Subscribe
Notify of
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Cash for cripples…..

Turn in your elderly parents for $4500 cash. The gov’t will make sure they’re “recycled”.

I was at the post office yesterday watching the incompetence and the 40 minute wait to pick up a package. All I could think about was government health care. Yes, there’s a good correlation.

@Timothy: Don’t joke about it. You might give some of these Dems ideas.

I had an interesting day, yesterday. I turned in my workhorse 1990 Mercedes 300SE, with 193,000 miles and an MPG rating of 16, and broken sunroof glued into place by silicone caulking from Home Depot, and a Blue Book value of $1,600, for a 2010 Mazda3, with a combined rating of 27 mpg. The transaction was facilitated (from my point of view) by the $4500 rebate from Uncle Sam, plus the added bonus of $147.50 for the scrap value of the 1990 Benz. Needless to say, I was delighted, as, I’m sure, are the 250,000 other Americans who are in the process of getting similar deals, with another 500,000 to come, if Congress does tack on an additional $2B.

Now, the concept of the government borrowing money to hand out to people like me, in order to stimulate the economy, may certainly be debated. I’ve made my own position clear. I’d have given:

1. No bailout to Wall Street.
2. No “stimulus.”
3. With regard to the loans to GM and Chrysler, I’m a fence sitter. Some days, I’m against it; some days I’m for it. I can do a fair job of arguing it both ways.

However, strictly from the point of view of an effective “stimulus,” this was close to perfect. The government invests $1B. If the average person got a $4K rebate, and if the average car purchased cost $20K, then every dollar of government investment is immediately generating $4 in private money “stimulus” for every $1 in government “stimulus.” As David Brooks said tonight (in praising the CARS program on the Lehrer Newshour), Cash for Clunkers met the standard of being TARGETED, TIMELY, and TEMPORARY. The program was an overwhelming success, generating 250,000 sales in the first week.

There were, of course, some glitches. No one had ever done anything like this before. But it wasn’t some catastrophe. Sure, some people were disappointed. They thought they’d qualify, but, when the final rules came out, they didn’t. Others thought they wouldn’t qualify and ultimately did. But, hey, that sort of thing happens in any big program, public or private. In my own case, I’d hoped to get a Mazda6, instead of the smaller Mazda3, but the mileage differential wasn’t good enough with the 6 and the “deal” for the 6 wasn’t as good as I’d anticipated. So I had a bit of disappointment also, but, on the whole, I was a winner, the car dealer was a winner, and the Ford Motor Company employee pension fund (which helps to support my Dad), was a winner also, as Ford owns a piece of Mazda. And the air in Calfornia will be a little cleaner, there will be less carbon in the atmosphere, and the US will be a little less dependent on Islamic oil.

There is a downside to the program, however, a lot of people need to or want to buy cheap old cars. These people tend to be on the low end of the economic food chain. So there will be fewer $1600 cars available to purchase, which could harm their upward economic mobility.

But, getting back to the point, of all the “stimulus” programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, “Cash for Clunkers” gets the prize for actually doing what it was supposed to do.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

So what happens when government takes over health care with a rule book of thousands of pages? Will you get the immediate care you need or will you spend your sick days trying to get the correct paperwork moved through a faceless bureaucracy?

What happens when your doctor says he can’t treat your condition without authorization from Washington? Will you die while some ACORN agent looks up your voting history to see if you qualify as a value to society?

Thre is a government run health care program. It’s called Medicare. It kicks butt.

You want to talk prior authorization? You don’t need that, with Medicare. You do need it, with private insurance.

I’ve compared and contrasted Medicare with private health care plans on other threads. It’s the best, most cost effective health care funding program in America today. It also has the highest degree of consumer satisfaction and produces the fewest personal medical bankruptcies.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

JEFF YASTINE, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: Medicare fraud. It’s been a problem almost since the beginning of the program. And today, fraud steals $70 billion a year from Federal health care funds.

Maybe they need a government bailout…oh wait….the government already runs it. Good job guys.

Re: Medicare fraud.

The government doesn’t “run” Medicare. The government sets the overall rules and gives out competitive bid contracts to private insurance companies to run it.

And, funny thing, despite the $70 billion in so called fraud, the total cost of providing health care through Medicare (Taxes + Insurance Premiums + patient out of pocket payments + “fraud”) is substantially less than the total cost of providing health care through private sector insurance (taxes + insurance premiums + patient out of pocket payments + “fraud” <– you don't believe that you don't also have this in the purely private system? You think that providers don't ever use dirty colonoscopes in the purely private system? … by the way).

And consumer satisfaction is higher wth Medicare. And choice of providers and hospitals in unsurpassed with Medicare. And health care outcomes are unsurpassed with Medicare. And personal bankruptcies owing to out of pocket medical expenses are lower with Medicare. And delays owing to the need for preauthorization are substantially less with Medicare, etc. etc. etc.

You want to argue Medicare versus the strictly private sector? Bring it on. I've got ALL the guns in this particular debate.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach. CA

Medicare fraud. It’s been a problem almost since the beginning of the program.

I just replied to this. My reply went to spam.

– Larry W/HB

@openid.aol.com: I’m so pleased that someone in the highest income brackets was able to get a rebate of tax money that could have gone instead to needy families. [sarcasm off]

And I’m also thrilled that you find Medicare so appealing. So why is it that so many seniors feel it necessary to spend huge amounts of money on supplemental.

And do you plan to buy a supplemental policy for yourself if permitted to do so?

Gov’t health care….sure hope they do a better job with my prostate!

And I’m also thrilled that you find Medicare so appealing. So why is it that so many seniors feel it necessary to spend huge amounts of money on supplemental.

The Medicare system was not designed to pay 100% of expenses. Generally, Medicare pays about 80 to 85%. The remaining 15% to 20% is the patient’s co-pay amount. Most senior citizens (including me, when I become eligible) purchase so-called “Medicare supplemental insurance,” which generally pays for the remaining 15-20% not paid for by Medicare. Thus, you can see that even Medicare is not a 100% “socialized” system. Rather, it’s a hybrid. I personally think it’s a good thing for the patient to retain some degree of responsibility for his/her own health care costs. It tends to prevent frivilous overutilization of the system.

But here’s the point that all you guys keep ignoring:

When you talk of cost, you must include TOTAL COST. This is: (1) Taxes, (2) private insurance (including, in the case of Medicare, supplemental private insurance to pay for the 15 – 20% not paid for by Medicare; (3) out of pocket payments, and (4) “Fraud.”

Add up (1) – (4), and it’s significantly less for Medicare than for purely private healthcare plans.

So the “huge amounts of money on supplemental” aren’t so huge, at all, in comparison with the costs of purely private health care insurance payments. In fact, the sum total of all taxes paid by all the taxpayers to support Medicare plus the costs of Medicare supplemental insurance plus out of pocket costs plus “Fraud” are substantially lower than the total costs of purely private health care coverage.

And, yet, consumer satisfaction is higher. And consumer choice in providers and hospitals is higher. And test and treatment delays owing to “preauthorization” requirements are less. And personal medical bankruptcies are less. And health care outcomes are unsurpassed.

Yes, strange as it may seem, the government actually does a better job of administering health care than does the private sector. Or, rather, the not-for-profit government supervisors of private health care contractors do the better job than do the profit seeking supervisors of purely private health care plans.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com: I’m so pleased that someone in the highest income brackets was able to get a rebate of tax money that could have gone instead to needy families. [sarcasm off]

Mike, you raise an interesting point.

In a real sense, the government gave me a tax cut. I gave the government a certain amount of tax money last year, and, now, the government gave some of that money back to me, in return for junking my gas guzzling, polluting clunker and buying a new car.

So the government gave me a conditional, directed tax cut. In the same way that the government allows tax credits and tax deductions for other things: dependent children, mortgage interest payments, etc. Generally speaking, the GOP has no problem with directed tax cuts, tax credits, tax deductions (e.g. supporting virtually all of them).

Now, I’ve tried to be clear that I don’t agree with either stimulus spending or tax cuts — both of which increase debt to GDP ratio — as economic policy; I’m a true conservative, in that I think that the government should spend only what it takes in and that the best way to reign in spending is not to borrow money and cut taxes, but, rather, not to borrow money and to raise taxes to pay for everything on which we are spending government money. Once people start paying for the full costs of government, out of their own pockets, as opposed to out of their children’s pockets, there will be a hue and cry to cut the size of government — and this includes eschewing elective wars as well as welfare.

But, in this thread, I’m simply arguing that, of all the “stimulus” programs, the “cash for clunkers” program is, hands down, the “winner” in doing what the stimulus program itself was designed to do.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

For more on the Larry Medicare debate and “big guns”, visit the other thread where he and I are debating this notion direct..

But I agree with Larry. The clunker rebate is “working” in that people have been taking advantage of it before implemented… thus why it went bust in the first days of activation. All the dealers sent in their rebate chits all at once.

Will it keep the dealers alive as Obama attempts to alter auto production requirements to little sheeeet boxes for us to drive? Certainly. Does it accomplish what Obama wants (ala getting bigger cars off the road)? Sure.

Is trashing them in compactors a good idea? Nope…. those parts have value to those who did not opt for the sheeeeeet boxes, and those in the business of selling and repairing using these parts.

Does it accomplish more government control over what we’ll be driving in the future? Absolutely.

Win for Obama and doing “what it was designed to do”? uh, yeah. And simultaneously a huge loss for freedom of choice by Americans, plus a sock in the gut for those in the business of car restorations and repairs. Looks good now. Will suck the big one further down line.

@openid.aol.com:

Now, the concept of the government borrowing money to hand out to people like me, in order to stimulate the economy, may certainly be debated. I’ve made my own position clear. I’d have given:

1. No bailout to Wall Street.
2. No “stimulus.”

Larry says he was “opposed” to the stimulus program but yet he’s right there with his hand out to get his share.

Sort of like the tax cuts you opposed yet collected right Larry?

Ahh….I do love the smell of hypocrisy in the early morning.

First you said:

Thre is a government run health care program. It’s called Medicare. It kicks butt.

Then you followed up with:

The government doesn’t “run” Medicare.

Which is it?

Here’s another part I find particularly amusing:

It’s called Medicare. It kicks butt.

Yep, Medicare is so great. It’s so fantastic. It’s the best thing since sliced bread and ice cream….It’s so great that Larry opted out.

Those darned personal beliefs and convictions.

They’re so easy to pontificate on the computer screen.

However, when it comes to actually living them that’s much more difficult, especially when the words on the page are just words on the page.

@MataHarley:

Mata, have you read much about what will be done with the cars that are taken in?

The dealerships will drain the oil, then replace the plug. They will then fill the engine with a silicate solution, crank it, and let it run until it seizes, thus ruining it forever.

The cars will then be transported to facilities which will shred them into pieces no larger than a fist.

Those pieces will then be loaded into cargo containers, put on board ships and transported to China to be melted down and made into something else.

Now, one has to wonder, what is the “carbon footprint” of the shredding, transport, and overseas recycling effort in comparison to the carbon “savings” of the program?

The lower priced used cars that people (such as my teenagers) usually drive are being destroyed.

The lower priced used cars that young families once purchased as a second, but necessary, vehicle are being eliminated.

The replacement parts that have value on the secondary market are being purposely destroyed and shipped of to China.

The end result of this program is going to be far reaching and there are lots of unforeseen circumstances that come from it.

Ah, yes. When one runs out of real arguments, drag out the old “hypocrisy” charge.

What is great about Medicare, from both a provider’s and patient’s point of view, is that it’s a purely voluntary system.

Let’s consider that, for a moment. All this talk that a government insurance plan will drive private sector medicine out of existence, because it won’t be able to compete with the public plan. Well, that’s what we’ve got with Medicare. A public system which covers everyone. And also allows providers like me to set up parallel systems to compete with it. How do I compete? I offer a “concierge” service. It’s a more extensive service than available through Medicare providers. I provide my services to a lot of Medicare patients. Only I opted out of the Medicare system. Patients who want my services agree to pay for them. So most of their health care comes from Medicare providers, but, when they want it, they are perfectly free to go “out of network,” as long as they have a way of paying for it. Either a separate insurance plan or paying out of their own pockets. As a Medicare patient myself, in a few years, I’ll use Medicare for most of my health care. But if I want/need something which Medicare doesn’t provide, then I’ll seek to optain this from non-Medicare providers. So, you see, not only can providers opt in and out of Medicare; patients can, as well. But Medicare at least achieves universal coverage for most essential services. And offers sufficient reimbursement that it continues to retain an almost universal network of providers and hospitals. And delivers the highest degree of patient satisfaction. At the lowest overall cost. So it is clearly doing something right.

I am obviously a supporter of Medicare. For overall performance, it kicks butt, compared to all the major health care plans. But part of what makes it great is that it’s voluntary. No one is forced to participate, on either the provider side or the patient side. I would be 100% opposed to any system which would impose a Canadian style government monopoly. But no one is proposing that and no one supports that (save for Kucinich).

Now, let’s talk about the “stimulus.”

Yes, I was opposed to the stimulus. It’s not the way that I’d have done it. I’d have asked all Americans to endure whatever length of recession it would have taken to allow the economy to build itself back up, without adding more debt. But I’d have been equally opposed to the GOP plan to grant massive tax cuts, also adding more debt.

Now, I have great admiration for those who make grand gestures, involving self-sacrifice, based on principle. I’ve never claimed to be a selfless hero. My taking advantage of “cash for clunkers” is no different than South Carolina’s GOP legislators taking their share of the stimulus money, either. Or the GOP governments of Texas and all the other red states. All of us are selfish hypocrites, I suppose.

Or else all of us act, at a micro level, in our own economic self-interest, precisely as Adam Smith said we all do.

P.S. Just a musing. I’d like to see a breakdown of the political party registration of those 250,000 Americans who have participated in “Cash for Clunkers” thus far.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com:

All of us are selfish hypocrites, I suppose.

Nope, not all of us.

Nope, not all of us.

Tip of the hat, Aye. Tip of the hat.

– Larry

@openid.aol.com:

I would be 100% opposed to any system which would impose a Canadian style government monopoly. But no one is proposing that and no one supports that (save for Kucinich).

No, not quite.

Barney Frank is one of many who supports single payer. He is also one who admits that this current move regarding health care is just one step on the road toward single payer.

Roll the tape:

Hmmmm….seems even the guy you voted for last November is a single payer proponent.

Roll the tape:

The American People are being purposely deceived in this health care debate.

Roll the tape:

O.K. That’s two.

And maybe even 50.

Probably, there are also 50 who would support outlawing interracial marriage.

Or who would support euthanasia.

Or who would support nuking Iran and North Korea.

Or who would support abolishing social security.

Or who would support term limits for Supreme Court justices.

Or who would support amending the constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

Or who would support amending the constitution to outlaw abortion.

What do all the above proposals (including a Canadian-style government monopoly on health care) have in common?

In terms of where they are going?

It’s a rhetorical question.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Going to bed now, Aye.

You get the last word.

– Larry

Notice Larry did not buy a Government car?

“Cash for Clunkers”
Okay well the 1 billion was the # 250 thousand cars were to be sold or Nov. 1 which ever came first?
Well last time I cked it was only 22,500 cars [250,000 looks like more zeros to me] that were sold most not Gm and other government car companies BUT wait a min. where did all the rest of the money go we still did not spend the whole 1 billion looks like the math is not adding up?
So where is the money?

I also heard dealers were unsure how to be getting their money back?
Wonder how many junkyards are taking IOUs?

Catherine

@ Larry
Sorry in advance for going off topic a minute here Mike, I swear I’ll get back on. But Larry has been out of all the healthcare posts and I have a question.
I’m one of those conservatives that believes there is actually a problem with our current system of healthcare insurance. That problem is the way businesses are allowed to buy healthcare. Small businesses get screwed. I think that’s the bottom line. And if medicare/medicade is so great, why did Obama have to promise to fix the payment schedule to get the AMA onboard? Why are an increasing number of doctors not accepting medicare paitents? New York Times is not a conservative source
As for the cash for clunkers program, I was against it before I was for it. I hate to say this, but it was a good idea. I wasn’t for it because it was in another bill. But using the stimulus money to put money directly into the economy, I’m for it. Mike’s point about the government running it…true that.

@Aye Chihuahua: “Now, one has to wonder, what is the “carbon footprint” of ….”

See? You missed the point ENTIRELY. As a liberal, You don’t HAVE TO WONDER.
In the end, its all about how it FEELS and “Did it meet my current agenda?”
“Green” is so yesterday. 😉 (Sorry Aye Chihuahua, I couldn’t resist *grin*)

“The replacement parts that have value on the secondary market are being purposely destroyed and shipped of to China.”
Yeah, I actually read some post on another forum where the person said “That was dumb, didn’t they think about that?”

THEY did think about it. No repair parts means MORE clunkers off the road. Interesting how that works.

@Larry: “…who would support outlawing interracial marriage.”
I’m picking here but … if that did even come to light, I’d love to be a fly on the wall with them and the meeting tat WOULD OCCUR with Obama being that he is a child from an interracial marriage. 😉 I’d pay good money to see that 😀

:”I’m one of those conservatives that believes there is actually a problem with our current system of healthcare insurance.”

I am with you there. The current system is broken. I do not know the answer, but I know turning it all over to the government is NOT the answer. I understand that part of the problems are malpractice suits, greed and who knows what else.

My son has cerebral palsy(cp) and he will qualify for medicaid(?). Our cobra payments are too much at this point and our budget doesn’t have a shoe string to be on. Being in IT right now sucks. Everyone I know with the exception of ONE person is still looking for work (3-5 months later).

Cobra is looking for a reason to boot you. If that happens, due to health issues (2 Diabetics and 1 child with CP) private insurance is going to be cost prohibitive and we make too much (yes on unemployment), to get anything else. And of course if they dump us, we then have to figure out what to do next because the next place I work, the insurance company COULD say “existing condition” and not cover us for X amount of time or whatever…

So yeah, I have a HUGE problem with the current system.

Aqua: “Small businesses get screwed”

Along with the other individuals in our situation.

Thanks for the details on the fate of those pesky “clunkers”, Aye. Specifics didn’t much matter to me as I knew they were rendered useless to the US for parts or resale. This is because the goal is not as much stimulus, but to make it difficult to own a vehicle that Obama doesn’t want us to drive. By either destroying them, and making parts unavailable, they will become extinct sooner. Ironic about the “outsourcing” to China. But then they may not be the only country that could have use for the parts.

To Larry’s latest late night monologue on Medicare…

What is great about Medicare, from both a provider’s and patient’s point of view, is that it’s a purely voluntary system.

Let’s consider that, for a moment. All this talk that a government insurance plan will drive private sector medicine out of existence, because it won’t be able to compete with the public plan. Well, that’s what we’ve got with Medicare. A public system which covers everyone.

No, Larry…. Medicare does not cover “everyone” and has minimal age criteria. But we are all paying for Medicare we cannot get until that age minimum with our FICA taxes with every paycheck. So technically, I’m paying for coverage I do not get, and the government is using it for others’ medical coverage. Have a private insurance policy, and you’re paying twice for coverage. Brillant. Only government can think this stuff up… the ol’ Ponzi schemes alive and well.

Larry cont’d: …. And also allows providers like me to set up parallel systems to compete with it. How do I compete? I offer a “concierge” service. It’s a more extensive service than available through Medicare providers. I provide my services to a lot of Medicare patients. Only I opted out of the Medicare system. Patients who want my services agree to pay for them.

Well now, Larry… since you’re on the other thread telling us how profitable it is as a facility who participates in Medicare, this seems quite the connundrum in your thought patterns and business decisions. I suggest that perhaps having reimbursement at “cost” is not so profitable at all, or else you’d be doing it. But here you are, telling us you make your patients who are covered by Medicare pay out of their pocket (or other means) because you refuse to participate in this “kick butt” system.

As I said, you tend to view Medicare from the patient’s aspect when you put the happy face on it, and not from the doctors’ or facilities. Both Aqua and I have provided you the same NY Times link showing you that more and more of the NY doctors are opting out. Early this month, ABC News… another liberal media outlet… reported on the same trend in AZ. Part of that article pointed out that Medicare has been experiencing cuts in reimbursements annually for over a decade, and the latest Congressional addition to the health care plan is another 10+% cut.

And according to a 2007 AMA survey of 8,955 physicians in the United States, 60 percent of doctors said they plan to limit the number of new Medicare patients and 40 percent of doctors said they plan to limit the number of established Medicare patients that they treat if Medicare payment rates are cut by 10 percent in 2008.

And because the Senate failed to block the latest reduction, this year’s Medicare cut of 10.6 percent has already taken effect — and an overwhelming majority of physicians contacted by ABC News say this will force them to either give up on Medicare patients altogether or limit the number of new Medicare patients they can treat.

Dr. Michael Aaron, who has been in rural practice in Weatherford, Okla., for 22 years, said this latest round of reimbursement cuts could be the last straw for his practice.

“I have not made up my mind completely about opting out of Medicare, but if the cuts really go through, I may not have any choice,” Aaron said. “We are operating on prices that have not changed since the 1980s.”

Moreover, Aaron identified a deeper problem: With fewer doctors accepting Medicare patients, more and more elderly and vulnerable patients are left with fewer and fewer healthcare options.

As a matter of fact I’m listening to a segment on the news about GPs, and a poll that says 70% of the Medicare participants are over extended, and 50% of them are considering leaving their enrollment behind.

So despite the personal colleagues you cite who you insist, unlike yourself, participate for a “profit” that does not exist, the trend is away from Medicare…. a program that is experiencing additional deep cuts in this plan. Yes, because of rising costs… none of which are addressed in this boondoggle health plan. But add to the rising costs, the rising population about to hit the system… from 21 mil to 78 mil.

This all brings me to your stubborn refusal to look ahead at this plan. Not Germany’s, Australia’s or Switzerland’s, but THIS plan. Unlike Medicare, it will be a government run program paying out of a trust fund which is created out of tax revenue from taxpayers.

The government run plan will reimburse for services at cost or less. A private insurer doesn’t get that discount. If you and I both had a landscaping business, and you paid out less for your supplies than I did, how long do you think I can compete against you before going bankrupt?

This healthcare plan is structured as step one to a single payer system. Period. If you can’t see that, then I’m disappointed in your economic savvy…. and I know that not to be true. So your stubborness at what is plain fact if you read the existing bills we’ve seen (not withstanding the back room changes and deals that we haven’t) is puzzling.

The final comment on the Medicare bit is you keep touting “voluntary”. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the “voluntary” bit is also being cast aside. Let me state this unequivocably. This bill *mandates* that employers provide insurance (whether public or private, as long as it’s still in existance) to their employees, or they are penalized based on the size of their payroll. It also penalizes any individual (i.e. self employed) that does not obtain coverage. That “voluntary” status goes away.

I certainly intend to take Medicare coverage the year I am eligible… providing it’s still around… because I’ve already paid for that with over 40 years of FICA contributions. Why wouldn’t I? But I’m not entirely sure that what we know as your “voluntary” coverage will be around in a couple of years. With the cuts happening, Medicare is as apt to be discarded along side private insurance.

………………..snip………………..

Now, for on topic. I personally have no judgment call against you for taking advantage of the CFC programs. While I disagree with it’s goal to make perfectly useable vehicles and parts obsolete and extinct (because they are deemed politically incorrect by enviro wackos), I can say it’s the only small percent of the stimulus out there that benefits the private sector (ala the car dealerships).

However considering only 6-7% of the ARRA funds have been appropriated, Obama running around saying the economy is improving because of his and Congressional spending is a lie that only an amoeba could accept as fact. Frankly, if the economy is getting better, it is because it’s a natural cycle for rebounding, and I want the rest of our ARRA money back and revoked.

* TRICARE for Life here for me. 28 Years Military Service, conditions of employment.
* I pay Cash in Full for vehicles here so banks do get my money but no interest for me. When they loan out my money they make a killing.
* Bail out Wall Street? Bullshit! A man with a briefcase can steal far more money than a man with a gun!
* All 40 of my Hands have Insurance, I pay half the premiums and ALL of the Co-pays,
Families included.
* I am rated at 40% Disabled by the Army & the VA. I sent my $250.00 “stimulus check” to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council for their schools in North Dakota. I consider that a tithe and not charity. I sent them six breed heifers and three bulls last Fall and will send more this Fall.
*ARRA is theft from the US Treasury on grand scale. Rape Pillage and Plunder of the Quality of Life of Your Nations next three generations to re-pay. Call it anything else and cross swords with me. Do the Math, Ladies & Gents. Borrowed money is a burden.
*I have not bought an Union made vehicle in the past four years because I refuse to feed the UAW by buying substandard products.
*An email to Max Baucus, my Senator, sent a week ago, “Spend any more borrowed money on Bullshit Programs and forget about my vote Buster. You will be off my Christmas card list!” He has had dinner at my table and has been fly fishing here at my place so He knows who I am.
*Any AARA Funds not spent by October 1 of this year should not be spent. Period. Tax Dollars to buy Votes was not the stated intent. Stop the Spending on crap now. What I pay in taxes would knock your lights out Larry. Enjoy your Mazda. I buy Nissan only now and they are American built but Non Union made. I order direct from the Canton, Ohio Plant and no Dealer gets a dime, No Union Political/Thugs/ Punks get a penny either. How about that?

Ok, now that I have half of this Forums panties in a wad, I’m off to fly fish for some rainbows & brownies that fry up fine and go well with Carlberg Elephant Lager, baked Idaho potatoes and fresh sliced tomatoes from my small garden here.

Happy Trails!

@ Old Trooper

I am rated at 40% Disabled by the Army & the VA. I sent my $250.00 “stimulus check” to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council for their schools in North Dakota. I consider that a tithe and not charity. I sent them six breed heifers and three bulls last Fall and will send more this Fall.

That’s pretty cool. I plan on making a trip out West maybe summer of 2011. I’ve always wanted to see the Blackfoot Rez in Browning. If I do and the invite is still open, I’m definitely popping by for a beer and a steak.

9 people here in Maine used the cash for clunkers program to purchase new Hummers.

@CML

I find that extremely hard to believe, unless they traded in something that uses considerably more fuel than a Hummer. (Like an RV or a commercial truck.) The Razor Hummer hybrid is not available. The new vehicle must get better gas mileage. Here are the rules:

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/

I’m against the “Cash for Clunkers” program, as it is a waste of money that could be better used or not spent at all. Why should the rest of us pay to subsidize someone who can afford to buy a new car.

Our local tv station did a report on the story and asked the same question. How was that supposedly allowed?

They did a segment on the Hummers being sold this morning, saying one of the Hummer models gets 14 city and 18 highway.

Unrelated to the cash for clunkers program; every Chrysler employee that took the buyout got a $25,000 certificate to purchase a new Chrysler product, plus, they got to green sheet it. Daughter’s friend just got a new Rubicon, no job so plenty of time this summer to enjoy it.

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

Sounds like a great program to me.

/ sarc