Well, not really 300 million. You have government folks - obviously they do not deserve to be forced into this program. Then you have old folks who don't deserve hardly any care at all since they'll be worm food soon. Then there's meat eaters who contribute to global warming - no sense helping them live longer lives. I bet you could trim that to 100 million people pretty easily. And sooner or later we will have to ration care. You can't give something away for nothing and not run out. Won't that be wonderful? A political process deciding whether you get healthcare? Pretty funny that libtards worry about the feds listening in on their conversations overseas but have no worries about them deciding who gets care and who doesn't.
The program is suspended and not canceled. They knew that something was up when the EPA numbers were revised to thin the herds. Apparently the herd was still too big to feed. as for the health care, I just watch frontline's take on it. They presented health care systems in England, Japan, Taiwan, Germany and Switzerland. Needless to say, they all have better systems put in place which cost less and covers everybody.
Hey, you forgot the 50 million who will simply flee the country. If we have Europe's health care system (this bill proposes one worse than Europes, but never mind. Who's going to read it anyway?), we should at least expect Europe's brain drain. Yep. Liberals are so terrified of Republicans but Republicans have run the government 50% of the time historically, which means they'll be running health care about half the time. Suddenly, no abortions for anyone. ...and we'll get you that check for your clunker in about 10 years when inflation has had a chance to eat up a nice chunk of it. Great
You mean O"dumb"a didn't appoint a clunker czar to manage this? Oh wait, apparently he did, and that's why it's already going down the shitter, along with health care reform, and everything else. These big spending, liberal douche bags should enjoy their majorities in Congress, because they are going to get their asses handed to them in 2010, and especially in the 2012 presidential election.
Clearly they need to walk this back and recalibrate the program. Perhaps they can call it "Beer For Clunkers"!
The problem was this was putting money in the hands of regular consumers, and not the fat cats. It just amazes me that the last two administrations have done everything to stimulate the economy but put resources directly in to the pockets of those who will spend them and not hoard them. See China's stimulus package...
Before resorting to pathetic hostility and whiny pedantry perhaps you could ask your daughter for critical thinking lessons. I understand the article perfectly well. I also understand that the stated reason, ostensibly provided (anonymously) by government, is asinine. If they wanted to they could fund this with another billion or another 10 billion, immediately, and provide whatever guarantees necessary to dealers. Money is not the issue here, with this congress and administration. Hence the question of what is the real issue here.