Cash for clunkers is broke, it only allowed for 12 such transactions per dealership, and now it is in need of more cash, as usual the cost and scope have been baddly underestamated by Democrats and Obama, and you want to trust the Governemnt with Health care?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-07-30-cash-for-clunkers-program-suspended_N.htm

Government suspends 'cash for clunkers' program
RECESSION WATCH

By James R. Healey and Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY The government is suspending the explosively popular "cash for clunkers" program fearing it would go broke before it could parcel out what it still owes dealers for a huge backlog of sales.

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/bill/cash-for-clunkers-runs-out-of-cash

This is the Article We Wrote TWO DAYS AGO

We are now being told that the program may go on hold…we waiting for official confirmation but this is what we have been saying for weeks and everyone laughed. Who is laughing now. No One.

We have been saying that the NHTSA’s dealer sales enter system was backed up. We said that from our survey over 60% of CARS sales have still not been booked. We pointed out that it would be impossible to “gauge” sales with a broken input system. We documented today about the growing frustration of consumers and dealers. Tensions are high.

It looks like someone else is doing that math in Washington.

Consumers and dealers should not panic. This can go many ways but the sales that have been completed most likely will be honored. What is unknown is if additional funding will be granted by Congress.

If no additional funding were granted, car dealers would suffer a big blow as they have geared up advertising, staffing, compliance and training for a 5 day program that dissolved.

The automotive industry can not handle another death blow.

So now you're complaining because he did not put MORE money into it?

So now you're complaining because he did not put MORE money into it?

No I am pointing out that as usual the Democrats and Obama couldn't get their numbers straight, and like all government programs the cost are underestimated along with the demand for free money, another words some one else's money paying for your car, and the answers is always to throw more money into the problem.

That is also why I am against this Idea of a universal Health Care System run by the Government, as a single payer, or Government alternative system, the Government doesn't have to make a profit, and in doing so it undercuts the free market system, because if it underestimates the cost, it can just take more money from the Taxpayer and continue to throw more money at the problem and not have to fix it.

No I am pointing out that as usual the Democrats and Obama couldn't get their numbers straight, and like all government programs the cost are underestimated along with the demand for free money, another words some one else's money paying for your car, and the answers is always to throw more money into the problem.

That is also why I am against this Idea of a universal Health Care System run by the Government, as a single payer, or Government alternative system, the Government doesn't have to make a profit, and in doing so it undercuts the free market system, because if it underestimates the cost, it can just take more money from the Taxpayer and continue to throw more money at the problem and not have to fix it.

No I am pointing out that as usual the Democrats and Obama couldn't get their numbers straight

Yeah, how dare they attempt to bring the country back to the surplus it was before the Republicans came in! If they try to fix it, its socialism, if it turns out the what they thought was a Republican credit hole is actually an abyss, why its their fault for not realising how completely the Republicans have been pounding the country into shit for eight years!!!:rolleyes:

Yeah, how dare they attempt to ...

Well, SAM, in your own finances, don't you allocate your spending money based on some reasonable ideas of what you're gonna' need for the week? Or do you do what Omambawa does .....just throw out some money and hope it's enough?

Baron Max

If I had a wasteful brother who never made any money but spent freely according to his whims how much would I estimate he would spend?

In other words, it was so wildly successful that we will need to seek further funding!

Yeah, even the Baron has become an entrepreneur and come out of retirement to employ some Mexicans. :D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95035

In other words, it was so wildly successful that we will need to seek further funding!

One could say the same thing about the war in Iraq?

Is this really a success?

I thought the original plan was a great idea. It's a backdoor way to give money to American automakers, while encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient cars.

But 12 per dealer? That was pretty stupid.

Why?

One could say the same thing about the war in Iraq?

Is this really a success?

I thought the original plan was a great idea. It's a backdoor way to give money to American automakers, while encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient cars.

But 12 per dealer? That was pretty stupid.

I don't know where the 12 per dealer came from, but it would appear that dealers are not restricted to 12 per dealer per Buffalo Roam's post:

•Preston Automotive group in Maryland has 60 deals done.
•Classic Chevrolet in Dallas Fort Worth has 30 deals done.
•Midway Chevrolet in Phoenix as 25 deals done.
•Marlboro Nissan has done 28 deals.
•The Bill Dodge Auto Group in Maine has done 70 deals and used car sales also also booming.
•Findlay Chevrolet in Nevada over 15 deals.
•Bartow Ford in Florida 20+ deals.
•Hare Chevrolet near Indianapolis has 30+ deals booked.

And the House is looking at passing an extension of the program before recessing for Summer Vacation. And while it is a subsidy for the auto industry, it is also a jobs bill...keeping people employed and off the nations unemployment rolls. I think it is one of the better stimulus programs created by congress. It stimulates demand, and that is what is needed now.

It is the best program the Government came up since the Trillions in bail out. They need similar product rebates of about $50 Billion dollars. That will jump start the economy fast. But if imports kicks in big time, we are dead again....No time to be wishy-washy now...the Clunker program should be $20 Billion. Compared to wall street bail out, it is pocket change....

Hmmm, I own a piece of crap 4wd 1991 200,000+ miles pick up truck that has been nothing but trouble, that I paid $1,500 for at an auction five years ago because I own some property that is impassable in winter without 4wd. I don't seem to be going to my land in winter and don't seem to be building on my land so I don't really need my truck. I have a family member who would be very happy to get a new Nissan Versa which only costs $10,700 new which minus $4,000 for my clunker comes to $6,700.

Maybe I should take this cash for clunkers deal. I think the Versa is assembled in Mexico and the engine would be made in Tennessee.

The clunker program seems to be getting refunded. Will it be refunded a third time?

My problem with the program is that it is rewarding people who used vehicles that got less than 18mpg not the people who always did use the efficient vehicles.

Stuff the efficient vehicles. They're only making the oil last longer, thereby reducing the urgency of the need to find an alternative.

You should all drive 1970's gas guzzlers and 4wd's. Use all the oil, and use it fast! Then, when you run out, somebody will be sponsored by somebody to find an alternative and half the worries of the USA will be over.

Not to mention the entire middle east breathing a collective sigh of relief. Providing that alternative wasn't based in some way on refined sand.

I don't know where the 12 per dealer came from, but it would appear that dealers are not restricted to 12 per dealer per Buffalo Roam's post:

Umm...math?

The program was funded for $2 billion. Assume each person gets a $4500 rebate, and (as per CNN) there are 23000 dealerships participating. Now,

\frac{\$ 2,000,000,000}{\$4500 \text{per~customer}} = 444,444 \text{customers}

Then, we divide the number of dealerships...

\frac{444444 \text{customers}}{23,000\text{~dealerships}} \approx 20 \frac{\text{customers}}{\text{dealership}}

So ok, he was wrong by about 40%.

Either way, the funding was based on some pretty stupid assumptions, or some pretty drastic underestimations about the number of people who would take advantage of the offer.

I think it is one of the better stimulus programs created by congress. It stimulates demand, and that is what is needed now.

Just because it is a good idea doesn't mean that they didn't fuck it up.

My problem with the program is that it is rewarding people who used vehicles that got less than 18mpg not the people who always did use the efficient vehicles.

So people who couldn't previously afford to buy a more fuel efficient car should be punished?

more govt handouts to corporations
bad bad bad

now to trade in a clunker i plan to buy for 2g for 4g
most awesome

this just in
oil companies hit by dwindling revenues as populace goes green
recession forecasted
me economies tank
al qaeda experiences massive growth
ny leveled by nuke

depression
men barricade with families
all die with single gunshot to the head
sanitary dept on strike
a bad smell permeates the air
aliens swoop in like vultures

Six o'clock - TV hour. Don't get caught in foreign tower. Slash and burn,
return, listen to yourself churn. Lock him in uniform and book burning,
blood letting. Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate. Light a candle,
light a motive. Step down, step down. Watch a heel crush, crush. Uh oh,
this means no fear - cavalier. Renegade and steer clear! A tournament,
a tournament, a tournament of lies. Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives
and I decline.

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Yeah, how dare they attempt to bring the country back to the surplus it was before the Republicans came in! If they try to fix it, its socialism, if it turns out the what they thought was a Republican credit hole is actually an abyss, why its their fault for not realising how completely the Republicans have been pounding the country into shit for eight years!!!:rolleyes:

Amen to that SAM!

Umm...math?

The program was funded for $2 billion. Assume each person gets a $4500 rebate, and (as per CNN) there are 23000 dealerships participating. Now,

\frac{\$ 2,000,000,000}{\$4500 \text{per~customer}} = 444,444 \text{customers}

Then, we divide the number of dealerships...

\frac{444444 \text{customers}}{23,000\text{~dealerships}} \approx 20 \frac{\text{customers}}{\text{dealership}}

So ok, he was wrong by about 40%.

Either way, the funding was based on some pretty stupid assumptions, or some pretty drastic underestimations about the number of people who would take advantage of the offer.

Just because it is a good idea doesn't mean that they didn't fuck it up.

I am with you until you get to the number of dealerships. Given that there has been a massive wave of dealership closings, I don't know that you can accurately quantify the acutal number of dealerships.

My point is that the law did not restrict the number of cars a dealership sell under the program or the number of deals each dealership could make under the program. A better measure metric to use to gauge the sufficiency of the program is the percent of 2008 auto sales the progam would fund (13.2 million). Using that metric, the program would fund three percent of the 2008 auto sales...still a small number.

Do I think this program should have been larger, yes. But we are talking politics in Washington, and even now you have folks like Buffalo Roam screaming bloody murder about the government attempting to rescue the economy from the abys their Republican brothers and sisters brought upon us after more than a decade of mismanagement.

I am with you until you get to the number of dealerships. Given that there has been a massive wave of dealership closings, I don't know that you can accurately quantify the acutal number of dealerships.

I'm working under the assumption that the numbers quoted in the CNN article were accurate.

Also, I just read in the NY Times that the actual amount that the program was funded for was actually $1 billion, which means that things average out to about 10 customers/dealership. So Buffalo Roam was right.

My point is that the law did not restrict the number of cars a dealership sell under the program or the number of deals each dealership could make under the program.

Of course not. A rural dealership sells far fewer cars per year than a very large dealership in big cities. But that's missing the point---all of the info about individual dealerships is hidden in the average, and they didn't account for the number of people who would take advantage of the offer.

At the end of the day, they fucked it up.

Do I think this program should have been larger, yes. But we are talking politics in Washington, and even now you have folks like Buffalo Roam screaming bloody murder about the government attempting to rescue the economy from the abys their Republican brothers and sisters brought upon us after more than a decade of mismanagement.

If the ``rescuers'' don't think their programs through, then it is likely that we could end up in a worse place than we were before. I'll remind you that Bush was only in office for 8 years, and that the last two years the legislative branch was controlled by Democrats.

So people who couldn't previously afford to buy a more fuel efficient car should be punished?

The vehicles that got less than 18mpg were not the econo models.

The vehicles that got less than 18mpg were not the econo models.

Does everyone always buy a new car?

At the end of the day, they fucked it up.

If the ``rescuers'' don't think their programs through, then it is likely that we could end up in a worse place than we were before. I'll remind you that Bush was only in office for 8 years, and that the last two years the legislative branch was controlled by Democrats.


At the end of the day, they did not fuck up. The program was sucessful. Now they are looking to give additional funding to the program because it was so succesful. There is some common sense in testing social programs before implementing them.

I don't understand why Republicans find it a difficult strategy to do more of what is proven to work and less of what has been shown to fail.

As for the Democrats controling the legislative branch the last two years, you know the Democrats only had a very thin margin on control and no effective control of the Senate...as the Senate takes a majority of 60 to exercise effective control of the Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/senate.2008/index.html

At the end of the day, they did not fuck up. The program was sucessful. Now they are looking to give additional funding to the program because it was so succesful. There is some common sense in testing social programs before implementing them.

So is that what we can look forward to for the healthcare overhaul? A quickie little test until it runs out of money, then ....then, ....yeah, then what???

And, Joe, you may be thinking that I'm joking, but I'm as serious as a heart attack ......the healthcare industry is huge ..HUGE.. and Omawaba is talking as if it's just a little car dealership in town that needs little "stimulus".

Joe, just the drug manufacturing industry is huge. Hospitals? Joe, that's such a huge industry that no one, virtually no one can possibly grasp it. And yet Omawaba waves his hand and makes pronouncements of wonders and Shangri-La ....just like he did for the car rebate thingie.

Baron Max

At the end of the day, they did not fuck up. The program was sucessful. Now they are looking to give additional funding to the program because it was so succesful. There is some common sense in testing social programs before implementing them.

It was a huge underestimate. They fucked it up---that's all there is to it.

If this had been a Republican plan, I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing. It probably would have been you who started the thread.

As for the Democrats controling the legislative branch the last two years, you know the Democrats only had a very thin margin on control and no effective control of the Senate...as the Senate takes a majority of 60 to exercise effective control of the Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/senate.2008/index.html

I see 233-202 in the house and 51-49 in the senate. That looks like a majority to me.

So is that what we can look forward to for the healthcare overhaul? A quickie little test until it runs out of money, then ....then, ....yeah, then what???

You are mixing unrelated subjects Baron Max, there is a difference between a temporary stimulus measure and a long term commitment like healthcare reform. Can you show me one instance where the governement failed to adequately fund a major healthcare program like Medicare? No you cannot.

And, Joe, you may be thinking that I'm joking, but I'm as serious as a heart attack ......the healthcare industry is huge ..HUGE.. and Omawaba is talking as if it's just a little car dealership in town that needs little "stimulus".
No I don't for a moment think that you are not serious, and that is what is so very scary to me.

Joe, just the drug manufacturing industry is huge. Hospitals? Joe, that's such a huge industry that no one, virtually no one can possibly grasp it. And yet Omawaba waves his hand and makes pronouncements of wonders and Shangri-La ....just like he did for the car rebate thingie.
Baron Max

Yes the drug industry and the health industry is big, but not unmanagable. Because you cannot understand it, it does not mean others cannot. This is not rocket science. This is good old supply and demand with a lot of politics mixed in and you and your posts reflect that fact very well.

You still seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding the difference between a stimulus initative and a long term program commitment. Medicare is the program that covers all Americans over the age of 65. It has been succesfully run by the government for more than a half century. It is similar to what Obama is planning for everyone with the exception that private industry can be a player and compete with the government.

Obama and the Democrats, have never once proposed to take over hospitals; drug industry; or any other facet of the healthcare industry in The United States...despite the rehtoric and lies by Republicans and their ditto heads. They have however proposed changing the way healthcare is funded. It is funny and sad that changing the way healthcare is funded would cause so much ruckous. Why do you think that is Baron? Could it be that those benefiting from the current corrupt system are fear mongering in order to protect their golden tit?

Obama and the Democrats, have never once proposed to take over hospitals; drug industry; or any other facet of the healthcare industry in The United States...

Then how can they possibly control the costs and expenses? What, ...they're just going to ask those guys, nicely, if they've been overcharging the patients/clients????

to control all of those things, Joe, they'll have to have full access to all of the records and charges and time sheets and drug usages and ....., and any and all of those things. Joe, if that ain't "taking over" I don't know wha the fuck you'd call it.

.... They have however proposed changing the way healthcare is funded. ...

Funded? Funded by whom? Now what the hell are you talking about, Joe??

If they don't control (take over) the healthcare industry, how can they know what to fund and what not to fund? And if they don't take over, how are they going to know what to "change" as to the funding?

We're going at this too fast, Joe ...there's going to be some big, big problems! And it's no different to the speed at which the clunkers program was rushed through ...too damned fast, and too many problems slipped by.

What I'm afraid of is that the healthcare bill will be passed, then in a few months, they'll run into problems. At which point, the nation will almost have no choice but to continue to pour more money into it to make it work ....just like they're doing with the clunker program. Omawambwana will have congress and the American people over a barrel ...they'll have no choice but to keep funding the healthcare program. Maybe that's why Owawabam want's this to be passed so quickly .....so people can't figure it out?!

Baron Max

Then how can they possibly control the costs and expenses? What, ...they're just going to ask those guys, nicely, if they've been overcharging the patients/clients????

to control all of those things, Joe, they'll have to have full access to all of the records and charges and time sheets and drug usages and ....., and any and all of those things. Joe, if that ain't "taking over" I don't know wha the fuck you'd call it.

Funded? Funded by whom? Now what the hell are you talking about, Joe??

If they don't control (take over) the healthcare industry, how can they know what to fund and what not to fund? And if they don't take over, how are they going to know what to "change" as to the funding?

We're going at this too fast, Joe ...there's going to be some big, big problems! And it's no different to the speed at which the clunkers program was rushed through ...too damned fast, and too many problems slipped by.

What I'm afraid of is that the healthcare bill will be passed, then in a few months, they'll run into problems. At which point, the nation will almost have no choice but to continue to pour more money into it to make it work ....just like they're doing with the clunker program. Omawambwana will have congress and the American people over a barrel ...they'll have no choice but to keep funding the healthcare program. Maybe that's why Owawabam want's this to be passed so quickly .....so people can't figure it out?!
Baron Max

I fear you will never figure it out nor do you want to figure it out.

Do you understand the healthcare problem? Are you on Medicare now? Do you like the Medicare Program? Healthcare costs growing annually for decades at double the inflation rate are not sustainable. And guess who pays half of all healthcare costs in the US, the US government. Do you think healthcare costs might be adversely affecting the federal budgets and adding to the national debt because they are. So if we do nothing or do what the Republicans are proposing, healthcare costs will double in a decade and more people will be uninsured. Your Medicare Program will be bankrupt (out of money) and the Federal deficit will be much worse. Is that what you want?

Under the current system tax payers pay for healthcare services. Some employers and employees pay for healthcare insurance and a few other
As for speed, we have been debating healthcare reform for more than a half century. World Wars have been fought and won in much less time.

Oligopolies in the healthcare industry need to be broken, barriers to entry must be removed. Statutory no bid contract requirements must be eliminated. And all citizens must pay their fair share of the healthcare expense...something that does not happen today.

Not that it matters, but Obama has said on numerous occasions and there is nothing in the House Bill that elimates privace rights. And there are options to government insurance....funny how I never hear Medicare reciepants complain about how the government runs Medicare.

I fear you will never figure it out....

I'm sure that you're aware that there are just a helluva lot of people that are wondering the same things as me ....and some very educated poeple, too.

Do you understand the healthcare problem? ... Healthcare costs growing annually for decades at double the inflation rate are not sustainable. ...

Aren't the cost of everything going up all the time, Joe? Isn't that what we call "growth" and "progress"?

And, no, I don't fully understand the healthcare problem, and more to the point, I don't think anyone does!! And yet you think that Omaamwaba understands ...even though he's never done a single thing like it in all of his life, and never even balanced the books for a company!

I fear that we're going to be subjected to a "wait n' see if we get fucked" attitude with the passage of the/a bill as it stands now. ...just like the cash for clunkers ....pass the bill, then see if we get fucked. If we do get fucked, then go back to congress and ask for more money!!

Something is rotten in Denmark if this bill has to be pushed through so fast. Why? Why go so fast on something so important and far-reaching? Why not read the bill, then debate it's merits? Why so fast?????

Baron Max

I'm sure that you're aware that there are just a helluva lot of people that are wondering the same things as me ....and some very educated poeple, too.

I am sure you can find some educated people to support your position. But that does not mean they are being honest. They are supporting their own agendas which involves screwing you...just like the email you received and belived about the aledged Obama quotes which were false. You are being used.

Aren't the cost of everything going up all the time, Joe? Isn't that what we call "growth" and "progress"?

Costs are not always going up. To simplify, inflation is a measure of general increase of costs in an economy. So when you have an item or industry who's cost is consistently increasing at more than twice the rate for anything else, you have a big problem...especially if it is healthcare. This is a classic sign of monopoly or oligopily at work.

And, no, I don't fully understand the healthcare problem, and more to the point, I don't think anyone does!! And yet you think that Omaamwaba understands ...even though he's never done a single thing like it in all of his life, and never even balanced the books for a company!

I fear that we're going to be subjected to a "wait n' see if we get fucked" attitude with the passage of the/a bill as it stands now. ...just like the cash for clunkers ....pass the bill, then see if we get fucked. If we do get fucked, then go back to congress and ask for more money!!

Something is rotten in Denmark if this bill has to be pushed through so fast. Why? Why go so fast on something so important and far-reaching? Why not read the bill, then debate it's merits? Why so fast?????

Baron Max

There is nothing rotten in Denmark other than those supplying you with misinformation in an effort to protect their government golden tit. And as I said, just because you do not understand the healthcare system does not mean that others do not or cannot understand the healthcare system.

I keep asking you to show me where the Cash For Clunkers program failed and you have never been able to support your position. Greenspan and many other economists are viewing the Cash For Clunker program as an unmitigated success. And I share that opinion.

And finally, you have failed to tell me if you like your Medicare?

Let me give you a real life example when it comes to believing educated people, every day I listen to a number of very educated investors and investment managers. If I did everything they recommended, I would be broke instead of up 50 percent on my portfolio. Why, because these educated folks are pushing their own agendas; trying to drive the markets up or down for their own purposes. These guys are not dumb, but they are deceptive.

We all need to filter information to make sure we are getting the best most honest information.

Let me give you a real life example when it comes to believing educated people, every day I listen to a number of very educated investors and investment managers. If I did everything they recommended, I would be broke instead of up 50 percent on my portfolio. Why, because these educated folks are pushing their own agendas; trying to drive the markets up or down for their own purposes. These guys are not dumb, but they are deceptive.

We all need to filter information to make sure we are getting the best most honest information.

So why don't you apply that same measure to your precious Obama and the Democrats? since January 21 they have added $1.85 trillion to the deficit, and National Debt, and are fixing to add Trillions more.

And yes, really.

So why don't you apply that same measure to your precious Obama and the Democrats? since January 21 they have added $1.85 trillion to the deficit, and National Debt, and are fixing to add Trillions more.

And yes, really.

The trouble is I do Buffalo Roam. And has been mentioned to you many many times, the stimulus spending was the correct action to take. Until the economy has recovered, we may need additional federal spending. The bottom line is Obama is doing the right thing at the right time...as hard as that is for you to swallow, that is the truth of the matter. The time to object to runaway federal spending was 7 years ago when george II and his merry band of Republicans doubled the national debt for no good reason...not now.

Once the economy has recovered, I will not support the kind of spending we have seen. And Obama would be foolish to try to continue that line of spending...and I don't think he is a fool. Ironically the name of the game with the economy is confidence. The more confident folks are of the government (including Obama's leadership) and the economy the fewer federal dollars will need to be spent. The constant Republican rumor and fear mongering is indirectly increasing the cost of this recession and delaying the recovery.

The trouble is I do Buffalo Roam. And has been mentioned to you many many times, the stimulus spending was the correct action to take. Until the economy has recovered, we may need additional federal spending. The bottom line is Obama is doing the right thing at the right time...as hard as that is for you to swallow, that is the truth of the matter. The time to object to runaway federal spending was 7 years ago when george II and his merry band of Republicans doubled the national debt for no good reason...not now.

Once the economy has recovered, I will not support the kind of spending we have seen. And Obama would be foolish to try to continue that line of spending...and I don't think he is a fool. Ironically the name of the game with the economy is confidence. The more confident folks are of the government (including Obama's leadership) and the economy the fewer federal dollars will need to be spent. The constant Republican rumor and fear mongering is indirectly increasing the cost of this recession and delaying the recovery.

:roflmao: yes joe tell use another one, and no I won't buy any land in Florida from you or Bridges in Brooklyn.

:roflmao: yes joe tell use another one, and no I won't buy any land in Florida from you or Bridges in Brooklyn.

Is that the best you can do Buffalo Roam, ad hominem? Cannot respond with a little fact or reason, can you? So you go right back to what you know best as you always do when cornered....roflmao.

I think GOP is afraid that ig Dems succeed...that means next 16 years will be theirs....

I think GOP is afraid that ig Dems succeed...that means next 16 years will be theirs....

I think you are right. Sixteen more years of Democratic rule means fewer special interest dollars in GOP coffers for that period. Republicans were living large these last two decades. I guess it is hard for them to get used to the new financial realities.

It is also sad to know that they value their special interests more than the country.

Is that the best you can do Buffalo Roam, ad hominem? Cannot respond with a little fact or reason, can you? So you go right back to what you know best as you always do when cornered....roflmao.

joe when you give me fact and reason I will reply with Fact and Reason, all you have given is, your own personnel assessment of the situation, backed by your own personnel evaluation of the situation, just as all you have been giving is your own personnel assessment of your thought process, only backed by your own assessment of your thought process.

The day you corner me is the day the Navy quits using the Marine as sea going bellhops.

What's wrong with Obama's spending? We obviously need it. If the financial crisis never happened, we wouldn't have to do this. We do not have much choice.

What's wrong with Obama's spending? We obviously need it. If the financial crisis never happened, we wouldn't have to do this. We do not have much choice.

Because it is Obama and the Government prioritize spending, on the short term, not the People who are the driving pump to our economy, it is the pump that needs priming, not the well.

Things like health care spending, investment in infrastructure, those are long term boosts to the economy. It's trickle up, not Republican trickle down down, with tax cuts for the rich.

joe when you give me fact and reason I will reply with Fact and Reason, all you have given is, your own personnel assessment of the situation, backed by your own personnel evaluation of the situation, just as all you have been giving is your own personnel assessment of your thought process, only backed by your own assessment of your thought process.

The day you corner me is the day the Navy quits using the Marine as sea going bellhops.

LOL, Buffalo Roam with all due respect you would not know a fact if it hit you, nor would you know reason. Because you have outsourced those to the leaderhip of your party. Further you have no interest in knowing fact or using reason because it diverges from your preordained direction. You have been shown many times the facts and the reasons..the rationale. But you always ignore them. So don't expect me to give you a complete lesson in macro economics everytime we exhange views.

And the sad truth is Buffalo Roam, we always end these little sessions with you in the corner.

And as for the Marines, they are a proud part of Department of the Navy. Marines are no bellhops. Marines have rescued many an Army dude on many occasions with their Army tails backed into a corner. Marines have made it a habit of rescuing you Army dudes from yourselves.

Things like health care spending, investment in infrastructure, those are long term boosts to the economy. It's trickle up, not Republican trickle down down, with tax cuts for the rich.

And spending on domestic energy production. If we can ween ourselves off of oil imports that is a huge boost to our trade deficit. Almost half the trade deficit it energy related.

p/s Buffalo Roam this is a fact. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-24.html#sub1

I happen to disagree with the cash for clunkers program because it encourages buying cars, a transportation method with a limited future. 1-3 billion would better be spent elsewhere.

I happen to disagree with the cash for clunkers program because it encourages buying cars, a transportation method with a limited future. 1-3 billion would better be spent elsewhere.

The clunker program was never meant to be a longer term investment. It was something fast quick and easy. As you point out there needs to be a longer term and more coherent plan for energy. I think we can do better than the current cap and trade. We need to start using alternatives like natural gas for autos.

Yeah, just more chaff. You resorted to ad hominem because you could not come back with a response. The Clunker Program was successful and remains succesful.

joe it's broke after 5 day, Obama and the Democrats couldn't even come up with a proper cost estimate that came close to properly funding a simple program like this, for 5 months, and you want to claim success?

Like every other program from the Federal Government, it's cost were underestimated, and now the government answer, is the same as any other broke Government Program, spend more deficit money to keep the program going.

Tax payers money, so some one else can buy a car with my money.

Maybe the demand was underestimated.

i wish i had a clunker for some cash.. posting this so i can PM somone after 20 posts

joe it's broke after 5 day, Obama and the Democrats couldn't even come up with a proper cost estimate that came close to properly funding a simple program like this, for 5 months, and you want to claim success?

Usually when something is so wildly popular and fulfilling in its intent [of moving money through the economy] that it is sold out rapidly, its considered a success.

How is success defined in your dictionary?

what ever it says on dictionary.com

i promise after tonight no more spam i just need to contact somone and i need 3 more posts to do it

joe it's broke after 5 day, Obama and the Democrats couldn't even come up with a proper cost estimate that came close to properly funding a simple program like this, for 5 months, and you want to claim success?

Like every other program from the Federal Government, it's cost were underestimated, and now the government answer, is the same as any other broke Government Program, spend more deficit money to keep the program going.

Tax payers money, so some one else can buy a car with my money.

I am not going back and reposting everything before you started throwing chaff. The program is widely viewed as a success by economists. The Cash for Clunkers Program was intended to keep people employed, restore confidence in the economy.

Does everyone always buy a new car?

It does not matter if you are buying new or used; you still have to make a choice whether or not it is a gas guzzler. The program should have been called "Cash for Guzzlers".

The big winner appears to be the Ford Focus. Hope they were not counting on the program to help the bailed out GM and Chrysler.

Usually when something is so wildly popular and fulfilling in its intent [of moving money through the economy] that it is sold out rapidly, its considered a success.

How is success defined in your dictionary?

It is creating a artificial sales surge, with money we don't have, adding to the
debt and deficit, from other peoples money paying for the purchase of private property to the benefit of that Individual.

Free Money is always popular, give always draw large crowds, but someone has to pay for them, and why should I be forced by Government largess, to buy part of your car, for you, with out receiving recompense?

ps: none of the money has been sent out to the Dealers yet, (none of that money ends up in the hands of the people), and the vast majority of cars have been refused as qualified by the program.


How is success defined in your dictionary?

When a program doesn't add to the Debt and Deficit of the United States, and is Constitutional.

Remember Robin Hood was taking back excessive taxes by the Sheriff, and Government, and returned them to the People, He was not giving away moneys he didn't have, that wasn't stolen in improper taxation with no intent to utilize it for the purported purpose, the Ransom of King Richard.

I looked up Fox news via the Daily show... and pieced together with the other responses.. And all I learnt is this, Don't bother listening to these idiots, because unless you become like them, nothing will make sense.
The whole point of this exercise was to stimulate the economy, and stem the bleeding of the auto industry. The fact that he can do this while stimulating the production of hybrids is a bonus. Idiot republicans are being obtuse, as usual.

The whole point of this exercise was to stimulate the economy, and stem the bleeding of the auto industry. The fact that he can do this while stimulating the production of hybrids is a bonus.

Yeah and it was wildly successful. How many other programs have been so instantly successful to sell out in 5 days?

More foreign made brands have been sold when the trade ins were taken as well. So Americans are helping many other countries get out of their economic woe's as well. Nice America can have all that money to give aways isn't it. :shrug:

Well they're providing goods and services for pieces of paper. Lets hope the currency is worth the paper its printed on.

Moderator note: 7 off-topic posts have been removed.

Well they're providing goods and services for pieces of paper. Lets hope the currency is worth the paper its printed on.

Except government involvement usually just devalues the currency and causes inflation and poverty.



You gotta love leftism

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Zimbabwe_%24100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg

And spending on domestic energy production. If we can ween ourselves off of oil imports that is a huge boost to our trade deficit. Almost half the trade deficit it energy related.

p/s Buffalo Roam this is a fact. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-24.html#sub1

joe, if you read the chart we are not weaning our selves of oil, we are not even weaning ourselves off imported oil, that chart is even worse today, 3 years after the Democrats took control of Congress.

joe? do you even take the time to realize just how omnipresent oil and it's byproducts are in todays modern society?

We are now importing even more oil, gas, and refined product, from overseas than ever before, yes joe, thanks for showing that we are even more dependent on hydrocarbons than ever before.

If we are running out of oil, it will not matter what we can run in cars, or how much solor energy we can farm from the sun, the collapse of our society and economy will be utter and complete.

My problem with the program is that clunkers must be destroyed. What a waste (YouTube videos of dieing cars as the engine is disabled is disturbing). I'd like to see the study where they prove that a new car (and it's manufacturing of it) is cleaner than keep using a "clunker" - some of the cars are perfectly fine. Also, putting more people in debt as they finance new cars -- same shit alll over again...

I looked up Fox news via the Daily show... and pieced together with the other responses.. And all I learnt is this, Don't bother listening to these idiots, because unless you become like them, nothing will make sense.
The whole point of this exercise was to stimulate the economy, and stem the bleeding of the auto industry. The fact that he can do this while stimulating the production of hybrids is a bonus. Idiot republicans are being obtuse, as usual.

Mega dittos Challenger!!! They don't seem to get it for what ever reason. The whole point of this program was to keep people employed. Buffalo Roam and others on his side do not or cannot understand that the issue is not spending money here. Our choices are to spend less or to spend more,

The spend less option involves stimulus. The spend more invovles do ntothing and let the economy collapse along with all the related social structures.

joe, if you read the chart we are not weaning our selves of oil, we are not even weaning ourselves off imported oil, that chart is even worse today, 3 years after the Democrats took control of Congress.

joe? do you even take the time to realize just how omnipresent oil and it's byproducts are in todays modern society?

We are now importing even more oil, gas, and refined product, from overseas than ever before, yes joe, thanks for showing that we are even more dependent on hydrocarbons than ever before.

If we are running out of oil, it will not matter what we can run in cars, or how much solor energy we can farm from the sun, the collapse of our society and economy will be utter and complete.

Nobody is saying we are going to eliminate oil from our daily lives. I said we need to use less oil. Using less oil benefits our trade deficits...ps that is a good thing Buffalo Roam...especially now.

Apparently the government is being quite slow in making the promised payments to dealers, as a result, over half the dealers in New York have dropped out of the program:
NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government's Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.

The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They're also worried about getting repaid.

Schienberg said the group's dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they've made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won't get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don't have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said.

"The program is a great program in the sense that it's creating a lot of floor traffic that a lot of dealers haven't seen in a long time," he said.

"But it's in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency," he added. "If they don't get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure."
Read the rest (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1)
So, once again, we have government inefficiency fucking up a pretty simple program. As has been said before, how can we trust government to run healthcare when they can't even run cash for clunkers?

Apparently the government is being quite slow in making the promised payments to dealers, as a result, over half the dealers in New York have dropped out of the program:
NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government's Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.

The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They're also worried about getting repaid.

Schienberg said the group's dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they've made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won't get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don't have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said.

"The program is a great program in the sense that it's creating a lot of floor traffic that a lot of dealers haven't seen in a long time," he said.

"But it's in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency," he added. "If they don't get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure."
Read the rest (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1)
So, once again, we have government inefficiency fucking up a pretty simple program. As has been said before, how can we trust government to run healthcare when they can't even run cash for clunkers?

Well we certianly cannot trust the way the healthcare system is being run now. Paying health insurance premiums for years only to get ill and have the coverage you thought you had revoked is not a good way to run a healthcare system for the patient. It maybe great for insurance companies and providers but it is certianly not very good for individuals.

Two, by all accounts the government has done a pretty good job of managing healthcare through Social Security and the military. So if you are going to make comparisons you should at least make apples to apples comparisons not apples to truck comparisons.

Well we certianly cannot trust the way the healthcare system is being run now. Paying health insurance premiums for years only to get ill and have the coverage you thought you had revoked is not a good way to run a healthcare system for the patient. It maybe great for insurance companies and providers but it is certianly not very good for individuals.Clearly there's lots of room for improvement. But that need not be a government takeover.
Two, by all accounts the government has done a pretty good job of managing healthcare through Social Security and the military. So if you are going to make comparisons you should at least make apples to apples comparisons not apples to truck comparisons.By all accounts? Really? I seem to recall a scandal regarding poor healthcare at the VA not so long ago. And Medicare and Social Secuirity are presently on track to bankrupt the government. That's success in your book?

Clearly there's lots of room for improvement. But that need not be a government takeover.By all accounts? Really? I seem to recall a scandal regarding poor healthcare at the VA not so long ago. And Medicare and Social Secuirity are presently on track to bankrupt the government. That's success in your book?

Well no one is talking about a government takeover but the insurance companies and their allies within and outside the current healthcare industry. The current healthcare system is going bankrupt in the US. And Medicare is a part of that system. But in the case of Medicare, there are a couple of funding issues not healthcare delivery issues.

First, since Medicare is a portion of the healthcare system in the US and it takes care of elders for which private industry has to taste for the associated risk, there really is no competition for this market segement. In order to drive down costs there needs to be competiton within the industry and that is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail today to keep competition out of the industry.

Second, government took the money paid into the Medicare system and used it to pay other off budget expenses like the war in Iraq...a trillion dollars in less than eight years. That is more than Obama is proposing for his universal healthcare coverage in ten years.

In Washington we have to get rid of all the budget gimmicks used by Republicans and george II over the course of the last eight years and put everthing on the board in order to address the issue of Federal Spending. One thing for certian, the federal government is paying most of the money spent on healthcare today. In the future it needs to get a lot more bang for its healthcare dollar than what it gets today. If we are ever to get a handle on federal spending, we need to control healthcare expenses.

Well no one is talking about a government takeover but the insurance companies and their allies within and outside the current healthcare industry. The current healthcare system is going bankrupt in the US.Which private insurance companies are going bankrupt?
Second, government took the money paid into the Medicare system and used it to pay other off budget expenses like the war in Iraq...a trillion dollars in less than eight years. That is more than Obama is proposing for his universal healthcare coverage in ten years. Yes, the government blew the money like a drunken sailor at a whorehouse. Big surprise. That's the problem, government can't be trusted.
In Washington we have to get rid of all the budget gimmicks used by Republicans and george II over the course of the last eight years and put everthing on the board in order to address the issue of Federal Spending. Your hyperpartisanship is getting ridiculous. Republicans did not invent the various accounting gimmicks used by the federal government. That shit has been going on for years. Pretending that the problem is only a Republican one is ignoring half the problem. Both parties suck in different ways, but profligate spending and accounting gimmicks are vices they both indulge in freely.
One thing for certian, the federal government is paying most of the money spent on healthcare today. In the future it needs to get a lot more bang for its healthcare dollar than what it gets today. If we are ever to get a handle on federal spending, we need to control healthcare expenses.We need to get a handle on all federal spending. We might even consider not taking on the additional expense of providing healthcare for the entire country given that the government is already so deep in dept our currency is in danger of collapse.

Which private insurance companies are going bankrupt?.
I was referencing the country is going bankrupt because of the huge increases in healthcare costs. As has been mentioned serveral times before, healthcare cost can not as it has historically and is currently, continue to grow more than the economy as a whole.

Yes, the government blew the money like a drunken sailor at a whorehouse. Big surprise. That's the problem, government can't be trusted.Your hyperpartisanship is getting ridiculous. Republicans did not invent the various accounting gimmicks used by the federal government. That shit has been going on for years. Pretending that the problem is only a Republican one is ignoring half the problem. Both parties suck in different ways, but profligate spending and accounting gimmicks are vices they both indulge in freely.
We need to get a handle on all federal spending. We might even consider not taking on the additional expense of providing healthcare for the entire country given that the government is already so deep in dept our currency is in danger of collapse.

Did I say Republicans invented those tactics, no. But I did say they exploited them like never before or since. The additional healthcare expense that you referenced is temporary, down the road due to increased competition, we should curb the runaway increases in healthcare spending. We must reverse the healthcare expense curve if we want to become more fiscally responsible and reduce our debt. Yeah that is going to take an initial investment. But it has to happen. It is certianly not going to happen in the current healthcare model.

I was referencing the country is going bankrupt because of the huge increases in healthcare costs. As has been mentioned serveral times before, healthcare cost can not as it has historically and is currently, continue to grow more than the economy as a whole.
Neither can the cost of a college education (http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml), yet tuition and every fee they can think of continues to rise at twice the rate of inflation each year. This despite, or maybe because of, heavy government involvement in education and its funding.

Neither can the cost of a college education (http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml), yet tuition and every fee they can think of continues to rise at twice the rate of inflation each year. This despite, or maybe because of, heavy government involvement in education and its funding.

Well there is a big difference Mad between healthcare and college tuition. No one is forced into college. It is optional. But we all have healthcare issues and needs. I think you, as a healthcare provider, can understand the difference.

I came across this link to SICKO, the documentary on American healthcare. I think it says it all.

http://www.videosift.com/video/SiCKO-Full-Documentary

I just recieved an advert for this program even though I own a 2009 car! A little late I'd say and the wrong customer as well. :mad:

The government is not advertising the program, dealerships are.

A member had this to say about the CFC program.I don't think he liked it.

It doesn't really help the environment. In fact, it actually hurts it. Instead of the used vehicles being resold, they're being scrapped, which means they'll be sitting and rotting in junkyards around the land for the next twenty years rather than being driven.

In addition to this, don't believe what anyone says about it jump-starting the American automobile economy. There was a loophole in the Cash for Clunkers program that allowed the people to buy any vehicle, not just American vehicles. As a result, of the top ten new vehicles bought through the program, only three are made in America (Ford Focus, Ford F-150, and Chevrolet Cobalt). The most purchased vehicles were the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, and Ford Focus - two Japanese cars and one American car, this despite Ford recently taking the "most reliable" title from Toyota in recent reliability surveys. Basically, Cash for Clunkers was to appease the greenies by getting people into Honda and Toyota hybrids.

Also, there was an unforseen issue with the Cash for Clunkers program. I live in a rather poor section of my state (Michigan), and before the Cash for Clunkers program, it was hard to find a good used vehicle for under $3,000. Now, thanks to the $3,500-$4,500 rebate from the government, plus incentives from the dealerships, it's nearly impossible.

I've been looking for myself and my family. I recently did a search on Autotrader.com, my favorite car-finding website which we've used in the past to buy vehicles. I would usually get around 20-30 cars within 50 miles under $3,000. Now, I get one or two, and they're normally junk.

In the past thirty-five years, since my father started driving, no one in the family has ever spent more than $6,000. We've owned close to thirty vehicles. Most fall into the $1,000-$3,000 range, with the only exceptions being a $4,400 Isuzu Rodeo (a 1998 bought in 2004), a $5,000 Ford Ranger (a 2000 bought in 2006), and a $6,000 Nissan Pathfinder (a 1992 bought in 2000).

The one thing I don't get is,wouldn't the CFC program have to run for a long time to be of any real value to us? I mean it's up in the air as weather or not it's beneficial but if it is by chance,how is ending the program now going to be of any real benefit for the longer term? Didn't GM,Ford,Japan etc have a lot of autos already made and sitting in storage just waiting to be unloaded to buyers? I don't get it? That would hardly put anyone back to work for any length of time.

Isn't it very nice that the taxpayers money is being given away to private dealers to help them increase profits. How is this helping the economy because the only people being helped are the dealers. :shrug:

The Cash for Clunkers program was inteneded to bleed off the excess inventory in dealerships. Dealers had a lot of excess inventory, costly inventory. Dealers usually borrow money to finance their inventories.

So the Cash for Clunkers program was intended to clear out the inventories for dealers, and it has done that...keeping them financially viable and employing people. It was not intended to be a long term fix. In the end the dealerships will be healthy as a result of this program. You cannot have a sucessful car business without dealerships.

The Cash for Clunkers program was inteneded to bleed off the excess inventory in dealerships. Dealers had a lot of excess inventory, costly inventory. Dealers usually borrow money to finance their inventories.

So the Cash for Clunkers program was intended to clear out the inventories for dealers, and it has done that...keeping them financially viable and employing people. It was not intended to be a long term fix. In the end the dealerships will be healthy as a result of this program. You cannot have a sucessful car business without dealerships.



Why then didn't Washington bail out the many small businesses like plumbing companies or electrical companies that hire on hundreds of thousands of workers who lost their jobs due to overproduction of houses? There are many homes that are waiting to be sold today while many trades people are out of work waiting for the construction industry to get going once again. So where's their bailouts??:shrug:

Why then didn't Washington bail out the many small businesses like plumbing companies or electrical companies that hire on hundreds of thousands of workers who lost their jobs due to overproduction of houses? There are many homes that are waiting to be sold today while many trades people are out of work waiting for the construction industry to get going once again. So where's their bailouts??:shrug:

So let me get this straight, you want more bailouts?

The Obama administration is trying to be frugal with the dollar and get the biggest bang for the taxpayer. It doesn't make sense to go out and build new homes when you already have a glut of homes on the market. Homes are not very disposable...autos are. Even now auto manufacturers are calling laidoff workers back to work to begin a more modest inventory replacement initative.

And the real estate industry did get a boost with the tax credit for first time home buyers.

The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers Trade-Ins:

1. 1998 Ford Explorer

2. 1997 Ford Explorer

3. 1996 Ford Explorer

4. 1999 Ford Explorer

5. Jeep Grand Cherokee

6. Jeep Cherokee

7. 1995 Ford Explorer

8. 1994 Ford Explorer

9. 1997 Ford Windstar

10. 1999 Dodge Caravan




The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers New Cars:

1. Ford Focus

2. Honda Civic

3. Toyota Corolla

4. Toyota Prius

5. Ford Escape

6. Toyota Camry

7. Dodge Caliber

8. Hyundai Elantra

9. Honda Fit

10. Chevy Cobalt

Yeah it is just too bad that those foriegn cars you referenced are made in the good olde USA.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

He did not reference foreign cars - only foreign companies who take profit home!

First you cannot take profit anywhere as it is a theorical number pulled from the realm of accounting theory. So you cannot touch profit, you cannot eat profit, nor can you invest profit. You can take cash and move it, trade it, invest it but cash is not profit. And j ust because cashflow is increased, it does not mean the cash is repatriated. It is frequently left in the country of origin and reinvested.

Two, since manufacturing for those cars occurs in the US, the US economy directly benefited. It was American workers who made those cars. And it was Americans who recieved the value of the dollars spent on the Cash for Clunkers program.

The bottom line is the dollars spent on Cash for Clunkers stayed in the US and it sustained jobs which was the goal of the program.

First you cannot take profit anywhere as it is a theorical number pulled from the realm of accounting theory. So you cannot touch profit, you cannot eat profit, nor can you invest profit. You can take cash and move it, trade it, invest it but cash is not profit.

Fascinating. We have been taking profit from our partnership company in the form of cash for the last 10 years and it seems to be OK with the IRS. And we are eating the profit! imagine that...My friend in India has an office in the USA and he takes his profit back home so that he can expand his workforce and believe it or not eat and buy a BMW!

What are you talking about?

So let me get this straight, you want more bailouts?

No, I was asking why only the automobile companies getting all the money, why not spread it around instead of giving it to only 2 or 3 auto companies?:shrug:

No, I was asking why only the automobile companies getting all the money, why not spread it around instead of giving it to only 2 or 3 auto companies?:shrug:

My understanding is that the dealers get the money.

Cash for Energy Efficient Appliances is next!

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/08/21/energy-efficient-appliance-rebates-ready-to-roll/

Fascinating. We have been taking profit from our partnership company in the form of cash for the last 10 years and it seems to be OK with the IRS. And we are eating the profit! imagine that...My friend in India has an office in the USA and he takes his profit back home so that he can expand his workforce and believe it or not eat and buy a BMW!

What are you talking about?

Profit is equlivant to earnings on the income statement. Earning/profits are a device of accounting. You cannot spend or eat profits as originally stated. Companys have gone bankrupt all the time earning profits.

One of the major objectives of accounting is to recognized costs when associated revenue for those costs are recognized. And if you are familar with business you know that costs and revenues do not always occur in the same reporting period. That is why profit is a therorical number. The methods used to match revenue and cost are often driven by other things like politics, taxes, etc. So agan profit is a theoritical number. Cashflow is a real number. You can eat cash, touch cash. You cannot touch or eat profits.

Cash for clunkers is broke, it only allowed for 12 such transactions per dealership, and now it is in need of more cash, as usual the cost and scope have been baddly underestamated by Democrats and Obama, and you want to trust the Governemnt with Health care?

Buffy, not an original thought in your whole drivel. When will you stop listening to Fow News talking points???

1. It was a success that's why they ran out of money.

2. You trust the military to be run by the government, so why not health care?

Oh, you are a moron...