What “Cash for Clunkers” Was Really All About
Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 5 months ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"You may recall the Obama-era “Cash for Clunkers” business. It was a very dirty business and a key element of Obama’s declared intention to fundamentally transform the United States – though to this day many people do not understand just how key it has proved to be.
The plan was sold to the public as a means of “stimulating” the then-flatlined American car industry, which was almost literally (and in GM’s case, actually) bankrupt. The idea was to get people to buy new cars by paying them to throw away their old cars.
Italics added.
The cars were not traded in. Not even “parted out” – i.e., their major components (such as their engines, in particular) removed in order to be re-sold to someone in need of low-cost replacement parts. They were destroyed. Engines dosed with silica and then run until they seized – so as to render them unusable.
Consider the implications.
The Obama regime surely did.
While on the surface – as in, superficially – the “cash for clunkers” program was about getting people to buy new cars, it was fundamentally about getting rid of affordable (older) cars. And the reason for that was to fundamentally transform the country – by breaking the generations-long tradition of young people becoming independently mobile almost-adults while they were still in their teens."
"You may recall the Obama-era “Cash for Clunkers” business. It was a very dirty business and a key element of Obama’s declared intention to fundamentally transform the United States – though to this day many people do not understand just how key it has proved to be.
The plan was sold to the public as a means of “stimulating” the then-flatlined American car industry, which was almost literally (and in GM’s case, actually) bankrupt. The idea was to get people to buy new cars by paying them to throw away their old cars.
Italics added.
The cars were not traded in. Not even “parted out” – i.e., their major components (such as their engines, in particular) removed in order to be re-sold to someone in need of low-cost replacement parts. They were destroyed. Engines dosed with silica and then run until they seized – so as to render them unusable.
Consider the implications.
The Obama regime surely did.
While on the surface – as in, superficially – the “cash for clunkers” program was about getting people to buy new cars, it was fundamentally about getting rid of affordable (older) cars. And the reason for that was to fundamentally transform the country – by breaking the generations-long tradition of young people becoming independently mobile almost-adults while they were still in their teens."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
But I BET they have PHONES...
My daughter had a DUMB phone as she entered High School/University.
She got a Smart Phone for Perfect Grades. With the caveat of NO Twitter/Social Media.
She spent summers in TN, and we taught her to drive out there. I remember making her park in EVERY spot up and down 2 rows at a closed grocery store. Poor kid. LOL. Practice makes perfect.
Finally, I bet if you took away their phones, and their computers (screens)... They'd want that car!
Adam Smith nailed it when he noted that a mobile workforce was the key to a working labor market, enabling workers with skills and mobility to go to other markets. The leftists know this, too: control means depriving people of mobility and choice.
I grew up in Texas, of course, where the minimum age for licensing was 14, back in 1964. You better know that the very SECOND I was eligible to do so, I enrolled in drivers' ed, and the very second I passed the behind-the-wheel portion, I was down at the license office. My kids did the same. By then it was 15 for a restricted license and 16 for full. They even both had cars bought (clunkers of course) from their after-school jobs before they had their licenses.
3 Cars in that picture would have been gladly bought and enjoyed.