The US federal government is out of f'n control...

otterotter Posts: 760
edited January 2013 in A Moving Train
Post examples of the US fed fuckin up.


Whoops—'Cash for Clunkers' Actually Hurt the Environment

http://news.yahoo.com/why-cash-clunkers ... 48694.html

Back in 2009, President Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program was supposed to be a boon for the environment and the economy. During a limited time, consumers could trade in an old gas-guzzling used car for up to $4,500 cash back towards the purchase of a fuel-efficient new car. It seemed like a win for everyone: the environment, the gasping auto industry and cash-strapped consumers.

Though almost a million people poured into car dealerships eager to exchange their old jalopies for something shiny and new, recent reports indicate the entire program may have actually hurt the environment far more than it helped.

According to E Magazine, the “Clunkers” program, which is officially known as the Car Allowance Rebates System (CARS), produced tons of unnecessary waste while doing little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The program's first mistake seems to have been its focus on car shredding, instead of car recycling. With 690,000 vehicles traded in, that's a pretty big mistake.

According to the Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), automobiles are almost completely recyclable, down to their engine oil and brake fluid. But many of the “Cash for Clunkers” cars were never sent to recycling facilities. The agency reports that the cars’ engines were instead destroyed by federal mandate, in order to prevent dealers from illicitly reselling the vehicles later.

The remaining parts of each car could then be put up for auction, but program guidelines also required that after 180 days, no matter how much of the car was left, the parts woud be sent to a junkyard and shredded.

Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of “shredding residue” is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.

E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the “Clunkers” were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively “young,” with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars.

And though the point was to get less fuel efficient cars off the roads, with only 690,000 traded in, and over 250 million registered in the U.S., the difference in pollutant levels seems pretty negligible.

But all that vehicular destruction did more than create unnecessary waste for the environment. It also had some far-reaching economic effects.

According to a recent TriCities op-ed from Mike Smith of Ralph Smith Motors in Virginia, CARS created a dearth of used cars, artificially driving up prices. For those who needed an affordable car, but didn’t qualify for the program, this increase in price meant affordable transportation was well out of reach. It also meant used-car dealers, most of whom are independently owned, small-business owners, had little to no stock. According to Smith, 122 Virginia dealers chose not to renew their licenses after that year.

TakePart spoke to Daniel Gray, bestselling tech author and fuel-efficiency expert about the environmental impact of the auto industry. He says that the government is making strides. Chief among them is the announcement of CAFE MPG standards this year, new regulations introduced by the current administration that mandate a minimum fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. That’s double the minimum requirement as of right now.

And in the interim, Gray encourages consumers to make informed decisions. “The biggest focus going forward should be to encourage folks to purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicle that fits their needs. We should also look into retrofitting older cars with the latest fuel-saving technology and encourage carbon-neutral, or possibly negative, renewable biofuels.”
I found my place......and it's alright
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    I'm confused....I thought the US was exceptional.?
    Or is it just the people you vote in to office who screw things up?
    In the 'purpose for usa' thread, you're shown several examples of a foreign policy that has resulted in the deaths of millions and exploitation of a massive portion of the entire planet, and you dismiss or justify all of it, not giving an inch....Now you start a thread to criticize your government, and.....
    Top complaint?
    A long-expired, ill-fated domestic auto-industry subsidy initiated at a time when (it appeared, anyway) public opinion was in favour of bailing out the industry.
    Tyrrants!


    ....it should be interesting to watch who criticizes what about your government in this thread.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I was not in favor of the auto industry bailout. I do not believe taxpayers should bail out private companies when the private companies can't remember how to run a business. If GM would have had to liquidate we might have three or four or more profitable smaller companies to choose from.
  • otterotter Posts: 760
    I'm confused....I thought the US was exceptional.?
    Or is it just the people you vote in to office who screw things up?
    In the 'purpose for usa' thread, you're shown several examples of a foreign policy that has resulted in the deaths of millions and exploitation of a massive portion of the entire planet, and you dismiss or justify all of it, not giving an inch....Now you start a thread to criticize your government, and.....
    Top complaint?
    A long-expired, ill-fated domestic auto-industry subsidy initiated at a time when (it appeared, anyway) public opinion was in favour of bailing out the industry.
    Tyrrants!


    ....it should be interesting to watch who criticizes what about your government in this thread.

    The fed is out of control. It steps on our rights and infringes on our liberty.

    You are right. I should have been more clear.

    The federal government is out of control because the executive has too much power. This problem started with Wilson at the turn of the last century. Now they pass laws the the patriot act (bush) then enforce it (obama).

    So the subject of this thread should have been something like...The fed is moving away from the Constitution.
    I found my place......and it's alright
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    unsung wrote:
    I was not in favor of the auto industry bailout. I do not believe taxpayers should bail out private companies when the private companies can't remember how to run a business. If GM would have had to liquidate we might have three or four or more profitable smaller companies to choose from.
    one of the main reasons romney lost ohio and michigan. both states that were critical to any victory of his.

    there are some things you think and say to your friends that you don't say in front of a national audience. this is one of them.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Ron Paul got booed when he stood on stage and said we should treat our neighbors how we would like to be treated. People simply don't think for themselves.

    But yeah in this case I'd agree with you.
  • unsung wrote:
    If GM would have had to liquidate we might have three or four or more profitable smaller companies to choose from.

    Or more likely, we wouldn't. Who'd open a car company in the middle of a depression where 50% of the work force was unemployed and couldn't afford to buy a car?

    Because that's what would have happened to the US economy if the auto industry hadn't been saved.

    Besides... we made money on that deal.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Really? Where'd that profit go?
  • unsung wrote:
    Really? Where'd that profit go?

    Probably to pay for the war.

    And the supreme court case to defend DOMA and DADT.

    And sending the Romney horse to the Olympics.
  • unsung wrote:
    Besides... we made money on that deal.

    No we didn't try getting your facts straight
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,717
    unsung wrote:
    Besides... we made money on that deal.

    No we didn't try getting your facts straight
    sure we did. Thousands of employees at support facilities kept their jobs, continuing to pay taxes and didnt need to go on unemployment .
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyrat wrote:
    sure we did. Thousands of employees at support facilities kept their jobs, continuing to pay taxes and didnt need to go on unemployment .

    The fact remains the auto bailout will cost taxpayers 15-20 billion, we did not make money on this deal.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,717
    mickeyrat wrote:
    sure we did. Thousands of employees at support facilities kept their jobs, continuing to pay taxes and didnt need to go on unemployment .

    The fact remains the auto bailout will cost taxpayers 15-20 billion, we did not make money on this deal.
    ok. So we lost less than if we did nothing.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    mickeyrat wrote:
    sure we did. Thousands of employees at support facilities kept their jobs, continuing to pay taxes and didnt need to go on unemployment .

    The fact remains the auto bailout will cost taxpayers 15-20 billion, we did not make money on this deal.
    we made money on the interest paid back to us by the auto companies.

    all of the loans were paid back earlier than expected as well.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • The fact remains the auto bailout will cost taxpayers 15-20 billion, we did not make money on this deal.

    Except that isn't true,

    Those loans were paid back. With interest.

    And the employees kept working and paying taxes and spending money keeping the other businesses in their communities open and those employees paying taxes.

    I know it's hard to understand. You want me to draw you a pie chart?
  • The fact remains the auto bailout will cost taxpayers 15-20 billion, we did not make money on this deal.

    Except that isn't true,

    Those loans were paid back. With interest.

    And the employees kept working and paying taxes and spending money keeping the other businesses in their communities open and those employees paying taxes.

    I know it's hard to understand. You want me to draw you a pie chart?

    :lol:
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Another perspective on this is that the cash for clunkers program helped the big new dealerships, but hurt the little used car dealerships. Seems like a Wal Mart effect in the car dealership arena! I also wonder how many perfectly good cars were scrapped! Thats a total waste!
    Theres no time like the present

    A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!

    All people need to do more on every level!
  • Another perspective on this is that


    when your first silly argument is tossed away, grasp at another straw and see if that does anything.

    Look, nobody said this was going to end like a Disney movie. The economic face-plant was brought by a bunch of Republicans who went to washington saying they were going to "reign in spending" but instead spent a LOT more with no plans to actually pay for it and then blamed the resulting disaster on the guy who showed up after they had already burned down the house.

    The recovery is going to be messy. It's going to take a long time. It's going to be wrought with setbacks, compromises and yes... there will be a few negative side effects. Much like curing cancer requires you to poison yourself.

    If you want a magic solution... there isn't one.

    However there are greater and lesser evils and the Cars for Klunkers program was the lesser of two evils.
  • chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    wishin i had a dozen junkers back then i coulda got paid
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."

    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • Another perspective on this is that


    when your first silly argument is tossed away, grasp at another straw and see if that does anything.

    Look, nobody said this was going to end like a Disney movie. The economic face-plant was brought by a bunch of Republicans who went to washington saying they were going to "reign in spending" but instead spent a LOT more with no plans to actually pay for it and then blamed the resulting disaster on the guy who showed up after they had already burned down the house.

    The recovery is going to be messy. It's going to take a long time. It's going to be wrought with setbacks, compromises and yes... there will be a few negative side effects. Much like curing cancer requires you to poison yourself.

    If you want a magic solution... there isn't one.

    However there are greater and lesser evils and the Cars for Klunkers program was the lesser of two evils.

    The economic faceplant was brought on by both parties and by both ideologies. Overspending, corruption, greed, entitlements...all of it. Policies put forth by Bill Clinton caused the housing bubble. Policies put forth by Bush was too much money and grew the govt too much. I understand and admit all that. I DO NOT see you blaming liberal policies at all....EVER! You just quoted that the entire failure was due to Republican spending and policies....you are very rigid....and one sided! Are you a socialist? Are you a Communist? Can you say that both parties made the mistakes?

    OH and if it was all because of overspending....then what you say about Obama's spending now? Good luck with that answer cause you will need all you can get.
    Theres no time like the present

    A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!

    All people need to do more on every level!
  • otterotter Posts: 760
    Not to mention about 2 billion bucks to be reelected :shock:

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/15723 ... ional-debt

    Obama and the National Debt: President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt
    Not surprisingly, President Obama is blaming the Bush administration for the debt racked up under his own presidency. Recently, on 60 Minutes, the president was asked to respond to critics who point out that the debt has gone up $5.2 trillion since he took office. In response, Obama claimed:

    “Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.”

    Fact checkers from the Washington Post, Factcheck.org, and Politifact.com all agreed these claims are simply false. Obama’s assertion is based upon a Congressional Budget Office projection from January of 2001. The CBO had projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses from 2001-2011. As is so often the case, the government agency grossly overestimated revenue and underestimated costs. By 2002, the CBO was projecting a surplus of $313 billion. Instead, there was a deficit of $158 billion, a net change of $471 billion. Considering the 2001 CBO projection was so wildly off just a year later, it is striking how often it is cited by Obama and his allies.

    So why was the CBO’s 2001 projection so horrendously misguided? When the CBO put out their budget projection in 2002, they explained, “nvestment plunged beginning late 2000. A sharp drop in profit margins, probably tied to excess capacity stemming from over-optimism ... worsened that fall ... the contraction in the share of GDP claimed by corporate profits is expected to be one of the worst since World War II.” The economy entered a recession in mid-2001; then came September 11, 2001. “Investors, consumers, and businesses lost confidence. As a result, stock prices fell, consumers bought less, and firms sharply reduced orders for new equipment. Lower demand in turn led business to reduce their workforces.” Also, “[C]apital gains realizations in calendar year 2001 fell by nearly 20%.” Corporate tax receipts fell from 2.1% of GDP in 2000 to 1.7% in 2001, and were projected to fall to 1.5% by 2002.

    The CBO also grossly underestimated outlays in their 2001 projection. As a result of the recession and September 11, spending increased significantly. By 2002, the CBO was projecting unemployment compensation to soar 67%, and those on food stamps to increase 19%. Of course, there was also the war in Afghanistan. Authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan was bi-partisan and virtually unanimous.

    As we are all too aware, that $5.6 trillion in surpluses never materialized. The increased spending, tax cuts, wars, economic downturn, interest payments, and September 11 all contributed. As indicated above, we have added $5.2 trillion to the national debt since Obama took office. For the president’s claim to be accurate, only $520 billion of that amount would be attributable to his policies.

    Obama attributes all of the war spending to Bush. Since taking office, President Obama has actually increased spending on the war in Afghanistan, sending more troops to the country.Spending in Afghanistan went from $38 billion in 2009 to $87 billion in 2010 and $98 billion in 2011. Obama requested $115 billion for both wars in 2012. “The cost from 2010 to 2012 is more than $400 billion, excluding interest.”

    Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone in January of 2011, and cut payroll taxes, reducing projected revenues by nearly $800 billion. He also proposes to continue the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 in 2013. The Recovery Act cost $800 billion through 2011, and his health care reform actually increased funding for Medicare Part D, closing the “doughnut hole.”

    In these measures alone, Obama’s policies account for more than $2 trillion in deficit spending. Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts reduced expected revenues by an estimated $369 billion from 2009 to 2010. Medicare Part D cost $150 billion from 2009 to 2011. Secondary to the recession, “economic and technical changes” accounted for $1.96 trillion in reduced revenue from 2009 to 2011.

    As such, Bush's policies amounted to a total of $519 billion (reduced tax revenue + Medicare Part D) in added deficit spending, together with some portion of the Iraq war spending, which was essentially wound down by the time Obama took office.

    In his claim, Obama had the 10% part right. However, that 10% was more properly attributed to his predecessor’s role in creating the deficits from 2009-2012. The remainder is attributable to Obama’s policies (~40%), the recession (~40%), and other (~10%).
    I found my place......and it's alright
  • STAYSEASTAYSEA Posts: 3,814
    I'm not responsible.
    I voted a different person.

    I have jars full of change.
    image
  • Another perspective on this is that


    when your first silly argument is tossed away, grasp at another straw and see if that does anything.

    Look, nobody said this was going to end like a Disney movie. The economic face-plant was brought by a bunch of Republicans who went to washington saying they were going to "reign in spending" but instead spent a LOT more with no plans to actually pay for it and then blamed the resulting disaster on the guy who showed up after they had already burned down the house.

    The recovery is going to be messy. It's going to take a long time. It's going to be wrought with setbacks, compromises and yes... there will be a few negative side effects. Much like curing cancer requires you to poison yourself.

    If you want a magic solution... there isn't one.

    However there are greater and lesser evils and the Cars for Klunkers program was the lesser of two evils.

    The economic faceplant was brought on by both parties and by both ideologies. Overspending, corruption, greed, entitlements...all of it. Policies put forth by Bill Clinton caused the housing bubble. Policies put forth by Bush was too much money and grew the govt too much. I understand and admit all that. I DO NOT see you blaming liberal policies at all....EVER! You just quoted that the entire failure was due to Republican spending and policies....you are very rigid....and one sided! Are you a socialist? Are you a Communist? Can you say that both parties made the mistakes?

    OH and if it was all because of overspending....then what you say about Obama's spending now? Good luck with that answer cause you will need all you can get.

    the economic meltdown was years in the making. not just republicans, not just democrats. but almost all of Obama's spending has been to try to REVERSE the catastrophe and get the US back on track. Not sure how anyone can argue that.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • STAYSEASTAYSEA Posts: 3,814
    when your first silly argument is tossed away, grasp at another straw and see if that does anything.

    Look, nobody said this was going to end like a Disney movie. The economic face-plant was brought by a bunch of Republicans who went to washington saying they were going to "reign in spending" but instead spent a LOT more with no plans to actually pay for it and then blamed the resulting disaster on the guy who showed up after they had already burned down the house.

    The recovery is going to be messy. It's going to take a long time. It's going to be wrought with setbacks, compromises and yes... there will be a few negative side effects. Much like curing cancer requires you to poison yourself.

    If you want a magic solution... there isn't one.

    Screw the clunkers program! That was all the money I had! I needed a Clunker... I can fix it. I had to buy a Saturn instead. Which is no longer made. My whole ecosystem is done. I hate Saturns.. I have a DvD player but no gas efficiency. I've been listening to the movie "Tombstone" , since october. No one rides in my back seat, and it wont eject. At least its a good movie?

    However there are greater and lesser evils and the Cars for Klunkers program was the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

    The economic faceplant was brought on by both parties and by both ideologies. Overspending, corruption, greed, entitlements...all of it. Policies put forth by Bill Clinton caused the housing bubble. Policies put forth by Bush was too much money and grew the govt too much. I understand and admit all that. I DO NOT see you blaming liberal policies at all....EVER! You just quoted that the entire failure was due to Republican spending and policies....you are very rigid....and one sided! Are you a socialist? Are you a Communist? Can you say that both parties made the mistakes?

    OH and if it was all because of overspending....then what you say about Obama's spending now? Good luck with that answer cause you will need all you can get.[/quote]

    the economic meltdown was years in the making. not just republicans, not just democrats. but almost all of Obama's spending has been to try to REVERSE the catastrophe and get the US back on track. Not sure how anyone can argue that.[/quote]
    image
  • Staysea... you really need to fix the formatting, I can't figure out who said what to whom.
Sign In or Register to comment.