I must be the only rightospheric denizen not to have posted even once about the infamous “cash for clunkers” program.  Which is, as I briefly remarked on a recent episode of Hard Starboard Radio, would never have been the case……

The lines are running super slow right now, to increase production all they will do is speed the line up a bit. They will not be hiring new people to build cars.

Auto manufacturers rarely hire people for the line, they speed up and slow down the line according to demand. You can’t put new people on the line where there is no space.

Comrades. Glenn Beck has blown up the world.

faraway on August 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM

ROFL! I just saw a poll circulating on Facebook last night titled “Boycott Glenn Beck Poll”. The poll asked whether you would boycott him, or whether you supported him.

At last count rough 6,100 wanted to boycott Glenn Beck… but 24,000+ said “No, I support Glenn Beck!” 71% support Glenn Beck on a poll setup to smear him!

I got a good laugh as I added my vote…

He did try to toughen the regulations, but the Democrats blocked him.

You usually need some sort of an intellectual high ground to make those type of statements…

crr6 on August 25, 2009 at 6:14 PM

She has it.

OBAMA LIES!

crr6 on August 25, 2009 at 6:08 PM

When did you finally catch on?

That works out to almost $80,000 per job. Did I mention that those jobs will last at most, 3 months.

Come on guys, I know you can do it. All together now…
Thank you President Obama.

crr6 on August 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Thanks for wasting 3 billion dollars on a project that will produce no net increase in jobs, just a shift in when they are employed.

Those 42,000 new jobs will all be gone before the year is out, and be replaced by a deficit of at least 42,000 jobs.

To all those who took the C4C deal: You’re welcome.

To all those who worry about the used car market: don’t sweat it – the repos will save it.

To all those worried about our country: me, too.

mike volpe on August 25, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Have you done loans in the early to mid 1970′s? Before there was a CRA?

Let’s get this straight. The banks, through a period of time starting the CRA were forced to give loans to people who did qualify. The borrower was given a loan with little to no security up front so the bank had to carry all the risk up front in the name of the poor getting a house. The problem is, the poor are what they are because the choices they make, Not all but most.

Giving mortgages to the people with poor spending habits when they didn’t deserve it to begin with was beginning and main perpetrator in our finical mess we are in now.

Government, like Carter who started the CRA with good intentions didn’t see the unintended consequences down the road. Clinton gave his HUD secretary the power to go after and intimate banks into giving more loans to the people who didn’t qualify.

Now ere all paying for it. Even though you have been giving loans since 2003, history didn’t start then.

Excuse, me you said 3% of the total market not a 3% default rate. I was giving you a break. Um…a 1.5% default rate used to be considered terminal for a bamk. So if half of the CRA deals went south, that would not be too good, would it? Make a nice down payment on the meltdown, at least. Go get a MBA to augment the social studies you love so much.

Dear Troll,

Just check any of the postmortems on the mortgage/financial meltdown. There was a general oversight laxity. The overall design was to permit unqualified buyers to purchase the homes they wanted.

I was using the CRA as a metonymy or a specific connoting the general. Of course, implicit was the relationship between the two as the CRA certainly had a symbolic position in the poisonous swirl of the mortgage insurance cauldron. (On general rhetorical technique: See Herbert Spencer if you are literate enough). If not, kindly remember one of the favorite terms developed and cherished by the left, WATERGATE!!!

You guys know everything that came to mean. And it wasn’t just the DC complex. Heck, the left and the MSM made it more grand and sinister than Gulag, Pol Pot and Chappaquiddick combined.

The use of CRA by we sane people is apt since the behavior of Fannie, Freddie, and indeed most of the subprime actors were either under the protection of, or acting for the policy goals of our beloved government. And it is clear that the goals, the insurers providing the safety net and even most of the managers had a special relationship to the Demoron party. Even the foot soldiers were liberal pawns. The Demoron party had for years used Acorn and other pressure groups to interfere in the financial market, including mortgages.

On the other hand, it was not sound banking rules or properly underwritten loans that caused the economic mess we suffer today. It was the government meddling in economic activity for a desired social result. (Redolent of C4C?) Blaming President Bush is inaccurate. Blaming conservative ideology or standards is completely silly.

But back to my earlier post. I am anticipating that the liberals (Demorons) will cite the small number of C4C repossessions compared to the total number of loans, repossesions or possibly total cars sold to reduce the waste and foolishness of C4C. When things don’t work or go entirely haywire. You just did it with the 3% failure of CRA, after all. Then you always have the last refuge of scoundrels, the poor being hurt by some other evil aspect of free enterprise or, better yet, move straight to RACISM like kids move to the “double dog dare”. That shuts everyone up.

mike volpe on August 25, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Not to be picky..I’m just curious.
Is that 3% of value or 3% of the number of transactions. Was just “property” separated from housing and was that 3% individual home loans, i.e not business loans?

The auto companies, if they have any brains left, will not replenish the inventories to where they were, and as said, this just stole from future sales so it probably actually hurt the auto workers more in the long run.

Way to not think a damned thing through.

Come on guys, I know you can do it. All together now…
Thank you President Obama.

crr6 on August 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM

And exactly why would I be thanking Obama for forcing me to put up money to pay the down payment on someone else’s car? Please do explain.

jimmy2shoes on August 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM

+100, Jimmy. What? Barkey Oblabla didn’t give away car insurance, too? I’m shocked; shocked I tell you.

Don’t think so. Totally outrageous!

angryed on August 25, 2009 at 6:25 PM
—–

I have a friend who is a GM at a dealership. He says they sold every clunker deal at full retail price, and didn’t pay any factory incentives that were available on some models. He also says there will be a LOT of repos coming.

The dealers made out like bandits on this program. They inflated prices by $3500 to $4500.

Didn’t need to — the suckers paid STICKER PRICE.