-
sayswho
-
http://dr1665.com DR1665
-
sayswho
-
http://dr1665.com Brian Driggs
Working Credo

What’s this all about?
ADDIE aditl Be Behind the Firewall brainstorm cars Chantix collaboration community conversation curiosity distillery Do don't education FAIL fear focus friendship gearhead HowTo hustle impact integrity journalism KM leadership love meaning participation passion peace Persevere persistence process rally resilience serendipity social media Strip Mine City sustainability synthesis TWICs updates WINComments, community, collaboration.
- rob on Chris Barba on Perspective
- In Search of Adventure on Building a New Community: Planning
- Chantix Update (Feb) on Chantix: Redux
- Brian Driggs on I Have Not Yet Begun to Write
- Brian Driggs on I Have Not Yet Begun to Write
- Sarah Arrow on I Have Not Yet Begun to Write
- Rena Tucker on I Have Not Yet Begun to Write
- Brian Driggs on I Have Not Yet Begun to Write
- Eugenio Perea on Michael Banovsky on Be
- Tim Kastelle on I Have Not Yet Begun to Write
- Brian Driggs on Social Networking: It’s About People
- Kim Schuenman on Social Networking: It’s About People
- Brian Driggs on Social Networking: It’s About People
- Kim Schuenman on Social Networking: It’s About People
- Brian Driggs on 2012: 3 Words & a Theme Song








“Cash for Clunkers” is a Lie and a Ripoff!
Word on the street is that our “representatives” in Washington are hellbent on ramming some kind of “Cash for Clunkers” bill through this week. Whichever bill they pass through, it’s bullshit and, if you’re a car enthusiast who isn’t outraged at this whole debacle, you’ve obviously not been paying attention.
Why is “Cash for Clunkers” a lie?
As with most of what goes on in Washington, the truth is often veiled behind insidious double speak. Any reasonably intelligent American would think a “clunker” is an old, unreliable if running at all, piece of crap car. Clunkers are inherently undesirable. Sure, some guys might use the term lovingly to describe their older project car, but a clunker is a step away from a junker. Under the bills currently being rushed through Washington right now, a clunker is defined as:
If a car is in running condition, reliably, how is that a “clunker?”
It’s not. It’s probably an older vehicle you’ve paid off and maybe enjoy tinkering with from time to time. Maybe it’s your second car, or that inexpensive vehicle you were thinking about getting for your just-got-his-license teenager, either way, it probably doesn’t get driven that much anyway, so it’s not even likely that these “gas guzzlers” as they want to label them are using as much fuel as the average car each year.
But this is about encouraging people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles!
Actually, these bills are about encouraging people to buy more cars. Plain and simple. In order to get a $3500 voucher, you would have to sign over your reliable, 18mpg car to be immediately crushed and then buy a NEW car that gets 22mpg. If you’ve got a truck or SUV, it’s even better. You only have to get a NEW truck or SUV that gets 20mpg.
18mpg = “Clunker” but 22mpg = fuel efficient? Are they retarded?
While there are added provisions that increase the amount of the vouchers if the NEW car/truck/SUV you buy after having your old one irrevocably destroyed gets 10mpg/5mpg better economy, the base numbers required in order to participate are a joke. When it comes to cars, those four extra miles per gallon could likely be achieved through what it considered basic, I’m-not-an-idiot maintenance.
Why is “Cash for Clunkers” a ripoff?
We’ve just established that these idiots in Washington want you to think your perfectly reliable, paid off, older car that still gets 18mpg is worthless, but since these are VOUCHERS (as opposed to CASH, as the title might imply), you only get to use these funds to go buy a NEW car after you’ve just thrown your old one away. Rather than spend a couple hundred dollars max and an afternoon either performing a tune up or having one done for you, you’re going to go take out a loan and buy a new car for those measly 4mpg (2mpg if you’re getting another SUV)?
Which is worse?
The fact that either of these bills will result in the acclerated removal of perfectly reliable cars and the spare parts that are needed to keep those not turned in running, or the fact that people in Washington actually collect a paycheck every month for spending their time pandering to the auto industry lobbyists? We’ve already thrown billions of dollars straight down the toilet trying to keep these turds out of bankruptcy, only to see them now closing everything and firing everyone on their way to bankruptcy court.
These bills should be named more appropriately.
Perhaps “Systematic Elimination of Adequate Transportation in an Effort to Drive New Car Sales.” I also like “Promotion of Debt through Financing 4MPG.” Any way you cut it, no matter how they spin it in Washington, these bills are intended to spur new car sales and lead hundreds of thousands of Americans deeper into debt. Call or write your “representative,” but the word is they’re not really listening to us anymore. The gravy train has pulled into Washington on biscuit wheels.
These cars are not clunkers… and they’re not giving you cash.
In the glovebox: