Gretchen Carlson's "crack research" is a clunker
On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that through her "own crack research" on the cash for clunkers program, which included spending "a tremendous amount of time on this yesterday finding out information," she determined that in "Minnesota, so far only two of these deals have actually been approved by the government." However, several media outlets have reported that, according to a survey by the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association, out of 7,500 consumers who participated in the program, approximately 2 percent of transactions have been approved.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the August 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: By the way, I did my own crack research yesterday, spent a tremendous amount of time on this yesterday finding out information. In my home state of Minnesota, so far only two of these deals have actually been approved --
DOOCY: That's all?
CARLSON: -- by the government.
DOOCY: Wow.
CARLSON: Two in the entire state of Minnesota. And then you wonder about whether or not these dealers feel like they're going to get their money from the government. Not so sure.
Minnesota media and NY Times: Cash for clunkers program has approved approximately 2 percent of transactions, not "only two"
NBC-affiliate KARE-11 in Minneapolis: "[T]wo percent of those transactions have been approved." "On Monday afternoon, the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association released new numbers that suggest 7,500 Minnesota consumers have purchased a 'cash for clunkers' vehicle. Despite a computer system set up to streamline the application process and expedite payment, just two percent of those transactions have been approved, which is basically a government assurance that the program discount will be covered." [kare11.com; 8/4/09]
Minnesota Public Radio: "2 percent of those transactions have received federal approval." "A survey by the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association says that about 7,500 Minnesotans have taken advantage of the program so far. But the survey also says only 2 percent of those transactions have received federal approval, and 8 percent have been rejected, presumably for technical reasons, though dealers are resubmitting them." [Minnesota Public Radio; 8/3/09]
New York Times: "[L]ess than 2 percent of those transactions have gained final approval." "The clunkers deal has been a double-edged sword for Minnesota car dealers. About 7,500 consumers bought new cars under the incentive, but so far, less than 2 percent of those transactions have gained final approval, according to a new survey by the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association." [NY Times; 8/3/09]
From the August 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: I'm not sure on its face that this program really is all that it was billed to be, because how much energy does it actually take --
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): It's a bailout.
CARLSON: Well, not only that, but I'm talking about the environmental aspects of it. I mean, how much do you really save in energy when you take a tremendous amount of energy to do what this video is showing you right here, which is destroy the car, which apparently didn't get that much better gas mileage than the one that was purchased.
DOOCY: That's a nice Volvo.
CARLSON: And then all those cars are going to go to a junkyard, so what does that do to the environment? Not to mention that now dealers have stopped offering this deal as of yesterday because the Senate decided not to pass, or take on that $2 billion infusion of money, so dealers are left on the hook -- "Hey, if I'm not going to get my $4,500 per car from the government, I'm not going to continue to do these sales."
By the way, I did my own crack research yesterday, spent a tremendous amount of time on this yesterday finding out information. In my home state of Minnesota, so far only two of these deals have actually been approved --
DOOCY: That's all?
CARLSON: -- by the government.
DOOCY: Wow.
CARLSON: Two in the entire state of Minnesota. And then you wonder about whether or not these dealers feel like they're going to get their money from the government. Not so sure.
"When you make something for one cent and sell it for three cents, every idiot out there knows that that 2 per cent really adds up."
Gretchen, get a clue or change hair dye..your brand must be causing brain damage.
Inasmuch as most of what is presented on FOX NEWS as "fact" comes to us via one of the cavities of the current teleprompter reader, I must commend Gretchen for being so honest about where she did her research.
Seriously, how do these people zipper their own pants in the morning? They're redoubtably stupid.
Are the Republicans and their bobbleheads nuts?
The Cash for Clunkers program is wildly successful. The public loves it, the automakers love it, the car dealers love it and it seems only the Republicans don't.
I can't believe a vibrant and growing political party would even attempt to call this program a failure when all the evidence points in the other direction.
Of course, with only 19 percent support in the polls, the Republicans might simply be opting for bitter loser status instead of legitimate party status.
Constructive opposition is one thing, but opposition for the sake of opposition alone is a sure path to single digit support.
Just another example of you are completely detached from reality.
The extra funding for the program approved by the House comes from the economic stimulus package already passed. It won't require a new infusion of public funds.
When the primary goal is to stimulate the economy, I don't see how demand for the program beyond expectations can be seen as anything but a success.
LET 'EM FAIL
Providing stimulus to the auto industry provides more stimulus bang for your taxpayer bucks.
Maybe just maybe you just want to be against something.
Oh, how about the advertisers that will gain money when the new cars come out...etc., etc.
Now, where is the favortism with one industry..aren't they all interconnected? YIKES...
Where do you find that in the Constitution?
One of the most important functions of a democratic government should be the regulation of commerce in a capitalistic system. Otherwise you have anarchy. It is fully within the role and responsibility of government to direct policies which promote the general welfare. This has been clearly demonstrated countless times by the acts of our elected representatives. Why do you hate democracy?
The policies that led to the current mess were started under Reagan, not Clinton. And Clinton only had two years of majority rule to try to do anything.
You aren't very good at revisionist history.
Just because a repub majority in the house, senate, and oval office for six years produced ZERO 'policies' or 'ideas' from them doesn't mean it was the dems 'fault'. Do you mean to suggest that the minority democrats BEAT DOWN the majority republicans ideas?
If you can remember way back when, when was the last time the U.S. had a surplus for some years in a row? Next, what policies led to this surplus?
"Social engineering" was the cause of the recession?! That is RWUMN (red wine up my nose) absurd.
Simply check out the AIG counterparty credit default swaps and the current exposure of taxpayers who hold 85% of AIG stock.
You obviously don't know any MBAs or people who attended business school in the last 15 years who were enticed into high paying gigs in the financial sector.
The democrats resisted reforms under Bush? They might have, but again, except for a slim majority in the senate in the 107th congress, republicans ruled congress and the presidency.
As to the responsibility, well, that debate could take more than this forum allows. The government does have the responsibility to protect the people of our nation, though. Allowing the economic system that our country depends on to fail would seem counter to that responsibility.
As for the right - we are constitutionally endowed with the ability to form legislation (via the house), so why wouldn't the government be allowed to enact something that is not against the constitution?
It is successful because it aim was to help stimulate the economy and at the same time help raise the fuel efficiency. By getting those gas-guzzlers off the road, people will have more spending money to buy products from what they are saving at the pump and for maintenance cost. In addition, it will lessen out dependency on foreign oil. It is accomplishing both. See when a program meets it goals then it is successful.
Actually if an industry is vital to our national security the government is supposed to prop it up. See the car manufactory industry is vital to our national security. If we need to quickly increase the production of tanks and other vehicles for military the auto factories can quickly and easily be modify to do so. This is a vital part of protecting us. It helps us have the infrastructure to maintain an ability to defend ourselves when we need production quickly.
More than a million people are employed outside the automobile industry and in support of it.
In addition, I thought all you "drill, baby, drill" folks want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This begins that process.
When lots of people take advantage of an offer (in this case additional money for their old cars) that means the offer is wildly successful. If a store (those are places people go to buy things) offers an item at a low price and people are lined up around the block to buy the item from the store, the store owner will most likely see that as a good thing.
Now, because so many people like this offer the government has made it can do one of two things---nothing (the Republican MO) or they can continue the offer that the public so clearly likes.
Auto dealers will sell more cars, existing inventories will go down, autoworkers will have to be called back to work and people will drive more fuel efficient cars.
But it's good to see that you are so worried about what will happen to the old cars. I would have never guessed that you were an environmentalist.
Here's the good news there, Right On... nice people who work in salvage yards will happily take the old cars. They have these big machines that crush them into tiny blocks of metal for recycling. Maybe one day you will ride in a new car made out of the recycled metal of an old car.
Now, it's time for your nap. Put your talking points down and cover yourself with your flag blankie.
And I'm guessing that if they did lose their job, you'd be right there with a pat on the back and say "remember buddy, it's all about personal responsibility."
That'll put food on the table. Your lack of caring hidden behind the veil of "favoritism" or "outrageous spending" is astonishing.
As is your lack of basic economic theory.
You come here to convince all us liberals that we are wrong, but you use the same old arguments, the ones that have been proven wrong over and over.
And you don't even honestly address the arguments that are presented to you.
You are a dinosaur, my friend, and your ice age is upon you.
You just keep repeating yourself.
And, yes, the rich do have plenty of money. Money that they didn't work any harder than the rest of us for. Money they have basically stolen from the working class.
How come every thread with Tommy comes to this conclusion?
(psst - it's not about class envy, its about fairness. Think about that for few minutes.)
Because right ON has been exposed to, but not read for himself nor apparently understood, Marxist philosophy. He knows class warfare is in there somewhere, and if he can just get by with saying it, he can jump straight to equating liberals with socialism and communism, never quite realizing these are two completely different things.
The truth is that no-one ever made them responsible for their actions. They were free to draw off profits while paying starvation wages.
An unfettered free market shrinks the middle class and it ends up screwing the very rich, too - as we saw in the recent economic collapse.
You operate on the premise that rich people are working and everyone else is lazy. That is class warfare at its worst.
We don't hate successful people, we just don't see any reason to elevate them to some revered position simply because they were able to suck money out of the economy. I am all for being rich, but AFTER you have taken care of the people who manufacture the goods and provide the services.
A healthy middle class is vital to a stable economy, and wealthy people have ignored that truth. I am fifty years old and I have worked since I was 12 - blue and white collar jobs. I have an advanced degree. I have worked harder than any rich man I have ever met - longer hours and real, honest work.
If you are rich and you have treated your employees farly, you have nothing to worry about. If you are not rich and you think you will be some day through honest labor and native intelligence, you are a fool.
And nobody said that poor of middle class people don't work hard, that is ridiculous. But to say that rich people haven't earned their money is equally ridiculous. Yes, there are those that inherit money but to argue from that standpoint is also ridiculous.
The point is is that our system is not rigged in such a way to deprive anyone, anyone, from achieving financial success. If it were you wouldn't have example after example of people who come from nothing to becoming very rich.
You are painfully naive. Those examples are mere anecdotes, they are not the norm. The overwhelming majority of Americans work very hard and end up with very little to show for it.
The middle class isn't shrinking because they are being treated fairly. It is shrinking because profits increase, but wages do not keep pace. Prices increas, but wages do not keep pace. A healthy, productive middle class makes the rich richer - then they can supply more jobs.
But the rich take their profits (in general) no matter how their workers are doing. This means the middle class has less money to spend, and the result is economic collapse as people are unable to make their mortgage payments, unable to pay for health care, etc.
You want to believe that economics is merely a case of the hardest workers getting rich and everyone else just needs to work harder. and you say that a worker who is not being treated properly should quit. I can do that - I have no family to support. Can you? Do you have any responsibility to children, to feed and clothe them?
Yes, you are stunningly naive. and your understanding of economics is so one-dimension it is laughable. Your theory brought us to the brink of collapse, my friend.
You seem to think that liberals are all about re-distribution of wealth, but you fail to understand that THAT is exactly what has been happenning for more than a generation - the wealth has been re-distributed to the wealthy - and it has been to our national detriment and our national shame.
Yet, you have not.
It is rigged because a man can't earn enough to get ahead - and no-one tells the business owners that they must pay a living wage to their employers. Minimum Wage is still below the poverty level - even after the increase that Republicans and conservatives were against.
It is rigged because upward mobility is limited to those who are in a position to take those risks - not available to a family man or woman.
It is rigged because university education is not within reach of most Americans, financially, relegating them to the blue collar jobs that have low wages.
It is rigged by a system that makes it nearly impossible for unions to organize.
It is rigged by a system that spends millions, no billions, of dollars to get into the pockets of politicians in order to influence legislation and foster croneyism.
It is rigged by an ethic that continues to lie to the little guy and tell him that, even though he is working as hard as is humanly possible, it is somehow his (or her) fault that he can't pay his bills at the end of the month.
It is rigged because an uninsured person is forced into bankruptcy by catastrophic illness, or has to wait until it is a medical emergency before seeking treatment, thereby removing him.her from the workforce, depriving his household of one income.
it is rigged by people like you who don't understand that the rich can actually get richer by rewarding people for their hard work rather than sucking every dollar out of his/her business in order to keep up his membership in the country club.
It is rigged by not charging the very wealthy enough for the disproportionate advantage they attain from the American system - through travel, through use of the interstate highways, through use of the militarily protected shipping lanes.
It is rigged by a system that erroneously assumes that tax cuts to the rich turn into investment and jobs. They do not - not to any greater extent than wage equity for the middle class would.
It is rigged by people like you who don't understand anything but your own bottom line.
The reason you keep hearing this diatribe is because you don't have the ethical backbone to actually pay attention to it - or to the plight of the majority of Americans.
32 countries have a better infant mortality rate than us. 65 nations have a longer life expectancy. Many of those nations have socialised health care. many of them have wage equity laws. many of them have a higher rate of millionaires than we do per capita.
You are convinced of the rightness of your position, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you are not now a millionaire, yourself, you are a tool. And if you are a millionaire (which I doubt) the odds are that you did it on the backs of a lot of good people (even if you don't realise it).
And Tommy will no doubt respond with "class warfare blah blah blah you hate the rich bleck bleck bleck it's about personal responsibility yack yack yack."
Money doesn't shrivel up and disappear when it is spent.
If you were half as smart as you think you are, I wouldn't have to explain that to you.
Plus, as I have said again and again, our environment benefits through reduced CO2 emissions and our National Security is increased by less dependence on foreign oil.
You would have to really stretch the facts to make them fit your beliefs in this matter.
Really? Well, what would make it successful?
That has conservatives in a tiff, it seems to me.
Aside from homes (another industry the government is spending a lot of money helping) cars are the highest-ticket consumer item in the US economy. Supporting the auto industry is good for the entire economy - that is trickle-down theory, in a nutshell, isn't it?
So, you hated Reagan?
Inherently unfair would be the U.S. government saying "Well, we own 60% of GM, so lets only hand out rebates on purchases of new GM cars." There, that's unfair.
'fairness and facts be damned.' An interesting... what? Opinion, I guess. Where did you state any facts at all? You said it ran out of money because it was inefficiently administered, but the fact is it ran out of money because it was more popular than expected. More people took advantage of it. Simple, right? And it points to higher than expected consumer confidence, which can only be a good thing for the economy.
As to Bill's comment, yes, it is a personal opinion.
It is not even close to unfair.
Trickle-down economics, my friend. You hate Ronald Reagan. Just admit it.
Yachts do not create many jobs at all. You fail to understand even the simplest of things.
There is far more demand and need for automobiles and homes than yachts, you silly putz - as demonstrated by the success of this program.
I have definitely thought this through, but you have not. you are just so anxious to stick to your conservative ideology that you don't recognize this for what it is: a very conservative, very Reaganesque stimulus.
would you have suggested tax cuts? Same thing.
This money is now in the economy. It is buying food. It is buying appliances. It is making down payments on houses and, yes, yachts. It is coming back to our governments, federal, state, and municipal, in the form of tax revenue.
Do you really expect me to believe that you have thought this through?
You keep accusing me of emotionality, but there is no evidence of that. You should think of this as a directed tax cut. It has the very same effect of Reaganomics, eexcept it puts the money into the middle class in addition to the very rich. And nothing Reagan ever did reduced our dependence on foreign oil, did it>
And isn't that good for both our environment and our national security?
Can you refute these things in the present?
As for your dependence on foreign oil, what happens if all these people with new cars decide to drive them far more than they would have with their older cars? Then you have increased gasoline consumption, not less - even with better MPG. So much for that notion.
So yes, all your things have been refuted in the present. Thank you.
As for your second paragraph, that is simply a version of a straw man fallacy. We have no way of knowing that people would choose to drive more, nor do you supply any citation that suggests this would occur. You are merely presenting a fantastic scenarion without any basis in fact.
So, no, you cannot refute anything. (But thanks for playing. You will, I am sure, get a parting gift.)
It always comes to crickets with right ON.
That's right, Tommy, it's about fairness - the fairness of not having people DIE due to lack of health coverage. The fairness of people not having to declare bankruptcy due to health care expenses.
And guess who pays for all this right now - YOU! You're just too dense to realize that you are paying for it right NOW.
I'm emotional about this. You've made it clear you care about no one but yourself.
Wanna buy a bumper sticker:
PROFITS OVER PEOPLE
The auto industry affects 10% of ALL jobs in America. Bang for the buck, it will have the greatest economic impact to spend the money here. Is it unfair that the makers of toasters don't have that much labor in the balance? Perhaps.
Cash for clunkers was designed to meet a couple of needs: to stimulate car sales (and save jobs), to get gorillas off the street in exchange for more efficient vehicles (saving imported oil and lowering emissinos). For the money, it seems to be working very very well.
The fact that conservatives have been all for bigger and more powerful gas guzzlers that drain our coffers directly into the hands of the terrorists they claim to be fighting should make you ashamed to even ask the question.
some industries should not be supported for these reasons. But, the truth is, the oil business is being supported by our government. Who do you think is the number one user of the shipping lanes our Navy and our Coast Guard protect?
TYou really need to expand your view a bit, my friend. The oil business has enjoyed a disproportionate level of protection for a very long time.
You want me to give government subsidies to the oil industry? That ALREADY happens. Looking at their profits, I'm thinking they don't really need any more money. Do you have any idea what a gallon of gas would cost if we made the refineries pay for the money we spend to protect their supplies? Both at the well and on the trip to this country? $15 or perhaps a tad more. But we don't charge them for protecting their supplies, do we? Taxpayers pick up the tab for Exxon and Chevron and the rest.
My argument has been completely internally consistent. Fairness? Since when have conservatives ever been concerned with fairness? Oh, that's right. Just since they lost power throughout the country. I grew up in Iowa, and I'll tell you what my dad used to tell me: You want Fair? Go to Des Moines.
So you're actually claiming that big oil does not get help from the government. Come on. You're smarter than that.
As for that statement, where are all the liberals on this website who constantly complain about corporate welfare? Hypocrites. You're right, that's all this is.
MMfA is about correcting misinformation in the media, not a platform for liberal talking points. You find a news report or an anchor spouting misinformation about corporate media, and I'm SURE MMfA will be glad to post it for discussion.
This is corporate welfare, agreed. Did the car companies crash the economy, bringing car sales to a crashing halt? No. Conservative and very wealthy business men got rich selling each other bundles of bad mortgages using other people's money. Then they all tried to get out at once, crashing the system.
Within this limited context, at this time, some government incentive to buy a new car seems like a good idea. It's not all good, it's just better than the alternative. If the program lives beyond it's usefulness, I will be among those trying to get it repealed.
You write as though every day is exactly the same, and no emergency ever arises. This is a national economic emergency, right ON, and should be dealt with by the federal government as they are likely the only group big enough. We're trying to save jobs, remember? And restore consumer confidence?
LET 'EM FAIL
You can make that argument, but there's more to it than that. The purpose of the program is what makes a significant difference. The goal is general economic stimulus, directed where it will have the most widespread impact. That is accomplished by stimulating the industries that have the most subsidiary influences.
It may help individual automakers, but that's a side effect, not a goal. It may even stick in the craw of many liberals that they are helped, but it's recognized that the broad economic impact serves a greater good. Helping the automakers isn't the central goal, and that's what keeps it from being corporate welfare.
A rebounding auto industry is generally what leads us out of a recession.
Then how can you explain the events of the last 9 months and actions by two administrations? CLEARLY it is in that business, even if you don't like it. Democracy is a bitch ain't it.
Here are some more of your words:
Um, genius, the framers of our constitution were politicians, too. Only care what they did when it suits your twisted reasoning?
And all these "clunkers" have to end up in heaps somewhere, what an environmental mess that is.
Uh, you do realize that all cars end up as scrap at some point in time, correct. The only thing different here is the program is requiring that they go straight to scrap and don't get resold as used. And, yes, that is bad if you are looking for a deal on a "clunker" but; is good if you want to reduce fuel consumption.
And as an automotive parts supplier I can tell you that everything now and days must meet ELV requirements. Meaning, you have to know what is in it, and where, and how it can be recycled. Most automakers are making cars that have limited amounts of hazardous wastes in them that will need to be contained and most material can be directly recycled.
Wait a minute! Hold everything, right ON. Isn't this a socialist country? Doesn't the government own the automakers and the banks and everything? Hasn't everything become a government program?
As for the environmental aspects, cars are generally 90% recyclable, so we'll just make newer and hopefully electric cars from the junkers. Hey, and it will take -jobs- to do all that crushing and recycling, won't it? Dang, just bad news all around for the 'Publicans, today.
Ouch. Tommy pwned herself. Dolt.
Ouch. Tommy pwned herself. Dolt.
Ouch. Tommy pwned herself. Dolt.
Do these fabled pants-makers provide 10% of the employment for the entire country? Also, we're talking about $4500 maximum, not $10,000, so get your facts right, okay?
And, if the point was to spend the money in two months, and the money got spent in one week, then, yes, you could call it successful.
I'm treating you like a grownup. Let's see if you're worthy of it...
It's almost enough to make me wonder if some of the trolls don't have multiple identities. It would certainly explain why they all seem to sound alike.
RightOn is completely incorrect. His idea of tax cuts and tax cuts and more tax cuts does not work. It sounds wonderful in theory, but has been proven incorrect over and over again. Supply-side economics has been a massive failure whenever it has been tried. But, you have to give RightOn credit for sticking to principles. I don't see the other right wing loons explaining to us why the economy is rebounding and why the credit will not go to Obama. RightOn is arguing a principle. Not whether or not it is working.
GED.The ones from Kenya
Getting to the substance of her point would 2%, opposed to 2, have changed her overall assessment of the program? In short did she mis-speak or did she come to a bogus conclusion not supported by the facts?