DeanCollins Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Well my van doesn't qualify because it's a 1 ton, and we just got rid of my wife's piece of **** chrysler sebring, that barely ran for $1900 2 months ago. Oh well, I'll just keep riding my motorcycle until the mountain home is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twist Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 In that spirit ,why not just give every American a new car?How about a new energy efficient house? Magic money for nothing Tax breaks for energy efficient house modifications were done a few years ago under the Bush Administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twist Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Taking gas hogs off the road, reducing emissions, allowing auto-factory workers to build cars thereby earning money for the economy.The down side is where exactly? I guess we should have just given the rich more of a tax cut that is supposed to work right? Well you are taking money out of the pockets of people who don't buy giant cars in the first place. But I have more money because of being a reasonable person to begin with so I don't really mind not dodging so many SUV's on the highway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 The down side is where exactly? Skyrocketing debt? An exacerbation of the already too prevalent idea that we can spend money without having it, and without consequence? I will agree that if economic stimulus is what one settles on as a solution, this is probably one of the best ways to go about it, as it actually encourages spending in certain sectors, and it's not really much money in the big picture, but I'm kind of concerned that people seem to think that money can be created from nowhere and spent without any negative consequence at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 they are now adding $2billiion more and starting the program again. http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=10826596 WASHINGTON. - The House has voted to rush an additional $2 billion into the popular but financially strapped "cash for clunkers" car purchase program.The bill was approved on a vote of 316-109. House members acted within hours of learning from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that the program was running out of money. Called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, the program is designed to help the economy and the environment by spurring new car sales. Car owners can receive federal subsidies of up to $4,500 for trading in their old cars for new ones that achieve significantly higher gas mileage. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the new money for the program would come from funds approved earlier in the year as part of an economic stimulus bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 ... and it reduces even more our dependency on oil. Its a trifecta. There is no way this program puts even a small dent in our oil dependency. We need to drill off the US shores in order to stop being dependant on OPEC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 but I'm kind of concerned that people seem to think that money can be created from nowhere and spent without any negative consequence at all. it's not money created out of nowhere, it's a long-term investment. you get clunkers off the road now and save X dollars down the road (pun intended) in reduced oil consumption (and other fringe benefits for less pollution and stimulating the economy/jobs). i won't pretend to know the actual numbers regarding how much this costs versus how much we'll save in the logn run, but it seems like a great idea on the surface to me. yes, we have to increase our debt today to do it, but if it pays off in the long run then it is worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 There is no way this program puts even a small dent in our oil dependency. We need to drill off the US shores in order to stop being dependant on OPEC. that's a risky and short-sighted solution that does nothing against the root cause. the obvious, real solution is to consume less oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 it's not money created out of nowhere, it's a long-term investment. Taxes were not raised, nor was spending cut. The money was, quite literally, created out of nowhere. The government is spending money it does not have. You can make all the policy arguments you want that this will be positive long-term, but you cannot argue this basic fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Taxes were not raised, nor was spending cut. The money was, quite literally, created out of nowhere. The government is spending money it does not have.You can make all the policy arguments you want that this will be positive long-term, but you cannot argue this basic fact. nobody's disputing that we increased our debt to do this. the point is if we make back more than we spent, it's a win. you cannot argue THIS basic fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I will agree that if economic stimulus is what one settles on as a solution, this is probably one of the best ways to go about it, as it actually encourages spending in certain sectors, and it's not really much money in the big picture, but I'm kind of concerned that people seem to think that money can be created from nowhere and spent without any negative consequence at all. Show me someone on the Tailgate who thinks that, and we can talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Skyrocketing debt? An exacerbation of the already too prevalent idea that we can spend money without having it, and without consequence?I will agree that if economic stimulus is what one settles on as a solution, this is probably one of the best ways to go about it, as it actually encourages spending in certain sectors, and it's not really much money in the big picture, but I'm kind of concerned that people seem to think that money can be created from nowhere and spent without any negative consequence at all. X2. You want to give people $4500 of our money for trading into a more efficient vehicle? That I dont agree with, and on top of using my money to help buy someone a new car the govt destroys perfectly good engines and cars. How about giving it to the salvation army to someone who needs a running car to get to work to pay his bills? How many boroughs or municipalities would love to to take someones air hauler and actually carry cargo? I am sure vocational schools would love to fix up cars. I would hate to be a used car salesman, values drop and cars they would normally be getting are going to get scrapped. By now everyone knows the engines have to be destroyed, even though they run fine and could be used by someone for a good purpose. This program really ticks me off. This program is nothing more than forced spending to purchase goods that are otherwise not needed=Wasteful. I don't like the government giving people incentives via my money to take on more debt. We are being extorted so people can buy cars. How does buying up drivable used cars at prices above their market value, for the purpose of destroying them, benefit the economy or the planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 that's a risky and short-sighted solution that does nothing against the root cause. the obvious, real solution is to consume less oil. I understand that we need to lessen our use, but to say this lil program will make such a huge difference, I don't think so. We need to develop more natural gas and oil from our own resources, not just OPEC. Its the combination of certain things that will get us where we need to be, not just one program, not just one change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 the point is if we make back more than we spent, it's a win. Maybe, but the full equation should include any damage done to the fiscal responsibility of the nation, as well as any more tangible benefits and costs. And, of course, you are assuming (while admitting that you don't know the exact numbers), that this will be a net positive. you cannot argue THIS basic fact. You obviously don't know me very well. Show me someone on the Tailgate who thinks that, and we can talk about it. 1. I don't want to talk about it. I want to complain, then leave the thread. 2. This post (and another he made in a similar vein), seems to express such a sentiment, if not in so many words. 3. I have seen very little genuine concern on this board about where the money's coming from from those that support Presdient Obama's policies, despite their being much more interested in these topics during the Bush administration, though I recognize that this is at least partially political, as it's not one's job to advance arguments for one's opponents. The truth is, the only consistent people on this are the libertarians, and that's probably because we're too marginal to worry about being corrupted by power. 4. Finally, I find that many people in the real world, which is much larger than just the Tailgate (and where most of the voters are too ) seems to feel the same way as the guy in post two, and this concerns me. Many of these people will vote for Republicans because they will cut taxes without paying for it, and for Democrats because they will give out money in the form of programs without paying for it, and it doesn't seem to concern them that this money has to come from somewhere, even if it's "just" inflation from firing up the printing presses. And, of course, these very same people scream bloody murder about any tax increases or spending cuts, making the political landscape one where it's okay to spend, but not to pay for it. So, even if you're right that the attitude I am talking about is not prevalent in the Tailgate (and I doubt you are, if for no other reason than a lot of posters here avoid political threads, myself often among them), my point is still a larger one that this kind of policy exacerbates an already huge problem of perception in this country, and that is a relevant negative to this program, regardless of the perceptions of those we see here in this tiny slice of the U.S.A. And so, I totally reject the idea that this is not a point worth discussing, though I honestly don't really much want to discuss it. Any more than I already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I understand that we need to lessen our use, but to say this lil program will make such a huge difference, I don't think so. We need to develop more natural gas and oil from our own resources, not just OPEC. Its the combination of certain things that will get us where we need to be, not just one program, not just one change. Seriously, we just don't have that much oil in our borders. Natural gas, sure. Oil shale that might become a viable source of oil with technology improvements, perhaps. But there isn't this huge free puddle of US oil sitting out there that would solve our problems if we were just willing to drill. That is a political myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 They burn less gas thereby reducing taxes paid to the govt,which in turn will increase taxes to cover the shortfall.(as well as servicing the debt from the rebate and bailouts to the auto companies) I'm sure there will be benefits though:evilg: Good for me:),they will be forced to carry full ins coverage and I prefer working on newer cars.:groupwave: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Seriously, we just don't have that much oil in our borders. Natural gas, sure. Oil shale that might become a viable source of oil with technology improvements, perhaps.But there isn't this huge free puddle of US oil sitting out there that would solve our problems if we were just willing to drill. That is a political myth. We do have a number of large deposits,as well as more that are likely.(funny that the more they look ,the more they find:)) I do agree simply drilling will not solve our problems,but combine it with mandatory funding alt energy as well as reducing our dependence on others AND increasing production,and manufacturing and JOBS + TAX base and it is rather foolish not to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Seriously, we just don't have that much oil in our borders. Natural gas, sure. Oil shale that might become a viable source of oil with technology improvements, perhaps.But there isn't this huge free puddle of US oil sitting out there that would solve our problems if we were just willing to drill. That is a political myth. Why not let the free market detirmin that? If you are right, they will not be profitable in their drilling, and will not likly drill much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 They burn less gas thereby reducing taxes paid to the govt,which in turn will increase taxes to cover the shortfall.(as well as servicing the debt from the rebate and bailouts to the auto companies)I'm sure there will be benefits though:evilg: Good for me:),they will be forced to carry full ins coverage and I prefer working on newer cars.:groupwave: If the Cash for Clunkers goal is to get fuel hogging vehicles (under 18 mpg) off the road, why dont they ban all passenger vehicles right now that are produced for use in the US? The vehicle you trade up for has to get 4 to 10 mpg better than your clunker, so that still could be under 18 mpg. I wonder why there is a cap of 10 mpg better for the trade up vehicle. That will exclude hybrids from the lists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Half of the billion for the program stayed in DC for admin tasks, so only $500 million was available for car purchases. http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_18f4237c-78b4-11de-a884-001cc4c03286.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Skyrocketing debt? An exacerbation of the already too prevalent idea that we can spend money without having it, and without consequence? not a lot different then believing in wall street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Half of the billion for the program stayed in DC for admin tasks, so only $500 million was available for car purchases. http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_18f4237c-78b4-11de-a884-001cc4c03286.html Where are they getting that number from? Not saying they are wrong. But have not seen this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If the Cash for Clunkers goal is to get fuel hogging vehicles (under 18 mpg) off the road, why dont they ban all passenger vehicles right now that are produced for use in the US? Is there a stipulation in the cash for clunkers deal that says I cant trade my clunker truck (if I had one) in for a truck or sports car that gets even worse mpg? yes, of course there is. the car you trade in has to get worse than 18mpg and the one you buy has to get better than 23mpg, if i remember right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Where are they getting that number from? Not saying they are wrong. But have not seen this. The number I saw was 200 million,500 m is kinda steep skimming even for the feds:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why give up a perfectly functioning muscle car or SUV for an Obama Motors environmental friendly vehicle that can't comfortably seat 4 tall long legged people? It would make more sense to cut taxes and let people spend their money on anything they want to stimulate the economy instead of taking our money doling it out so its targeted to subsidizing Obama and UAW motors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.