Look, we've done this for 70 years in my country. It works very well. It stimulates greatly. These program works as they intend. Especially this one. It actually stimulates the economy, gives you renewable resources, ie steel, etc from the scrapped cars. You get less emission and you don't have to lay up workers in the motor industry. It doesn't work so well when we have upturns in the economy. But in recession. These things work extremely well.

And its not certain these people would have bought new cars. Far from it. But it insures that these people at least do. And you forget that most of these cars are far above the lower limit of mileage the government have put.

The emission standard isn't about the new cars efficiency compared to the lowest ones. But the new cars towards the old ones being scrapped. (although you need to factor in the co2 emissions from the new cars being built, but thats a one timer and not a legacy emission). So the calculation is complicated. But overall, the effect has been great. It has achieved exactly what it was out to do. Kick start the demand for new cars. Clearly, it has succeeded in doing that.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3


Yeah I would to. Otherwise you could just do a deal with your local priest or charity person or who ever. Send the car to him. Pay him 500 dollars and he have just done a steal by allowing him to circle his own car.

Dealerships across this country are upset. The government is taking their sweet time about reimbursing their costs. Some are stating "no more cash" for clunkers until the Government pays up.

Now imagine them with health care--LOL

"How to Become a Ditto-Head" Chapter One:
Repeat the latest Republican mantra at every opportunity...add LOL to make it your own.

__________________

I must apologize. I just got back and have forgotten who is who.

While it appears that you - for no apparent reason - give a fuck about my country, our politics, and how we do things, I cannot say the same applies to me regarding your country.

If I happen to take the time to reply to you in the future, it will only be because you were accidentally remiss in citing your cold-as-shit-whiter-than-white country of residence as some sort of example of anything other than how to be irrelevant.

Meanwhile, I will do you the courtesy of not babbling American-centric inanities on NorwegianPoliticsOnline.com, if it even has a reason to exist.

I wouldn't exactly call your contribution anything to brag about, either.

EDIT: Yet another "person" with a doltish understanding of what a "Ditto Head" is and what the term means.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

I know the origin, I also know it is entirely appropriate to the borg squads of programmed zombies doing the bidding of Dick Armey or whoever sent out today's rightwing talking points.

__________________

By 'borg' you mean anyone who isn't goose-stepping in line with the Obamanation? LOL.

Borg - that's what the rightwingers call the leftwingers - get your own insults.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Ah, wasn't that just convenient for you? Dismiss what I argue because I'm a foreigner. What possibly could I know of your situation. The reason you don't give a shit about my country is because you actually know shit about it. If you managed to sometimes give a shit about, well.. anything which happened outside your own country for once you might actually learn and broaden your mind. I'm sorry but your not going to get rid of my argument just because you don't think it applies to your country. American excellence shown brilliant once again. You remind me of British Gentlemen in early 20th centry. Arrogant and assertive because their themselves. Address my arguments instead of doing ad hominem attacks on my nationality as that somehow would invalidate what I said. Or was that to arrogant for you?

I argued to you with a solid and clear argument why it worked. And it achieved what it was designed to do. You want to address that maybe? Did you even read past the first line btw?

Muthsera - You'll get this once. Once. And this - only - because your reply is so full of predictable bullshit, I've decided to make a bit of an example of it.

No...actually, it was rather unfortunate. I was hoping to actually give a shit what you said. Alas, you played the worthless (in every sense of the word) "Well, in my country..." Tard Card™.

You brought your country into it. I did not.

No, I dismissed you because you cited your - and I'll say it again - colder-than-shit-whiter-than-white country as a [presumably] valid example. It was not. It is not. It shall be not.

Apparently nothing because you used Norway as an example when discussing the internal affairs of the United States. I wouldn't even accept Norway as a template for, um, Minnesota.

I know everything that I want to know, at this moment, about Norway. If that particular level of knowledge changes, it will be on my own initiative, thank you.

You can be 100% positive, however, that any research I do into Norway will not be for the purposes of solving American problems. It would more likely have to do with something like me deciding, "Hey, I'm not freezing my balls off enough here in Philadelphia and our diversity is making me nuts. Where can I go to hang out with nothing but white people in absolute zero weather?"

And, now, you continue down the predictable path of inferring what you cannot possibly know about me. This, much more than any jingoistic component of what I have said, is a sure sign of insufferable ignorance on your part.

It doesn't apply to my country. Period. Make your arguments without citing irrelevant examples and, maybe, we can converse. As I said before, Norway is pretty much an irrelevant example of just about everything, so I'd avoid it if I were you.

Thank you. I agree. I am excellent, brilliant, and American.

I'm not sure what language that second sentence is, but it sure ain't English.

If my gibberish-to-English translator is working properly, I think my proper response is this:

You remind me of some limousine liberal who never left Manhattan or their gated community thinking their "life experience", unto itself, in any way qualifies them to have a worthy point of view on, um, anything. Think Paris Hilton without the common sense.

Make an argument without using irrelevant examples and, maybe, I will.

All your base are belong to us.

Just to be clear - for I fear you require it - you rendered your own argument pointless with the first sentence. You did that. Not me. I merely took your overt cue, at that point, and ceased wasting my time reading your nonsense.

You think this is bad, you should be around when some mental midget suggests that my country should (at any time, regarding any issue) use International and/or Foreign Law as precedent for Domestic Law. That's when I get really fun.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Oh jolly...

If you bothered to actually read my post. You would see that it was just a preliminary statement. It was to indicate that we do actually have some sodding experience in doing working stimuluses. Mostly because the ESA laws are very strict and by doing it wrongly could lead us to be dropped from the common market. Now, If you bothered to actually learn something about the EU and europe at large. You might have known that. But alas....

I think you dismissed the rest of my argument because you felt it irrelevant for me as a foreigner interfering in your country's internal politics, and secondly you felt that by bringing up my own it couldn't possibly be relevant.. But hey.. I could be wrong.


No you would be right there. Minnesota would to some extent if any state ever could represent the Scandinavian countries. Mostly by having so many of Scandinavian decent. What I was however pointing out. Where actual policy which is transferable. Which is different from outright modeling of an entire countries structure. I'm well aware of the differences in our models thank you very much. And I think more than just about anyone here has the understanding what is transferable and not.

No offense meant. But you my friend, know shit about my country. Until you show me different, I would be inclined to uphold that assertion.

I would actually look up our respective weather patterns before doing some assertion about that. But any meteorological escapades you wanted to adventure into here, your welcome to. I would not mind at all. But if you wanted to talk internal politics. I would think you would know something about our internal politics before speaking. Hell, its not ignorant to have a perspective and an ideology.

Now, you would be correct. I was predicting something about you I have no actual knowledge about. But lets just say I have a hunch. Would you like to prove me wrong? Was it more jingoistic than your statements... I leave that to others make up. I personally don't think so. In my mind it was a measured response to your outlandish claims that my words where of utter irrelevance to this debate. How could previous experience in the field be of utter irrelevance I would add?

There you go again. To claim that any policy in one country could ever be relevant in any other country I certainly don't agree with. And it shows your own lack of understanding the political structure of our sovereign entities. Its akin to saying that we don't interact. In fact, you can throw the field of political science/economics out the window if that was true. At any rate. I addressed it in your own terms. Not by the ones we build up ours in my country. Not that that was greatly appreciated btw.

Yes, your obviously helping your own case.


You would be surprised.

But like you said. To continue on this predictable path of inferring what you cannot possibly know, only suits to show your own insufferable ignorance.

Take out the first sentence. Past that, was it not structured and a valid argument on the programs own merits? Did I throw in any Norwegian numbers/programs/facts? No, I used only information which was relevant to the argument.

Hahah. Long time now since I heard that last. Not been playing EVE for a while so it might be why. Zero Wing never gets old.

No it did not render my argument unvalid or pointless. YOU chose to ignore it because of the first sentence. I would imagine there be a world of difference. It was only to indicate that we as a nation have a huge amount of experience in these kinds of programs and it was working very well for us. That that somehow would invalidate any other claims I made down the line I cannot imagine. In fact, your own words reveal that you didn't even bother to read past that first line and even try to take on board what I said.

A real beacon of light the US have become of late.... Yeah, I can imagine your stance on that. You do know that one lead by example, not by force?

We can thank the Golden Boy for that. He's turned us into a punchline...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

It was a metaphor. And you failed to recognize it.

There you have it. Something other than your preponderance for starting every post, "In my [uber-white, extremely cold] country..." that will invariably lead me to discard your "contributions".

Well, I tell you what, Mr. Thang, it ain't about you. I was your audience and you failed.

I have flatly told you that I don't care if you provide the chemical formula for the cure for cancer in the body of your message. If your silly ass begins with "In my [tiny, inert, uber-white, extremely cold] country...", I will ignore it.

Think of it along these lines (another metaphor alert - so you don't miss this one): You're hanging with your girlfriend and she does something that annoys you. It has always annoyed you. You decide to communicate this annoyance to her because that's what you do in a healthy, functional relationship. You begin by saying, "My ex-girlfriend used to..." BOOM. FALE. Game over. Audience lost - if not hostile.

I have absolutely zero interest in what Norway or any other country is doing, did, or will do RE: political issues in America.* Puerto Rico gets some say because they're somewhat beholden to our vastly superior Constitution.

Get it? Got it? Good. The rest is indubitably up to you.

*If you notice, you will not see me doing this even when convenient. Sure, I'd love to point to the failed Canadian and British socialized health care plans as proof positive that such a plan would fail in America. It is true that those plans would fail in America, for sure...but it has nothing to do with the fact that the Canadians and Brits fucked it up. We do all sorts of things way better than the two of them combined. In this case, it'd fail simply because it's a ridiculously shitty idea.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

we "leftwingers" don't regurgitate the day's "talking points" like the brainwashed masses on the right, (the ditto-heads). Admit it, you literally get emailed the Kool-Aid of the day, to better "coordinate the message".

__________________

Well, I am exceedingly arrogant. So maybe I am.

You see though, this is why I do actual arguments to back up my words. While you are just trowing blatant ideological statements of how you want to perceived the world to be, using some quick distorted facts you've heard from local aspiring talkshow host. You want to be right regarding the efficiency of the cars for clunkers program? Why don't you do a real argument to counter my assertions. Show me some numbers which indicate a loss in efficiency and wasted wealth. Instead of doing misdirection. Its not going to work on me, I don't care if it takes you all week to get to that point. I'll argue with you until your blue. And quite frankly this American excellence I keep experiencing on this board is getting old. You do know there are other countries out there with functioning governments don't you? You be my audience if you like to. I'm not going to force you.

Want to contribute in the discussion, wonderful, maybe I'll learn something. But I'm not impressed by any of your unsupported "claims" so far. I showed you that it has increased out of the ordinary demand for new cars. That is an effective measurement of how well this program is doing. Show me numbers which indicates that it isn't effective.

I'll jump in here Muthsera. The problem is it has only artificially increased the demand for cars...and it cost the govt $3b. It will do nothing to spur any type of recovery for the car industry. As soon as the program ends, people will go back to not buying cars. Any "benefit" of better mileage cars, more recycled steel no one wants, will never show any kind of return on the $3B. The furniture industry is hurting also. Why not furniture subsidies or any of the 100's of industries that are hurting now and laying off workers? The govt should not pick industries to prop up at our expense. It is bad policy and it sets a bad precedent that they attempt to pick the winners and losers in the market.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

Oh, you were gone?

Didn't notice.

__________________
All things serve The Beam