Sunday, August 9, 2009

NEWS COMMENTATING (2nd Post Today -- See Ann'y Post Below )

Awww! The Blade's Roberta de Boer is not writing her column anymore? She was easy to read and easy to understand --mean as dirt to Finkbeiner --I have no idea if he deserved it. When people are too vitriolic it makes me question the legitimacy of their view! And of course, she used to write like a mud-rake in her bias for all things liberal. And she first won my heart (NOT) when she showed a fascination and approval for the local "witches"--back when U.T. was letting that same "witch" lecture at the U. But Roberta did acknowledge that she felt less "certain" in her views nowdays. That's a good thing. Sounds like maturity!

And what's with this Cash for Clunkers??? I can't believe they are taking cars that work to the junk yard. This is going to save the planet from gas-guzzlers --while China more than makes up for diminishing noxious fumes in the U.S. ? I don't think so. I wouldn't mind the idea of rebates for new cars to help the auto industry and to phase out the gas guzzlers --to stimulate buying cars --but why not give the not-really-clunky, so-called gas guzzlers to the needy who have no way to look for or get to a job --if they could find one? There is going to be great criticism of this program in the future, when we realize we could've helped the poor have working cars with this program instead of stupidly junking those cars.

As for gas guzzlers, explain this to me: according to the car ads today, you can get a rebate for a new Dodge RAM 4x4 that only gets 15 mpg!!!!! Meanwhile, if you buy a car with better mileage than the one you drive, they'll pay you to JUNK that car --and it may get better than 15 mpg!!! What's wrong with this picture???? Give those cars to the needy! I've always said that the best way to help the poor would be to get them transportation to job interviews and jobs. It is so difficult for the poor to have a car --much less maintain one --but I've had friends who desperately needed them --even if they ran them into the junk yard eventually through their ineptitude --or lack of fix-it cash.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


steve said...

My take on the thing is that the whole purpose of the C4C's is to increase the US agrigage fuel efficiancy in a big way. Because unfortunately Oil is, and will remain for some time, the lifeblood of our economy. The biggest way the Gov can reduce our Oil dependency is to subtly move consumers to more efficiant modes of transportation. Oil prices will hopefully remain affordable in the mid term as we gear up for a petroleum-less future. The oil is only going to last about another thirty years.. party's over folks.

Barb said...

So why initiate a stupid program--that subsidizes with our tax dollars the purchase of a 15 mpg truck while destroying a 17 mpg minivan in exchange for purchasing and subsidized 19 mpg Flex --as my relatives might do?

that 17 mpg minivan would be a Godsend to a needy family. But we'll destroy it.

This is a stupid stupid poorly thought out plan --I haven't felt this scornful about much else gov't has done.

The plan would be better if they let the 15 mpg drivers trade in for the traded in cars with better mileage-- Everybody trading upward in mpg--but no cars being destroyed. Ultimately, the effect would be the same --but we might see more people able to work because we helped them get a car --even an older, cheaper car.

steve said...

Probably pressured by the Automotive industry. I agree that the legislation should have been more aggressive in it's mpg standards. But it probably wound up a compromise between competing interests.. the auto lobby / energy lobby / environmental lobby / UAW.. ect..