PDA

View Full Version : Oppose the "Cash for Clunkers" Bill!



Jeeperz-Creeperz
December 29th, 2008, 01:58 PM
To view this email as a web page, please follow this link (http://echo.bluehornet.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=225507030b061c60787f7d9585b00e5c&CID=1423132913&ch=EDFAB8F8F367DD3AE783484C57389390)

http://echo.bluehornet.com/cimages/b84e9ff442eead04d94a61a8f0ef07f2/07_Leg_Header.gif (http://echo.bluehornet.com/ct/2726341:1423132913:m:1:57908255:EDFAB8F8F367DD3AE7 83484C57389390)
Oppose Federal “Cash for Clunkers” Program
Washington lawmakers are drafting a large economic stimulus package to help create jobs and rebuild infrastructure. They want to include a nationwide scrappage program which would give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in older cars to have them crushed, as a misguided attempt to spur new car sales. The lawmakers need to scrap this idea.
The stimulus package is being drafted right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants to introduce the bill on January 6 and have it approved by Congress by January 20, so that President Obama can sign it into law after he is inaugurated.

Contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi IMMEDIATELY To Oppose Cash for Clunkers!
Call: 202/225-0100
Click here to send an electronic message: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/ (http://echo.bluehornet.com/ct/2726342:1423132913:m:1:57908255:EDFAB8F8F367DD3AE7 83484C57389390) _________________________________________
Talking Points
Oppose the Use of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars for Cash for Clunkers
• I am [calling/writing] to urge lawmakers not to include a “Cash for Clunkers” provision in the economic stimulus bill. Owners who turn in vehicles for crushing would receive a "minimal" payment to purchase a new car. This is a misguided attempt to spur car sales and claim that the country’s air quality or fleet fuel mileage is being improved.

• I work for [company name] located in [city and state]. My company is part of the specialty automotive industry, an industry which enables consumers to enhance their vehicle’s appearance, performance, comfort, convenience and safety. “Cash for Clunkers” programs deny our small businesses the availability of older cars necessary to develop and market their products and services. The programs will hurt my company and our customers.

• “Cash for Clunkers” programs threaten enthusiasts nationwide with the loss of valuable parts and parts-cars for repair, restoration, and customization projects. The programs also risk destroying classic, historic and special-interest vehicles, our American heritage.

• Cars turned in for scrappage often barely run, or are rarely-driven second or third vehicles that have a minimal impact on overall fuel economy or emissions.

• “Cash for Clunkers” programs will reduce the availability of affordable transportation and repair parts used by low-income drivers. It will also compete with the Salvation Army, the Purple Heart and other charities that rely on vehicle donations to raise money.

• “Cash for Clunkers” ignores better policy options. If Congress wants to act, support for repair and upgrade is a better choice and a win-win for consumers, dealers, manufacturers and repair shops. Significant emissions and fuel economy improvements can be achieved in older vehicles through relatively simple and inexpensive means: repaired/replaced exhaust systems, tune-ups, etc.

• We hope we can count on you to reject “Cash for Clunkers.” Thank you for your consideration on this very important matter.
Please send a quick note and/or a copy of your message to Speaker Pelosi to:
E-mail: briand@sema.org
Fax: 202/783-6024

cc
December 29th, 2008, 02:38 PM
Why is this a GLFWDA announcement?

Jeeperz-Creeperz
December 29th, 2008, 03:03 PM
Why is this a GLFWDA announcement?

Do you really not understand the impact this could have?

cc
December 29th, 2008, 04:37 PM
Well, I see both sides.

It's bad for mechanics

and its great for anybody employeed by an automaker or supplier.

Please go research the wonderful boost to the economy this same program did in europe 15 years ago. I know this effects you as a business person, but I do not see how this effects GLFWDA or the wheeling community.

Jeeperz-Creeperz
December 29th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Well, I see both sides.

It's bad for mechanics

and its great for anybody employees by an automaker or supplier.

Please go research the wonderful boost to the economy this same program did in europe 15 years ago. I know this effects you as a business person, but I do not see how this effects GLFWDA or the wheeling community.

I'm sure it would be a boost to the economy - from those that could afford it.

What if you couldn't own a vehicle older than 10 years? How would that effect your wheeling?

This is just the beginning. Why do people get all worked up about their guns, but not about anything else the government wants to take away?

cc
December 29th, 2008, 04:53 PM
No where is it forcing people to trade in a vehicle. It's simply giving people the chance to stimulate the economy via giving a cash incentive for purchasing a new vehicle, and at the same time removing an older, usually less safe, less efficient vehicle. I think a lot of people could use that cash incentive for a down payment on a new car.

Its just like the cash for guns things many cities do. Saying the government will take all old cars is like saying if the gov't offers cash for guns, they're going to force everybody to turn them in.

I think this is a MUCH better idea then simply giving bailout funds to the banks when in turn they choose not to even loan out the money.

No matter what SEMA says, you can't make a 1992 car as efficient as a 2009 model.

Jeeperz-Creeperz
December 29th, 2008, 06:00 PM
I didn't say this was forcing people to sell their cars.

I'm not arguing fuel efficiency.

I agree with you on the bailout.

My point is that this is just the beginning. Call me a doom-sayer or whatever, but the government is too large and wants too much control. Give them an inch and they'll take everything you have (and make you pay for it to boot).

JerryD
December 30th, 2008, 11:32 AM
But shouldn't this be in the general chatter section rather than the "events, news and announcements' section? It's related to GLFWDA business and interests in a tangential way, but does not have a direct impact on land use issues, etc.

The same goes for an announcement on CAFE standards or news on the auto bailouts... of general interest to many forum members I assume, but not having a direct impact on association business.

:unsure: ??

Rattler
December 30th, 2008, 05:16 PM
Hmm. It wouldn't be the worst if it was only for MI. I can see the dismissal of a 1989 Pontiac 6000LE not hurting anything but its when the people out west or down south start taking in all the semi-useful, rust-free cars that us northerners would kill for like Camaros, Mustangs, etc.

Maybe they need a car-guy appraiser or something.

Stan
December 31st, 2008, 03:13 AM
Whats with all the deleted posts?

WhiteRhino
December 31st, 2008, 07:38 AM
Whats with all the deleted posts?

x2
I thought the deleted posts added some clarification and thought provoking points.:confused:

cc
December 31st, 2008, 11:29 AM
Whats with all the deleted posts?

x2.

Can somebody please restore them?

Jeeperz-Creeperz
December 31st, 2008, 01:27 PM
Whats with all the deleted posts?


x2
I thought the deleted posts added some clarification and thought provoking points.:confused:


x2.

Can somebody please restore them?

Restored.... although I see no clarification or thought provocation..... After moving the post out of the "Events, News, and Announcements" forum the posts really don't have any relevance any more.

oz97tj
December 31st, 2008, 02:55 PM
Maybe it's just me, but general discussion shouldn't be deleted, even if it is two opposing thoughts.

As long as the discussion is kept rational then I don't see a need to delete.

Am I wrong?

Jeeperz-Creeperz
December 31st, 2008, 03:00 PM
Maybe it's just me, but general discussion shouldn't be deleted, even if it is two opposing thoughts.

As long as the discussion is kept rational then I don't see a need to delete.

Am I wrong?

If the general discussion were about the merits of the original post, instead of the forum it was posted in.

The discussion on this seems to lean more towards which forum it should have been posted in rather than discussing the post itself.