Cash for clunkers

[Peggy]

C4C. Bad idea. Why should the government help people buy a new car? Answer: union payoff.

I am "poor" and looking for a reliable, inexpensive used car, and believe me there are not a lot out there in my price range any more. The government gave to the middle class and rich who could afford to buy a new car anyway, and took from the poor their ability to buy a reasonably priced used car.

 

[rbell]

I don't believe the government took $4500 dollars of your money to pay for someone's automobile.

Who's money do you think it was...Mickey Mouse's? Mother Teresa? Obama's pet dog? Of course it was my money...and other taxpaying Americans.

They only took a small amount of your taxes.

Oh, so it was only a small boondoggle. My bad. Then I can't point it out?

We have given the government the authority to tax us and spend the money any way the Congress deems necessary. The thing to do, if you think this is wrong, is to replace your elected officials with those who believe like you do.

Believe me, I will remember the D's and R's that give away my kids' future. Oh, and for the record...I'm not against taxes. I'm against the socialistic redistribution of wealth, and vote-buying. You should be as well.

Seems like I remember the bible saying that, for a Christian witness, we should allow ourselves to be defrauded and not to make an idol out of our money. Sometimes we have to got he extra mile for Christ's sake. Surely you trust God to see that you have what He wants you to have.

What an offensive statement. We are also told to provide for our family. This is my kids' future that is being confiscated and spent--all in the name of buying votes. We don't have the money in the US to do this. We're mortgaging our future...and my kids will be among those who have to pay for it. To insinuate that I am worshipping money instead of God is a slap in my face. You owe me an apology for insinuating I've made an idol out of money. And I'd appreciate your not making such an offensive assertion again.

The "extra mile" comment may be your most ridiculous in your post. So...you're saying that my opposition to this ill-advised program is tantamount to unChristlike selfishness? Surely you don't believe that, do you? Even though I've given several of my cars away over the years (3, I believe, in my lifetime) to truly poor folk...(I don't buy real expensive cars, and they are well-used when I'm done; functioning, but well-used)--somehow I'm selfish, because I oppose a poorly conceived, badly-implemented, unconstitutional vote-buying scheme?? What a load of horse-squeeze.

I actually bought a new truck just before the government instituted this program; you don't see me crying because I could have saved money if I had known about it. I don't regret helping someone who needed a new car get one. Don't be so stingy.

Oh, and so I oppose wealth redistibution and vote-buying, I'm stingy? That's a moronic statement. I've made the point: "Why is the government helping people buy cars?" Your response is to name-call. That answers a lot.

Furthermore...if you need $4,500 from taxpayers to buy a car...then you need to wait on buying one. Actually, we purchased a car during this time frame...but we intentionally did not participate in C4C, because we had a moral issue with it. So nix the "stingy" comment, because my family stood on a conviction. Because we are principled, your money didn't go to buy us a car. And no...I don't want or expect applause for my actions: but I want it made clear that my actions backed up my statements.

Furthermore...truly poor people (the ones that Scripture said to help) can't afford the C4C program. If you can buy a new car, then you're not that poor. So out with that Scriptural mandate.

Disagree all you want with me. But you have no right to call me unChristlike because I oppose a particular government program, that doesn't even help poor people.

RS, I've enjoyed your posts as of recent months. But this one smacks of the old RS...the one who would call people names and question their character when he disagreed with them. I hope you're not returning to that modus operandi.

 

[j_barner2000]

The president is supposed to enforce the law that the congress ratifies and the supreme court is supposed to intereret the law when it's intent comes into question.

Now, I don't know about anyone else here but I have seen all 3 branches overstep their job classifications. I have also seen them twist the constitution into knots. This is not a party issue, but an issue with attitude and arrogance. As a Pastor, if I interpreted the Bible based upon current opinion I would have to accept abortion, same-sex marriafe and reject personal responsiblilty. That is the way the constitution is now being interpreted. based upon publicopinion, not even of americans but of european governments etc. if that was the intent of the framers, then they would not have fought for a new law of the land. the president should not be telling congress what to do... not his job. the court should not be making new laws... not their job etc. time to get back to a nation run based upon the limits placed by the constitution. Just as it is time for the Church to return to running based on the Bible. There must be an absolute standard from which we derive the principles by which we live and operate.

The program interfered with free market principles in that the vehicles authorized for trade in ansd purchase were predetmined. Also it ammounted to government interference in the vehicles available for sale after the program ended. It placed the taxpayer into debt for a portion of each rebate granted. Even those who could not afford to take advantage of the program. I personally could not afford a new car payment even with the rebate offered.

the program did not provide for the general welfare of the people... only of a select few who either benefitted from the work related to the sale or the few who benefitted from purchasing one of these vehicles. besides the constitution specifically limits the fed to what they can do. not in what they cannot do. the cannot do is implied by the words used (words have specific meanings) in telling the government what it can do. We americans need to read and understand our own law of the land. just as we Christians need to read and understand our Bible. No wonder our nation, like the Church is beginning to decline. We have become either too lazy, apathetic or ignorant.

 

[rbell]

also, keep in mind that this program was a wash, environmentally.

Yes, some "gas-guzzlers" were taken off the market.

But remember--every single "clunker," even some that had lots of life left in them--were disabled (the engines made to seize up) and destroyed. So, hundreds of thousands of used parts went off the market, driving up prices (and this is an area that I'm pretty knowledgeable on--my father spent a half-century in the auto parts business).

In addition, these cars were all scrapped--using up more landfill space. And many of the cars that were destroyed had lots of good life left in them. How wasteful--and these leftists that put this program in place are the same nanny-state nincompoops that chide us for our "wastefulness" and "consumerist irresponsibility."

What a bunch of flaming hypocrisy.

 

[targus]

We seem to have forgotten that a great many of the cars bought under this program were foreign made.

Nothing like using U.S. taxpayer dollars to increase the profits of Japanese companies.

 

[preachinjesus]

The Constituiton LIMITS federal power. In addition the 10th admendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So where is the article or amendment limiting Congress' power or the Executive's power to do these kinds of things.

Honestly I would suggest that this falls under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. There are implied and express powers for Congress that allow for this use of authority.

I'm not going to chase rabbits on this since it is a side road. The reality is that Congress has this power, the power has been upheld up several Court decisions. Let's not haggle over the peripheral, let's talk specifics.

 

[preachinjesus]

OK, let's ask it another way:

Why should the government take $4,500 dollars out of my pocket, and give it to someone else for buying a new car?

This is a, sadly, misunderstood view of our taxes. We don't live in a democracy we live in a federal constitutional republic. Once you pay your taxes they are given to the Treasury to use as they are directed by the Congress.

So the government didn't need your tax dollars. I'll throw this out there. More than likely none of us have paid more than $10,000 in Federal taxes last year. (If you have glory to God I have a cause I need you to prayerfully consider...) There are also several hundred million other tax payers plus all the other aviation, business, tariff, agency fees, and about a bigillion other sources of tax revenue.

If you want the government took your tax dollars and invested them in one of the bombs dropped in Afghanistan yesterday. :smilewinkgrin:

We have elected representatives to manage the taxes of our nation through their invested powers of governance. To suggest that "my tax dollars don't go here" or "my tax dollar don't go there" is a myopic view of the government and is misunderstood. Its really just grand standing.

I believe all of my tax dollars go to pay the salary of the guy who combs through the regulations for ladders and staplers. That is the guy I want to encourage..

 

[Robert Snow]

Who's money do you think it was...Mickey Mouse's? Mother Teresa? Obama's pet dog? Of course it was my money...and other taxpaying Americans. Oh, so it was only a small boondoggle. My bad. Then I can't point it out?

Yes, you can point it out, just like I can point out that is was only a small amount of your tax money.

Believe me, I will remember the D's and R's that give away my kids' future. Oh, and for the record...I'm not against taxes. I'm against the socialistic redistribution of wealth, and vote-buying. You should be as well.

I have children too, and I worry about their future as well. The vote buying has been going on since this country began. Although I don't like it, what I really don't like is seeing our industrial base sold off to China so the rich can get a little more wealthy. I don't like redistribution of wealth, but the current laws favor the upper class. All I want is a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

I don't like a lot of things the government does with my tax money, but I am unable to stop them from doing it.

As I said before, I agree with this statement.

What an offensive statement. We are also told to provide for our family. This is my kids' future that is being confiscated and spent--all in the name of buying votes. We don't have the money in the US to do this. We're mortgaging our future...and my kids will be among those who have to pay for it. To insinuate that I am worshiping money instead of God is a slap in my face. You owe me an apology for insinuating I've made an idol out of money. And I'd appreciate your not making such an offensive assertion again.

I did not mean to insinuate that you are worshiping money. In fact, I never said such a thing. If this is what you got out of my words, then I do apologize. Like I said before, my children are in the same boat as yours, and I don't like it either. I never said you were making an idol out of money. If this is what you thought, then i apologies again.

The "extra mile" comment may be your most ridiculous in your post. So...you're saying that my opposition to this ill-advised program is tantamount to unChristlike selfishness?

I don't think it was ridiculous; I believe it is a valid point, but I was not saying you are unChristlike or selfish.

Even though I've given several of my cars away over the years (3, I believe, in my lifetime) to truly poor folk...(I don't buy real expensive cars, and they are well-used when I'm done; functioning, but well-used)--somehow I'm selfish, because I oppose a poorly conceived, badly-implemented, unconstitutional vote-buying scheme??

You are to be commended for this, I know I have given a car away myself.

What a load of horse-squeeze.

You know, this could be thought of as offensive also.

Oh, and so I oppose wealth redistribution and vote-buying, I'm stingy? That's a moronic statement.

I've already said I was against wealth redistribution. Also, to insinuate that I a am a moron is offensive, wouldn't you agree?

Your response is to name-call. That answers a lot.

I did not deliberately call you any name.

Actually, we purchased a car during this time frame...but we intentionally did not participate in C4C, because we had a moral issue with it. So nix the "stingy" comment, because my family stood on a conviction. Because we are principled, your money didn't go to buy us a car. And no...I don't want or expect applause for my actions: but I want it made clear that my actions backed up my statements.

I commend you for standing on your principles. Like I said, I bought a new truck with my own money.

RS, I've enjoyed your posts as of recent months. But this one smacks of the old RS...the one who would call people names and question their character when he disagreed with them. I hope you're not returning to that modus operandi.

I have not returned to anything. I just said what I believe about this program. Although you may be correct that it is a intrusive government program, I still think it helped some people to get a new car. I did not start the program and had nothing to do with it at all. I am not even saying that it should have been started in the first place. As said earlier, there are myriads of things the government does that I don't like, number one being the financing of abortions. If we could stop abortions, i would be willing to give even more to the C4C program, even though it does have its faults.

 

[preachinjesus]

;1529014]Nor am I...but I've talked to people that are. And the principles I'm applying are time-honored and proven (such as the law of supply and demand). Besides...one day, your opinion might look like mine. Just think how wonderful that would be.

I believe for that to happen we shall be at the eschaton and it will truly be a wonderous day. :thumbsup:

According to the LA times, about 700K cars were sold (and thus, 700K turned in and destroyed). Sorry, but that's a lot of cars. Of course it will have an effect on prices...especially considering that all those cars are cars that would be from the lower side of the price spectrum. (No one's going to trade a $40K F-350 'dooley' for $4.5K) LA_TIMES_ARTICLE

This was an interesting quote from the article you posted: But the coming weeks will show whether the program was a bargain or a lemon. I don't think this is a good article for you to use here. It is too close to the actual program and is not specific enough in analysis to show anything substantive. I would caution against it and recommend the original link as a better gauge for the accuracy of reporting.

Sorry, but I don't get your point. Where's the "both sides" thing? I've been pretty clear...it's not the government's job to take money from me, and give it to someone else based upon their buying the car the government desires them to.

Yeah I disagree that the government "takes your money from you." But I've addressed this in another thread. Taxes are the price of a civilized society. Your taxes didn't go to this program. Choose another, like a bomb used in the Afghanistan thingy we've got going on.

Sorry, you're wrong in one respect: The government offered no choice as to whether or not to spend billions of dollars bribing people to replace cars. And you're flat-out wrong about what conservatives want: They don't want government taking money from one taxpayer and bribing another to buy a certain kind of car. If one is in favor of this position, they are in no way espousing a "free-market conservative" position.

The "bribe" wasn't really a bribe imho. It is called an incentive. The government provides all kinds of incentives. I've got too members who just used the government "incentive" to buy a new home for the first time. They get some money for doing so. It was an opportunity for them. Was that wrong?

The government isn't an open democracy. We elect representatives who do their best to create programs and systems to provide for the welfare of society. This program was a successful incentive program.

C4C cost over $3 billion. Out of the nearly 700K vehicles sold, only about 125K wouldn't have been sold without the program. The cost for each of those cars? $24,000 per consumer. Hmmm....now that seems pretty significant to me.

I disagree with your "facts" here. Check out the recent study from the University of Delaware that analyzed the program now that it has been closed and we are far enough away to see a thorough analysis.

http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol6/iss8/art4/?sending=10731

They suggest the actual cost per consumer, per car is only $2,000 for the government. Now how did they come to that conclusion? Well when you add in the taxes on the new, the taxes for the company that built that car, the taxes on the employees of the plant that built that car, the taxes on the dealership, etc etc etc.

So you're $24,000 per car is wrong. It is actually $2,000.

Sorry...not the job of government.

Show me where it is prohibited.

Well, that baby's been put to bed. See the links above (I even went to the trouble of getting links from sources such as CNN--not exactly paragons of "right-ness.")

So what about the other benefits of this program?

GM and Ford sold approximately 47% of the cars in the program. That is above their market share. They also saw, at a very hard time economically, their fleets of new cars sell out.

So what about the car plants that were re-opened because of the program? What about the jobs there?

What about the dealerships that saw new customers? What about the sale force that saw big commission checks that came because of the program?

What about the scarp yards that now have a new influx of metal to use? What about the recycling programs that have more opportunity?

What about shareholders (like me) who received a sizable bump in their dividends because of the huge success for the bottom line this program happened to be? What about the companies who didn't have to lay off their work forces because of the success of this program?

This was a successful program because it took an incentive based product and turned it into a sustainable investment into our nation and economy. Were some area affected? Yes, but not a drastically as they would have been if these companies, dealership, etc had gone out of business.

I'm not an expert but I look at a program like this that is based in the exercise of a free market system and say, "Hey, this is something good that the President was able to work with Congress to provide for the citizens."

Our government system isn't perfect, this program wasn't perfect. Yet I think one of the big issues most conservatives have isn't about the successfulness or such about the program, it is having to look at a President they disdain and say he actually accomplished something. I think that is the bigger issue.

 

[Peggy]

What about shareholders (like me) who received a sizable bump in their dividends because of the huge success for the bottom line this program happened to be?

So that's what it's all about. You support it because you received a cash dividend.

Hey, I need a new dryer to replace my 25 year old inefficient, energy wasting model. Is there a government program for that? Can I get cash for my old clunker dryer to buy a new one?

 

[preachinjesus]

So that's what it's all about. You support it because you received a cash dividend.

Nah, just a side benefit. Besides, my dividends just reinvest.

I support the program because it makes sense. It has an honest purpose and has helped. Sorry, no sinister motive here. :thumbs:

Hey, I need a new dryer to replace my 25 year old inefficient, energy wasting model. Is there a government program for that? Can I get cash for my old clunker dryer to buy a new one?

Actually upgrading your old appliances to more energy efficient ones will bring a tax credit. We just went to a tankless water heater and there is some incentive for that. Again, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. Its voluntary.

 

[rbell]

I have children too, and I worry about their future as well. The vote buying has been going on since this country began.

I re-read my post to you, and I was harsher in my words than I should have been. My apologies, RS. I strongly disagree with you on C4C, but I should have been more circumspect as to my choice of words.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I re-read my post to you, and I was harsher in my words than I should have been. My apologies, RS. I strongly disagree with you on C4C, but I should have been more circumspect as to my choice of words.

God bless you.

 

[Robert Snow]

I re-read my post to you, and I was harsher in my words than I should have been. My apologies, RS. I strongly disagree with you on C4C, but I should have been more circumspect as to my choice of words.

No problem, we all do it from time to time. :thumbsup: