This is ridiculous. You would think that this was just some guys having fun right? Well, this is actually what they are told to do by the government. Disable the cars that were traded in as part of the Cash for Clunkers Program. Of course the government didn't tell them to run the engine until it is damaged, but what is the difference? Dealers are ordered to disable the vehicles then sell them as scrap, from there they are to be crushed. The cars are not even to be used for parts!

I wonder what is going to happen to the low-end used car market? There are a lot of people out there who need and could use a $2,000 car to get to work. I was one of them just a few years ago. Now the used car market is going to consist of much higher priced cars, leaving those looking for a cheap vehicle with little hope of finding one.

I hope more people see this video, and understand what a ridiculous idea the Cash for Clunkers Program really is. The program was launched under the guise of helping the environment. If that were the case, why would the program limit your purchase to only new cars. If the customer could find a much more efficient used car, why not allow the rebate to apply there? Oh yeah, the program is supposed to help the auto manufacturers -- not the environment.

Just wait until the numbers come out, and we find that more foreign cars were sold than American cars. Remember the American car market was hurting before anything bad happened economically (2008). It only makes sense that the pattern will continue. Also, there are those people who don't want to purchase a vehicle from a company which is now primarily government owned, like General Motors.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0803/international-invest-guide-obama-sweden-public-downsizing.html

Anders Borg has a message for those who look to government to take over health care, rescue the financial system and run troubled corporations: I have seen the future--and it doesn't work.

As the finance minister of Sweden, Borg is the chief financial officer of a country long known as a walking billboard for a social welfare state.

"Like many societies, we went too far in our welfare-state ambitions," say Borg (pronounced "Bor-ee").

These days President Obama is overseeing the largest increase in the U.S. government's share of the economy since it was conducting a world war almost seven decades ago. Economic stimulus, bailouts and expanded health care will all have to be paid for someday with either taxes or inflation. Borg is pushing Sweden in the opposite direction, encouraging the legislature to cut taxes, cap spending and privatize parts of health care.

"If you're working yourselves upwards in taxes and deficits, we're working ourselves downwards," says Borg. (FORBES recently interviewed him in Berlin, where he had delivered a speech.)

But wait a minute! I thought that we were going to spend ourselves to prosperity. Obama said that we have to spend in order to get out of this current economic situation. I thought that I could go out, assume massive debt, with no plan to pay it back, and somehow end up on top. That's what we are being told.

Next year Sweden's government is projected to be on the hook for gross financial liabilities equal to 57% of GDP, which is up from 48% two years ago. The debt of U.S. government entities, by contrast, is expected to nearly equal GDP by next year, versus 63% in 2007, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development.

As the U.S. takes over some corporations outright, and offers others financial lifelines, Sweden is unloading scores of industries. It is selling state-owned pharmacies and plans to put its remaining 37% stake in telecom incumbent TeliaSonera ( TLSNF.PK - news - people ) on the block when market prices improve. Last spring it unloaded Absolut Vodka. A distillery, Borg notes drily, is not a core function for either a welfare state or a night watchman's state.

Swedish health care is getting a whiff of free marketeering, too. The government's abolition of the "Stop Law" is expected to give a green light to hospital privatization, and starting next year local authorities will have to offer private primary care options.

I wonder why this didn't make the major news in the U.S. This is a big deal! We have a traditionally liberal country coming around to a traditionally "U.S." way of thinking. I wonder why other countries government's are starting to see the flaws inherent in socialist systems? Meanwhile the U.S. government seems hell bent on passing new legislation insuring that we take steps BACKWARDS.

Am I the only one that thinks that this is patently absurd? Do the U.S. politicians have any "real" idea what they are doing? I know the American people do, and the American people want the government to stop. This administration's falling approval numbers are proof of this discontent.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I hate to say it, but I predicted this. I wonder how many dealers were wise enough to question the program?

Dealers could; reduce prices on new cars by as much as $4,500, then not enroll the used cars in the program, thus avoid having to junk them.

http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2009/08/02/cash-for-clunkers-another-example-of-the

With the government making the down payment, new vehicle prices will remain artificially high. This current increase in auto sales does not reflect actual market forces.

Banks will have a much harder time selling repossessed cars. The CARS benefit DOES NOT apply to used cars.

There will be huge vacuum when the program expires. New car sales will drop.

Dealers are now on the hook for more than 1 billion dollars, and there is literally no clear plan to reimburse them. It's not sure when and if the government will make good on the reimbursements; how long can the dealers hold out?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/

The federal government has only reimbursed auto dealers for 2 percent of the claims they've submitted through the popular "cash for clunkers" program, a Pennsylvania congressman said, calling on the Obama administration to help speed up the process.

Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., called for "immediate action" to address the problem in a statement Sunday, after writing a letter to President Obama Saturday expressing his concerns.

In the letter, Sestak said only 2 percent of claims have been paid and that four of every five applications have been "rejected for minor oversight."

To understand this dilemma; one has to understand the Obama administration. The cars program started just over one month ago. Since that time the administration has moved on. Now it's health care... Never mind all of the unfinished business. The CARS program was an attempt to create "stimulus that can be seen", because most Americans are showing disgust with the 700 billion dollar stimulus bill. There was obviously not much thought behind the implementation of the CARS program.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aBg_98uzqkyo

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health care.

“What’s important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said today on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The public option itself “is not the essential element.”

Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with government funds.

The co-op option does seem to be the most likely alternative. Why would the co-ops need to be started with Federal Government funds? Traditionally co-ops have been created at the state level. Why would the Federal Government even be involved in something that can be done on the state level?

Opponents at the meetings “are not really representative of America,” Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “We have to be careful here not to let those town meetings make the scene that influences what we do on health policy,” he said.

Of course all of these concerned citizens are paid to be there, right? I haven't received my check yet! Arlen Specter is a disgrace.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today on CBS’s “Face The Nation” that the danger of not acting outweighs any downside of Democrats’ proposals.

“What happens if we do nothing? That’s the riskiest option of all,” Gibbs said. “Your premium will double in less than nine years if we do nothing,” and tens of millions of Americans will lose their coverage altogether, he said.

Gibbs said that Obama believes “the option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition.” Still, he added, if an alternative plan offers consumers choice and competition to health insurance industry plans, “If we have that, the president will be satisfied.”

O.k. two key things here. First, Gibbs states that there are downsides to the "Democrats' proposals". After all of the fighting and making as if anyone who finds fault with the bill must be crazy (or paid) -- the White House press secretary admits to downsides in the legislation!

Second, Gibbs says, "Obama believes “the option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition.” However, Obama will be satisfied if there is an alternative that offers, "choice and competition". This implies that there must be government involvement to boost competition. The opposite is true. The government is, 9 times out of 10, the reason for limited competition. Competition is often government regulated to provide a... what was it, "level playing field". Deregulation of the insurance industry would lead to more competition.

The Thomas.gov website is down so I can't look through the legislation. When I can I will give specifics on options contained within the bill.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Just take 10 minutes, and learn something you will never forget...

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"