"Cash for clunkers" -- charitable donations of cars plummet

Charities are reporting a great reduction in the number of automobiles
being donated. In some (many?) cases, charities were reconditioning
donated clunkers for use as basic transportation for people to get to
jobs, and in the process training other people in basic automobile
repairs to enable them to get work.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" > wrote in message
...
> Charities are reporting a great reduction in the number of automobiles
> being donated. In some (many?) cases, charities were reconditioning
> donated clunkers for use as basic transportation for people to get to
> jobs, and in the process training other people in basic automobile repairs
> to enable them to get work.
>
> Perce
Been on the news for a while already about this. Seems to me some of the
cars turned in(with marginally bad gas mileage) could be given to these
organizations for turning around to folks in need rather then destroyed.
Maybe even give the
tax breaks to the dealers since they don't seem to be getting much of the
clunker money promised by our government...

FredP wrote:
> "Percival P. Cassidy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Charities are reporting a great reduction in the number of automobiles
>> being donated. In some (many?) cases, charities were reconditioning
>> donated clunkers for use as basic transportation for people to get to
>> jobs, and in the process training other people in basic automobile repairs
>> to enable them to get work.
>>
>> Perce
> Been on the news for a while already about this. Seems to me some of the
> cars turned in(with marginally bad gas mileage) could be given to these
> organizations for turning around to folks in need rather then destroyed.

That would just result in corrupt practices by scam artists. Billions
would be needed to monitor such a program to prevent fraud, and the
fraud would happen anyway. The costs would outweigh the benefits (but
that wouldn't bother them). The important thing is that they feel good
about it, and if it costs the taxpayer more money that they don't have
for them to feel good about it, then so be it. It would be another way
to funnel more money to ACORN and their off-shoot corporations, but to
Obama, that would be the real benefit.

> Maybe even give the
> tax breaks to the dealers since they don't seem to be getting much of the
> clunker money promised by our government...

And they want to run our health care!

Liberal ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended consequences
and end up hurting the very people they claim to be caring and looking
out for. The results are always the opposite of the stated intent.

I wouldn't be surprised if the government's solution is to forcibly take
billions *more* out of our pockets to "right" this result of their
incompetence - and they'll call that stimulus.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

> ... ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended consequences
> and end up hurting the very people they claim to be caring and looking
> out for. The results are always the opposite of the stated intent.


Put that comment in the perspective of eight years of Bush/Cheney lies.

News wrote:
>
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> ... liberal ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended consequences and
>> end up hurting the very people they claim to be caring and looking out
>> for. The results are always the opposite of the stated intent.
>
>
> Put that comment in the perspective of eight years of Bush/Cheney lies.

Besides you not being able to provide specific examples of opposite
results of stated intent from the liberal ideas of Bush/Cheney, we are
talking about cash for clunkers and the present situation. Care to join
into that conversation - and without the Saul Alinsky "Rules for
Radicals" methods (that don't seem to be working too well for Obama
right now).

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> News wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>> ... liberal ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended
>>> consequences and end up hurting the very people they claim to be
>>> caring and looking out for. The results are always the opposite of
>>> the stated intent.
>>
>>
>> Put that comment in the perspective of eight years of Bush/Cheney lies.
>
> Besides you not being able to provide specific examples of opposite
> results of stated intent from the liberal ideas of Bush/Cheney, we are
> talking about cash for clunkers and the present situation. Care to join
> into that conversation - and without the Saul Alinsky "Rules for
> Radicals" methods (that don't seem to be working too well for Obama
> right now).
>


Note the newsgroup is rec.autos.makers.chrysler

WTF does your limp "liberal ideas *always* fail" generalization and post
have to do with it, hypocrite?

News wrote:
>
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> News wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... liberal ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended
>>>> consequences and end up hurting the very people they claim to be
>>>> caring and looking out for. The results are always the opposite of
>>>> the stated intent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Put that comment in the perspective of eight years of Bush/Cheney lies.
>>
>> Besides you not being able to provide specific examples of opposite
>> results of stated intent from the liberal ideas of Bush/Cheney, we are
>> talking about cash for clunkers and the present situation. Care to
>> join into that conversation - and without the Saul Alinsky "Rules for
>> Radicals" methods (that don't seem to be working too well for Obama
>> right now).
>>
>
>
> Note the newsgroup is rec.autos.makers.chrysler
>
> WTF does your limp "liberal ideas *always* fail" generalization and post
> have to do with it, hypocrite?

Umm - clunkers are cars. Chryslers are cars. Chryslers can be clunkers
in the context of this discussion. The cash for clunkers idiocy falls
under the broader category of "liberal ideas..." that "...always fail".
Too many steps for you to follow, perhaps.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> News wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> News wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... liberal ideas *always* fail to anticipate the unintended
>>>>> consequences and end up hurting the very people they claim to be
>>>>> caring and looking out for. The results are always the opposite of
>>>>> the stated intent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Put that comment in the perspective of eight years of Bush/Cheney lies.
>>>
>>> Besides you not being able to provide specific examples of opposite
>>> results of stated intent from the liberal ideas of Bush/Cheney, we
>>> are talking about cash for clunkers and the present situation. Care
>>> to join into that conversation - and without the Saul Alinsky "Rules
>>> for Radicals" methods (that don't seem to be working too well for
>>> Obama right now).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Note the newsgroup is rec.autos.makers.chrysler
>>
>> WTF does your limp "liberal ideas *always* fail" generalization and
>> post have to do with it, hypocrite?
>
>
> the broader category of "liberal ideas..." that "...always fail".

Yeah, right.

Take it and uranus to alt.politics.planet.arch-winguts.whackjobs

News wrote:

> Yeah, right.
>
> Take it and uranus to alt.politics.planet.arch-winguts.whackjobs

Haven't you figured out that Saul Alinsky tactics don't work anymore?
Obama et al are finding that out once they got out of the Chicago
microcosm where people fall for that crap. Free speech wins out when
things aren't rushed thru under the guise of being an emergency and
people don't have a chance to read, consider, and discuss what the heck
they are voting on. For Obama to pass his stuff from now on, he'll have
to crush free speech. We'll see how that goes. eh?

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>> Yeah, right.
>>
>> Take it and uranus to alt.politics.planet.arch-winguts.whackjobs
>
> Free speech wins out when
> things aren't rushed thru under the guise of being an emergency and
> people don't have a chance to read, consider, and discuss what the heck
> they are voting on.


Like dumbya's PATRIOT Act, right, moron? What a friggin cretin.

Take it and uranus to alt.politics.planet.arch-wingnut.whackjob.liars