Posted on 08/07/2009 7:54:06 AM PDT by upchuck
Thought you be interested in this roll call vote on Sen. Tom Coburn’s proposal to allow traded-in Cash-for-Clunkers cars to be used to assist charities and poor families. Here’s the text of the proposal.
[Amendment, quickly: The clunkers, instead of being destroyed, could be donated to charitable organizations]
Here's the breakdown
Oh, sorry, that's right, Liberalism (and RINOism) is a mental disease.
Can’t we just kick Collins (”R”-ME) out of the party? The senate vote count would remain the same.
The scrap has already been promised to China. Or so I’ve heard....
Tom Coburn is doing a nice job of forcing them to go on-record with their stupidity
I heard the maximum income for the clunker rebate was 50,000 - anyone know if this is true. Also, you must have owned the car for one year so you cannot just get a junker and trade it in.
Anyone who thinks this governmental rush toward socialism is about anything other than its members helping themselves and their cronies to taxpayer dollars is kidding themselves.
The existance of charities interferes with Obama’s objective to maximize voter dependence on government.
This amendment, makes a LOT of sense. the HONORABLE United States Senate vote does NOT make any sense. Time to get rid fo the PORK HOGS.
Voinovich has long struck me as slightly brighter than Boxer and Murray.
I wish we could. Snowe and flutter foot Linsdey Grahamensty also. Although Pandsey did vote for this. Every once in a while he screws up and votes correctly. I bet he wishes he could have a do over.
Nope. We make more than 50k and traded a true clunker in on Tuesday. It IS true that the car needs to be insured and titled by the same person for one year to be eligible.
Any ammendment to the House passed bill would have killed the bill until at least September when the recess is over, so all ammendments, even the good ones, had to be voted down. Maybe when they renew it again, God forbid!
I believe that was another amendment that was shot down yesterday.
some and the others...get rid of them.
Absolutely it makes sense! But we KNOW there are all kinds of dirty dealings behind this plan which would “prevent” these cars going to charities.
We MUST get these polluting gas hogs off the road at any cost, and “save the environment” (and GM, too) by producing more NEW cars.
BTW, while we’re “saving the environment,” the “environmental cost” to produce NEW cars takes appx. 8-10 to make up vs. just keeping the used cars on the road. Let’s not forget the used parts that will now have to be OEM.
Why do Collins, Snowe and Voinovich still have an (R) by their name? Who do they think they are kidding? Did they mark the wrong box on some form somewhere?
My understanding is that if they vote YEA on any of these amendments, the bill has to go back to the House, which is in recess. So the GOP are making the DEMs vote No on these things, when basically what the DEMs are trying to avoid is sending the bill back to the House, where it would languish for August and then who knows what. Pretty funny stunt by the GOP. I don’t have a problem with it.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K29uSDoR7ww
“$2B approved for Cash For Clunkers”
Video description - Quote:
Subscribe
wwlp
August 06, 2009
New Live for Cash For clunkers. With a 60-to-37 vote, the Senate Thursday night infused the popular rebate program with another two-billion dollars, allowing the car-buying incentive program to last at least until Labor Day.
Category: News & Politics
Tags: cash for clunkers senate approval david foley northampton cars sale
IMHO, this amendment would undermine the real intention of C4C, which is to maximize the destruction of capital assets and decimate the supply of affordable used cars. To be sure, if C4C only destroys only $3B worth of vehicles, that would fall about an order of magnitude short of truly decimating the supply, but since the program is a "success" I would count on the Democrats to push for its expansion (e.g. to cars making under 24mpg). Further, I would expect that even destroying 1% of what would otherwise be affordable used cars would have a significant effect on the market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.