Consumers Can’t Save $750 by Driving a More Efficient Gun to Work

Everytime I do TV, there’s one line I immediately wish I had used as soon as the opportunity passes, and that’s the line I wish I had used to rebut Bob Franken’s inane argument that we ought to replace the Cash for Clunkers program with the Gravy for Guns program. "Consumers can’t save $750 a year driving a more efficient gun to work." I also wish I had had about 20 minutes to be able to rebut the stupid arguments about GM and Chrysler shutting down dealers so they can compete with Toyota.

Nevertheless I had a bit of fun arguing in favor of the Cash for Clunkers program.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m properly trained now, and did it all by myself.

      I got so many comments like, “I love the blow job comment and nice makeup” for my blowjob appearance, I’m now a convert.

  1. BoxTurtle says:

    You look so….respectable. No cheetos dust on your teeth or anything!

    Boxturtle (You’ll get more airtime if you can manage to work in Obama’s birth certificate)

    • emptywheel says:

      Note my sloppy bookcases in the background.

      And thankfully they cropped the weird white thing in the lower left corner that was actually piles of books on my desk.

  2. Loo Hoo. says:

    Bob was just making it up as he went along.

    Excellent job, Marcy. But watch out for that slander suit.

    • emptywheel says:

      Funny, that. I did not once say HE was a Republican. I just addressed what I consider stupid Republican arguments that just happened to be coming out of his mouth.

      • bonkers says:

        Kept saying that to myself when watching that clip…you never were addressing him directly, yet even at the end, the very end when he was given the last word, he makes it about himself.

        It’s not about you, Bob!

        Great job staying focused, Marcy!

      • CTMET says:

        Right, he’s not a republican…. he just parrots their talking points on TV. He was smug, and he looked like an amateur holding that cell phone. He completely ignored the environmental argument…. but enough about him.

        You looked and sounded authoritative. I think the narrow shot of the background mad it look like you were in your study. It didn’t look messy to me at all.

  3. BoxTurtle says:

    Marcy is almost unsueable. Think about the kind of people she opposes and ask yourself what would happen if they opened themselves to discovery from her via a slander suit. They’re simply not that stupid. And neither are their lawyers.

    Boxturtle (Marcy in discovery against Mini-Cheney…what an image!)

    • posaune says:

      wow, BT!
      of course, I wouldn’t wish a lawsuit on anybody (been there, 6-1/2 yrs), BUT
      an emptywheel discovery? that’s another story.
      i’d be there with bells on!

  4. ThingsComeUndone says:

    After years of people not buying cars like they use to I bet there is a lot of pent up demand. Guns sorry Bob you moron the gun industry is doing great…since Obama became president.

  5. ThingsComeUndone says:

    What are the numbers for the MPG for the Clunkers vs the tradeins total? What is the estimated gas savings nationwide.

    • emptywheel says:

      New cars are 60% more efficient, going from around 15 MPG average to around 25 MPG (that’s very very rough), with the great bulk of trade-ins being SUVs and Vans and trucks.

      • ThingsComeUndone says:

        60% Whoah! I can hardly wait till we get exact numbers and a post:) Heck if the final numbers turn out to be 40%
        the gas savings will still be better than anything I expected.
        This program is much better than a tax on gas people are buying gas savers now.

  6. ThingsComeUndone says:

    Unlike the bank bailout this money is getting back into the economy in fact its getting back to the economy much quicker than we thought it would. Plus less gas used means more money in the American economy Bob instead of Saudi Arabia’s economy.

  7. smartlady says:

    Marcy you are wonderful in these interviews! I am in awe of your quick responses and ability to stay on point and utilize facts. Your body language was in stark contrast to Bob Franken’s slouch and smirks. (I was a theatre major. Can’t help but notice!) Your body language showed you cared strongly about the issue.

    The reason actors study body language is because the audience is constantly absorbing all the visual clues as well as the auditory information.

    OT- Notice Barney Frank when he’s on. He leans back in his chair and looks all over the place but still conveys authority and passion.

    • emptywheel says:

      Glad you said that about body language–I was worried. I could barely hear him, so was leaning forward and twisting around. Glad it wasn’t that noticeable.

      • Kitt says:

        What I saw in your body language, Marcy, is that you were paying attention to the questions of the interviewer, and to the comments of the smirking person on the other end of the interview, and that you were preparing yourself to reply. When you did reply your words were on point and not making jokes and trying to be Mr. Entertainment (Bob Franken). I’m sorry, but Bob Franken was all about Bob Franken. And Bob Franken did not seem to have given a serious thought to the subject at all before or during this interview. He was an embarrassment to himself.

    • ThingsComeUndone says:

      Notice Bob seemed very concerned about being called a Republican? Bob was brought on as counterpoint to Marcy the media trying to be balanced but the GOP brand is so low GOPers like Bob need to try and claim not to be GOPers but Moderates to be taken seriously by a wider audience.
      Not that Bob was fooling anyone he seemed to be reading GOP talking points.

  8. BoxTurtle says:

    Things @ 17:You’re behind on your reading. To the corner with you until you’ve read this!

    Boxturtle (My 4th grade teacher would make you pass a quiz on it before you could return to your seat)

  9. ThingsComeUndone says:

    Yes give Keynes the shout out we need to put people to work. And on projects that have a return on the economy less money spent on gas means we the consumers have more money in our pocket.
    Now if you spend the money on what ever you want once the money is spent its gone.
    Cars are kept for 5 years on average. They need gas so after the car is bought we get five years worth of less money spent on gas helping Saudi Arabia’s economy and Ossama forget him Bob?
    And instead 5 years worth of extra cash that will probably be spent in our economy.

  10. Twisted Martini says:

    Marcy, I’d love to hear your take on RichRod’s offense and the chances for M football this year. Or better yet, maybe we could arrange a debate between you and an Ohio State fan! Keep up the great work.

  11. ThingsComeUndone says:

    Detroit automakers appear to be taking more than their fair share of sales. The White House says 47% of all vehicles sold through the bill so far come from US automakers; 2% higher than the domestics’ 45% overall share.

    To drum up support for more dollars, the White House is touting the program’s value. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the average fuel economy increase so far is 9.4 mpg; a 61% increase verses the vehicles destined for a sodium silicate bath. So far, 83% of the vehicles traded in have been trucks, while 60% of the vehicles purchased under the program have been cars. The White House estimates that Cash For Clunkers will save the average car buyer $700 – $1,000 in gas prices during the life of the vehicle.

    My bold Latest numbers:) 61% !!!…

    • Badwater says:

      Let’s all remember that the Republic solution enacted to improve fuel economy was the 55 mph National Maximum Speed limit. That one was very popular. Have they come up with any better ideas yet?

      • ThingsComeUndone says:

        That one was effective it was hated but effective but no new ideas from the GOP since Newt ran things no good ideas probably since the 55 mph speed limit.

  12. maryo2 says:

    It is not possible that that man does not understand that spending money getting clunkers off the road stimulates many sectors of the economy (including the production of more energy efficient, lower emmissions automobiles), whereas simply giving people money to buy luxury items or putting money into savings does not necessarily have any trickle effect.

    He just wanted to promote himself. “My column”…”my column.” Okay, we got it – you write a column of some sort.

    Marcy discussed the topic at hand and made effort to stick to the topic – twice. Excellent job, EW.

    • ThingsComeUndone says:

      He just wanted to promote himself. “My column”…”my column.” Okay, we got it – you write a column of some sort

      If he wants blog traffic next time he could say something smart maybe if he hires a researcher or he could just agree with Marcy next time in order to sound smart.
      Funny sorry thats much harder:)
      “Drama is easy Comedy is hard”

  13. ThingsComeUndone says:

    9.4 increase in mpg among how many cars average miles driven means we will be using allot less gas I wonder if Bob was being paid by the oil speculators and the banks that gave them loans?
    Lots of oil tankers still sitting waiting for the price of oil to go up. Just who funds Bob?
    Now if we could get this program another 10 billion.
    Any numbers on the stimulus effect of getting so much cash into the economy spent so quick plus the long term stimulus of less money spent on gas in America.
    VS the stimulus effect of the banks not loaning out/spending the money we gave them.

  14. ThingsComeUndone says:

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has processed 80,500 transactions

    If the numbers don’t taper off next week I wonder how long it will take GM and Chrysler to pay off their loans?

  15. Leen says:

    ot Ew going to do a four hour MSNBC watch tonight (missed the Ed show). So far Chris matthews just did five minutes on the Republicans “Just say no” rally. Hell last Thursday night it was the same fucking clip of the beer fest shown so many times over the MSNBC evening it was easy to lose count. Not one mention of the Health Care Now march on Thursday of last week.

    Wondering how much coverage the “Just say no” rallies will get tonight? Still think the Health Care Now marches should be held in Iran then they will get 24 hour a day coverage.

    Health Care Now folks need to have a “Just Say Know” rally in Iran to get their fair share of coverage.


    Sure would like to turn in my 96 Dodge pick up truck for the Cash for Clunkers deal, but that would mean that I have to pay the bill for new vehicle bought.(only drive the truck for hauling, gardening etc) Nissan Sentra the rest of time

    • Margot says:

      Do you have NoScript (a Firefox thing)? I do, and I had to allow more stuff to load before I could see the video.
      Marcy, great job. I could hardly hear Bob. Not a great loss, but annoying.

  16. phred says:

    Wow. Just wow. Franken comes across like a smarmy clueless old white guy incapable of making a cogent argument. On top of that, how on earth did he get the designation “blogger” when he is clearly so technologically challenged that he had to use a phone??? What??? Who was that cretin? Jeebus, you would think CNN could at least find someone suitable for holding up that end of the “debate” — not that his contribution would constitute a passing grade in any debate class in high school. That was embarrassing to witness.

    You were brilliant as ever EW. Prepared, knowledgeable, concise, persuasive and you got a couple of good digs in just for Shelby — nice touch ; )

  17. Neil says:

    Marcy, Did CNN find you and Bob by looking online at columns and posts you’ve made?

    You were really good as usual, especially with many interesting details about why CARS it is good stimulus.

    I thought Bob was shooting blanks. He was not serious, made unfunny jokes and argued a fallacy: Is it post hoc ergo propter hoc or Irrelevant Conclusion? I wish I was better at identifying fallacies. Anyway, he argued: If CARS is effective it is unfair because it is not distributing $4500 to every citizen, therefore we should distribute $4500 to every citizen but then that would make us a nation of clunkers, and therefore we should not continue CARS with +$2bil in funding.

  18. cinnamonape says:

    “Gravy For Guns”? What idiocy? Is he suggesting that people trade in their OLD guns for more efficiently, lethal ones? Ones that “reduce the demand for the purchase of foreign weapons”? Or maybe he’s encouraging the use of “public weapons”- guns shared around by a “community” when they need to kill someone…sort of like public transportation?

    I can see the ads now:”Get those clunker guns off the street…get some sleek, light new high-powered but efficient automatic weapons. Easy handling, even the ladies and kids can put out 500 rounds a minute from the hip. Be “green” -share them with family and friends. And the new efficient American made Smith & Wessons not only create more jobs, but they reduce the costs of health care, too. More people are DOA with our new, deadlier models than with the older models that kept victims lingering for weeks in intensive care or even years in wheelchairs. “Guns For Gravy” it’s Good For America.”

    • Neil says:

      Plus there this, the NRA’s unofficial motto: You’ll get my gun when Pry it From My Cold Dead Hands.

  19. jussumbody says:

    Can someone explain to me why only asshole Republicans who drive SUVs are eligible for this fantastic new tax credit. I’ve been driving an old car that gets 35/50 mpg for 13 years and 140K miles. I’d buy a new car and stimulate the economy too if I got a tax credit, and my old car wouldn’t have to go to the landfill, thus affording some asshole SUV driver the opportunity to buy a cheap, fuel efficient car. But no, only the fascist road hogs/parking space hogs/fuel hogs get this one.

  20. glitterscale says:

    Marcy – you did a great job staying focused. Perhaps if Bob doesn’t want to be called a repub he might lay off of the repub talking points!

    I liked your response about the fact that this stimulus money, unlike Bush’s gets targeted and creates a multiplier effect. The big stimulus package has far too many tax cuts and not enough money for projects out in front. I realize now that they were seriously worried about inflation and probably wanted to be able to cut some of the stimulus if it got that fire going.
    I really think that Bernanke et al are seriously not real about the dangers of recession turning to depression. I think there are also a number of deflationary aspects – like the loss of wealth in both stock market and housing – that will have to have a turnaround to add fuel to that fire. The market is moving but it is a weak vessel at the moment. The housing market may be moving but it also may be affected by all the pink slips being handed out. We will see what really happens. What I wonder is how many people have seriously changed their financial habits?