tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3294580951502585066.post2098707482522665339..comments2023-10-18T19:32:44.252-07:00Comments on It's just my opinion, I could be wrong: Entirely predictable result transpiresNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05587036619182019599noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3294580951502585066.post-54572215422306223082009-10-02T08:37:19.630-07:002009-10-02T08:37:19.630-07:00Hoocoodanode?
The worst part of the plan is the...Hoocoodanode? <br /><br />The worst part of the plan is they paid people money to trash perfectly useable morots. In some places in the world those cars would have worth a year's pay. Those cars could have meant a lot to many people in the US. A big part of protecting the environment is re-using things if you can and not throwing stuff away and manufacturing more crap. And if you want to mfr crap, mfr products like bicycles that don't trash the environment. The gov't subsidized people to trash motors and buy new ones. I don't care how much more efficient the new cars are, trashing working products is not good for the environment. <br /><br />BTW, the housing thing is already having repercussions: rents are falling b/c the credit is targeted to 1st time homebuyers who would otherwise rent. Economists say if we want to keep housing expensive, we need to pay people who are currently living together to move into separate housing, either rented or owned. In the end, gov't can't keep fuel cheap or housing expensive. I'm hoping the American Dream is just fine. All this tinkering is just a pain in the neck. <br /><br />I'm still amazed by the rebate for trashing cars. Nothing that starts with "we need to subsidize manufacturing of cars" is good for the environment.CJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05824987036580158137noreply@blogger.com