As we noted earlier in July, over 100,000 buyers had put their purchase on hold waiting for the Cash for Clunkers to launch. Is it any wonder that showrooms filled and the government servers crashed when this backlog of buyers rushed to finalize their purchase?

Secondly, last week we published an analysis showing that in any given month 60,000 to 70,000 “clunkerlike” deals happen with no government program in place. In other words, the 200,000-plus deals the government was originally prepared to fund were barely above the “natural” clunker trade-in rate.

Clearly, the sales frenzy of last week was inevitable. In fact, students of economic theory will quickly recognize the dynamics of a classic shortage. We have taken three to four months of normal activity and caused them to occur over a few days, as consumers rushed to not miss out.

I note the Republicans proposed a Federal Income Tax holiday as an alternative to the bloated, corruption and payoff-ridden Spendulus the Democrats passed. If the government handing out money to bribe people to buy cars many of them would have bought anyway was such a great idea because it “stimulated” consumer-spending, why was it such a bad idea to have a more broad-based consumer spending incentive?

The tax holiday would have cost less, deficit-wise, too.

Wrong.

NONE OF THE VERSIONS resembles in any way, shape or form, the socialized system that exists in Britain. No one, not even the Dennis Kuciniches of the world, is advocating for that – thats zero support – a very long way from a majority.

You lied, Tano, and now you’re trying to backpedal to cover up your lies.

The reason your leftist hate party wants “single-payer” is obvious; it gives you the capability to take trillions of dollars in cash from working American citizens and give them worthless IOUs that you don’t have to actually fulfill later — while channeling cash and fat checks to people like Kevin Johnson, the Obama supporter and criminal who was caught massively misusing Federal money, or to Obama’s criminal aunt.

No, right now we have the practice where Barack Obama steals from honest and hardworking people to reward criminals like his illegal immigrant aunt, who gets health care, subsidized housing, and fat welfare checks so that she can make contributions to his campaign.

And as for why Barack Obama is called a black thug, that’s what you call a man who whines and screams to his supporters demanding that they get up in peoples’ faces, that they punch them twice as hard, that they use their elbows, and who sends goon squads of union thugs to go beat up and throw racial epithets at black conservatives.

Why do you support Barack Obama’s call for violence, thug Tano?

Because, Tano, your Obama Party constantly blames the cost of health care on uninsured people being sicker and using the emergency room excessively because they have no “preventative care”.

If you really were the curious type, you might try to run the numbers, and realize that in many cases – it is far cheaper to subsidize someone to get good routine care, and solve problems when they are minor, than to pay for that emergency room and intensive care stay – something that can chew up in one week a sum equal to years of routine care.

Of course, when the facts are shown to you — that people on your Obamacare Plan already use the emergency room twice as often as the uninsured — you start spinning and babbling about how the uninsured really aren’t sicker or poorer.

Also, your “population” argument is hilarious. You would expect Medicare to have a sicker population than Medicaid, given that Medicare covers senior citizens and Medicaid covers on average people who are much younger, yet Medicare recipients use the emergency room half as often as Medicaid members. Meanwhile, you still haven’t explained why people on what you consider awful private insurance, rather than your perfect Obamacare Plans, have a quarter the number of emergency room visits.

Meanwhile, your lies about “preventative care” have already been blown up by facts — which you, being an Obama shill, completely ignore.

As I noted above, Medicaid patients are poorer and sicker than the uninsured, not the other way around. THat should be obvious.
That is why Medicaid recipients end up in the hospital more often than the uninsured, and much more often than the relatively healthy general population of insured.
It really isnt so complicated if you actually try to understand the world, instead of fishing around for isolated statistics that you can cram into your bitter, angry narrative.

And whats with your constant repetition of “black” thug? You got a problem or something?

As you can tell from the article you linked, the 80 or so Dems who prefer a single payer (which makes 25% of the House, just as I said), managed to convince Pelosi to give them a vote on their plan – which is NOT part of any plan under consideration in the 5 committees, and will NOT be part of any consensus bill or conference committee. Its a feel-good vote which is bound to lose by 340-80 or something like that.
As everyone has known all along that it would, which is why single payer has never been part of any real discussion.

Where do you get this silly idea that the uninsured, as a class, are poorer and sicker than Medicaid recipients? You are just making that up, then trying to leverage your silliness into an argument.
Medicaid exists for the explicit purpose of providing health care to those who are in the most desparate financial shape.

THe uninsured include people too “well off” for Medicaid (which doesnt take much) but still poor. It also includes people who are too sick to get insurance under present underwriting policies.

But the uninsured also include many young people who are healthy and relatively well-off – but who force all of us to pay for their huge medical costs if and when they get into a terrible accident, or get some unexpected grave illness.
The uninsured also consist of a lot of people who have lost their insurance because they were laid off, or their employer decided to stop providing insurance as a benefit. These people also represent a potential drain on the rest of us when they need expensive care.
But both groups also tend to lose all thier own resources first -so they get wiped out, and then make demands on the rest of us.

As long as you have a society in which there seems to be a moral consensus that we are not going to let people die in the streets, but will treat them, then there really needs to be universal participation in insurance. Otherwise we continue the practice of today where some rip off the rest of us, either willfully, or because they cant get/afford insurance.

There are 5 versions of healthcare reform making their way through the committees in Congress. The final bill will be some amalgam of those 5. None of them have anything close to a single payer system.

The lying Tano troll is caught again.

He also got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to agree to allow a full House vote on the single-payer reform that more than 85 House Democrats have endorsed.

Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-New York, worked with Waxman to get the deal on single-payer and declared a sort of victory Friday, saying that: “Single-payer is a better plan and now it is on center stage. Americans have a clear choice. Their Member of Congress will have a simpler, less expensive and smarter bill to choose. I am thrilled that the Speaker is giving us that choice.”

Your Obama Party is BRAGGING about its single-payer bill. Your Obama Party is pushing your single-payer bill for a vote. I have sources and links that prove it and yet you sit here and try to lie to me about it.

You are spoken to like a child, Tano, because that’s what you are; a lying, spoiled brat of a child who thinks it can lie to adults with impunity and force us into doing your bidding with screaming temper tantrums, just like your Obama does.

Wrongo, silly boy; you see, according to the leftist rhetoric, the uninsured are the poorest and sickest, since they can’t afford insurance AND allegedly have no “preventative care”. Yet they are visiting the emergency room half as often as those on Obamacare.

And also, what did you say above about “preventative care”?

If you really were the curious type, you might try to run the numbers, and realize that in many cases – it is far cheaper to subsidize someone to get good routine care, and solve problems when they are minor, than to pay for that emergency room and intensive care stay

Which Medicaid does — and, in return, has a rate of emergency-room visits TWICE that of the uninsured, who supposedly are even poorer and sicker, and FOUR TIMES that of the privately-insured.

You are completely lying, Tano, and that’s no surprise; your black thug Obama teaches you to lie.

Also, Tano, you are a cowardly fool, given that you seemingly have nothing to say about the PROOF provided you above of how Obama Party “single-payer” plans are telling people to commit suicide rather than pay for chemotherapy and how your Obama Party is pushing for “single-payer”. But then again, we don’t expect a troll like yourself who supports the black thug Obama to do any differently.

As far as no one understanding the legislation… just quoting John Conyers.

It occurs to me that you might be right in one respect – providers will remain in the private sector. The reason for this is that the tort bar (major Democrat donor base) has to have targets. Once hospitals, doctors, and nurses are put on the federal payroll, who would the lawyers sue?

You want to be sarcastic, but you end up being accurate. It is a fevered hallucination. In the real world there is a Congress, accoutable, to some extent, to the people. Given the level of support for a single payer system in the Congress (probably about 25% maximum), everyone has known, since the beginning of this process, that a single payer system was simply not going to happen. It has been officially “off the table” all along.

Obama has stated how, in a fantasy land where one could simply start over from scratch, he would be for such a system. But in very next sentence he acknowledges that in the real world, that simply will not fly. Which is why he never campaigned for a single payer, and why he stated explicitly all along that it was not under consideration.

There are 5 versions of healthcare reform making their way through the committees in Congress. The final bill will be some amalgam of those 5. None of them have anything close to a single payer system.

THis is a total red herring.
As are the long list of other things that “you see” in these bills.

“I doubt there’s anyone who understands the entire thing”

There are plenty of people who understand the damn thing. These issues have been argued and debated for decades. Its not like someone just up and started to write something de novo, and didnt stop until they had 1000 pages. THere is not a single provision in there that hasnt been argued to death by people interested in policy.

Just because you and your fellow conservatives are new to the game, have only been paying attention since Rush and Glen have started talking about the issue (I’m kinda joking there,,,,,,kinda), doesnt mean that everyone else is in the same boat.

Um, OK, try this, Tardo. Lower income people depend on the used vehicle market for their transportation. If perfectly serviceable used cars are being *destroyed* because of government edict, then what economic literates call the “supply” of used cars becomes smaller, thus making the prices for used cars higher than they would have been otherwise.

My guess is, about six months from now, we’re going to see another “economic benefit” to the cash for clunkers program… in the repo business.

And my challenge to Tardo to identify the party in charge of Congress when the budgets of FY2008 and FY2009 were written, and to describe what happened to federal deficits in those two budgets, alas, remains unanswered.

In my fevered hallucinations, I see a government-run single-payer system because that’s what the Democrats have said over and over. I know politicians lie and dissemble but, in this case, I take them at their word.

I also see a giant government bureaucracy that determines who gets what healthcare based on various diversity quotas (the framework is in the bill). I see government involvement in who gets to practice what and where – the same government that so effectively runs . I see political influence in allocation on resources (ACORN). I government officials exempting themselves and favored constituencies. I see another open-ended entitlement for anyone who makes it across the border.

I see K Street lobbyists and their rent-seeking corporate clients manipulating the system to direct lucrative contracts this way and that with total disregard for need and effectiveness. Due to the size of the program (300 million patients), it will make Pentagon procurement look like the model of efficiency and frugality.

Again, why don’t we try some simple and basic reforms before turning over the whole shebang to Ma’am Boxer, Henry Waxman, and an unaccountable bureaucracy where we have no recourse?

Why don’t you acknowledge the magnitude of existing liabilities (the $55 trillion); the fact the government always fails to project the actual costs of programs (on purpose… they could get these things through if people knew what the true costs are).

The Waxman bill is here: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

It’s more than 1,000 pages of legislative gobbledygook and I doubt there’s anyone who understands the entire thing. If passed, the 1,000 pages will morph into many thousands of pages or regulation (like the tax code).

Your second point makes no sense. How are you depriving the used car market of a vehicle (by participating in CfC and thus destroying Dante) when you would otherwise not have sold at all?

It did no such thing. It only forced him to spend money fixing a window that he otherwise could have spent on some other economic activity; buying shoes, or purchasing materials for his shop. It’s result was not stimulus, but inefficiency.

Ok, trying again.

C4C:
1) I have a paid off, fully functional ’99 Ford Ranger. He’s eligible for C4C. If I were dumb enough to trade him off, I get a 4500 credit on a 20-30k vehicle. So I’ve now gained 15-25K debt.

2) I bought Dante (above truck) used in 2002. If I were to turn him in for 15-25K debt, he’ll be destroyed. Because of this, I’m depriving the market of a used car that can be sold for a profit to a new driver or a driver who can’t afford a new car. Thus C4C is causing lasting ripples in the market for used cars.

3) Lets say I was an idiot. Now lets say I was a liberal, but I repeat myself. If I were to let Dante be scrapped for 15-25K of debt, the auto dealership is happy, the loan company is happy. Time Warner isn’t happy (I’ve had to drop down to basic cable and internet) Paizo isn’t happy (I’ve had to drop my RPG subscriptions, denying them about $75 a month) local restaurants aren’t happy, since I can’t eat out. My association isn’t happy since I can’t make repairs as fast as they’d prefer. Jonah Goldberg makes the argument better than I can here.

The other difference, Tano, is the purchase of F22s (which aren’t useless, unless you’re planning to abandon allies around the world, like the current administration seems to want to do) is something the constitution allows. C4C? Not so much.