McCain will lead GOP opposition to ‘cash-for-clunkers’

[RamboLiberal]

Source: The Hill

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will lead Republican opposition to the popular cash-for-clunkers program in an attempt to block additional funding when it comes up for consideration in the Senate this week.

The House voted 316 to 109 Friday to pour $2 billion more into the program, which has proved so popular that it is running out of money before anticipated end-date in November.

-----

“My children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for these cars and we’re helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren’t getting the help,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. “The role of the federal government is not to run the used car business.”

“We’re definitely going to debate it and I’ve heard that John McCain is going to stand up and try to stop it and I’m going to work with him every way that I can,” he said. “This is crazy to try to rush this thing through again.”

-----

Other Democrats such as Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), however, say they will oppose another $2 billion for cash-for-clunkers, setting up a potentially tough vote this week.


Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-will-lead-gop-opposition-to-cash-for-clunkers-2009-08-02.html

---

Clueless as usual. Here's a program that is immensely popular with people and is helping to save the auto industry.

[graywarrior]

1. McCain is King Clunker

[saigon68]

14. They hate the UAW They want to BUST THE UNION

[Cha]

68. Ironically GM is advertising on glen

beck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8566668

[Xipe Totec]

2. McCain wants his clunker left alone

[rurallib]

3. way to go Johnny; fight programs that work to your last breath

[Warpy]

4. They managed to defund the original plan by 3/4

Maybe they should have shut up and sat down then and maybe they need to sit down and shut up now.

The program is working exactly how it was intended to work, clunker statistics here: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2009/0005068374&EDATE=

High mileage vehicles with poor gas economy are being traded for passenger cars. It's a boon to commuters, dealers, and the auto industry.

No wonder the GOP hates it.

[Amonester]

60. mc$ame hates it because his "friends" on big oil boards...

can't rip-off as much as they used to since jan/2001

[Cha]

69. Exactly..mcpalin hates it because

it works and can't have the Dems lookin' good.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. How many auto-dealers ARE small businesses?

Drr...

[Betty]

6. but it's OK to throw hundreds of times that

amount of money at the financial industries that fucked us all in the first place.

[high density]

7. I think we should spread the money around

The auto companies have gotten billions already. There are plenty of sales offices out there that would love a billion dollars of incentives to move their product.

[whoneedstickets]

13. Well, we did it with Cars, first-time homebuys and TVs...

..what other products should we target. I hear guns sales are brisk, so no need to go there. I'd suggest things manufactured or supplied locally.

[Omaha Steve]

21. It's not just the 2 USA auto companies that got help

Raw materials, shipping (over 10% of railroad business), banks (make loans), dealerships, made in USA non BIG 3, etc...

There are 6 companies not owned by car companies that make parts for car makers in Nebraska. All are working greatly reduced hours!

OS

[harmonicon]

29. it's not just about helping auto companies

It benefits middle class people in need of dependable transportation. It also puts money into local economies - that is, people buy these cars from local dealers (not just the possibly wealthy owners, but also the employees) who then can do things like eat and pay their mortgages. On top of all that, it's good for the environment. I think this is exactly the kind of plan that I voted for last November, and I'm very happy to see that it's been such a success.

[daninthemoon]

31. I agree. so far, the best example of what I voted for, or at least hoped for

[high density]

32. I'm glad it's working for some people

That doesn't invalidate my feelings that there is a huge focus on autos while plenty of other businesses out there that could use $1 billion in incentives for their own products in this economy.

[harmonicon]

35. but I don't think this is about the auto companies

That was my point - this is in fact helping other businesses.

[targetpractice]

38. Right... The assistance is widely sprinkled...

So that it will benefit many consumers, dealers, communities, etc.

[high density]

59. Other businesses directly linked to either the finance industry or the auto industry

Both of which have had oodles of cash already thrown liberally in their direction!

[harmonicon]

61. did you not read my post past the subject line or something?

[girl gone mad]

51. I would question how much of a benefit it is to the buyers...

who are turning in paid off cars for more debt. They may get a more reliable car out of the deal, but they'll also get a big bill every month.

[harmonicon]

53. sure

but less of a bill than they would have had buying a new car without the rebate. I would imagine that people who would get into debt that they can't afford to get out of with this program would be the same kind of people who would have gotten into unrealistic debt without it.

[high density]

58. In 6 months we'll be starting to see the "woe is me" stories coming out of this in the media

Obama tempted me to get a new car loan, and now I can't afford it because I lost my job!! It's all Obama's fault!

[billyoc]

8. Of course, it's government spending that is improving the lives of working people.

It must be defeated at all costs. Who knows where it could lead, my friends...

[Pirate Smile]

9. McCaskill is not going to end up opposing it. Here are her tweets on the

subject. They are in reverse order (that's how Twitter works) so the oldest are at the bottom and newest at the top. I do NOT think she will vote against it:

Whoops! I meant House vote today on Cash for Clunkers, not yesterday.
1:50 PM Jul 31st from web

Want to study & read what House passed yesterday.We'll not consider in Senate till next week.Also want details of how program is working.C4C
1:22 PM Jul 31st from web

I will consider using EXISTING stimulus $ that has already been appropriated to finish up cash for clunker program. No new $.
1:02 PM Jul 31st from web

We put a billion $$ in cash for clunker program.That's 250,000 cars. We weren't sure how long it would last,but a billion of your $ is alot.
12:40 PM Jul 31st from web

We simply cannot afford any more taxpayr $ to extend cash for clunkers. Idea was to prime the pump, not subsidize auto purchases forever.
12:31 PM Jul 31st from web

I will vote no on any extension of Cash for Clunkers program
11:47 AM Jul 31st from web

http://twitter.com/Clairecmc

[NJmaverick]

10. Not only is this helping the economy and the auto industry

it is cutting our nation's dependence on foreign oil and cutting pollution. It's a win all the way around, which is why the repukes oppose it.

[deacon]

19. It highly important for jobs too. The NOpers strike again. n/t

[spartan61]

11. McCain and Demented will oppose anything that might be

successful and make Obama look good. And what the hell is McCaskill's
problem? I sure don't remember anyone bitching and moaning about the cost of the Iraq War. Instead of us all working together to get our country on track again, we have to continuously fight off the nay sayers.

[targetpractice]

12. Trickle-up economic assistance works? We can't have that, can we?

Why?

Because the $1B in the Cash-for-Clunkers program is not trickling toward Goldman-Sachs executive bonuses.

[alsame]

20. Exactly. They don't want money getting into the hands of

the bottom 99%.

[harmonicon]

30. perfectly stated

I know it's an extreme position, but I think all of the giant banks, insurance, and brokerage firms should have been allowed to fail. There failure would mean nothing to the poor. Actual good that could be done with that same money.... to think about it is astounding when we look at how quickly people jumped on this comparatively miniscule program.

[targetpractice]

36. I'm with you...

Where is the outrage for the fact that we bailed out AIG only for them to pay Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar for contractual obligations? Those taxpayer dollars have allowed Goldman Sachs to claim record profits and offer $11B in bonuses. The investment bankers are not willing to take a haircut at all... No wonder Henry Paulson was on his knees and fainting at podiums last year -- his $700M stake in Goldman Sachs was on the line.

Last year I was deeply suspicious about how the bailouts were being managed... I thought that fixing a complex collapsing financial system would take more planning and thought... The fact that Paulson and others were acting with such alacrity and confidence led me to believe that there was probably a simpler (yet hidden) goal in mind, such as saving one or more specific interests (e.g. AIG was saved because of it's obligations to Goldman Sachs).

I am going to be watching the media coverage regarding the "Cash-for-Clunkers" program carefully over the coming weeks... As you said, it's a "miniscule program" that was extremely successful. We should experiment with other such programs and see how they work. The cost is a fraction of that required to bailout the "too big to fail" companies, and risk would be mitigated by testing multiple strategies. However, I'll bet we'll hear more kicking and screaming about the tiny $2B expansion of "Cash-for-Clunkers" than we've heard about anything other spending program like the bailouts, defense spending, etc. In fact, I'll bet the opposition to "Cash-for-Clunkers" will rival the opposition to the public option for health care... not because of the scale of spending, but because of the strategy of helping those in need.

Upon edit: Fixed typos made due to anger and rage.

[harmonicon]

46. I agree

There will be a lot of bitching and moaning about this 2 billion, which will just be a waste of time, whether it goes through or not. As for other programs like this, I think there should be something similar for green energy - installation of solar panels and wind turbines. Of course doing that would be much more difficult because of various state and local laws and ordinances governing that sort of thing. Still, this one small success gives me hope that all of this may not simply be flailing around in the dark (and outright fraud, as in the case of the AIG bailout) but actual sensible planning.

[havocmom]

15. GOP? Aren't the the Cash for Hookers party?

:shrug:

[tomm2thumbs]

16. I heard Cindy tried to get money for him, but they noted 'the rule says clunkers, not wankers' /nt

[deacon]

17. 9 houses mccain. If it's good for people, the GOP opposes it. That party is washed up. n/t

[704wipes]

44. Yeah 9 houses and wasn't it a total of 15 cars or something like it

that he owned but was of course portraying himself as a Mr Joe Regular.
Of course he doesn't need help so why should anyone else.

The only clunker he owns is the one in his hand when he goes to the bathroom to take a whiz...

[Skink]

18. That guy is just mean man.

Mean!

[hollowdweller]

22. GOP opposes one program that actually is WORKING

Great. Hope they keep it up.

[and-justice-for-all]

23. GOP = FAIL..nt

[Jakes Progress]

24. All the auto dealers where I live

have been big old repub donators and supported McCain.

Wonder how they like him now.

[Alcibiades]

43. They are complaining

At least the ones I hear interviewed on the Teevee. They say they don't know if they are going to get paid (as if the government is somehow less reliable than the financial sector companies that do auto loans), and they minimize the actual growth in sales due to the program, claiming most of these folks would have bought cars anyway.

For me, the irony is that many of the folks turning in clunkers are Republicans (that is, after all, the demographic of folks who buy gas guzzlers). They are, of course, opposed to this program on ideological grounds. But they will cash the check, goddamnit!

[Jakes Progress]

50. Had the same thing with farmers here in Texas.

The rural Texas vote is strongly repub. You know republicans, the ones who hate welfare and big government programs.

Tonight on the news, several of the farmers in the drought afflicted central part of the state were worrying that they hadn't got their crop insurance money from the gummint.

Let's see if the word hypocrite applies here. Perry refuses stimulus money then borrows federal money for the unemployment overrun caused by bush's economy. Rural Texas delivers strong republican vote for mccain who rants about government give aways, then they bawl that they aren't getting their gummint checks fast enough.

Sounds like the word fits to me.

[Alcibiades]

62. They are also ressurrecting old arguments

Really old ones, as in the implied versus enumerated powers argument in the national bank controversy in 1791, which Hamilton won, establishing a more expansive scope for the federal government. They are also arguing that health care is unconstitutional because that would exceed the scope of the authority of Congress, but the authority of Congress to act broadly under the commerce clause was upheld by the Supreme Court in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish in 1937.

Republican elites have passed on a vision of small government wherein any act of the government is seen as inherently oppressive, but they cite a constitutional ideal that has, in practice, never really existed. The idea that giving folks money to buy more fuel efficient cars or universal health care is somehow a road to totalitarianism is far-fetched, but they buy it hook, line and sinker. Naturally some of the Founding generation's other concerns about possible sources of tyranny, such as a large standing army, are ignored. I can imagine a government that is quite small and quite oppressive--in fact, it is a general rule that the free societies are the very same ones that have the largest governments, while oppressive police states are often little more than an army, some few bureaucrats and a robust gestapo organization.

But the realities of comparative politics enter very little into the mind of the typical Republican in the Palin era.

[tanyev]

25. Huh. I thought that was the strategy he was using when he made his VP pick.

[frylock]

26. your children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for these wars too..

i don't recall you saying fuckall when the vote to throw more caysh down that rathole last came up.

[EFerrari]

27. Good -- I hope he steps into it up to his eyeballs. n/t

[Turbineguy]

28. It's the program's success that scares them

everything is supposed to fail.

[liberal N proud]

33. Can we trade the remaining clunker republicans in for new Democrats?

Why are these idiot opposing the most successful and popular stimulus to date?

[BlueIdaho]

34. OH PLEASE

Let the Senate Republicans oppose this program with full throated gusto!

[ProudDad]

37. SCREW the "Auto Industry"

It should be dead, dead, dead!!!

They should be making solar powered mass-transit, light rail, bicycles and Pedal Jitney's...

It's the fucking petroleum that's killing us!!!

Screw the "Auto Industry"!!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

39. Speaking of clunkers, how is that old fossil doing these days?

His odometer has been spun a few times.

[Odin2005]

40. DUpe

[Odin2005]

41. That CLUNKER needs to STFU.

More proof the the Goopers want Obama to fail! :puke:

WTF is Senator McCaskill doing opposing more funding for it? :wtf:

[Frank Booth]

42. Thank you, John McCain,

for helping the GOP dig an even bigger hole for itself.

[ProudDad]

45. Goddamn -- and look whose "processing the vouchers"

Wait for it....






































Citigroup...


Can you spell sell-out, bail-out, children... :grr:

[Barbara2423]

47. McCain owns 7 houses,

Does he know how many cars he owns? I'm sure he has a government vehicle that costs the tax payers more than $4500.00.

[DainBramaged]

48. Claire McCaskill needs to understand what being out of politics is like

another stupid Blue ball Democrat.

[villager]

49. Correct headline: "Clunkers to oppose 'cash for clunkers"

Or perhaps: "Senate clunkers to oppose.....," etc...

[satya]

52. In the interest of full disclosure, how many of them took advantage of the SUV loophole? nt

[dreamnightwind]

54. good program, but...

For the most part I like this program (tried to trade in my clunker using this program but my MPG is 1 too high so doesn't qualify).

They could improve it in a few ways.

1) Make it so it only applies to domestically built cars. It's not that simple anymore, Toyota makes some of their cars here, and many of the domestic cars (Chrysler, for example) assemble the cars in Mexico, which shouldn't count. Also they use varying degrees of domestic vs foreign parts. And now that Fiat owns Chrysler, are they even a domestic company anymore? Still, reasonable criteria could be set up to help the domestic auto manufacturing industry, and it needs all the help it can get.

2) Instead of saying the clunker must get 18 mpg or less, use a differential between the clunker's mpg and the new car's mpg. They do this already (I think it's a 6 mpg differential), but an absolute minimum mpg to qualify as a clunker makes little sense. My 1995 Toyota pickup has 260,000 miles on it, doesn't run very clean, and should be taken off the road, but it got 1 mpg too many to qualify.

3) Make even larger incentives to trade in your clunker for hybrids, and even larger ones for zero emission vehicles (yeah, if you can find one, still, create a market for them and they will show up).

4) Now that we have a pro-labor administration in place, why not add an incentive for purchasing union built cars? It could be an additional incentive, or it could be one of the requirements for your new vehicle to qualify in this program.

Etc. It's a good program as it is, but it could easily be better.

Finally, there needs to be more and better marketing of this program as an effort to curb global warming. If it's even mentioned, it's an afterthought, but that is one of the key benefits a program like this has to offer.

[RedCloud]

55. Note to dumb ass McCain: Auto dealers are Republican!

So who is this really hurting?

[Vinca]

56. I wonder if the McCain's took the giant SUV deduction on their taxes.

One year's saving in taxes would be more than the $4,500 money for a clunker. Government by the rich, for the rich.

[endarkenment]

57. A new level of stupid has been reached.

The republicans are now directly hurting their remaining support outside of the fundaloon belt. This program is wildly popular. Popular with suburban white middle class families, for example, who can trade in that SUV for something a bit less guzzly. That demographic is a battle ground demographic that republicans can win, but not if they keep shitting on them.

[The Stranger]

63. Did McCain oppose the original legislation authorizing this?

What about Demented?

[kirby]

64. Only 3 repukes votes for it...

Remember, the Cash for Clunkers was part of the $838 Billion Stimulus bill. Not a single Republican voted for it in the house and only 3 in the Senate - Snowe, Collins, Specter.

[justiceischeap]

65. McCain: "Get off my lawn!!" (eom)

[Cha]

66. Repukes don't give a shit about the health of their

descendents and they certainly don't give a shit about the economy in the USA.

[FlaGatorJD]

67. So lets compare this to the Hummer tax cuts?

Remember when Bush provided a tax cut to businesses for buying vehicles up to $100K?
That's when all the Hummers started showing up on our roads, with mini billboards on them.

[bamacrat]

70. These douche bags would stand in the way of handing out water bottles in the desert.

Get out of public office if you dont want to help people. If youre so concerned with wasting money stop voting to fund the war. If you have a clunker and need some assistance to buy a new car, why not, it helps the environment so and helps out our economy. Its not like people are just getting the money for the hell of it, they still have to buy a car. Last I checked the auto industry needed some help. McCain hates progress the middle class and anything that isnt in puree form.

[damntexdem]

71. So Johnnie drank the KoolAde.

We should call lobbyist money to the GOP "cash for clunkers."

[Enrique]

72. the American people traded McCain in in Nov 2008 n/t

[heath41]

73. What a poorly thought out program cash for clunkers is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjBilHH5z2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo


I give you the government mandated ending for "cash for clunkers"; run Sodium Silicate through the engine and destroy a perfectly good vehicle. And with the smoke pouring out of it and engine oil spinging from the compartment, it's SO environmentally friendly.

What a waste. Had this been thought out properly by a government bureaucrat, a much better solution could have been had. Take those vehicles and trade them for even worse polluters. Think about it. The taxi driver Camaroon, Egypt, Laos, Cambodia, India or pick your favorite underdeveloped, but semi-friendly country rides around in a 40-50 year old carborated Lada or Zis which has no emissions controls and pollutes with a pipe right out of the manifold. Orders of magnitude dirtier than any car with OBD II, this could have been a win win for everyone. For didn't Obama state he wanted to improve our image around the world? Didn't environmentalists state they want less pollution? Didn't treehuggers state they want less gasoline used?

Does a fifty year old car use more gasoline than a modern fuel injected engine? Yes. Does a fifty year old car give off more pollution than a modern computer controlled car with a catalytic converter? Yes. But then again, I guess pollution is local and doesn't affect the whole world, huh? Would trading a ten year old car for a fifty year old car improve our image and standing with many around the world? Yes. We could even keep the real clunkers (Ladas, Zis, etc.) and crush them ourselves for scrap metal.

What about all the pollution that's going to be created by taking a perfectly good car and destroying it prematurely to create a new one vice destroying one that's forty or fifty years old and really has little life left? Isn't that a more worthy cause for creating pollution as a new car is created?

If it bothers some that we would be helping people around the world instead of our own, well, we do it everyday through USAID and other programs. Moreover, we could collect a fraction of the car's true worth from the foreign buyer and apply it towards our national debt, with the explicit agreement that our ten year old cars could only replace forty to fifty year old cars. If that still bothers some, then give the cars to people in Appalachia or other parts of the country who have no hope of ever owning even a true clunker. There could even be a qualification program to make sure it gets to the most needy. Hell, use them for crash testing. Whatever. But don't just waste cars that are perfectly good.

Whatever, I'm fine with it. But I'm not fine with the wasteful program setup for destroying perfectly useful vehicles.

[kirby]

74. Your logic is suspect...

How can you compare running the engine for 5 minutes to disable it, with the amount of pollution an older car emits over the lifetime of a new car? Not to mention that the dealership in the second video did not appear to follow the directions. You are supposed to drain the oil and at the end of the video oil sprays out.

And it didn't waste a perfectly good vehicle. The engine is disabled and it will be shipped/sold to a wholesaler who will sell the parts (minus the engine).

The initial statistics released today show that the cash for clunkers incentive program has increased the fuel efficiency! The avg mpg of the clunkeer was 15.8 mpg and the new car avg is 25.4.

[dreamnightwind]

75. new funds from battery development money?

Wow, I heard that they are looking at getting 2 billion more for this program by taking it from TARP funds targeted at enhancing new battery technology. Sounds like a terrible plave to get the money from, hopefully they won't do that.

I'm for extending CARS but not if the money comes at the expense of furthering batter technology for electric vehicles.

[kirby]

77. Yep, I posted that yesterday...

I was watching the House floor and noticed they were stealing/reprogramming the money in the typical short-sighted way by taking it from the innovate research funding of the stimulus.

[mullard12ax7]

76. McCain prefers "Cash to see his wife in a wet t-shirt contest" at a biker rally

What a classy guy!