Cash for clunkers

[targus]

I believe it was a successful program...

What is the proof of this success?

 

[Salty]

The same could be said for 90% of what the federal government spends. It's a huge mess we are in and it's been getting worse ever since Grover Cleveland left office.

On that, I totally agree with you my friend! :1_grouphug:

Now if the States or Commonwealth spends the money, thats another story- at least it is not (federally) unconstitutional.

 

[Robert Snow]

What is the proof of this success?

Did you read the opening link?

 

[rbell]

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?

 

[targus]

Did you read the opening link?

Yes.

Did you read my response to it?

Do you believe it simply because you read it even though it defies logic and reason?

From the study: "The Maritz study demonstrates that the vast majority (542,000) of consumers indicated that CARS was the main motivation for purchasing or leasing a vehicle when they did."

All this program did was accelerate the purchase of vehicles that would have been bought eventually anyway and at a great cost to taxpayers.

And at a great cost to our children and grandchildren because it was done with government borrowed money.

The program was nothing more than a political payoff of to the auto unions.

 

[rbell]

Okay, I'm not an expert on this stuff. I have simply stated my opinion based upon the information I have read.

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 keep hearing this line from people. But it didn't remove the majority of these cars. There are still cars available. I would enjoy seeing any one supporting this claim show us proof that the used car inventory dramatically decline and prices were remarkably pushed up. I don't see it though.

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

Yet isn't this the role of the free market? So many free market conservatives (which I consider myself one) are all about letting the market decide prices but have to speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. Which is it?

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.

The government only provided cash for the program. Show me where the government forced any consumer to trade in their car. Show me where the government forced any dealer to participate in the program. To my knowledge it was purely a free choice....which I believe most free market conservatives has been asking for in the government.

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.

Do you have a citation for this claim? I'm curious because it seems to be an ad hoc statistic.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- What are people trading their clunkers in for? It depends on who you ask. The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys.
The discrepancy is a result of the methods used. Edmunds.com uses traditional sales measurements, tallying sales by make and model. The government uses a more arcane measurement method that subdivides models according to engine and transmission types, counting them as separate models.... CNN_SOURCE

Anyhoo, even if you buy your claim...4 MPG in a 15 gallon tanks equals 60 more miles. Figure you fill up 25 times a year that's 1,500 gallons a year. (Or $3,750 based on $2.50 gas for a family) If 395,000 consumers did this that is 592,500,000 gallons a year. Seems pretty significant to me.

This point is more of a red herring than anything else though (and not a particularly good one.) Automobiles do contribute to climate decline but not as much as factories, energy production, and such.

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. CNN_SOURCE

Oh, and is the right term "climate decline" now? Thanks for the heads-up. Doggone it...I had just gotten used to "climate change" after "global warming" became illegal to say.

So you want more energy inefficient cars out there. You desire the industry to go back to 5 to 10 MPG?

Funny...I've scoured the thread, and haven't found my saying that anywhere. But I have no desire hand over my money so that you or anyone else can buy a car.

This isn't about global warming. It is about helping consumers make a purchase most want to do anyways.

Sorry...not the job of government.

I guess the huge commission checks many of the dealership employees got was a minor thing too...

So how is saving $3,700+ a year per family on gas a bad thing?
So where did the government force anyone to participate in the program?

*sigh*
Let's try this again: It's not the job of government to take my money, and give it to someone else...just so they can buy the "right" car. Why is that hard to understand? One more thing: they did force me to participate...my tax dollars went toward helping people buy cars. Please tell me that was clear.

I don't think it is. You just threw up a lot of unfounded accusation and speculation. Without any citation or references you just stated the old argument and didn't offer anything new. I have yet to see substantive points from objective sources on this.

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.")

 

[Robert Snow]

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?

I don't believe the government took $4500 dollars of your money to pay for someone's automobile. They only took a small amount of your taxes. 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. If you are in the minority, the you will just have to suffer.

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.

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.

 

[gb93433]

I was looking at buying a new pickup a few months ago but when I found out that the trade in credit had gone so much I decided to wait. So I did not buy any vehicle.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I was looking at buying a new pickup a few months ago but when I found out that the trade in credit had gone so much I decided to wait. So I did not buy any vehicle.

Maybe you should buy a 2-4 year old used one and save money.

 

[Robert Snow]

Maybe you should buy a 2-4 year old used one and save money.

When someone is selling a vehicle that is only two to four years old, I have to ask myself why they are doing it. They probably are still financing it. I always wonder if there is a problem they are not mentioning. I will pay an extra two or three thousand dollars and get something new.

 

[Salty]

We have given the government the authority to tax us and spend the money any way the Congress deems necessary.

You are incorrect!!! Yes, we have given Congress authority to spend money but not anyway they deem necessary. There is this little thing called the Constitution - as I stated before, that program, as well as many more are unconstitutional

 

[targus]

We have given the government the authority to tax us and spend the money any way the Congress deems necessary.

Where did you ever get this idea?

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.

Do you apply this line of thinking to government funded abortions too?

If not - how do you pick what to trust God to see that we have what He wants us to have?

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.

Well, since it is all a matter of being sting or not - send me a check and I"ll go buy a new car.

No?

Don't be so stingy.

 

[Robert Snow]

You are incorrect!!! Yes, we have given Congress authority to spend money but not anyway they deem necessary. There is this little thing called the Constitution - as I stated before, that program, as well as many more are unconstitutional

The Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. Since they have not curbed the spending what can we do except elect Representatives that agree with our viewpoints?

Where did you ever get this idea?



Do you apply this line of thinking to government funded abortions too?

Murder is against God's law. Disobeying the manner in which the government does things is not against the law. if fact God says to obey the governmental authorities. Now if it is a matter of conscience, then a person must make a stand, like not paying taxes, and be willing to suffer the consequences. I notice you complain a lot about how the government taxes us and spends our taxes, but I don't see you taking a stand of conscience about it. All you do is gripe and complain.

If not - how do you pick what to trust God to see that we have what He wants us to have?

Part of trusting God is obeying the government as much as we can, and we should not be bitter to pay or taxes. If you think we are being taxed too much like I do, then we need to elect better Representatives. Until then, I believe we are stuck.

Well, since it is all a matter of being sting or not - send me a check and I"ll go buy a new car.

No?

Don't be so stingy.

I pay my taxes, of which part was used for the CFC program. You should have purchased an auto then and I would have helped you pay for it.

 

[Salty]

The Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. Since they have not curbed the spending what can we do except elect Representatives that agree with our viewpoints?

QUOTE]

They only rule on case law when a suit is brought to the court. Too bad someone didn't.

So, let me ask it this way, if someone had filed a lawsuit, which way should the Supreme Court have ruled?

 

[Robert Snow]

The Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. Since they have not curbed the spending what can we do except elect Representatives that agree with our viewpoints?

QUOTE]

They only rule on case law when a suit is brought to the court. Too bad someone didn't.

So, let me ask it this way, if someone had filed a lawsuit, which way should the Supreme Court have ruled?

I don't have near enough knowledge of the law to make any determination as to which path would be correct.

 

[Salty]

I don't have near enough knowledge of the law to make any determination as to which path would be correct.

Think 10th amendment

 

[Robert Snow]

Think 10th amendment

If it is as cut and dried as you say, why doesn't the Supreme Court step in?

 

[Salty]

If it is as cut and dried as you say, why doesn't the Supreme Court step in?

1. Because they only consider cases that are brought before them.
2. And in the ones that have come before the court, liberal justices have stretched the law/constitution against states rights

 

[matt wade]

If it is as cut and dried as you say, why doesn't the Supreme Court step in?

You really have no clue as to how the legal system in this country works, do you?

 

[Robert Snow]

You really have no clue as to how the legal system in this country works, do you?

Tell me Einstein, how does the government (not legal system) operate?

Silly me, I thought we elected Representatives and a President. I also thought the President appointed Supreme Court Justices, who were then ratified by the Senate. I thought the Congress passed laws and the President either signed or vetoed them. And, that the Supreme Court decided if a law was Constitutional or not.

It looks to me like we either have to elect different Representatives and President, overthrow the current government, or live with the consequences of what we currently have.