Dave Ramsey Show on the Cash For Clunkers

Fox News, Dave Ramsey Show on the Cash For Clunkers program.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• cash
• for
• clunkers
• fox
• news
• bad
• idea
• used
• cars
• dave
• ramsey
• show

[orangefiona1]

besides, your sight distance is more limited at night as opposed to daytime. also I want to make a comment, seeing as how today is July 31 and tomorrow we start a new month (August) I am working on the monthly budget as advised by Mr. Ramsey. Live within your means and get on a plan America, stop living like everything's okay! Save more, spend less! not rocket science!!!

[orangefiona1]

@ir10031981 good point, driving slower at night is ideal and common sense, it's safer at 65, and you'll require a shorter stopping distance as opposed to higher speeds.

[ir10031981]

I have a solution....example: Texas, when the night time speed limit gets phased out in September, continue driving 65 mph at night like we still have to in July and August 2011. (still in place) instead of driving 70, 75, or even 80. You'll get better gas mileage @65 than @70-80, and keep your tires properly inflated, I recommend 34-35 lbs. per square inch.

[ir10031981]

it's hard to live on minimum wage even here in the conservative state of Texas. When you're raking in less than $25,000 a year, it's tough on relationships. Men: Try explaining to your girlfriend or wife about why you and her should live frugally and budget and at some point she might snap.

[jebenn23]

I've lost all faith in this country. I know the GOP only cares about the billionaires but this cash for clunkers thing was just to continue the buy stuff we cant afford to make the big corporations rich. Obama has done little to prove hes muc different than Bush.

[onionofdeath]

This also destroyed the cars that we broke people could have afforded, leaving us with cars we COULDN'T afford. The government officials who come up with this BS are STUPIDLY ambitious. The don't STOP and THINK about the ramifications of their ideas. Or maybe they do, and then continue because playing robin hood can keep them (unfortunately) employed.

[pilatech]

nothing to do with this. This is an objective mathematical fact. What makes your world view zany and resulted in my describing your thought processes as mental masturbation was your failure to recognize this fact, and further to explicitly dispute it.

Sorry but when someone throws around words like socialist and communist as meaningless terms to justify not liking one thing but being okay with another, and as a result comes back with 3+3 = 6 but 1+2+3 = 5, I don't know what else to call it.

[pilatech]

@phippsed

Under the second scenario they have 78k - 20k they spent on their car which is 58k which is 6k less than 64k.

that's the whole point we're comparing the product of a car to the product of a booster club donation which I admitted is less tangible and clearly more people probably want cars than their favorite college football team to do well, but again, that's not the point. I never said cash for clunkers had anything to do with taxes, I agree it was a stupid program, but that has

[phippsed]

@pilatech

That is not how cash for clunkers works. Its not a tax deduction it is a 4,500 dollar subsidy. If you were buying a car that costs 16K the government covers the first 4,500 and you pay 11,500. It has nothing to do with taxes. If that was how cash for clunkers works then of course I would agree with you. Now perfectly good cars are being destroyed. People are being encouraged to buy cars they can't afford and the debt is soaring.

[phippsed]

@pilatech

So when you were talking about mental masturbation and zany (reality based) world views. What was that? Reasoned discourse apparently. Sorry I'm not as classy as you are. Under the first scenario the person has a net income of 78K (100-22). Under the second scenario their net income is 64k (80-16). THey dont have an extra 6K. They may have payed 6k less in taxes but their net income is still lower and that is what really matters.