What “Cash for Clunkers” Was Really All About
Posted by freedomforall 5 months, 1 week ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"You may recall the Obama-era “Cash for Clunkers” business. It was a very dirty business and a key element of Obama’s declared intention to fundamentally transform the United States – though to this day many people do not understand just how key it has proved to be.
The plan was sold to the public as a means of “stimulating” the then-flatlined American car industry, which was almost literally (and in GM’s case, actually) bankrupt. The idea was to get people to buy new cars by paying them to throw away their old cars.
Italics added.
The cars were not traded in. Not even “parted out” – i.e., their major components (such as their engines, in particular) removed in order to be re-sold to someone in need of low-cost replacement parts. They were destroyed. Engines dosed with silica and then run until they seized – so as to render them unusable.
Consider the implications.
The Obama regime surely did.
While on the surface – as in, superficially – the “cash for clunkers” program was about getting people to buy new cars, it was fundamentally about getting rid of affordable (older) cars. And the reason for that was to fundamentally transform the country – by breaking the generations-long tradition of young people becoming independently mobile almost-adults while they were still in their teens."
"You may recall the Obama-era “Cash for Clunkers” business. It was a very dirty business and a key element of Obama’s declared intention to fundamentally transform the United States – though to this day many people do not understand just how key it has proved to be.
The plan was sold to the public as a means of “stimulating” the then-flatlined American car industry, which was almost literally (and in GM’s case, actually) bankrupt. The idea was to get people to buy new cars by paying them to throw away their old cars.
Italics added.
The cars were not traded in. Not even “parted out” – i.e., their major components (such as their engines, in particular) removed in order to be re-sold to someone in need of low-cost replacement parts. They were destroyed. Engines dosed with silica and then run until they seized – so as to render them unusable.
Consider the implications.
The Obama regime surely did.
While on the surface – as in, superficially – the “cash for clunkers” program was about getting people to buy new cars, it was fundamentally about getting rid of affordable (older) cars. And the reason for that was to fundamentally transform the country – by breaking the generations-long tradition of young people becoming independently mobile almost-adults while they were still in their teens."
In reality, cars in the 4 to 7-year-old range were what was destroyed.
The perfect used car for all sorts of people including adults who could not (and still can not) afford a new car.
And riddle me this Batman, what was the source of the "Cash"?
Don't hesitate too long, you know full well who paid to have all those perfectly good cars destroyed: We The Taxpayers
Not only did it wreck the used car market, it wrecked the car parts market and the car repair market
I grew up in Texas, of course, where the minimum age for licensing was 14, back in 1964. You better know that the very SECOND I was eligible to do so, I enrolled in drivers' ed, and the very second I passed the behind-the-wheel portion, I was down at the license office. My kids did the same. By then it was 15 for a restricted license and 16 for full. They even both had cars bought (clunkers of course) from their after-school jobs before they had their licenses.
10 years old and/or 100K miles on the clock was rule for a cheap ride.
One wheel in the ditch, and the other in the bone yard.
But I BET they have PHONES...
My daughter had a DUMB phone as she entered High School/University.
She got a Smart Phone for Perfect Grades. With the caveat of NO Twitter/Social Media.
She spent summers in TN, and we taught her to drive out there. I remember making her park in EVERY spot up and down 2 rows at a closed grocery store. Poor kid. LOL. Practice makes perfect.
Finally, I bet if you took away their phones, and their computers (screens)... They'd want that car!
I lived in Dallas for about 13 years. Seemed like personal transportation was needed for survival. But, we all have different circumstances
Unfit for duty since 1973.
Told a lib I knew that I could not believe BuyDumb had been picked due to the stupid blather that kept coming out of his mouth.
The lib became offended and told me that doofus was a well-respected member of Congress.
"Well respected?" I exclaimed, laughing long and hard.
That lib never talked to me ever again. I didn't miss him.
3 Cars in that picture would have been gladly bought and enjoyed.
Ask Big Mike.
Almost universally what is being promoted DOESNT benefit the receiver.
I have a particular bone to pick with this program. I'm a Jeep nut. Among other things I have four XJ Cherokees. A large number of these solid, dependable cars were pretty much thrown away because of Obama's program. I went to a Dallas junkyard and pulled parts for my '96 off of an identical '96 which in every way was in nicer shape than mine - except that it had had the engine purposefully destroyed. I hope the previous owner enjoyed the $250 he got for it. I would have considered that the worst deal in history, losing a dependable 4wd car that got around 26 MPG. I'm sure he'll be glad to know that a part of his nice jeep lives on, in my primary bug-out vehicle, somewhere in SC.
Adam Smith nailed it when he noted that a mobile workforce was the key to a working labor market, enabling workers with skills and mobility to go to other markets. The leftists know this, too: control means depriving people of mobility and choice.
So one day in the Walmart parking lot a guy said to me, "I had one of those (D250) and like an idiot I sold it. You wanna sell me that one?" I said, "Do I look like an idiot?"