Cash for clunkers?

Since when? Government consumes it does not produce.

There have been many news articles written about this in the past decade. I don't catalog everything I read. Not that it would matter, no one changes their mind based on facts.

Doesn't matter, Bush the Idiot got us into a pointless and hugely expensive war that drained the economic lifeblood of the country. ALL money spent on the military is the same as shoveling money into a fire. The goal should be the smallest military possible, not the largest.

I've talked to Austrian school economists and they are no different then the rest, they just have different theories.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:46:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some electrons to say:

Especially you.

You haven't presented any. We are both just offering opinions. I've been thru this drill before and wasted my time digging up the FACTS. All that happens is that the other side just goes off on a tangent. Like when you say that bush should be hanged for his war crimes the bush sympathizers start blathering about "what about when Clinton did " as if that excuses bush.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:12:51 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some electrons to say:

I'm not the one that made the statement

That was you. If you call it a fact, as you do, then back it up with data. Otherwise, it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. I have nothing to prove, you do.

Brent wrote in news:h5aqo9$215$1 @news.eternal-september.org:

What's money when Obama can keep mortgaging America to the Chinese forever? What does it matter that at the rate America is going, interest on the debt will cost 50% of the GDP soon?

I've seen sufficient analysis that I believe it's a fact. You have not. You want me to do your research for you. If you are willing to pay me I will. But to clarify, it's my opinion that it's a fact and it's your opinion that it isn't. That's why I said we are both offering opinions.

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:48:08 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some electrons to say:

So, provide your analysis. Otherwise, it's still only opinion, and not a fact.

The problem I see with this program is that the car being traded in must be currently registered and insured, and have been for at least the past full year. At least in my area you CANNOT register a car that does not pass emissions. So the program does nothing to take the real "clunkers" to the crusher, only properly running vehicles.

rd

It matters insomuch if the previous administration is used as an excuse for shortcomings of the current which, last I looked was doing a pretty good job of hemorraging money themselves.

The idea that it's ok when it's our guy but not when it's the other...

That is the basis of modern US politics.

...and certainly goes both ways.

dwight

Is English a second language for you?

They may be running properly enough to pass the emissions test but the older ones still pump out a whole lot more emissions then the new ones.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:38:54 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some electrons to say:

No, how about you?

There are probably very few cars manufactured today that don't produce less emissions than cars from the 80's.

I can't help wondering how long it would take driving a new car to balance the resources, energy, transportation, etc necessary to produce the new car(and 'destroy' the clunker) than if one continued to drive the clunker...

What fraud and waste and in which program?