main point for Clunkers: CLEANER AIR!

(secondary point: more jobs in the car business)

don't let the repugs change the subject from Clean Air

cleaner air means less sick people

less sick people means more money for folks, less money for health insurance companies

In addition to the BEST health care in the world, we in these United States have the cleanest air. Insurance companies are only in business to serve our needs, and keep us healthy, they do not really want, or need to make a profit. And (on edit) our auto industry is strong and vibrant.

Not everybody will get it.

they will never "get" anything.

:evilgrin:

I expected more DUh replies.

I am impressed by the hipness of the DU crowd.

nt

:sarcasm:

better air and reduced gas imports are secondary.


If we don't get the unemployment down, nothing is going to pass including health care.

and the destroying of the clunkers so they can't go back on the roads.

repugs say the clunkers should be sold to poor people, which would destroy the point of getting rid of clunkers.

repugs say there won't be enough used cars for poor people if clunkers are removed. which is not true.

This is a very stimulative act, which also encourages private spending to make it work. Not only are auto, parts, shipping, steel, sales jobs created/sustained, but labor is also needed to destroy the clunkers too. This approach is injecting a ton of money into the economy with a large stimulative ratio (probably up there near food stamps/infrastructure, but as a bonus, it also has private people spend too).

With a lot of Keynesian stimulus, it isn't so important what is actually being accomplished, but rather, the increase in production needed to accomplish it (there is even a suggestion that burying jars of money and having a town dig them up creates wealth).

I see this as killing two birds with 1 stone, but in the large massive picture, it may have a negligible effect on air quality (250K cars and counting wont put a dent in it). But it will, dollar for dollar, have a pretty significant economic impact. So, are you sure this is just about air? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you sure thats not just an excuse (secondary reason) to hide stimulative spending?

surge in all things car

any steps we can take for cleaner air is to the better.

cleaner air means less sick people, more money in folks pockets, less money going to health ins. companies.

enough.

For example, a 1998 Toyota Corolla 4-door automatic wouldn't qualify because it would still get about 26 mpg city (down slightly from it's rated 31 mpg city brand new) if it was in decent shape (i.e. the catalytic converter or muffler wasn't hanging on by shoestring and thread).

Yet, such a car I see in the ads here in San Diego selling for about $3000.

Decreased fuel consumption is the point, not air quality.

The top 3 vehicles being traded in are late 90s Ford Explorer SUVs. These are NOT clunkers. And it IS bullshit that they destroy these vehicles instead of fixing them up and selling them to people who might not be able to afford a new car. Have you seen the freaking price of new cars lately? It's flat out fucking absurd, which is why most of these folks were driving clunkers in the first place. The Republicans have a very valid point here. This bill benefits everyone but the lower middle class and the poor. Why is it that you can buy a brand new vehicle and get $4500 bucks on a trade-in, but not a 1998 Honda Accord or Civic, which get very good gas mileage? Why do auto manufacturers deserve a second handout, while poorer Americans don't deserve a hand up?

Why don't GOP pols and wingers see the cycle of good that can be done by helping the working class?