Clunker envy
Here's some reaction to today's column, in which I reveal my good fortune to be involved in a cash-for-clunker deal that got me into a new car I had delayed buying, as a replacement for a minivan with more than 200,000 miles. I think these people just wish they had gotten the deal -- or that the vehicles they're driving could qualify. (Hee-hee)
I am happy you got a new car. The only problem is that the money you got was from the taxes I have to pay. I also have problems with AIG, etc. getting all that tax money. Remember the government makes no money, except what they take from the working American people. My brother-in-law traded in his clunker and go the same deal as you, the only problem I find with that, is the son of bitch is a multi millionaire and could finance cars for 50 of us and not feel the loss. He is gloating like a a kid who found ten dollars on the street. Sort of makes me ill..
-- ChristianI'm glad that you "don't ... feel guilty about taking the government's money," but I cringe whenever I read about or hear references to the "government's money." There is no such thing as the "government's money." That money is yours and mine and everyone else who pays taxes. -- Bob Price
I think that you can afford to buy your own car and don't need the US taxpayer to subsidize your purchase. If you were some poor schmuck with no job or little money that would be one thing but you are not that guy. What you did is no better than the fellow on the street corner with his hand out looking for something for nothing. And by the way it isn't the governments money its our money. Think about it.
--jqmayI think the govt program was intended for people who were using their clunkers with bad mileage and possibly lousy emissions systems as their primary vehicle. I don't get how you rationalize taking a public money hand-out for your non-crisis situation, and promoting it and possibly encouraging other people not driving their mothballed clunkers to follow you. The program should have been designed along the lines of first time home buyers' incentives, not for people who are buying summer home-type vehicles. Just because you were able to use the system does not mean you should.
-- Dorothy in BaltimoreWow!!!!! You got $4,500 for a vehicle that you clearly admit was worthless.
You seem proud. You justify your actions by saying the investment will return dividends speaks to your total lack of understanding basic economic principles.
I am certain that a first time reader (who has some reasoning skills) may think you are just kidding. I know better. DAN --NEWS FLASH --IT IS CALLED STEALING!!!!!
Jim Ward
Comments
Let's see if I have this right: The right wing scolds are reminding you that there is no "government money," that it's really "our" money. And then they scold you for taking some of it back when offered by our duly elected officials. And then they accuse you of "stealing." I'm confused...
DR: Yeah, me, too, Frank . . .
Posted by: Frankie | August 5, 2009 3:22 PM
Don't be confused by your own logic Dan.
It's the same false premise that you demonized Bush for.
Bush gave back money to the top earners, but Dan called it stealing from the middle class.
If you use Dan Rodricks logic, he would have to call himself a theif. Dan, I take it that that wasn't your only car. Did you really need that $4500. You use the same logic against the rich.
Dan writes all the time: Do they really need all those tax breaks--we need them more; therefore the rich are stealing from the middle class.
I never got a job from a poor man.
BTW, I know you have to cover the tanking economy, but I just wanted to remind you that we lost more troops in Afghanistan last month since the war began. Haven't heard you rail against a warmongering president lately.
Your vote sent more troops to their death; is that the change you believed in? Ironic, considering that Obama was the anti-war candidate, huh. Some people will say or do anything to get into power, won't they?
Posted by: Ballz Mahoney | August 5, 2009 5:49 PM