cash for clunkers - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

FuglyStick · 08-03-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

So was the 700 trillion dollar stimulus plan.

??? Yes, that's what a "stimulus plan" is...

Derwood · 08-03-2009, 05:35 PM

wait, $700 TRILLION?

FuglyStick · 08-03-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

wait, $700 TRILLION?

Oh, snap, I completely glazed over that one...

SEVEN HUNDRED GADZILLION!!!!!!!!!

scout · 08-04-2009, 01:22 AM

700 trillion...700 billion... either way its a huge amount of money. but just to set it straight ..700 billion... there ya all feel better now?

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Taxation without representation....

Wow I didn't realize our government wasn't elected! Holy crap this is a major scandal! We aren't being represented because we didn't get to vote for these guys! How in the hell did they put memories into my head, i swear that I remember voting... I guess they can put memories into our heads now. I better go get a tinfoil hat to make sure the memory waves don't go into my head again.

That really depends on what you think a Democratic Republic is. If the purpose of the representatives is to represent the will of their constituents, then we have taxation without representation because the will of the people (as a majority) has been against every one of these programs. However, any opposing view in the Tilted Politics forum gets a "tinfoil hat", so you guys just keep telling each other how much smarter you are than everyone else.

---------- Post added at 09:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

not according to the Constitution

I don't suppose you see the irony in bringing up the Constitution as a defence of an unconstitutional entitlement program?

---------- Post added at 09:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Did you have the same outrage back in 2002-ish when Bush gave out massive incentives business to buy gigantic SUVs?

Your post is made up of nonsensical talking points. It isn't as if the only cars eligible for the program are hybrids and smart cars. For a passenger car all that is needed is that teh consumer buys a car with a minimum combined 22 mpg that nets a 4 mpg gain over the old vehicle. For SUVs and trucks you only need to add 2 mpg and get a new one that gets better than 18 mpg.

If the car you bring in qualifies for the program, just about any car on the market can be purchased. Your comment that the cars people would have to buy are unwanted is pretty much bullshit.

The only thing that you are correct about is that the program is more about removing gas guzzlers from service than economic stimulus. Trade-ins are scrapped and as a result, the customer doesn't get a trade-in credit other than what the program provides.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

There are enough people on facebook. Maybe instead of electing officials we can just legislate via facebook polls.

Right. And I suppose it's a grand idea that all of these cars are needlessly destroyed rather than giving them to people who don't have cars so that those people could have more freedoms and employment options. Not to mention the massive amounts of energy used to needlessly destroy them and the massive amounts of energy used to create the new car. Then there is the personal debt the buyer incurs, the risk the bank incurs, the debt the government incurs...

Hey, but all of that is offset by a mere 2 MPG improvement. What a GRAND program, just what I would expect from the federal government.

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 06:32 AM

First, all the polls I have seen shows the majority of Americans are in support of health care reform. Second, we are a republic not a democracy for a reason, to avoid a tyranny of the majority. No good government would function solely on what is best for the majority. Third why do you think these are unconstitutional? Specifically what part of the constitution does it violate?

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

First, all the polls I have seen shows the majority of Americans are in support of health care reform. Second, we are a republic not a democracy for a reason, to avoid a tyranny of the majority. No good government would function solely on what is best for the majority. Third why do you think these are unconstitutional? Specifically what part of the constitution does it violate?

First, "Health care reform" does not equal "Government controlled healthcare." The fact that Americans want change does not mean they want the government to run it. This is seen in the other polls that you don't cite.

Second, I agree. However, these guys are having their doors beat down by their constituents telling them not to do these things, yet they are still doing them. Case in point, Lindsey Graham voting for Sotomayor. I can assure you he did not follow the will of his constituents or uphold the platform under which he ran by voting for her (whether you agree with the platform or not.)

Third, it isn't IN the Constitution which is exactly the point. If the power is not explicitly listed in the Constitution, then that power is given only to the individual states. While this is your queue to cite "benefit the general good", spare me. There is no way 250,000 cars being destroyed at the expense of the taxpayer is for the general welfare of the people.

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

First, "Health care reform" does not equal "Government controlled healthcare." The fact that Americans want change does not mean they want the government to run it. This is seen in the other polls that you don't cite.

Second, I agree. However, these guys are having their doors beat down by their constituents telling them not to do these things, yet they are still doing them. Case in point, Lindsey Graham voting for Sotomayor. I can assure you he did not follow the will of his constituents or uphold the platform under which he ran by voting for her (whether you agree with the platform or not.)

Third, it isn't IN the Constitution which is exactly the point. If the power is not explicitly listed in the Constitution, then that power is given only to the individual states. While this is your queue to cite "benefit the general good", spare me. There is no way 250,000 cars being destroyed at the expense of the taxpayer is for the general welfare of the people.

Sorry this is completely constitutional and it does fall under promoting the general welfare. Now if the government were forcing individuals to do this you would have a very strong case but in this case people get to choose if they want trade in their old cars.

Also what you see at the few town halls is not indicative of how the entire population feels. In fact what you are seeing at a few town halls is an organized effort to make it look like there is a strong public opposition. The plans from these organizations were leaked and it gave specific instructions how to make it look like there is a strong opposition to health care reform.

Let's face it, our health care system is broken. It has been broken by corporate greed. And those of you that are afraid that having a public option which competes with the corporate options would somehow take away your ability to choose your treatments should check this out. Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment - cbs5.com. The insurance company already doesn't let you choose!

samcol · 08-04-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Right. And I suppose it's a grand idea that all of these cars are needlessly destroyed rather than giving them to people who don't have cars so that those people could have more freedoms and employment options. Not to mention the massive amounts of energy used to needlessly destroy them and the massive amounts of energy used to create the new car. Then there is the personal debt the buyer incurs, the risk the bank incurs, the debt the government incurs...

Hey, but all of that is offset by a mere 2 MPG improvement. What a GRAND program, just what I would expect from the federal government.

Ya, this program does indeed hurt the poor. They are destroying the market for the only vehicles that low income people can even afford. These clunkers are naturally going to raise in price due to this program.

Ron Paul sheds some common sense on the subject:

YouTube - Cash for Clunkers

Derwood · 08-04-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Also what you see at the few town halls is not indicative of how the entire population feels. In fact what you are seeing at a few town halls is an organized effort to make it look like there is a strong public opposition. The plans from these organizations were leaked and it gave specific instructions how to make it look like there is a strong opposition to health care reform.

Correct:

Inside The Tea Partiers Anti-Health Care Organizing Campaign | TPMDC

samcol · 08-04-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Also what you see at the few town halls is not indicative of how the entire population feels. In fact what you are seeing at a few town halls is an organized effort to make it look like there is a strong public opposition. The plans from these organizations were leaked and it gave specific instructions how to make it look like there is a strong opposition to health care reform.

Gallup polls seem to indicate there really is a significant disapproval for this.

Cynthetiq · 08-04-2009, 08:33 AM

guys.. let's focus on the CARS not the healthcare...that's a whole thread all by itself.

FuglyStick · 08-04-2009, 08:34 AM

Fuck Ron Paul

kutulu · 08-04-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I don't have a source other than NPR, but my impression is that most people who are taking advantage of the program are buying cars that are very near the minimum mpg improvement required. If the goal of the program is environmental, it will take a long time to recoup the "carbon footprints" of all these new cars.

If they are getting $4,500 and buying a car then they are gaining at least 10 mpg. Since the car traded in had to get less than 18 mpg that means they increased the fuel economy by over 50%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

Plus, many of the cars and trucks eligible don't meet mpg standards that will become effective in a couple of years.

Why should a car manufactured today have to meet a standard that isn't in effect yet? Why is that an issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Hey, but all of that is offset by a mere 2 MPG improvement. What a GRAND program, just what I would expect from the federal government.

A 2 mpg improvement from 15 mpg is 13%. Conservatives have screamed bloody murder over mandates for similar fuel economy gains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Also what you see at the few town halls is not indicative of how the entire population feels. In fact what you are seeing at a few town halls is an organized effort to make it look like there is a strong public opposition. The plans from these organizations were leaked and it gave specific instructions how to make it look like there is a strong opposition to health care reform.

Exactly. They are making a lot of noise but the fact is that there aren't that many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Correct:

Inside The Tea Partiers Anti-Health Care Organizing Campaign | TPMDC

Bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. This isn't some sort of grass-roots campaign it is a corporate manipulation of the people. The GOP is up to their usual scare tactics routine. Fear, outrage, and intimidation. That's all the GOP has had since 9/11.

samcol · 08-04-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

Fuck Ron Paul

very constructive

Derwood · 08-04-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

very constructive

yet completely true

samcol · 08-04-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

yet completely true

Regardless, he does make a good point that destorying hundreds of thousands of low priced vehicles inaddvertantely affects the poor. Also that we are paying for this program with money we don't have.

Derwood · 08-04-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Regardless, he does make a good point that destorying hundreds of thousands of low priced vehicles inaddvertantely affects the poor. Also that we are paying for this program with money we don't have.

I didn't know there was a huge market for selling barely drivable cars to the poor.

As for the second point, Paul beats that drum on a daily basis. No news there.

sapiens · 08-04-2009, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

If they are getting $4,500 and buying a car then they are gaining at least 10 mpg. Since the car traded in had to get less than 18 mpg that means they increased the fuel economy by over 50%.

I found the story that I was referring to earlier. It's quite short.. It can be found here:Critics Say 'Clunkers' Program Isn't Very Green : NPR

Quote:

Why should a car manufactured today have to meet a standard that isn't in effect yet? Why is that an issue?

I never said anything about car manufacturers. I just think that if we want to get low mileage cars off the road, if the program was supposed to have an environmental aspect to it, I would have liked to have seen higher standards for the cars that are eligible. From the article:

Quote:

Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says.

Maybe the environmental aspect doesn't matter. If that is the case, then nevermind. Personally, I'd like to be able to trade in my clunker sitting in the driveway and get a credit toward a nice bicycle.

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 09:24 AM

Does anyone know what % sales tax a dealer generally pays on on a car sale?

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 09:38 AM

Transparency:

Obama administration withholds data on program - Yahoo! News

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Transparency:

Obama administration withholds data on program - Yahoo! News

Quote:

The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. But the public and Senate Republicans demanding more information will have to wait for details because federal officials running the program don't have time to turn over data delivered by car dealers, said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

LaHood said in an interview Sunday he would make the electronic records available. "I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't do it," he said.

What a poor choice of verbiage. First the article suggests they are withholding the data. Then the article goes on to say that it is going to be released but it is taking time to compile the data. So essentially Obama isn't withholding the data and instead is working on producing the data but that takes time.....

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

What a poor choice of verbiage. First the article suggests they are withholding the data. Then the article goes on to say that it is going to be released but it is taking time to compile the data. So essentially Obama isn't withholding the data and instead is working on producing the data but that takes time.....

...and I am certain he will have the data ready one day after we commit another $2B in taxpayer money to his entitlement program.

Cynthetiq · 08-04-2009, 09:59 AM

After seeing such a video, why destroy such a roadworthy vehicle????

http://jalopnik.com/5327580/video-ho...r-clunkers-car

Quote:

The Cash For Clunkers law requires dealers to destroy the engines of the trade-in vehicle or face a $15,000 penalty. The government's step-by-step instructions as well as graphic video of a Volvo in seemingly great condition being destroyed below.

There were numerous suggestions given to the Department of Transportation for how to destroy a car turned in so the engine never pollutes again. Our favorite was "drilling a hole in the engine block" with, we're guessing, a giant diamond-tipped drill. As lovers of cars, the method they decided on feels far more cruel but is probably just as effective.

The prescribed and approved method of disabling a car according to law involves replacing the engine's oil with sodium silicate, more commonly known as liquid glass. When the car is run with a mixture of water and sodium silicate the liquid quickly evaporates and the solids are left behind, causing most of the oiled surfaces to seize and break.

As you can see in the video above, the results are fairly horrific. You can actually hear this car scream. In fact, if you watch all the way, you'll see it spout up its last bit of oil before it breathes its last breath. WARNING: this is only to be instructive and educational, do not try and do this before you turn in your car.

Engine Disablement Procedures for the CARS Program
THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT TO BE USED BY THE VEHICLE OWNER

Perform the following procedure to disable the vehicle engine.

1. Obtain solution of 40% sodium silicate/60% water. (The Sodium Silicate
(SiO2/Na2O) must have a weight ratio of 3.0 or greater.)
2. Drain engine oil for environmentally appropriate disposal.
3. Install the oil drain plug.
4. Since the procedure is intended to render the engine inoperative, drive or move the
vehicle to the desired area for disablement.
5. Pour enough solution in the engine through the oil fill for the oil pump to circulate
the solution throughout the engine. Start by adding 2 quarts of the solution, which
should be sufficient in most cases.
CAUTION: Wear goggles and gloves. Appropriate protective clothing should be
worn to prevent silicate solution from coming into contact with the skin.
6. Replace the oil fill cap.
7. Start the engine.
8. Run engine at approximately 2000 rpm (for safety reasons do not operate at high
rpm) until the engine stops. (Typically the engine will operate for 3 to 7 minutes. As
the solution starts to affect engine operation, the operator will have to apply more
throttle to keep the engine at 2000 rpm.)
9. Allow the engine to cool for at least 1 hour.
10. With the battery at full charge or with auxiliary power to provide the power of a fully
charged battery, attempt to start the engine.
11. If the engine will not operate at idle, the procedure is complete.
12. If the engine will operate at idle, repeat steps 7 through 11 until the engine will no
longer idle.
13. Attach a label to the engine that legibly states the following:

This engine is from a vehicle that is part of the Car Allowance Rebate System
(CARS). It has significant internal damage caused by operating the
engine with a sodium silicate solution (liquid glass) instead of oil.

YouTube - Volvo Cash for Clunkers Engine Disabling

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

After seeing such a video, why destroy such a roadworthy vehicle????

VIDEO: How To Disable A Cash For Clunkers Car - cash for clunkers - Jalopnik

YouTube - Volvo Cash for Clunkers Engine Disabling

Because it is an ill-conceived program?

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 10:12 AM

I'm not sure the program is going to cost as much money as people think.

Let's look at it from a tax perspective.

The cost of each fully subsidized purchase is $4500
There is no money generated from sales tax because that tax is deductible.
The business has to pay income/revenue type taxes on that purchase.
In addition, most consumers must pay around 2% of the cars value every year in property taxes/auto mobile fees.

For the sake of argument let's say that the average cost of the cars purchases is $25,000 and businesses pay 5% income tax.

In this case the initial purchase of the car costs and generates the following money:

subsidy ($4,500)
Business tax $1250
Yearly Property Tax $500

Thus after the first year the program is already recouped 40% of the cost and this excludes any taxes generated by income tax due to increased demand on automobiles.

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

I don't necessarily feel we should be destroying the vehicles traded in but I think they are forcing the destruction to help prevent fraud by dealers who would then take those cars and resell them. Part of the aim of this program is to get these cars off the road. If they didn't destroy these cars we would have an equal number of people complaining about the US destroying the used car market and hurting used car dealers....

samcol · 08-04-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I didn't know there was a huge market for selling barely drivable cars to the poor.

Actually I think very capable vehicles are getting destroyed. The clunkers have to be drivable, registered AND insured for the entire year to be eligible. This seems strange to not accept vehicles that don't run and aren't registered/insured, yet they will take perfectly good cars and totally destroy them. A total waste of perfectly good capital and drivable car that could have been sold to someone who can't afford a new vehicle.

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'm not sure the program is going to cost as much money as people think.

Let's look at it from a tax perspective.

The cost of each fully subsidized purchase is $4500
There is no money generated from sales tax because that tax is deductible.
The business has to pay income/revenue type taxes on that purchase.
In addition, most consumers must pay around 2% of the cars value every year in property taxes/auto mobile fees.

For the sake of argument let's say that the average cost of the cars purchases is $25,000 and businesses pay 5% income tax.

In this case the initial purchase of the car costs and generates the following money:

subsidy ($4,500)
Business tax $1250
Yearly Property Tax $500

Thus after the first year the program is already recouped 40% of the cost and this excludes any taxes generated by income tax due to increased demand on automobiles.

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

I don't necessarily feel we should be destroying the vehicles traded in but I think they are forcing the destruction to help prevent fraud by dealers who would then take those cars and resell them. Part of the aim of this program is to get these cars off the road. If they didn't destroy these cars we would have an equal number of people complaining about the US destroying the used car market and hurting used car dealers....

...or we could just not have the program, let the cars live out their days as dependable vehicles, save the tax payers $3B, let the new cars get sold in a truly free market as the demand naturally exists, and leave the government out of it. You know, either way.

BTW, property tax is a county/state tax. It does not reimburse the federal taxpayer in any way. Also, since the new car has higher property taxes than the old car, the purchaser now pays for his own $4500 in federal income taxes(ultimately) and he pays more local property tax. Oh, and then there's the interest on the loan for the vehicle. The taxes for the warranty on the vehicle which is now guaranteed by the federal government. The taxes on the "we'll pay your car payment for 9 months if you lose your job" guarantee by the federal government. The taxes on the bureaucracy of federal managment of the program (beyond the $3B), The lost productivity in the government entities which now have to manage this program as well....

I think you missed a few o the taxes there.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Actually I think very capable vehicles are getting destroyed. The clunkers have to be drivable, registered AND insured for the entire year to be eligible. This seems strange to not accept vehicles that don't run and aren't registered/insured, yet they will take perfectly good cars and totally destroy them. A total waste of perfectly good capital and drivable car that could have been sold to someone who can't afford a new vehicle.

Please stop muddying the water with sound reason.

samcol · 08-04-2009, 10:41 AM

I find it funny that the government has to subsidize all sides of this equation in order to get new cars to sell. I think it really shows what an unfortunate state the economy is really in. They have to subsidize the loans because the banks messed up, they have to subsidize GM because they are too big to fail (the supply), and now they have to subsidize the actual sale of the car as well (the demand side).

This does not sound like a very sound economic plan to me.

dc_dux · 08-04-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

...

This does not sound like a very sound economic plan to me.

I wouldnt characterize it as an economic plan, but rather a shot-term stop-gap measure to keep credit flowing and money circulating in the economy.

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I find it funny that the government has to subsidize all sides of this equation in order to get new cars to sell. I think it really shows what an unfortunate state the economy is really in. They have to subsidize the loans because the banks messed up, they have to subsidize GM because they are too big to fail (the supply), and now they have to subsidize the actual sale of the car as well (the demand side).

This does not sound like a very sound economic plan to me.

Damnit, man! Will you quit making sense?!

FuglyStick · 08-04-2009, 11:50 AM

never mind--

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Actually I think very capable vehicles are getting destroyed. The clunkers have to be drivable, registered AND insured for the entire year to be eligible. This seems strange to not accept vehicles that don't run and aren't registered/insured, yet they will take perfectly good cars and totally destroy them. A total waste of perfectly good capital and drivable car that could have been sold to someone who can't afford a new vehicle.

If they allowed uninsured undrivable cars to be traded in everyone would go to the junkyard and buy some scrap to trade in. Though I do think the program is allowing some vehicles that are a bit to night be to traded in.

---------- Post added at 07:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

I think it is funny that all conservatives every clamor for is tax credits and tax breaks. This is essentially a tax credit which needs to be used in a very specific way. Do you complain about how much the tax credits pushed by the conservatives will cost?

This is essentially a tax credit that people can CHOOSE to participate in. If someone is wants to take advantage of this program than they have to live with the consequences of it (higher taxes, car loan, etc). The fact is they CHOSE to participate in it. The reason I like this program is that it provides incentive for the public to spend in order to help get the economy moving again. What happened to the rights trickle down theories that they have been pushing for years????

In my opinion subsidizing purchases for the consumer is a lot better than subsidizing bonuses for the bankers and insurance companies....

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If they allowed uninsured undrivable cars to be traded in everyone would go to the junkyard and buy some scrap to trade in. Though I do think the program is allowing some vehicles that are a bit to night be to traded in.

---------- Post added at 07:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

I think it is funny that all conservatives every clamor for is tax credits and tax breaks. This is essentially a tax credit which needs to be used in a very specific way. Do you complain about how much the tax credits pushed by the conservatives will cost?

This is essentially a tax credit that people can CHOOSE to participate in. If someone is wants to take advantage of this program than they have to live with the consequences of it (higher taxes, car loan, etc). The fact is they CHOSE to participate in it. The reason I like this program is that it provides incentive for the public to spend in order to help get the economy moving again. What happened to the rights trickle down theories that they have been pushing for years????

In my opinion subsidizing purchases for the consumer is a lot better than subsidizing bonuses for the bankers and insurance companies....

*sigh* ...and while we are talking about hypocrisy, why don't we point out how all of a sudden the liberals want to stimulate the economy by issuing a tax credit!

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

*sigh* ...and while we are talking about hypocrisy, why don't we point out how all of a sudden the liberals want to stimulate the economy by issuing a tax credit!

I have never had a problem with tax credits as long as they are a credit for a specific behavior you want to encourage. I think these work great for encouraging a specific behavior (like weatherizing a home). What I don't like is when they just give money back and don't encourage anyone to spend it.

Here is the thing, if people are nervous about spending and you give them $1000 they will take that money and save it. However, if you give them $1000 only if they spend it on X then they will spend that money. Right now having the consumer save all their money is not going to help the economy. We need to encourage them to spend their money and gain confidence in the market (which really appears that it has turned... DJIA is around 9300!)

Cimarron29414 · 08-04-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I have never had a problem with tax credits as long as they are a credit for a specific behavior you want to encourage. I think these work great for encouraging a specific behavior (like weatherizing a home). What I don't like is when they just give money back and don't encourage anyone to spend it.

Here is the thing, if people are nervous about spending and you give them $1000 they will take that money and save it. However, if you give them $1000 only if they spend it on X then they will spend that money. Right now having the consumer save all their money is not going to help the economy. We need to encourage them to spend their money and gain confidence in the market (which really appears that it has turned... DJIA is around 9300!)

First, who the fuck is the government to TELL me how to spend my money? I'm a grown man and I already have a mom. Second of all, they aren't "giving me money", they are returning my money back to me. It isn't their money! The consumers save their money right now because it is the right thing to do. Those of us who see the writing on the wall see and end to huge sectors of private industry, massive government taxation, and the real potential for job loss.

Unlike the government, we choose to be fiscally responsible and pay our own way through the difficult times. If the government did something that showed any once of faith in a true free market, then spending would increase.

Rekna · 08-04-2009, 12:49 PM

Part of the governments constitutional duty is to provide for the general wellfare. It is no secret that the individual rarely looks out for anyone besides their-self. The government is providing incentive for people to upgrade to better technologies in order to provide for the general welfare by reducing pollution and helping maintain the automakers (who are in trouble). If the automakers were to suddenly close down the US would be plunged into a depression comparable to the great depression (again the general welfare).

The government is trying to make decisions that improve society on the whole that would not be made by the individual because in the end most individuals say "it's not my problem" despite the fact that it is or will be soon.

FuglyStick · 08-04-2009, 12:50 PM

Oh dear God

Abandon all hope ye who enter this thread...

Derwood · 08-04-2009, 01:00 PM

I gave up on this many posts ago

NoSoup · 08-05-2009, 07:52 PM

From a simple investment perspective, it disheartens me that people are being encouraged to buy brand new cars. It's hard for me to understand the grand-scale mindset behind encouraging your populace - which is currently hurting pretty badly for money, to purchase one of the most expensive things that the average person will purchase in their lifetime - and item that loses a signficant portion of it's value immediately after purchase and is one of the fastest depreciating assets one will ever own.

Call me crazy, but when I was growing up most folks bought used cars unless they were doing pretty well financially - New cars were a luxury item...

08-04-2009, 01:22 AM	#44 (permalink)
scout Psycho	700 trillion...700 billion... either way its a huge amount of money. but just to set it straight ..700 billion... there ya all feel better now? __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

08-04-2009, 06:32 AM	#46 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	First, all the polls I have seen shows the majority of Americans are in support of health care reform. Second, we are a republic not a democracy for a reason, to avoid a tyranny of the majority. No good government would function solely on what is best for the majority. Third why do you think these are unconstitutional? Specifically what part of the constitution does it violate? Last edited by Rekna; 08-04-2009 at 06:36 AM..

08-04-2009, 08:33 AM	#52 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	guys.. let's focus on the CARS not the healthcare...that's a whole thread all by itself. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-04-2009, 08:34 AM	#53 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Fuck Ron Paul __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

08-04-2009, 09:38 AM	#61 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Transparency: Obama administration withholds data on program - Yahoo! News __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

08-03-2009, 05:35 PM	#42 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	wait, $700 TRILLION?

08-04-2009, 09:24 AM	#60 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Does anyone know what % sales tax a dealer generally pays on on a car sale?

08-04-2009, 10:12 AM	#66 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm not sure the program is going to cost as much money as people think. Let's look at it from a tax perspective. The cost of each fully subsidized purchase is $4500 There is no money generated from sales tax because that tax is deductible. The business has to pay income/revenue type taxes on that purchase. In addition, most consumers must pay around 2% of the cars value every year in property taxes/auto mobile fees. For the sake of argument let's say that the average cost of the cars purchases is $25,000 and businesses pay 5% income tax. In this case the initial purchase of the car costs and generates the following money: subsidy ($4,500) Business tax $1250 Yearly Property Tax $500 Thus after the first year the program is already recouped 40% of the cost and this excludes any taxes generated by income tax due to increased demand on automobiles. ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ---------- I don't necessarily feel we should be destroying the vehicles traded in but I think they are forcing the destruction to help prevent fraud by dealers who would then take those cars and resell them. Part of the aim of this program is to get these cars off the road. If they didn't destroy these cars we would have an equal number of people complaining about the US destroying the used car market and hurting used car dealers....

08-04-2009, 10:41 AM	#69 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I find it funny that the government has to subsidize all sides of this equation in order to get new cars to sell. I think it really shows what an unfortunate state the economy is really in. They have to subsidize the loans because the banks messed up, they have to subsidize GM because they are too big to fail (the supply), and now they have to subsidize the actual sale of the car as well (the demand side). This does not sound like a very sound economic plan to me. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

08-04-2009, 11:50 AM	#72 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	never mind-- __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT! Last edited by FuglyStick; 08-04-2009 at 11:51 AM.. Reason: better judgement

08-04-2009, 12:49 PM	#77 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Part of the governments constitutional duty is to provide for the general wellfare. It is no secret that the individual rarely looks out for anyone besides their-self. The government is providing incentive for people to upgrade to better technologies in order to provide for the general welfare by reducing pollution and helping maintain the automakers (who are in trouble). If the automakers were to suddenly close down the US would be plunged into a depression comparable to the great depression (again the general welfare). The government is trying to make decisions that improve society on the whole that would not be made by the individual because in the end most individuals say "it's not my problem" despite the fact that it is or will be soon.

08-04-2009, 12:50 PM	#78 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Oh dear God Abandon all hope ye who enter this thread... __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

08-04-2009, 01:00 PM	#79 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I gave up on this many posts ago

08-05-2009, 07:52 PM	#80 (permalink)
NoSoup Non-Rookie Location: Green Bay, WI	From a simple investment perspective, it disheartens me that people are being encouraged to buy brand new cars. It's hard for me to understand the grand-scale mindset behind encouraging your populace - which is currently hurting pretty badly for money, to purchase one of the most expensive things that the average person will purchase in their lifetime - and item that loses a signficant portion of it's value immediately after purchase and is one of the fastest depreciating assets one will ever own. Call me crazy, but when I was growing up most folks bought used cars unless they were doing pretty well financially - New cars were a luxury item... __________________ I have an aura of reliability and good judgement. Just in case you were wondering...