"Cash for clunkers" -- charitable donations of cars plummet

Charities are reporting a great reduction in the number of automobiles being donated. In some (many?) cases, charities were reconditioning
donated clunkers for use as basic transportation for people to get to jobs, and in the process training other people in basic automobile repairs to enable them to get work.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Been on the news for a while already about this. Seems to me some of the cars turned in(with marginally bad gas mileage) could be given to these organizations for turning around to folks in need rather then destroyed. Maybe even give the tax breaks to the dealers since they don't seem to be getting much of the clunker money promised by our government...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FredP wrote:

That would just result in corrupt practices by scam artists. Billions would be needed to monitor such a program to prevent fraud, and the fraud would happen anyway. The costs would outweigh the benefits (but that wouldn't bother them). The important thing is that they feel good about it, and if it costs the taxpayer more money that they don't have for them to feel good about it, then so be it. It would be another way to funnel more money to ACORN and their off-shoot corporations, but to Obama, that would be the real benefit.

And they want to run our health care!
Liberal ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended consequences and end up hurting the very people they claim to be caring and looking out for. The results are always the opposite of the stated intent.
I wouldn't be surprised if the government's solution is to forcibly take billions *more* out of our pockets to "right" this result of their incompetence - and they'll call that stimulus.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Put that comment in the perspective of eight years of Bush/Cheney lies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
News wrote:

Besides you not being able to provide specific examples of opposite results of stated intent from the liberal ideas of Bush/Cheney, we are talking about cash for clunkers and the present situation. Care to join into that conversation - and without the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" methods (that don't seem to be working too well for Obama right now).
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Note the newsgroup is rec.autos.makers.chrysler
WTF does your limp "liberal ideas *always* fail" generalization and post have to do with it, hypocrite?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
News wrote:

Umm - clunkers are cars. Chryslers are cars. Chryslers can be clunkers in the context of this discussion. The cash for clunkers idiocy falls under the broader category of "liberal ideas..." that "...always fail". Too many steps for you to follow, perhaps.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Yeah, right.
Take it and uranus to alt.politics.planet.arch-winguts.whackjobs
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
News wrote:

Haven't you figured out that Saul Alinsky tactics don't work anymore? Obama et al are finding that out once they got out of the Chicago microcosm where people fall for that crap. Free speech wins out when things aren't rushed thru under the guise of being an emergency and people don't have a chance to read, consider, and discuss what the heck they are voting on. For Obama to pass his stuff from now on, he'll have to crush free speech. We'll see how that goes. eh?
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Like dumbya's PATRIOT Act, right, moron? What a friggin cretin.
Take it and uranus to alt.politics.planet.arch-wingnut.whackjob.liars
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
News wrote:

Saul Alinsky and his tactics are dead.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Answer the question, you dissembling fuckwit.
Like dumbya's PATRIOT Act, right?
Take it and uranus to alt.politics.planet.arch-wingnut.whackjob.liars
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
News wrote:

Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals are dead.
Info. on Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones: Excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express: Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing through police barricades. In 1996, Jones decided to launch his own operation, which he named the Ella Baker Center after an unsung hero of the civil-rights movement.
This is the kind of people who are trying to run our country.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Putney the frustrated, dissembling fuckwit and his soapbox are empty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
News wrote:

Most of the contents of the patriot act was written before Bush was even in office.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

The most controversial provisions in the Act, including FISA, were subject to 'sunset' provisions in 2005. It was these provisions that Bush subsequently tortured in the Reauthorization, and violated to boot, including via domestic warrantless wiretapping.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You political junkies can avoid wasting our time with your "set in your ways" political alignments.
Lets get on the subject or I'll filter you out! I'd hate to do that because I do get some good ideas from here. <:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Spam away wrote:

Is not the subject of this newsgroup "cars", and specifically Chrysler cars? You can't separate politics from the many subjects of life, whether it's bailouts or cash for clunkers (both have to do with politics, both have to do with cars, including Chrysler cars).
I have to wonder if there are people on political blogs who complain if a discussion starts about, say, cash for clunkers - because its about "cars" and not "politics" per-se. Do you see my point? You can't separate the two.
When I see idiocy in the way things are run, I point them out. That's not being "set in my ways".
Plus - as Obama is learning, there are many people who would not choose to be, as you put it, "political junkies", except that they are compelled to become that when they see people in power who have no constraints, who see the Constitution as a worthless document that gets in the way of implementing socialist and Marxist ideas, and are intent on systematically destroying our nation in several ways.
And when I see examples in discussions specifically about cars (like cash for clunkers) of the idiocy of those running it and their agendas, I will make a broader political statement pointing out how that (the thing about cars being discussed) is an example of the idiocy of those in power and how that idiocy might expand over into other non-car-related areas like health care/health insurance (for example, I might make statements like: If they implement it and it totally bankrupts the nation - which it will - and then nobody has decent coverage like other countries have found out, then how has that helped *anybody* - and why should illegals be covered? And why would the people who put us under such a system reserve for themselves their own "special" system for *their* health care coverage?).
Hang around, or filter away if you must.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Why do you and your wingnut whackjob "birther" "open carry" faux KoolAid drinking ilk feel obligated to constantly and outrageously lie about the facts of these programs?
http://factcheck.org /
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/betsy-mccaugheys-ideas-ca_n_264970.html
Are you that friggin stupid? Are you sheep? Or just mendacious without bounds?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
News wrote:

Ahhh - yes. Saul Alinsky's patented Rules for Radicals nos. 5 and 12:
"RULE 5: 'Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.' There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.
"RULE 12: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.' Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.
I think Pelosi, Frank, Obama et al are learning how these rules are no longer working in a communicating and thinking society. The lies are too easy to spot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/betsy-mccaugheys-ideas-ca_n_264970.html
I haven't got time to point out the falsehoods and inconsistencies in all of those. But for one, Obama, Frank, Emanuel have all explicitly and unmistakenly stated in the past that single payer is the ultimate goal. (Here's a video of Obama saying *precisely* that: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan /)
Sebelius and Frank have said that the healthcare "public option" is the first step towards a single payer system.
Frank on single payer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
BS4C9el98
Anything they say to the contrary *now* is a lie to cover up the real agenda.

Hmm - those Rules 5 and 12 appear again. Nice use of your training. But again - no longer effective. You guys need to go back to the drawing board. Alinsky is dead.
Here's something to consider on the cost of what's been proposed:
In 1966 Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990. It cost $108 billion 9 times that estimate. Prorating that against the CBO's projected $1 trillion cost for health care reform, that means in 10 years it would cost $3.5 trillion.
For those interested (if not interested, don't read them), here are Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in full. Enjoy:
"RULE 1: 'Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.' Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. 'Have-Nots' must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)"
"RULE 2: 'Never go outside the expertise of your people.' It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the 'real' issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)"
"RULE 3: 'Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.' Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)"
"RULE 4: 'Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.' If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)"
"RULE 5: 'Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.' There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)"
"RULE 6: 'A good tactic is one your people enjoy.' They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid 'un-fun' activities, and we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)"
"RULE 7: 'A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.' Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)"
"RULE 8: 'Keep the pressure on. Never let up.' Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)"
"RULE 9: 'The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.' Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)"
"RULE 10: 'If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.' Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)"
"RULE 11: 'The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.' Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)"
"RULE 12: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.' Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works."
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.