man built a giant boat and put all the life on earth in it.

turn off fox news and your life will change.

LIES LIES LIES.
STAB THIS FLAG SUCKER.

he almost sneaks it in...
1:25
"the dealer goes to cars.gov..."
Right, the DEALER, not citizen joe.
This kind of program causes scams from the dealerships.
It's a goverment program, so I could see them owning all their shit on that computer, which in turn might mean the whole computer. I mean, it Is their information, who else should own it ? And the dealer is taking part in a goverment program, expect oversight.
No, no no, mother russia doesn't own your computer, calm down.
You complete fucking asshole.
You mean, don't help people with shitty breaking down 300$ piece of shit cars trade it in and get 4000$ for FREE towards a new and more fuel efficient one ? Yea, fuck those people, I hope their car breaks down and they get fired.

anyway...

Also when it comes to the environment, is the overall picture being even looked at?

I'd imagine despite the fuel efficiency of new cars, just throwing away old perfectly working and taking into account the resources it takes to build a new car would probably be less environmentally friendly than just driving your old unefficient car.

The 'informational video' is extremely misleading, it makes it sound like is you have an old beat up car 'clunker' you're assured of $4.5k off. Not true. Your car has to get less than a combined estimated 18mpg as determined by this site: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

And its funny cause they show a 'car' in the commercial yet most 'cars' don't qualify unless they're old sports cars or massive yacht like cars. What it's really meant for? To help the car companies sell their SUVs and trucks.

If you want to buy a new passenger car the new vehicle needs to get 4mpg more than your old vehicle for $3.5k, if its 10 or more mpg better you get $4.5k

If you want to buy a new mid size truck/suv its only 2mpg better for $3.5k or 5mpg better for $4.5k

If you own a big-ass truck/suv you can buy another big-ass truck/SUV and get the $3.5k off for the $4.5k off it only needs to be 2mpg better.

So basically it has nothing to do with getting people to drive more fuel efficient cars and everything to do with helping the auto industry sell their big-ass gas-guzzling machines that put them in the poor house to begin with. Thank you for turning what could have been a forward thinking incentive based program into another handout to to auto industry.

It's worth noting that in the US, in numbers we use commas where Europeans use periods, and periods where they use commas.

And considering how hardcore some VW Bus owners are, I do expect more than a few people to want to spring for one. At 129K, it's being priced against RVs and campers that aren't nearly as fuel-efficient (which the economy has hit hard - I had a friend who used to work at an RV assembly plant, but there were big lay offs since demand has just plain died). I'd imagine that the TCO would be less than a similarly equipped RV or camper, making it a wiser long-term investment.

At 69K, you'd still have something you could take camping for a more barebones experience - if you already have good camping gear, you don't really need the extra 60K worth of bells and whistles. (My mom was a girl scout troop leader, and did a TON of camping trips wit her girls over the years - I did boy scouts for a while, and really only learned knot-tying, which my girlfriend appreciates - we camp frequently over the summer at Renaissance Faire events).

I'd expect this to be pretty popular with the Burning Man crowd.

I'm... pretty staunchly in favor of The Environment, but I think Earth Hour is pretty much the dumbest thing ever. It's a meaningless symbolic statement to make the arm-chair environmentalists feel better about themselves, as if turning off your lights for one out of eight-thousand seven-hundred and sixty hours in a year matters at all.

Do you want to make a difference? Drive a more fuel-efficient car. Walk. Turn your thermostat down five degrees for the entire winter, not for one damn hour. Turn your computer off when you're not using it. Only use lights that you need. Wash your clothes in cold water. Hang them out to dry instead of using the dryer. Limit how much meat you eat. Any of these things would be more meaningful.

Oh, right, those things would inconvenience you. Can't have that.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm sure there is a lot of improvement that could be made, but it becomes a matter of cost to benefit ratios. If that super-efficient car that gets 70MPG costs $40,000 to make, then you have just priced it out of the range of the average consumer. The car not only has to achieve high degrees of fuel efficiency, but it has to be AFFORDABLE. If a high-efficiency piece of junk costs as much as a Lexus or BMW, then you damn well better believe that people are going to buy the Lexus 99 times out of 100.

Consider the aptera , which is taking orders at the moment for early '09 shipping to California. It's a two seat three wheel composite electric car. They plan to ship it with a gas-generator hybrid option it '10 which they claim gets 150mpg in field (not track) tests. the hybrid is priced at $30k. I plan to buy one when the hybrids start shipping.

The only persons the Eurocar really can satisfy are single people with no family. College kids and no-family career types. Pretty narrow market...

Right, that's why nobody in the US has a two seater sports car.... Look, most family's in the US are multi vehicle, which means that one or two small commuters in addition to one big road-trip/shopping machine is not only reasonable, it already pretty standard, the only diff is that the commuter cars are fuel inefficient souped up racers which are poorly suited to the fact that they actually spend most of their life sitting in traffic.

>> ^Irishman:
Thankfully this debate has been over and done with in the rest of the world for over 20 years.


Yeah yeah, rub it in, why don't you tell us about your national health care, quality mass transit, fuel efficient cars, and good beer while you're at it. What are you going to gloat about next? An abundance of single fit women and cuban cigars?

>> ^fissionchips:
1. MPG is a terrible at-a-glance indicator of fuel efficiency, it doesn't scale smoothly as its metric inverse, litres/km.


I've heard this argument before, and I don't believe it. MPG is as good of an indicator for fuel efficiency as L/km. It's purely semantics.

Maybe it's just more popular because of marketing in the US - "bigger is better". So higher mpg = better fuel efficiency.

I think consumers should get access to more rigorous testing and numbers than the simplified city/highway. a car driven in a primarily flat region with constant warm weather will perform better than a mountainous region with 4 seasons. Also mpg (or L/km) charts vs. average speeds. Even if your average consumer only looks at 2 mpg numbers, those of us who understand 8th grade algebra might be able to make a more informed decision with a chart/graph.

If the high-efficiency BMW prototype 3-wheeler (the one that leans into turns) was sold in the US, I would buy one. As fun as a motorcycle, but much more practical (safer, can drive in rain/snow, has luggage space)

1. MPG is a terrible at-a-glance indicator of fuel efficiency, it doesn't scale smoothly as its metric inverse, litres/km.

2. I didn't upvote because this video contains next to no technical details about what sets this car apart.

But I do think there's a lot of improvement to be had in efficiency, maybe not so extreme.

I'm sure there is a lot of improvement that could be made, but it becomes a matter of cost to benefit ratios. If that super-efficient car that gets 70MPG costs $40,000 to make, then you have just priced it out of the range of the average consumer. The car not only has to achieve high degrees of fuel efficiency, but it has to be AFFORDABLE. If a high-efficiency piece of junk costs as much as a Lexus or BMW, then you damn well better believe that people are going to buy the Lexus 99 times out of 100.

The 'efficient car' crowd far too often ignores the basic realities of the market. Most people in the US need an affordable car (sub-$20,000) that can carry thier families, handle long commutes, deal with adverse weather, and can haul light cargo. 'High efficiency' cars ONLY WORK when you use extremely expensive materials, travel very short distances, have no cargo, have no passengers, and always travel in perfect conditions. The SECOND you start trying to design a car that can cope with these basic, fundamental, CRITICAL market needs you have just had to throw 'super efficient' out the window.

It's not like car companies have put much effort into efficiency.

I disagree. They put a LOT of thought into efficency. But they aren't miracle workers. They can't wave a wand and make thier cars weigh 2,000 fewer pounds while still meeting cafe standards, safety regulations, and UAW working requirements. The first US car company that tried to sell one of those tinker toy 'Euro' style cars would get creamed in the marketplace.

Well jimbo, car manufactures have historically been very uninterested in fuel efficiency and are good friends with the oil industry.

The hope is, the leverage the Bush administration, and soon the Obama administration will now have due to the stake in ownership this deal provides, will allow corporate and project restructuring towards greener and more fuel efficient cars, which will be more competitive domestically and worldwide. I'm not holding my breath though.

I do share Schiff's concern that the US dollar will rapidly and abruptly depreciate as inflationary pressure or risk over unsustainable federal governments debts or the foreign debt causes a massive and sudden shift away from it as the currency of choice for international trade. I mean for all intents and purposes the US is stuck in limbo, its manufacturing sector is being dismantled while struggling against overseas competitors in countries with significantly lower wages, standards of living and additional health care, pensions benefits; whereas its service sector while growing and in many ways highly successful is simply not large enough to sufficiently substitute the prior.

So I guess I agree that something has got to give.

>> ^blankfist:
Still, what would a bailout prove? I remember experiencing a lot of fellow industry people in the tech-industry losing everything after the dot-com bubble popped, and Congress didn't raise a finger to bail us out. And why should they? The market was unsustainable because people were throwing too much money at it without a system of monetizing it. Those who could work through that collapse, did. The industry survived even though a lot of the major companies did not.

Difference is, with the dot bomb crash, the industry wasn't a monolithic triopoly, there were thousands upon thousands of fresh upstarts that turned to dust as quickly as they rose up. If we were talking about a similar situation with the auto industry, where most of the companies/products were new and non-essential, I don't think there'd be any talk of a bailout...or a union.

Conservatives (or at least people in Republican jersies, and self-identified conservative Democrats) helped them get too big by never exercising the FTC and having them actually stave off companies from getting "too big to fail" as GM, Ford and Chrysler have.

The same group also prevented government helping these companies take a long view of the global situation -- yes Virginia, I mean environmental issues, fuel efficiency standards, and alternative fuels.

GM, Chrysler and Ford are not sustainable. I'm sorry, but let's try not to make this a party issue. This is about private companies not being able to sustain themselves, and I'm sorry if those of us against the bailout oppose your party position for labor, but that doesn't make those of us against it "republicans". That makes us against nationalizing private debt. And, if you were smart, you'd be against that too.
Economy be damned when industries are falsely propped up.


Why are Ford, GM and Chrysler not sustainable? Could it be that we have bad trade agreements, allowing companies like Hyundai to sell 500,000 cars in the US, while limiting us to 5000 in Korea?

Could it be that every other country with an auto industry gives their companies government support, including both national healthcare as well as protectionist trade policies, and government subsidies?

Could it be that in pursuit of the conservative ideal of "free trade", we're forcing our employees to try to compete with countries with no worker safety or labor laws?

Then there's this little matter about the banks not being willing to give anyone loans for anything, including cars, which makes it a tiny bit hard for these guys to sell anything.

I know you'd rather it not be a "party issue", and that's fine. I just figured I'd lay the blame at the Republican party's feet, rather than saying "conservative ideology" where it probably rightfully belongs, because I always hear that Republicans aren't conservative, and they've been the ones pushing these failed government practices since the 1980's.

But hey, if you want to take the blame for making the environment impossible for the big three to operate as a non-sweatshop employer, who am I to stop you.

If you were smart, you'd be on the side of this argument that's looking to keep people employed, and fix the big three, rather than clinging to the same ideology that got us into this mess in the first place.

You've got a good point about propping up failing businesses, and I think that there should be serious, serious strings attached to any money we loan these guys, and that we ensure these are loans to be paid back with interest, not a big gift basket, like TARP is. Problem is those pesky conservatives (or Republicans as they call themselves) have fought to keep Democrats from adding environmental restrictions and management paycuts/restructuring, while at the same time trying to insert legislation that requires the unions to agree to salaries and benefits below the foreign auto makers. I suppose that's because under their reading of the conservative ideology, telling businesses how to operate is okay if it's to put the screws to unions, but not when management is being made accountable.

These are going to be party issues, and generally speaking, blankfist, I categorize you as being a 3rd party -- neither progressive nor "Republican", the former because it's accurate, and the second because you're as frustrated with that group of howler monkeys as I am.

However, don't try to tell me that Republicans are now high-minded conservatives, because it's a little suspect that they seemed to only remember those principles on Nov 5th, 2008, and they just so happen to lead them to the conclusion that the right course of action is to filibuster everything the Democrats try to do.