Printable View
... is doomed to failure.
(1) Many "clunkers" get better fuel economy than the new vehicles that are on the road today that deliver the same function.
(2) Who wants to see their car that has been taken care of and driven for over 10 years suddenly flattened in a land fill?
(3) Why can't someone who really needs your old car that is still in good shape and cannot afford a new one have a chance to buy it after you trade it in?
WDYT? :ehh:
The same kind of scheme has been done in various parts of Europe (without the mpg limitation, which is virtually guaranteed to be better in modern cars over here), and has worked well - economically at least.
The car industry has increased sales compared to the period before (thus more tax), so they and the dealers don't need to make staff redundant (who keep paying tax rather than going on benefits), scrappage merchants continue to have work coming in (ditto), etc
I'm not sure what happens to the old cars tho, which could well be a downside.
Have you actually looked at the requirements for it? The car has top be a certain number of years old, must get less than a specified MPG (18), and you had to have owned it for at least a year. I have one car that almost qualified... except that it gets more than 18MPG (it gets 20).
-tg
this has been going on for decades in one form or another in california. The program included the power companies. They got credits towards pollution for every car they crushed.
Wait a minute, LO. Are you saying that Californian's believe that our nation's environmental pollution drops every time that a used car is crushed and a new one gets bought? That justifies cash for clunkers? I'm getting ill. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
This is part of Obama's bailout to the unions that helped him get elected.
It's designed to sell more cars, but will end up screwing us royally.
I can definitely see dealers raising sticker prices or adding unnecessary fees which will make your "rebate" pretty much useless.
Yet another Obummer program that wastes taxpayer money. "Change you can believe in: Or Else!"
there was a big write-up about it in popular hot-rodding. They bought a car from a guy that was going to turn it in, an old camaro from the early eighties, and it passed emissions. In Indiana where i live, we used (and by we i mean ME) to do vehicle drivability inspections, which were basically the same thing without the tailpipe wand. The law expired though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
in the UK the metal from the cars that are crushed is reused to produce mutiple products including beer cans.
The emmisions created to perform the crushing of the car is estimated to be higher than that produced by the car over a 1 year period based on average usage. (i seen this on a tv show can't remember where though) could be crap!
The MPG thing seems a good idea, i don;t know if they have that over here though.
The only people that would benifit from this are the elderly as they may see it as a last car as the sell on value is so scary.
I would never buy a new car for the simple reason that i can get a almost new for far less than the sticker price and the money lost on a new car does not bare thinking about.
I bought a 1 year old VW bora (vento,jetta in the states) for 10k and the rrp was well over 15k as new. losing 5k in year would not be so nice.
those shows like that though never give you the big picture. How much emissions would have been produced by mining the same amount of metal? Or the acid runoff that stripmining causes? Iron is mined in strip mines only, due to how it is in the ground. And of course there is the fact that eventually we'll have taken all of that out of the earth as well. We'll run out of oil before then though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davadvice
Personally i drive a 1986 Lincoln Town Car. I can't justify the purchase of a new car. I've had this car seven years and only had to fix the alternator and one spark plug.
Prob at least scrapped for metal.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Or maybe resold to developing countries.
My understanding is that the car HAS to be scrapped (with exceptions for a few select parts that can be harvested), and the dealer gets the rebate, not the consumer. The idea is that the dealer will pass the savings on to the consumer in the form of lower price. However, if the dealer jacks the price, such that the user sees less of a rebate...go to a different dealer. The point is that your clunker has considerably higher trade-in value because the clunker has a higher value to the dealer than it would as a straight trade-in. You still have to haggle, and you can still be screwed in the deal. However, the dealer will scrap the trade-in rather than attempting to ship or re-sell, because they have a financial incentive to do so (and an even bigger one if they can clean your wallet at the same time).
Overall, there are few downsides to doing this, especially since there is the mileage cap. Unlike the European result that si mentioned, cars in America have lost gas mileage in the last twenty years. My cars from the 80s got better mileage than all but a few hybrids today. The same model today gets worse mileage.
LO said, "Personally i drive a 1986 Lincoln Town Car. I can't justify the purchase of a new car. I've had this car seven years and only had to fix the alternator and one spark plug."
---------------
We are almost carbon copies. I am the original owner of a 1991 Town Car that I bought in December, 1990. It has only 56,400 miles on it and has not needed a repair in 10 years. One of the spark plug wires needed replacing so I replaced them all myself. The rest is all routine maintenance.
Now, do we really want to get rid of these gems and escort them to the junk yard and watch them crushed? Give me a break! :afrog:
Pssst... I still cannot find a car that rides better than a Town Car. ;)
Nobody is forcing you to buy a new car. The program would be an incentive for people to replace gas guzzlers for something new. However, if you have only put 56K miles on a car in 18 years, it makes not a whit of difference what you drive, because you aren't driving.
I currently telecommute three days a week, yet I average about 7K miles/year. Of this 7k, about 4k is commuting, 2k is vacation, and the rest is Misc. You are averaging FAR less total per year, and I do envy you that.
My last car was a 1982 Honda Civic. It could get up to 45 mpg, and generally was around 40 on the hwy. However, it had lived a rough life (a hurricane smashed it up pretty well, among other things), and EVERYTHING on the car was broken or breaking by the time I got rid of it.
My current car wouldn't qualify for CFC, as it gets 30 mpg. Hopefully, it will last for another 10 years, but by then it will have well over 200K miles, and will be old enough to drink.
SH, thank you for your understanding. I am sure that both Lord O and I appreciate that. Perhaps we do not drive that much. I know that I do not. That's my contribution to the green world. Let the record speak for itself--56,400 miles in nearly 20 years using a car that was engineered for much more than that.
Oh, and BTW, LOML drives a 1991 Toyota Celica GTS. She has less than 33,000 miles on it, not a scratch on it, and on the highway, it gets 32 mpg. Should we flatten her "clunker" to the ground this year?
Her 'clunker' would not qualify for anything. You have to get less that 18 mpg to qualify.
However, there is a secondary consideration. One of the reasons I was happy to get rid of that Honda was that lots of things have changed since then. If you have air bags, then I wouldn't change a thing. If you don't have air bags...then you might think about it.
On a different note, tell me how you manage it. I bought a house so that I could do most of my shopping and all of my commuting on foot. Then I changed jobs, but also moved to three days of telecommuting per week. The mileage didn't really change between the two, and I don't see myself getting lower in miles, but I'm curious as to how you do it? Even when I was walking to work every day, my miles per year was still about 7K, because my friends all lived a long ways off. I see that your location is Omaha. Is that a large enough place that you can get around on public transportation all the time?
"Omaha" and "Public Transportation" don't belong in the same sentence. Omaha has one of the poorest and laughable PT systems I've ever seen... I see bus stops around, but I think on average I see one bus every 6 weeks or so. I hear about it, but I've yet to see it in action. I'm sure it's available, but it's limited. The way I understand it works is busses from outter ends of town head downtown in the AM, with some routes until shortly after lunch, then starting 4pm, the routes reverse and head from downtown outwards. Maybe Code Doc's experience is different from mine, if I remember right, he's at the other end of town from me.
Anywhere. In case it's not obvious, I live in Omaha too... Omaha, is known as a 20 minute city... you can get to just about anywhere in 20 minutes. Depending on where you live and where you work, it's easy to get around on foot or bike. For some of us, not so much. I work in mid-town, but live in the subburbs, out on the edge. If I was working in a casual environment, I'd be biking more often, at least half way (total distance is roughly 13-15 miles). Unfortunatly I don't so I can't. As for biking to groceries or such... it's not worth the risk down a heavily travels two laner with no shoulders and ditches on both sides. Makes for a scary ride, one I'm not willing to risk my neck on.
I'd personally like to see more developments made like actuall small communities, rather than large tratcs of house after house after house, punctuated by two city blocks of shopping. The place where I lived in Calif, most you ever had to walk anywhere for shopping was 10 minutes. It would be nice to get back to that.
-tg
I think we all have to ask ourselves, WWJD?
Why Waste Jack Daniels?
My grandfather has a ford aerostar van with over 300,000 miles. It's needed the transmission, dash guages, some axle bearings, and rear end gears.
I used to put about ten grand a year on my car. Before this i owned a 1982 Caddilac Barritz. It got 34mpg on the highway. Why can't full size cars get that now?!?
And, then there's the poor--another variable I thought I would throw in. Many poor people who are driving clunkers can't even afford to take part in the cash for clunkers program. They cannot afford a new car or the additional insurance and taxes that it would take to own one. That's not me, but there are tens of thousands of consumers in this financial position.
What they need to buy is one of the clunkers that is being flattened in the land fill--a car or truck that is likely in better shape that what they are driving--like mine, for instance.
But no, they get to watch vehicles that are in better shape than theirs destroyed. They don't even have the option to buy one or trade up a little. :ehh:
I miss your point with that. Are you suggesting that we institute vehicular welfare?
I also fail to see why you keep suggesting that this is mandatory or in some fashion obligatory. This is an optional program. If it works for you, then use it. If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. No doors are being closed, so why the angst? That last post amounted to saying "Don't trade in your old car because there are poor people who can't afford a new car." There are others, like me, who have never bought a new car, but that's irrelevant to an optional program. This is nothing but an alternative, and as such, will only be acceptable to a certain segment. If you aren't in that segment, as I am not, then don't fret about it. Nobody is forcing you to do anything here.
The program gives people who are considering alternative options some economic incentive to make a choice that will benefit various ends. There's nothing more to it than that.
You should do it if:
1) Your old car gets less than 18 mpg
2) Your old car has less value than $4500.
3) Getting a new car makes financial sense for you.
4) The new car you are contemplating gets sufficiently better gas mileage to qualify for the program.
You should not do it if:
1) Your old car has more value than the rebate.
2) Your old car does not qualify for the program.
3) You can't afford to replace the car.
If you do decide to take advantage of the program, then find a dealer who is participating in the program (it isn't automatic or mandatory), and don't mention the program until you have negotiated a price for the new car. If you mention the program first, it may alter the price that the dealer is willing to offer for the new car.
But with the cost of gas so high why not buy a clunker that gets better than 18 mpg? Only the cars that are getting less than 18 MPG are going to be junked in the program. I don't think that that is any evil at all. No matter what program there is it's going to have it's advantages and disadvantages but if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages significantly than it has some value. If all the poor people are driving around 17mpg cars our dependence on oil will remain like it is even if the poor people are happy driving their inexpensive 17 mpg cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
I guess that seals it. This "cash for clunkers" program is destined to not only make the poor pay more, it allows them to cry while cars and trucks that are still in good shape--vehicles that they could actually afford--get crushed at the landfill. What vehicle on earth are the poor supposed to buy after all the so-called clunkers get crushed? What is going to be left for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
So, I lose $13,000 during the next two years while taking part in "cash for clunkers" and the poor get nothing while they watch my good car or truck that they could use get crushed at the landfill.
Our government is sick. How on earth did this program get launched? :sick:
Millions of people who have cars that get less than 18 MPG or get more than 18 MPG can still sell their cars to poor people for whatever price or even give them to poor people. The cash for clunkers program will not interfere with that at all. But if you want to buy a new car at a dealer that is participating in the cash for clunkers program and you want to turn in a car that you have that qualifies so you can get money toward the new car you're buying than that low mileage car won't be available for anyone to buy or use. The idea is to get the low MPG cars off the road. There are a lot of cars that are inexpensive for poor people to use that get more than 18 MPG and if you're poor you wouldn't want to buy a car that got less than that anyway. It would be expensive to operate unless you're going to put very low mileage on it.
I had a 91 Geo Metro that I bought used in 1999 for I think around $ 1500. It was getting 45 MPG and sometimes better. I sold it for $ 1300 back in 2007. That's the kind of car poor people would appreciate and such a car would never qualify in the cash for clunkers program.
Bingo! 18mpg is rubbish!Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
As far as I can see the program will barely run long enough to crush any clunkers, let alone all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
I can only assume that Code Doc is not reading anything I post, or else he's seriously drunk.
that's not a car i would recommend. I had to have the starter rebuilt on one because a replacement one cost $372 and had to be imported. The Geo factory was destroyed in the yugoslavia civil war. No one makes parts for them anymore. However, the local goodwill accepts cars for resale, and i personally paid $250 for a truck, $600 for a car, $800 for a car, $350 for a car, etc. I drove each of them thousands of miles. The only ones i would have turned in would have been the 77 granada (garbage) and i actually did junk the 80 ford courier pickup. It was a piece of garbage but got 24mpg combined city/highway. Oh i left one off the list. There was also a 1980 Dodge Aspen i paid a hundred bucks for. I sold that for five hundred to a guy, he paid $125 and the cops came by looking for him and we never saw him again for the rest of my money.Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
That's baloney and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The Poor Pay More. Think of the tens of thousands of consumers who cannot afford a new car because of the taxes, insurance, monthly payments, etc. These are people who are going to be watching "clunkers" flattened--cars and trucks that are in better shape than what they are currently driving. The poor are not even allowed to bid on them or trade up.
Did our government even consider the poor when it launched this clunker program? I think not. :sick:
Your argument is a mere appeal to emotion which you keep repeating rather than addressing any points made in response.
I was thinking that the first part might have been true, but the drunk comment was certainly tongue in cheek. My point is the same as what Penagate made: You appear to be overlooking the facts to make strange emotional appeals. The points you are overlooking are these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
1) Only cars that get terrible gas mileage will be eligible.
2) Nobody is being forced to take this option.
I have never bought a new car, and have never bought a car with gas mileage low enough to qualify for this program, nor do any poor people need to. There will be loads of used cars, just as there always have been. This will simply remove some of the least economical cars from the road, because the cars have to BOTH get terrible mileage, and have very little resale value. Fail either of those, and they will not be crushed.
Buying a new car, regardless of mileage (mpg), regardless of 'cash for clunker' programs (which has run out of money) will leave you economically worse off for approximately a decade. Basic math.
'Cash for clunkers' is a political statement to appeal to peoples emotions attempting to maintain the current administrations favorably, and does absolutely nothing either economically or environmentally (actually, it has a negative economic impact and a zero environmental impact).
Those that took advantage of the program are the well-off people who were going to purchase a new car, and took advantage of a reduction in their capitol expenditure.
quite possibly. But others are people who bought junk cars to simply tow them to the trade-in area to get the tax break. I'd spend $100 for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
you had to have owned it for at least a year before turning it in... a quick title check clears that problem up.
-tg
+1. I could not have said this any better. The poor are not getting anything for this nonsense. They can't even make an offer for the car being flattened or swap it for their junk heap. Whoever launched this program cares nothing about the poor and needs his head examined. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
I find the entire concept laughable. What some call a clunker, others would call a lifesaver. Why scrap them if others can still drive them safely. For me, it would be a great improvement on what I have now, which is nothing.
i finally got around to looking into the program. Evidently it is not designed to help the consumer at all, no matter how much they owe. It is a program designed in a round-about way to help the auto industry to keep from going bankrupt.
Lord - well, DUuuh! Where have you been? It was never about helping people other than those in the auto industry. It just got wrapped up into "Feel Good" Legislation to include getting better milage vehicles.
-tg
+1. We are on the same page again. Of course, I have to ask this question. Why on earth was the "cash for clunkers" program not launched before General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and before thousands of their shareholders lost $billions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The door is being closed after the cow already walked out of the barn. :ehh:
Seems to me that the "cash for clunkers" program is about a year late--maybe a lot more. What is its primary objective? (1) save the domestic auto industry, (2) save energy, (3) save the economy, (4) save something else?
Please advise.
one and three go hand-in-hand, since it's quite possibly the largest industry in the united states, and most certainly the one that does the most exporting except possibly the agricultural industry. I am not sure if #2 is even a viable option, as the only real way this legislation would have any possibility of having a long-term effect on energy usage is to only give the benefit towards the purchase of a high-mileage vehicle or even a hybrid.
Personally, i would like to see the program work like this: I tow an ancient auto in, and leave on a moped getting 80 to 100mpg, with no cash out of pocket. I still have another vehicle for out-of-town driving, but mainly i would go to work.
as for "why wasn't this program launched before", it's because the person previously in charge didn't really give a crap whether normal citizens sank or swam.
The program was not launched before not because of some insidious evil Republican plot, but simply because the government/unions did not own 2/3 of the US auto industry until very recently. It is now in the government's best interest to get as many people buying new cars as possible.
The purpose of this program is to remove as many used cars from the market as possible. As used cars become increasingly difficult to find their prices will inevitably rise making new cars more attractive to the buyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The government will not need to force people into buying new cars - the market will force them to. It's quite a brilliant plan, actually... As long as you don't believe in free markets.
Never fear, billions more $$$ are on their way...Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
"Cash for Clunkers" is a textbook example of why they never teach basic economics in public schools.
Homer said, "It's quite a brilliant plan, actually... As long as you don't believe in free markets. Never fear, billions more $$$ are on their way..."
----------------
But, Homer, you and I paid for those $billions. Government is broke without us picking up the tab.
Do you realize that practically no attempt is being made to salvage usable parts of those cars being flattened to the ground? So, what is going to happen to (1) the price and availability of those replacement parts and (2) the jobs of people and companies who now salvage replacement parts that are no longer made? :confused:
I was being sarcastic about the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
Now if a president initiated a program like 'Hotties for NOTies', I would definitely get behind that! In a real BIG way! I'm not exactly sure what we would do with the NOTties, but perhaps they could go work for the State Department, or be a presidential intern like that girl that was invited to those private presidential cigar parties.
The program does nothing for car manufacturers, really. The dealers are getting a much better deal by seeing customers come in (you can't sell a car unless the customer is on the lot). Sure it'll help, but 'value for money' it isn't.
I'd actually reassess who is buying thee cars - I believe it will be poorer people who can ill-afford a new car. Repo men are going to be having a good time of it the next 6 months. Now that's economic stimulation...
Significantly, the cash replaces the actual value of the car. If your car is worth $3000 then you will get a grand total of $3500 (for a 4-9 mpg gain). In addition, the car will be scrapped.
This is actually a net loss - the government (sic) is giving money to take money out of the economy, based like this:
Assuming no 'cash-for-clunker' program, your trade-in is worth 3K. You get a car with 3k off. The dealer gets a car that could potentially be sold for 5k. That is, there is 5K of assets in the market.
With cash-for-clunker program, the trade in becomes worth 3.5K. The dealer get's a 3.5K rebate (taxable as income), the asset is - theoretically - scrapped. The market has lost 5K of assets, and it cost us 3.5K. The bottom line, to the free market is a net loss of 8.5k.
Having said that, I suspect that a significant proportion of cars which are 'scrapped' will still be on the road. Only the engine and transmission are supposed to be destroyed, with the rest 'scrapped'.
$1billion dollars represents less than 1% of all annual sales of new cars; an additional $2billion will be spent. Taking that as you will, in other news, Obamas administration hasn't ruled out the possibility of increasing taxes on the middle class because of the increasing deficit; and the new healthcare plan needs funding from somewhere.
installing an engine in transmission in an old car is more expensive than buying another used car, even for dealers.
LO, this tends to make me ill:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gla...nment-programs
We are doing this to support the CFC program?
I just watched a YouTube video on another site about this program. If true, then it is a bit scary. I put a link below. Make up your own minds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqfuZ7hiap0
:(
having owned a volvo, i can tell you that thing didn't sound right to start with. I don't really see how revving one would blow it up, unless they drained the oil and water from it. But keep in mind that just because the motor ran and sounded half-way decent, that doesn't mean the car was driveable. Mine ran a lot smoother than this one did, but the overdrive was out, rear bearings bad, needed 4 tires (both back tires had broken cords in them), and both motor mounts AND the transmission mount were broken. From the outside, the car looked better than the one in this video. Engine was flopping around and knocking it out of gear. I in fact still have the engine and trans for mine. I was screwing with the shifter trying to get it back in gear on a highway and ran off the road totalling it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
I will tell you one thing though: Germans sure know how to make a heater in a car. I miss the heater.
I've seen this nutcase on tv before. Anyone with even a hint of computer knowledge knows that a web browser doesn't have access to your entire computer. This loony is all the time talking about stupid crap like that. You find the exact same or similar disclaimer on most government web pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510
Besides which, the lady claims "consumers in danger etc etc" the page he is on is the login page for DEALERS! A normal user can't even get to it.
The engine needs to be run to put the 'killer fluid' in the car, so I understand. It's surprising how much abuse an engine can withstand, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
Uh... Any engine would sound bad when its crankcase is filled with a sodium silicate solution... Exactly what the government is telling dealers to do in order to destroy perfectly good engines. I'm guessing you missed that part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
http://www.dembot.net/images/facepal...t_facepalm.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The disclaimer in question:
"This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged in to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign."
If I was a dealer I would be extremely concerned about this. But hey, Glenn Beck's a blithering idiot so there's nothing to worry about. Our government is only here to help.
http://al.bsharah.com/image.axd?pict...gToSeeHere.png
Nothing to see here, folks, move along...
I didn't put much stock in it, but a friend was paranoid about it so I took a look. Those news people never tell the full story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Of course they don't... doesn't make for good TV to tell ALL of the truth ALL of the time... that's boring.
But I agree with homer... Glenn Beck is a blithering idiot. Sometimes I think they only keep him around to keep the heat off of everyone else. A sort of human-media-shield. So far it's been pretty effective.
-tg
Don't worry about that, once the institutions who financed the loan go bankrupt, the government will fork over several hundred billion dollars. It's the growing fad these days. :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
yeah i wasn't aware of that. The law does however state that the car itself doesn't have to be scrapped. The engine and drivetrain are not allowed to be salvaged, but any other part is available for resale. I can see dealers stocking up on body panels, etc. to save money in the bodyshop they operate. I did think it was odd that there is a bottom limit on how old a car is allowed to be. I would like to see what the reasoning behind that is. Also the disclaimer if you think about (especially the domestic and foreign part) is most likely there in an attempt to fight exporting of stolen vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
Right wing making things up again. There are rules for the trade in, the MPG upgrade is a requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
Then you personally don't have to turn it in for Clash for Clunkers. But seeing how the program is so popular in general, point #2 is invalid.Quote:
(2) Who wants to see their car that has been taken care of and driven for over 10 years suddenly flattened in a land fill?
Then the point of the program would be defeated. The point is to take gas guzzlers off the streets permanently, as well as stimulate the economy through the purchase of the more gas efficient cars.Quote:
(3) Why can't someone who really needs your old car that is still in good shape and cannot afford a new one have a chance to buy it after you trade it in?
You mean like that "gas guzzling" little Volvo in that was destroyed the video above? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Like I said before - the purpose of this program is to destroy as many used cars as possible making them more expensive and therefore less attractive to buyers. It's not difficult to understand, or at least it shouldn't be.
Well first, Fox News is not very reliable, they lie routinely. It could just be a random car they film being crushed.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
-> Have you seen the story where they photoshopped some liberal journalists to make them look uglier, have a larger forehead?
In any case, there are older sedans that have lower than 18 MPG, and yes they are considered a gas guzzler. The program dictates that the car must be around 18 MPG or lower (additional complex rules about weighted average mpg, but you can look that up).
Uh, the Volvo video was not made by the evil Fox News. If you really care about "truth" maybe you should actually WATCH the video before making comments?Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
I don't watch TV besides sports, but I did see when they did this:Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNew...ison_06083.jpg
Oops... that was CBS, not Fox News.
How about this?
http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images...ice_Edited.jpg
Nope, this time it was USA Today, not Fox News.
Maybe this?
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...photoshop3.jpg
Oh, wait... that was Agence France-Press, not Fox News.
And this hilarious example...
http://neoprophet.files.wordpress.co...tphotoshop.jpg
This time it was Reuters, not Fox News.
And this...
http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/hsct102/images/photo1.jpg
Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, not Fox News.
Remember this?
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...mb-250x165.jpg
Again, not Fox News.
I have many more if you want to see them. I'm betting you don't. ;)
According to cars.gov: "Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG" but more efficient cars (like our little Volvo) are eligible if the new car gets better mileage.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Regardless of the semantics of the law the government is wasting billions in an attempt to alter the free market.