Why Republicans really hate Cash for Clunkers
xyzzy
summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
really unforgivable about it.
the_andr...@yahoo.com
Seriously.
I generally know what you do for a living, where you live, and
reasonably your income range.
Do you think the best thing for our government to be doing at any time
is to take money from one group and give it to someone such as
yourself who, obviously doesn't need it, under the guise of <insert
random reason here>?
You admitted that you were considering replacing your trash truck.
a.
TimV
That's what the government always does. Very little money taken from the
taxpayer really goes to needy people. There are good causes, such as defense
and medical research, but the government always overpays for these things,
largely lining the pockets of the weathly or well-connected. Of course,
those individuals/corporations spend that money and it eventually trickles
down the economy.
This is no different. But in this case, we are seeing rapid money
multiplication and convincing reticent buyers to actually spend money. For
the cost of $10 per person in America, it seems worth it (heck, they are
spending 10% of that for 3 jets just for the use of congress critters).
T
the_andr...@yahoo.com
>
>
> This is no different. But in this case, we are seeing rapid money
> multiplication
Really?
a.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Guess I'm not a republican then b/c those aren't the reasons I dislike
it. I dislike b/c it's several BILLION dollars of tax monies being
wasted for negligible effect, for a "feel good" program, that hurts
the poor and rewards only those who can afford a new car at a time
when taking on additional debt is a stupid decision to make as well as
a spurs sales of cars owned by foreign car companies. Plus,
destroying the vehicles and spiking the engines is a total waste of
resources and makes parts scarcer for those need.
xyzzy
Just because I'm considering glomming onto the program doesn't make it
a bad program. Congress could have put income limits on it, but
they chose not to. And if I do use it, it will have worked as
intended as an economic stimulus, because without it I wouldn't even
be considering a new vehicle, which was the whole point of c4c.
btw I'm still leaning toward going the craiglist route to replace my
truck. No trucks that qualify for c4c can tow a load of hay on a
trailer comfortably. Some of them have barely enough capacity on
paper, but I'd like more margin, and will probably end up with a $5K
10 year old full size truck off of craigslist and donate my junk truck
to charity.
At this point my plan is to hold onto the clunker truck until the
program ends, just in case something unexpected happens that requires
one of my other cars to be suddenly replaced.
TimV
Unless people are finding a lot of $4500 new cars, yeah. At the minimum,
you're looking at 2-3x out of the consumer's pockets instantaneously.
T
Con Reeder
> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1,
Works? By what measure?
1. It doesn't save energy. It takes energy to manufacture new cars,
and destroying the engines and the moving of a new car purchase forward
means that net energy savings is nil.
2. It replaces new car sales that would have happened anyway in the
future.
3. It leaves the purchasers with less money to spend on other things,
negatively impacting sales in other areas.
4. It reduces the number of auto parts on the market, which raises
consumer prices and takes energy for remanufacture of new parts.
5. The program is terribly administered, with estimates that the
cost of providing each rebate is over $1,000.
6. Since you don't have to provide and SSN to receive it, it
doesn't require the recipient be an American citizen. We are
funding Canadians and illegal immigrants.
> and it works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is
> what's really unforgivable about it.
It doesn't work, period. It is giving away money for all the wrong
reasons.
I don't know how many taxes you pay, but I pay plenty. And I resent
funding the stupid SUV purchases of people by giving them $4500 to
recant.
If this is one of Obama's successes, I am really going to hate to see
the failures. The loss of confidence in the Democrats is becoming more
and more clear with every poll. Prepare for retrenchment in 2010.
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
John Rogers
animal.
Yes, because both you and I should feel proud about paying people who
own horrifyingly bad cars.
Its right there in the Constitution. Just a minute... hmmm... I'm
sure I saw it in there somewhere.
I'll get right back to you.
John M. Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really
know about what they imagine they can design."
(Friedrich Hayek)
xyzzy
<Iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 8:50 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> > summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> > works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> > really unforgivable about it.
>
> Guess I'm not a republican then b/c those aren't the reasons I dislike
> it. I dislike b/c it's several BILLION dollars of tax monies being
> wasted for negligible effect, for a "feel good" program, that hurts
> the poor and rewards only those who can afford a new car at a time
> when taking on additional debt is a stupid decision to make as well as
> a spurs sales of cars owned by foreign car companies.
Just FYI, the latest numbers from DOT show that Detriot automakers are
getting more than their share of c4c sales (47% to Detroit 3, who
normally have a 45% market share). And of course where are most of
the Hondas and Toyotas on the top 10 list of c4c sales built....
> Plus,
> destroying the vehicles and spiking the engines is a total waste of
> resources and makes parts scarcer for those need.
I don't disagree with this argument.
Jim Brown
While thats a great comparison, it should be used in the opposite
way...ie, the piss poor decision by Pelosi and co for spending one-
fifth of the CFC program monies on some jets.
TimV
> On 2009-08-07, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>
>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1,
>
> Works? By what measure?
>
> 1. It doesn't save energy. It takes energy to manufacture new cars,
> and destroying the engines and the moving of a new car purchase
> forward means that net energy savings is nil.
>
> 2. It replaces new car sales that would have happened anyway in the
> future.
Wait, it doesn't save energy because new cars require energy to build, but
the cars would have been sold anyway? Can't have it both ways.
> 3. It leaves the purchasers with less money to spend on other things,
> negatively impacting sales in other areas.
>
> 4. It reduces the number of auto parts on the market, which raises
> consumer prices and takes energy for remanufacture of new parts.
It also reduces demand for used parts. That probably ends up a wash.
> 5. The program is terribly administered, with estimates that the
> cost of providing each rebate is over $1,000.
>
> 6. Since you don't have to provide and SSN to receive it, it
> doesn't require the recipient be an American citizen. We are
> funding Canadians and illegal immigrants.
I doubt a lot of illegal immigrants are buying new cars. However, if a
Canadian wants to spend upwards of $15,000 in the U.S. and we give them a
rebate of $4,500, well, I'll take that every day of the week.
>
>> and it works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is
>> what's really unforgivable about it.
>
> It doesn't work, period. It is giving away money for all the wrong
> reasons.
>
> I don't know how many taxes you pay, but I pay plenty. And I resent
> funding the stupid SUV purchases of people by giving them $4500 to
> recant.
>
> If this is one of Obama's successes, I am really going to hate to see
> the failures. The loss of confidence in the Democrats is becoming more
> and more clear with every poll. Prepare for retrenchment in 2010.
T
TimV
> On Aug 7, 10:38 am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> <Iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 8:50 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>
>>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and
>>> it works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>>> really unforgivable about it.
>>
>> Guess I'm not a republican then b/c those aren't the reasons I
>> dislike it. I dislike b/c it's several BILLION dollars of tax monies
>> being wasted for negligible effect, for a "feel good" program, that
>> hurts the poor and rewards only those who can afford a new car at a
>> time when taking on additional debt is a stupid decision to make as
>> well as a spurs sales of cars owned by foreign car companies.
>
> Just FYI, the latest numbers from DOT show that Detriot automakers are
> getting more than their share of c4c sales (47% to Detroit 3, who
> normally have a 45% market share). And of course where are most of
> the Hondas and Toyotas on the top 10 list of c4c sales built....
That's actually better than one would expect since a large number of the
most popular GM/Ford products would be ineligible (fullsize trucks and SUVs)
>
>> Plus,
>> destroying the vehicles and spiking the engines is a total waste of
>> resources and makes parts scarcer for those need.
>
> I don't disagree with this argument.
T
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
> On Aug 7, 10:38 am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
>
> <Iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 8:50 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> > > summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> > > works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> > > really unforgivable about it.
>
> > Guess I'm not a republican then b/c those aren't the reasons I dislike
> > it. I dislike b/c it's several BILLION dollars of tax monies being
> > wasted for negligible effect, for a "feel good" program, that hurts
> > the poor and rewards only those who can afford a new car at a time
> > when taking on additional debt is a stupid decision to make as well as
> > a spurs sales of cars owned by foreign car companies.
>
> Just FYI, the latest numbers from DOT show that Detriot automakers are
> getting more than their share of c4c sales (47% to Detroit 3, who
> normally have a 45% market share). And of course where are most of
> the Hondas and Toyotas on the top 10 list of c4c sales built....
"Forty five percent of the new car sales are from the Big Three
American automakers. General Motors was the most popular choice, with
18.7 percent of the buyers choosing one of its vehicles, followed by
Toyota with 17.9 percent and Ford with 16 percent. After the Corolla,
the top-selling new vehicles are the Ford Focus, Honda Civic and
Toyota's Prius and Camry. Of the vehicles that aren't made by the Big
Three, transportation officials said their preliminary analysis shows
that "well over half of these new vehicles" were made in United
States."
xyzzy
<Iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 9:44 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 10:38 am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
>
> > <Iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 7, 8:50 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> > > > summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> > > > works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> > > > really unforgivable about it.
>
> > > Guess I'm not a republican then b/c those aren't the reasons I dislike
> > > it. I dislike b/c it's several BILLION dollars of tax monies being
> > > wasted for negligible effect, for a "feel good" program, that hurts
> > > the poor and rewards only those who can afford a new car at a time
> > > when taking on additional debt is a stupid decision to make as well as
> > > a spurs sales of cars owned by foreign car companies.
>
> > Just FYI, the latest numbers from DOT show that Detriot automakers are
> > getting more than their share of c4c sales (47% to Detroit 3, who
> > normally have a 45% market share). And of course where are most of
> > the Hondas and Toyotas on the top 10 list of c4c sales built....
>
>
> "Forty five percent of the new car sales are from the Big Three
> American automakers. General Motors was the most popular choice, with
> 18.7 percent of the buyers choosing one of its vehicles, followed by
> Toyota with 17.9 percent and Ford with 16 percent. After the Corolla,
> the top-selling new vehicles are the Ford Focus, Honda Civic and
> Toyota's Prius and Camry. Of the vehicles that aren't made by the Big
> Three, transportation officials said their preliminary analysis shows
> that "well over half of these new vehicles" were made in United
> States."
thanks for the update, those figures are newer than what I had. The
figures appear to be updated pretty regularly (weekly maybe?), and
some auto blogs are reporting that Chrysler is basically out of
qualifying cars, so that will cause Detroit's share to drop in
subsequent updates.
Alexander_ The_Great
another way to spend. As well as Obama attempting to tell you what you
want to drive. What's next dems? You going to have Obama come over to
your house and tell you what to cook for dinner as well?
Why can't liberals think and do for themselves? Food stamps and welfare
that good? Get off your lazy asses.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
You have to love those strawmen...
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
the_andr...@yahoo.com
> On Aug 7, 10:14 am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 9:50 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> > > summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> > > works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> > > really unforgivable about it.
>
> > Seriously.
>
> > I generally know what you do for a living, where you live, and
> > reasonably your income range.
>
> > Do you think the best thing for our government to be doing at any time
> > is to take money from one group and give it to someone such as
> > yourself who, obviously doesn't need it, under the guise of <insert
> > random reason here>?
>
> > You admitted that you were considering replacing your trash truck.
>
> Just because I'm considering glomming onto the program doesn't make it
> a bad program. Congress could have put income limits on it, but
> they chose not to. And if I do use it, it will have worked as
> intended as an economic stimulus, because without it I wouldn't even
> be considering a new vehicle, which was the whole point of c4c.
I think it's absolutely a bad program.
Regardless of the reasoning, you don't need $4500 to buy a car.
Compare that to the loss of multiple $4500s across the economy and
what is the net effect?
> btw I'm still leaning toward going the craiglist route to replace my
> truck. No trucks that qualify for c4c can tow a load of hay on a
> trailer comfortably. Some of them have barely enough capacity on
> paper, but I'd like more margin, and will probably end up with a $5K
> 10 year old full size truck off of craigslist and donate my junk truck
> to charity.
>
> At this point my plan is to hold onto the clunker truck until the
> program ends, just in case something unexpected happens that requires
> one of my other cars to be suddenly replaced.
I concur that the craigslist route is likely your best option.
a.
Alexander_ The_Great
succeed and benefit America, it should have been for American made cars
ONLY involved in the program. Or at worse, say $6,000 for american motor
cars as opposed to the $4500 for foreign made.
Con Reeder
> Con Reeder wrote:
>> On 2009-08-07, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>>
>>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1,
>>
>> Works? By what measure?
>>
>> 1. It doesn't save energy. It takes energy to manufacture new cars,
>> and destroying the engines and the moving of a new car purchase
>> forward means that net energy savings is nil.
>>
>> 2. It replaces new car sales that would have happened anyway in the
>> future.
>
> Wait, it doesn't save energy because new cars require energy to build, but
> the cars would have been sold anyway? Can't have it both ways.
Yes I can. The miles the "clunkers" would have gone are lost. That
is wasted energy. And the combination of that and removing money from
consumers pockets for other items means there is waste. Removing
any advantage from improved gas mileage.
>
>> 3. It leaves the purchasers with less money to spend on other things,
>> negatively impacting sales in other areas.
>>
>> 4. It reduces the number of auto parts on the market, which raises
>> consumer prices and takes energy for remanufacture of new parts.
>
> It also reduces demand for used parts. That probably ends up a wash.
BS. The cars that those parts would be needed for are already in
the fleet. They will need parts, or will be junked because parts
are too expensive. All ways, the poorer person loses.
>
>> 5. The program is terribly administered, with estimates that the
>> cost of providing each rebate is over $1,000.
>>
>> 6. Since you don't have to provide and SSN to receive it, it
>> doesn't require the recipient be an American citizen. We are
>> funding Canadians and illegal immigrants.
>
> I doubt a lot of illegal immigrants are buying new cars.
Excuse me? Are you profiling? 8-) You may be right, but you might
be surprised at the form purchases made by illegal immigrants take.
They use nominees all the time, and they aren't stupid. With the
price of a used Prius, you can take the money, buy a Prius, sell the
Prius, and pocket the difference. Free money.
> However, if a Canadian wants to spend upwards of $15,000 in the U.S.
> and we give them a rebate of $4,500, well, I'll take that every day of
> the week.
You are obviously not an accountant or an economist. Remember also, it
is costing us $6000, not $4500. And since Canada and our economies are
so linked anyway, the result on balance of payments or any other measure
of trade will be negligible. It is a direct transfer from the American
taxpayer to Canadian nationals.
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown
lein
> On Aug 7, 10:14 am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 9:50 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> > > summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> > > works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> > > really unforgivable about it.
>
> > Seriously.
>
> > I generally know what you do for a living, where you live, and
> > reasonably your income range.
>
> > Do you think the best thing for our government to be doing at any time
> > is to take money from one group and give it to someone such as
> > yourself who, obviously doesn't need it, under the guise of <insert
> > random reason here>?
>
> > You admitted that you were considering replacing your trash truck.
>
> Just because I'm considering glomming onto the program doesn't make it
> a bad program. Congress could have put income limits on it, but
> they chose not to. And if I do use it, it will have worked as
> intended as an economic stimulus, because without it I wouldn't even
> be considering a new vehicle, which was the whole point of c4c.
I'm glad to see you freely admit that putting money in the hands of
consumers is far better than putting it in the hands of government.
Now why not simply cut individual income taxes by 25% for this year -
say no income tax deductions from paychecks for the last three months
of this year? It will have the added benefit of informing people
just how much money is taken away from them.
lein
> On 2009-08-07, TimV <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Con Reeder wrote:
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> >>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1,
>
> >> Works? By what measure?
>
> >> 1. It doesn't save energy. It takes energy to manufacture new cars,
> >> and destroying the engines and the moving of a new car purchase
> >> forward means that net energy savings is nil.
>
> >> 2. It replaces new car sales that would have happened anyway in the
> >> future.
>
> > Wait, it doesn't save energy because new cars require energy to build, but
> > the cars would have been sold anyway? Can't have it both ways.
>
> Yes I can. The miles the "clunkers" would have gone are lost. That
> is wasted energy. And the combination of that and removing money from
> consumers pockets for other items means there is waste. Removing
> any advantage from improved gas mileage.
>
>
>
> >> 3. It leaves the purchasers with less money to spend on other things,
> >> negatively impacting sales in other areas.
>
> >> 4. It reduces the number of auto parts on the market, which raises
> >> consumer prices and takes energy for remanufacture of new parts.
>
> > It also reduces demand for used parts. That probably ends up a wash.
>
> BS. The cars that those parts would be needed for are already in
> the fleet. They will need parts, or will be junked because parts
> are too expensive. All ways, the poorer person loses.
Hell, they don't have parts for new cars, let alone old cars. There
was a story in the local paper here where some guy buys a Chrysler,
believing the Feds will honor its warranty as they said. The air
conditioning goes out, he takes it in but they don't have a
replacement parts and can't find one.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which is precisely why that will NEVER happen.
lein
Do you consider the Mexican and Canadian built cars, American? Like
the ones they build for Ford and GM? What about the Toyotas and
Subarus they build in the U.S.?
xyzzy
Is this really a symptom of anything other than Chrysler shutting down
production for so long, and probably not buying parts either while
they were going through BK or preparing to do so? Should this be laid
at the feet of the govt, or of Cerebus Capital management squeezing
all the juice out of the Chrysler lemon before dumping it into BK?
Con Reeder
> On Aug 7, 9:36�am, Con Reeder <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-08-07, TimV <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> BS. The cars that those parts would be needed for are already in
>> the fleet. They will need parts, or will be junked because parts
>> are too expensive. All ways, the poorer person loses.
>
> Hell, they don't have parts for new cars, let alone old cars.
There are plenty of parts for old cars. At least there were...
> There was a story in the local paper here where some guy buys a
> Chrysler, believing the Feds will honor its warranty as they said. The
> air conditioning goes out, he takes it in but they don't have a
> replacement parts and can't find one.
That's something different. And there have always been aftermarket
parts -- I don't see why those are any difference. If anything, the
aftermarket has a bigger incentive to produce them.
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown
Con Reeder
That's the part where it multiplies by 0.75 because of the cost
of the administration offices required to administer it. And since
government is very hard to remove once you put it in place, hello
to bigger government!
If this was Chicago politics, you would find the cousins of the
"machine" administering it and telling you tough luck if they screwed
up your paperwork.
Now the Democrats have another thing to add to their roll call of
shame regarding this program. They denied an amendment that would give
the clunkers to charitable organizations like St. Vincent De Paul, the
Salvation Army, and Goodwill.
Con Reeder
> On 2009-08-07, the_andr...@yahoo.com <the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 10:24�am, "TimV" <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is no different. But in this case, we are seeing rapid money
>>> multiplication
>>
>> Really?
>
> That's the part where it multiplies by 0.75 because of the cost
> of the administration offices required to administer it. And since
> government is very hard to remove once you put it in place, hello
> to bigger government!
>
> If this was Chicago politics, you would find the cousins of the
> "machine" administering it and telling you tough luck if they screwed
> up your paperwork.
>
> Now the Democrats have another thing to add to their roll call of
> shame regarding this program. They denied an amendment that would give
> the clunkers to charitable organizations like St. Vincent De Paul, the
> Salvation Army, and Goodwill.
>
Not to mention the oh-so-tranparent Obama administration has lied
about the mix of vehicles being purchased:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm?cnn=yes
or
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
lein
The government bought Chrysler with full disclosure of its state
(buyer beware as they say). Obama was no better than any other CEO
when he boasted warranties are still being honored when clearly they
don't have the parts to properly honor them.
So what would one do if this went on for 2 months (car broke down
under warranty, no part to fix it), will a State Attorney General have
the moxie to sue the Feds for fraud?
lein
> On 2009-08-07, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 9:36 am, Con Reeder <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-08-07, TimV <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> BS. The cars that those parts would be needed for are already in
> >> the fleet. They will need parts, or will be junked because parts
> >> are too expensive. All ways, the poorer person loses.
>
> > Hell, they don't have parts for new cars, let alone old cars.
>
> There are plenty of parts for old cars. At least there were...
>
> > There was a story in the local paper here where some guy buys a
> > Chrysler, believing the Feds will honor its warranty as they said. The
> > air conditioning goes out, he takes it in but they don't have a
> > replacement parts and can't find one.
>
> That's something different. And there have always been aftermarket
> parts -- I don't see why those are any difference. If anything, the
> aftermarket has a bigger incentive to produce them.
If they are no different, then why do many states pass consumer laws
forcing car insurance companies to pay for genuine parts (if the owner
desires)?
lein
> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> really unforgivable about it.
When you say it works, do you mean that it worked for a day when, as
designed, it was suppose to work for 3 months?
James Schrumpf
> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> really unforgivable about it.
Amazing. A government program that gives money away to people to buy things
is popular.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
James Schrumpf
> On Aug 7, 10:14�am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
> <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 9:50�am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>
>> > summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
>> > works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>> > really unforgivable about it.
>>
>> Seriously.
>>
>> I generally know what you do for a living, where you live, and
>> reasonably your income range.
>>
>> Do you think the best thing for our government to be doing at any time
>> is to take money from one group and give it to someone such as
>> yourself who, obviously doesn't need it, under the guise of <insert
>> random reason here>?
>>
>> You admitted that you were considering replacing your trash truck.
>
> Just because I'm considering glomming onto the program doesn't make it
> a bad program. Congress could have put income limits on it, but
> they chose not to. And if I do use it, it will have worked as
> intended as an economic stimulus, because without it I wouldn't even
> be considering a new vehicle, which was the whole point of c4c.
>
> btw I'm still leaning toward going the craiglist route to replace my
> truck. No trucks that qualify for c4c can tow a load of hay on a
> trailer comfortably. Some of them have barely enough capacity on
> paper, but I'd like more margin, and will probably end up with a $5K
> 10 year old full size truck off of craigslist and donate my junk truck
> to charity.
>
> At this point my plan is to hold onto the clunker truck until the
> program ends, just in case something unexpected happens that requires
> one of my other cars to be suddenly replaced.
>
Why in hell should my money be going to anyone to buy a new car? Cars have
been sold in the US since Ford's Model T without needing government largesse.
This is just another "spread the wealth" plan of the current socialist
wannabe administration.
James Schrumpf
transmitting rage.
> On Aug 7, 10:39�am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
This sounds like the "broken window" fallacy: we destroy your old car
(break the window) and give you $4500 to buy a new car (buy the new
window). But now you've paid upwards of an extra $6000 to get that new
car and you're out the old car. Instead of a workable car and $6000 to
spend elsewhere, you're now just spending the $6000 TO replace your old
car.
This is not stimulating, except to the people who replace windows.
mianderson
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
I dont give a shit about this plan either way, but I would guess that
the average income of people buying new cars under this program is
probably not the same group that doesnt pay any income tax at
all......
my opthalmologist(she makes easily 350k I know) just traded in her
husband's "fishing boat" that hasn't even been running in 2 months
(worth less than a thousand bucks) for a new bmw 5 series....so......
of the current socialist
> wannabe administration.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net- Hide quoted text -
Chris Bellomy
> Quiet, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>
>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
>> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>> really unforgivable about it.
>
> Amazing. A government program that gives money away to people to buy things
> is popular.
Kinda like those Republican tax credits!
cb
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> been sold in the US since Ford's Model T without needing government largesse.
> This is just another "spread the wealth" plan of the current socialist
> wannabe administration.
>
Who is receiving the wealth?
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> This sounds like the "broken window" fallacy: we destroy your old car
> (break the window) and give you $4500 to buy a new car (buy the new
> window). But now you've paid upwards of an extra $6000 to get that new
> car and you're out the old car. Instead of a workable car and $6000 to
> spend elsewhere, you're now just spending the $6000 TO replace your old
> car.
>
> This is not stimulating, except to the people who replace windows.
>
You're "out" the old car but probably saving in gas and repairs over
the next 5 years.
New cars are a bad purchase regardless ... and for the same reasons
that car companies struggle ... overhyped, over-priced products that
give a questionable return given the depreciation when you drive it
off the lot.
I'm going to be in the market for a new car soon and the clunker
program does nothing for me. Our Volvo is only worth a few thousand
on the blue book, it needs some work, it gets 1 mpg over the cutoff
qualification, etc. So, I'm looking but I'm skeptical about what to
buy (probably in the market for a 4-door sedan rather than an SUV).
lein
> James Schrumpf wrote, On 8/7/09 8:30 PM:
>
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> >> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> >> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> >> really unforgivable about it.
>
> > Amazing. A government program that gives money away to people to buy things
> > is popular.
>
> Kinda like those Republican tax credits!
No, that's keeping your own money
Chris Bellomy
That's horseshit. It's just passing more of the cost
of government onto others.
Con Reeder
Unions.
I am sure they are different parts. What I meant is that there is no
difference to the presence of aftermarket parts, meaning parts are
available. And there are some aftermarket parts that are pretty darn
good. (So says one of my clients, who distributes whole bunches of parts
in the suspension area.)
--
If you like what you're gettin', keep doin' what you're doin'. -- Hector
Con Reeder
The auto union constituency, which now owns a good part of the American
auto business.
Con Reeder
No, not really. They 1) allowed people to spend the money where they want
to, 2) didn't have a 33% overhead, 3) was not limited to a class of
people that didn't really need help, 4) didn't penalize poor people, and
5) didn't destroy other wealth in the process.
--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
Con Reeder
You *really* need to take an economics course.
Kyle T. Jones
Yeah, but the window-replacing folk are hurting pretty bad - they need
stimulating more than, say, the million and billionaires on Wall Street...
You all are missing a very valid secondary reason behind Cash For
Clunkers - reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I forget - are y'all
pseudoconservatives for or against that these days?
Cheers.
Kyle T. Jones
After hearing y'all conservatives go on and on about how the top x% pays
an overwhelming y% of the taxes, I'm gonna have to say, uh, no.
"Added benefit of informing people just how much money is taken away
from them" - you can't have it both ways. Is the upper x% carrying us,
or what?
Cheers.
Kyle T. Jones
> On Aug 7, 8:50 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>
>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
>> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>> really unforgivable about it.
>
> it. I dislike b/c it's several BILLION dollars of tax monies being
> wasted for negligible effect,
Kinda jumping the gun on that one, wouldn't you say?
for a "feel good" program, that hurts
> the poor and rewards only those who can afford a new car at a time
> when taking on additional debt is a stupid decision to make as well as
> a spurs sales of cars owned by foreign car companies.
It's also increasing sales of domestic cars. Most of the people you
point to would have to be "taking on additional debt" at some point in
the near future - the qualifying clunkers won't run forever.
Plus,
> destroying the vehicles and spiking the engines is a total waste of
> resources and makes parts scarcer for those need.
>
Net result - average miles per gallon of cars on the road increases.
Remember, the whole get off foreign oil meme?
Cheers.
Kyle T. Jones
>>> On 2009-08-07, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>>>
>>>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1,
>>>
>>> 1. It doesn't save energy. It takes energy to manufacture new cars,
>>> and destroying the engines and the moving of a new car purchase
>>> forward means that net energy savings is nil.
>>>
>>> 2. It replaces new car sales that would have happened anyway in the
>>> future.
>> Wait, it doesn't save energy because new cars require energy to build, but
>> the cars would have been sold anyway? Can't have it both ways.
>
> Yes I can. The miles the "clunkers" would have gone are lost. That
> is wasted energy. And the combination of that and removing money from
> consumers pockets for other items means there is waste. Removing
> any advantage from improved gas mileage.
>
Can you show this with mathematic precision - or do I just have to take
your (and Rush's) word for it?...
Kyle T. Jones
Bullshit - reducing taxes whilst simultaneously increasing spending is
just *one* of the lovely pseudoconservative plans us young folk will be
paying for (in spades) down the line. Thanks again, geezers.
Cheers.
James Schrumpf
It doesn't matter if the window-replacing people are in a slump. If their
windows are too expensive and poor quality compared to foreign
window-replacing companies, it doesn't help them improve their product by
smashing people's windows and then giving them government largesse to
purchase local windows.
>
> You all are missing a very valid secondary reason behind Cash For
> Clunkers - reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I forget - are y'all
> pseudoconservatives for or against that these days?
>
> Cheers.
>
Conservatives would be against government mega-giveaway programs that will
certainly do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Conservatives would be for opening up new drilling possibilities that
would actually do something to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Kyle T. Jones
>> Yeah, but the window-replacing folk are hurting pretty bad - they need
>> stimulating more than, say, the million and billionaires on Wall
>> Street...
>
> It doesn't matter if the window-replacing people are in a slump. If their
> windows are too expensive and poor quality compared to foreign
> window-replacing companies, it doesn't help them improve their product by
> smashing people's windows and then giving them government largesse to
> purchase local windows.
>
What if you only allow them to reinstall tinted, double-pane,
storm-proof super-windows to replace the broken ones?
Surely, this would stimulate them to start to "improve their product"?
(if, by improve, we assume the tinted, double-pane, storm-proof
super-windows are superior to crappy ol' leaky single-panes - uh, did I
mention that the hooligans are only allowed to smash really crappy
windows - yep, there's that, too...)
>> You all are missing a very valid secondary reason behind Cash For
>> Clunkers - reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I forget - are y'all
>> pseudoconservatives for or against that these days?
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>
> Conservatives would be against government mega-giveaway programs that will
> certainly do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
>
Your "certainly" implies a certainty that I'm uncomfortable with - tell
me how taking my 8mpg junker to the dump and buying a new 30mpg sedan
won't reduce dependence of foreign oil.
Now, multiply me by a few hundred thousand...
Cheers.
James Schrumpf
> James Schrumpf wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, but the window-replacing folk are hurting pretty bad - they need
>>> stimulating more than, say, the million and billionaires on Wall
>>> Street...
>>
>> It doesn't matter if the window-replacing people are in a slump. If
>> their windows are too expensive and poor quality compared to foreign
>> window-replacing companies, it doesn't help them improve their product
>> by smashing people's windows and then giving them government largesse
>> to purchase local windows.
>>
>
> What if you only allow them to reinstall tinted, double-pane,
> storm-proof super-windows to replace the broken ones?
>
> Surely, this would stimulate them to start to "improve their product"?
> (if, by improve, we assume the tinted, double-pane, storm-proof
> super-windows are superior to crappy ol' leaky single-panes - uh, did I
> mention that the hooligans are only allowed to smash really crappy
> windows - yep, there's that, too...)
So now I have to replace my perfectly good unbroken window with a much
pricier window, AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT? Instead of buying what I
wanted with that money, the government breaks my window, insists I replace
the window AND ONLY THE WINDOW with money they take away from my neighbor
and give to me, and who might have had plans of his own for that money.
Your plan is sounding worse and worse.
>
>>> You all are missing a very valid secondary reason behind Cash For
>>> Clunkers - reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I forget - are
>>> y'all pseudoconservatives for or against that these days?
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>
>> Conservatives would be against government mega-giveaway programs that
>> will certainly do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
>>
>
> Your "certainly" implies a certainty that I'm uncomfortable with - tell
> me how taking my 8mpg junker to the dump and buying a new 30mpg sedan
> won't reduce dependence of foreign oil.
>
> Now, multiply me by a few hundred thousand...
Sounds like a great plan -- but do it with your own money, not mine. I
bought my 40 mpg Honda Civic three years ago with my own money... why
can't you?
Kyle T. Jones
> Quiet, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>> James Schrumpf wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah, but the window-replacing folk are hurting pretty bad - they need
>>>> stimulating more than, say, the million and billionaires on Wall
>>>> Street...
>>> It doesn't matter if the window-replacing people are in a slump. If
>>> their windows are too expensive and poor quality compared to foreign
>>> window-replacing companies, it doesn't help them improve their product
>>> by smashing people's windows and then giving them government largesse
>>> to purchase local windows.
>>>
>> What if you only allow them to reinstall tinted, double-pane,
>> storm-proof super-windows to replace the broken ones?
>>
>> Surely, this would stimulate them to start to "improve their product"?
>> (if, by improve, we assume the tinted, double-pane, storm-proof
>> super-windows are superior to crappy ol' leaky single-panes - uh, did I
>> mention that the hooligans are only allowed to smash really crappy
>> windows - yep, there's that, too...)
>
> So now I have to replace my perfectly good unbroken window with a much
> pricier window, AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT? Instead of buying what I
> wanted with that money, the government breaks my window, insists I replace
> the window AND ONLY THE WINDOW with money they take away from my neighbor
> and give to me, and who might have had plans of his own for that money.
>
> Your plan is sounding worse and worse.
>
Look above five paragraphs. Your argument was "it doesn't help them
improve their product". I can respond to this completely different
point, but does that mean you're rescinding your previous point?
>>>> You all are missing a very valid secondary reason behind Cash For
>>>> Clunkers - reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I forget - are
>>>> y'all pseudoconservatives for or against that these days?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers.
>>>>
>>> Conservatives would be against government mega-giveaway programs that
>>> will certainly do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
>>>
>> Your "certainly" implies a certainty that I'm uncomfortable with - tell
>> me how taking my 8mpg junker to the dump and buying a new 30mpg sedan
>> won't reduce dependence of foreign oil.
>>
>> Now, multiply me by a few hundred thousand...
>
> Sounds like a great plan -- but do it with your own money, not mine. I
> bought my 40 mpg Honda Civic three years ago with my own money... why
> can't you?
>
Look above four paragraphs. Your argument was that the program "will
certainly do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil." I can
respond to this completely different point, but does that mean you're
rescinding your previous point?
Matthew Hennig
a70b84...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> really unforgivable about it.
It's a program where I subsidize someone else to buy a car and the old
car then can't be used at all. It's a waste.
MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006
"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002
Kyle T. Jones
> xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote in news:64036c7d-97bb-43dc-9e76-
> a70b84...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>
>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
>> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>> really unforgivable about it.
>
> It's a program where I subsidize someone else to buy a car and the old
> car then can't be used at all. It's a waste.
>
> MH
>
Are there income requirements to participate?
lein
then maybe it's time for the government to reduce its cost.
lein
> Matthew Hennig wrote:
> > xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:64036c7d-97bb-43dc-9e76-
> > a70b8454d...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
> >> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> >> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> >> really unforgivable about it.
>
> > It's a program where I subsidize someone else to buy a car and the old
> > car then can't be used at all. It's a waste.
>
> > MH
>
> Are there income requirements to participate?
no, but he would have to own a "clunker" to use it, and would have to
be able to afford the payments on a new car.
I'm sure quite a few people will simply take out a car loan for 70+
months.
Chris Bellomy
Maybe, but that's a separate issue. Deciding who pays
for it is the issue here.
Con Reeder
Another one who thinks economics is a zero-sum game. Perhaps you need
one too?
But if you think the conservatives spent too much, just wait until the
Democrats are done after four years....
--
Life isn't fair, but it's good. -- Regina Brett
Con Reeder
Yes, you have to take my word for it if you can't see that it is
true via your own powers of observation and logic.
Kyle T. Jones
Uh. No. What you need to do is come up with x <the total mpg increase
as a comparison of all cars sold in the program VS those traded in> and
y <whatever the hell it is you're talking about with wasted energy,
something about removing dollars from pockets>, and compare x and y.
Cuz, seriously, it sounds like you're talking out of your ass. No offense.
Cheers.
Kyle T. Jones
> On 2009-08-08, Kyle T. Jones <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
>> Con Reeder wrote:
>>> On 2009-08-08, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>>> lein wrote, On 8/7/09 11:06 PM:
>>>>> On Aug 7, 7:33 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>>>>> James Schrumpf wrote, On 8/7/09 8:30 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quiet, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>>>>>>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
>>>>>>>> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>>>>>>>> really unforgivable about it.
>>>>>>> Amazing. A government program that gives money away to people to buy things
>>>>>>> is popular.
>>>>>> Kinda like those Republican tax credits!
>>>>> No, that's keeping your own money
>>>> That's horseshit. It's just passing more of the cost
>>>> of government onto others.
>>> You *really* need to take an economics course.
>>>
>> Bullshit - reducing taxes whilst simultaneously increasing spending is
>> just *one* of the lovely pseudoconservative plans us young folk will be
>> paying for (in spades) down the line. Thanks again, geezers.
>
> Another one who thinks economics is a zero-sum game. Perhaps you need
> one too?
>
That's a bullshit response. You *don't* believe that increasing
spending way over what you're taxing is a good idea (see all your
complaints about Obama).
But you pretend to think it was ok, here, for only one reason - knee
jerk reaction to defend what the Republicans did.
You might think throwing out the statement about economics being/not
being a zero-sum game makes you look pretty smrat - but it's just barely
relevant in this context. Probably will impress some knuckle-dragger,
somewhere, though.
> But if you think the conservatives spent too much, just wait until the
> Democrats are done after four years....
>
And here you want to have it both ways. Too funny.
If I was a real dick, this is where I would have said "another one who
thinks economics is a zero-sum game. Perhaps you need an economics
course." It would be a perfect fit, since you're bitching about exactly
what I was bitching about above - but it still wouldn't be particularly
insightful.
Cheers.
Con Reeder
That analysis can't *truly* be done, with no real numbers available
yet. But even the New York Times has demonstrated its doubt with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/08clunker.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles
People are not stupid. They know to trade in the old, marginally useful and
therefore seldom-used vehicle. To assume that there will be a mile-for-mile
replacement of the new car for clunker miles is disingenuous, and it is the
only way that the maximum-possible 270-gallon per year savings adds up to the
1200-gallon-equivalent energy cost of producing a new car.
--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous
Con Reeder
Let's see. Are you somehow claiming that taking out a 500,000 mortgage
on a 50,000 salary makes as much sense as taking out a 250,000 mortgage
on a same salary? Both are betting on future income. Which is the better
bet for everyone?
>
>> But if you think the conservatives spent too much, just wait until the
>> Democrats are done after four years....
>>
>
> And here you want to have it both ways. Too funny.
>
> If I was a real dick, this is where I would have said "another one who
> thinks economics is a zero-sum game. Perhaps you need an economics
> course." It would be a perfect fit, since you're bitching about exactly
> what I was bitching about above - but it still wouldn't be particularly
> insightful.
Funding a deficit is betting on future productivity growth. You can take
that so far. What we have done to this point -- and remember the doom
and gloom forecast in the late 80s -- has been shown to be sustainable.
The productivity increased, and we came out OK. (I won't talk about the
unfunded Medicare liability, which is certainly our biggest long-term problem
right now.)
But the kind of money spent on the stimulus bill to no effect, just
throwing money at special interests, is simply insane. The "stimulus"
hasn't, it is obvious. Less than 10% of the money has been spent, and less
than 20% has had any effect at all even in the planning stages due to lack
of shovel-ready projects.
The stimulus should be repealed, and the budget lines for the unspent monies
should be crossed out.
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
SNORKY
wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>
>summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
>works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>really unforgivable about it.
Yeah, those eeeeevul Repuglicans surely don't want people buying more
of those Global Warming machines.
The BorgMan
news:Xns9C60DAC06501Cja...@188.40.43.213:
> Quiet, "the_andr...@yahoo.com" <the_andr...@yahoo.com> -- I'm
> transmitting rage.
>
>> On Aug 7, 10:39�am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 7, 10:14�am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > On Aug 7, 9:50�am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > >http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>>
>>> > > summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1,
and
>>> > > i
>> t
>>> > > works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>>> > > really unforgivable about it.
>>>
...and the restaurants that serve the people who replace windows, and the
banks that service mortgages of the people who replace windows, and the
cities that run on the income and property tax money of the people who
replace windows, and...
--
Aaron
The BorgMan
news:Xns9C61EA8801CE...@199.45.49.11:
> xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote in news:64036c7d-97bb-43dc-9e76-
> a70b84...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/krcnah
>>
>> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
>> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
>> really unforgivable about it.
>
> It's a program where I subsidize someone else to buy a car and the old
> car then can't be used at all. It's a waste.
Except everything on the car other than the drive train CAN be re-used.
--
Aaron
xyzzy
> Matthew Hennig <ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.org> wrote innews:Xns9C61EA8801CE...@199.45.49.11:
>
> > xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in news:64036c7d-97bb-43dc-9e76-
> > a70b8454d...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> >> summary: It's a government program that works, which is sin #1, and it
> >> works for someone besides Wall Street Executives, which is what's
> >> really unforgivable about it.
>
> > It's a program where I subsidize someone else to buy a car and the old
> > car then can't be used at all. It's a waste.
>
> Except everything on the car other than the drive train CAN be re-used.
And actually the drive train can be reused as long as the tranny and
the drive shaft are sold as separate parts. It's the engine that
can't be reused.
agavi...@gmail.com
wolfie
"the_andr...@yahoo.com" wrote
> https://fee.org/articles/cash-for-clunkers-was-a-complete-failure/
I love articles that start with a nice statement of the
author's own bias by trying to frame the argument
incorrectly. Makes them easy to ignore.
agavi...@gmail.com
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
--
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation." - Bob Carter
J. Hugh Sullivan
<agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>https://fee.org/articles/cash-for-clunkers-was-a-complete-failure/
Yes, liberals are still around.
Hugh
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Ken Olson
> https://fee.org/articles/cash-for-clunkers-was-a-complete-failure/
>
My main complaints are: a supply of low-cost vehicles that the poor
might better afford than having to buy newer was eliminated; a supply of
lower-cost spare parts to keep older vehicles running was eliminated;
rare, collectible cars were lost.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
the market and the economy, it had a negative effect.
This is why, IMO, our growth has been so poor over the past 15 years.
As government becomes a larger and larger part of the spending
pie, we have poorer and poorer productivity and many of these
negative effects.
wolfie
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
> This is why, IMO, our growth has been so poor over the past 15 years.
> As government becomes a larger and larger part of the spending
> pie, we have poorer and poorer productivity and many of these
> negative effects.
it was in 1992. Other than the three years after the crash, that's
been true. Government spending is and has been largely flat as a
percentage of GDP.
J. Hugh Sullivan
it is in.
The flaw in both is the basic premise, i. e., we have to have that
much government to succeed.