An Obama accomplishment

[Marion Morrison]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

So, you're mad that the people were getting the money instead of the corporations? I thought cash for clunkers was one good thing that happened in the last 8 years. Unsurprisingly, he cut the program short. He hates to do shit for the people.

You're not seeing the big picture.

I'll break it down Barney-style for you.

Prior to Obama' program, a high-school kid with a part-time job could save up for a few months and get him some transportation. It may not last very long and he may need to be saving for the next while driving that, but he's driving.


Post Obama's program, same kid in same situation will have to work 3-4 years in order to buy a car.


Obama robbed teens of being able to buy a car. As a former teen in America, that makes me mad.

 

[Ame®icano]

Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?

I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.

Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985

TV Set Prices

TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are.

Many people think of tariffs as a tool used to protect our industry by making foreign products more expensive. I think Trump wants to use it as tool to make our product cheaper on foreign markets. It may not make much sense, but I think that's the case.

I think it's time to scrap NAFTA and go with a different plan.

I am not talking about just NAFTA, I am talking about rotten deals that US economy got all over the world.

Tariffs are needed in order to make those deals better and make our products more affordable abroad.

I wholeheartedly agree, we have to balance it out.

I think that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Level the playing field.
Or they gonna remove tariffs on our products, or we gonna put tariffs on theirs. Either way it will work better for us.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

So, you're mad that the people were getting the money instead of the corporations? I thought cash for clunkers was one good thing that happened in the last 8 years. Unsurprisingly, he cut the program short. He hates to do shit for the people.

You're not seeing the big picture.

I'll break it down Barney-style for you.

Prior to Obama' program, a high-school kid with a part-time job could save up for a few months and get him some transportation. It may not last very long and he may need to be saving for the next while driving that, but he's driving.


Post Obama's program, same kid in same situation will have to work 3-4 years in order to buy a car.


Obama robbed teens of being able to buy a car. As a former teen in America, that makes me mad.

That's a fair point that Obama undercut that market (though not to the degree you claim, imo). But on the whole, I think the program was great for consumers. But Obama decided not to wholly support consumers by cutting it short way too soon.

 

[Marion Morrison]

One thing Obama did while president was set up the C.A.R.S (Car Allowance Rebate System) system. The idea was to take older, less efficient cars off the road and stimulate new auto production in the process.

Obama used $3 billion taxpayer dollars to fund C.A.R.S. AKA "Cash for clunkers" and called it
"stimulus"

However, C.A.R.S. is a dismal failure that wastes taxpayer money, drives up the prices of new and used cars, and slows new car production.

According to research by 2 University of Delaware professors it is a net loss of $2600 per vehicle.

"With per vehicle environmental benefits
at $596 and the costs at $2,600 per ve-
hicle, the clunker program is a net drain on
society of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Given
the approximately 700,000 vehicles in the
program, we estimate the total welfare loss to
be about $1.4 billion."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46555587_Is_cars_a_clunker


Prices of new and used cars are now higher for everyone thanks to less availability of used cars on the market.


"the average used car price hit a record $16,800 last year, according to a report from Edmunds.com"


Average used car price hits record high in 2014


"The deep cuts in production capacity during the restructuring of recent years, coupled with the recent rebound in demand for new cars from consumers, means that shoppers can't find the deals they once did."


Car prices at record highs - and rising


If anyone wishes to compare any auto prices between pre-C.A.R.S. and post cars, you can do so here with any make, model, and year:


Car Prices, Sales History, and Mileage on a Graph


So in effect, C.A.R.S. is an Obama program that costs everybody $2k per car, drives up the price of new and used cars, and is a net loss to everyone.

Thanks, Obama!

Whoever makes lists of Obama's "accomplishments", be sure and include this boondoggle done within the 1st 6 months of his presidency.

Progressive policy failure right here.

So, you're mad that the people were getting the money instead of the corporations? I thought cash for clunkers was one good thing that happened in the last 8 years. Unsurprisingly, he cut the program short. He hates to do shit for the people.

You're not seeing the big picture.

I'll break it down Barney-style for you.

Prior to Obama' program, a high-school kid with a part-time job could save up for a few months and get him some transportation. It may not last very long and he may need to be saving for the next while driving that, but he's driving.


Post Obama's program, same kid in same situation will have to work 3-4 years in order to buy a car.


Obama robbed teens of being able to buy a car. As a former teen in America, that makes me mad.

That's a fair point that Obama undercut that market (though not to the degree you claim, imo). But on the whole, I think the program was great for consumers. But Obama decided not to wholly support consumers by cutting it short way too soon.

Oh yeah? Go check the price of a used Honda, K?

 

[Brain357]

Post another then, you may want to read the link I posted first, though. I will be using that as a reference.

On another note, it looks like Congress used to attach pork to tariffs back in the day the way they do to bills now.

Tariffs were a main cause of The Civil War.

At this point in time, where domestic production is vacuous, tariffs will stimulate making things at home.

So you don't have a single example in their long history of them ever increasing domestic production. I didn't think so.

I've never really studied it, but I'm not about to begin on a Saturday evening. I notice you haven't posted anything but your weak correlation ≠ causation between Tariffs and The Great Depression.

That's fail for you. Much of that was land speculation, sound familiar?

Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?

I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.

Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985

TV Set Prices


TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are. Next comes clothes, transportation, and education.

Adding another tax will ease the tax burden?

 

[Brain357]

I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.

Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985

TV Set Prices

TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are.

Many people think of tariffs as a tool used to protect our industry by making foreign products more expensive. I think Trump wants to use it as tool to make our product cheaper on foreign markets. It may not make much sense, but I think that's the case.

I think it's time to scrap NAFTA and go with a different plan.

I am not talking about just NAFTA, I am talking about rotten deals that US economy got all over the world.

Tariffs are needed in order to make those deals better and make our products more affordable abroad.

I wholeheartedly agree, we have to balance it out.

I think that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Level the playing field.
Or they gonna remove tariffs on our products, or we gonna put tariffs on theirs. Either way it will work better for us.

When in the long history of tariffs has that ever happened? The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole and never will.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Post another then, you may want to read the link I posted first, though. I will be using that as a reference.

On another note, it looks like Congress used to attach pork to tariffs back in the day the way they do to bills now.

Tariffs were a main cause of The Civil War.

At this point in time, where domestic production is vacuous, tariffs will stimulate making things at home.

So you don't have a single example in their long history of them ever increasing domestic production. I didn't think so.

I've never really studied it, but I'm not about to begin on a Saturday evening. I notice you haven't posted anything but your weak correlation ≠ causation between Tariffs and The Great Depression.

That's fail for you. Much of that was land speculation, sound familiar?

Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?

I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.

Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985

TV Set Prices


TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are. Next comes clothes, transportation, and education.

Adding another tax will ease the tax burden?

It's designed to encourage domestic production.

 

[Ame®icano]

Many people think of tariffs as a tool used to protect our industry by making foreign products more expensive. I think Trump wants to use it as tool to make our product cheaper on foreign markets. It may not make much sense, but I think that's the case.

I think it's time to scrap NAFTA and go with a different plan.

I am not talking about just NAFTA, I am talking about rotten deals that US economy got all over the world.

Tariffs are needed in order to make those deals better and make our products more affordable abroad.

I wholeheartedly agree, we have to balance it out.

I think that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Level the playing field.
Or they gonna remove tariffs on our products, or we gonna put tariffs on theirs. Either way it will work better for us.

When in the long history of tariffs has that ever happened? The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole and never will.

Tariffs on American product abroad works fine for those countries, does it?

 

[Ame®icano]

So you don't have a single example in their long history of them ever increasing domestic production. I didn't think so.

I've never really studied it, but I'm not about to begin on a Saturday evening. I notice you haven't posted anything but your weak correlation ≠ causation between Tariffs and The Great Depression.

That's fail for you. Much of that was land speculation, sound familiar?

Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?

I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.

Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985

TV Set Prices


TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are. Next comes clothes, transportation, and education.

Adding another tax will ease the tax burden?

It's designed to encourage domestic production.

Or to discourage tariffs on our products abroad.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I've never really studied it, but I'm not about to begin on a Saturday evening. I notice you haven't posted anything but your weak correlation ≠ causation between Tariffs and The Great Depression.

That's fail for you. Much of that was land speculation, sound familiar?

Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?

I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.

Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985

TV Set Prices


TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are. Next comes clothes, transportation, and education.

Adding another tax will ease the tax burden?

It's designed to encourage domestic production.

Or to discourage tariffs on our products abroad.

Oh! They can have tariffs but we can't? What's up with that?

 

[Brain357]

I think it's time to scrap NAFTA and go with a different plan.

I am not talking about just NAFTA, I am talking about rotten deals that US economy got all over the world.

Tariffs are needed in order to make those deals better and make our products more affordable abroad.

I wholeheartedly agree, we have to balance it out.

I think that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Level the playing field.
Or they gonna remove tariffs on our products, or we gonna put tariffs on theirs. Either way it will work better for us.

When in the long history of tariffs has that ever happened? The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole and never will.

Tariffs on American product abroad works fine for those countries, does it?

Works fine as a tax yes. You didnt answer my question.

 

[Brain357]

Lets begin with this: Why do you think Trump's proposed tariffs are good or bad?

I think they are good because they will ease the tax burden on the citizens and promote domestic manufacturing.

Yes some goods will cost more.
'86 Toshiba: $490 (19") <price of color TV in 1985

TV Set Prices


TV is not a necessary item, water, food, and shelter are. Next comes clothes, transportation, and education.

Adding another tax will ease the tax burden?

It's designed to encourage domestic production.

Or to discourage tariffs on our products abroad.

Oh! They can have tariffs but we can't? What's up with that?

We have plenty of taxes already.

 

[Ame®icano]

I am not talking about just NAFTA, I am talking about rotten deals that US economy got all over the world.

Tariffs are needed in order to make those deals better and make our products more affordable abroad.

I wholeheartedly agree, we have to balance it out.

I think that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Level the playing field.
Or they gonna remove tariffs on our products, or we gonna put tariffs on theirs. Either way it will work better for us.

When in the long history of tariffs has that ever happened? The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole and never will.

Tariffs on American product abroad works fine for those countries, does it?

Works fine as a tax yes. You didnt answer my question.

Question... when that ever happened?

First of all, I don't think Trump is a protectionist.

Tariffs were always used as protectionist measure, or as tariff countermeasure.

Was it ever tried as a tariff repellent? I think that's what he's doing and it's worth to try.

 

[Brain357]

I wholeheartedly agree, we have to balance it out.

I think that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Level the playing field.
Or they gonna remove tariffs on our products, or we gonna put tariffs on theirs. Either way it will work better for us.

When in the long history of tariffs has that ever happened? The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole and never will.

Tariffs on American product abroad works fine for those countries, does it?

Works fine as a tax yes. You didnt answer my question.

Question... when that ever happened?

First of all, I don't think Trump is a protectionist.

Tariffs were always used as protectionist measure, or as tariff countermeasure.

Was it ever tried as a tariff repellent? I think that's what he's doing and it's worth to try.

Tariff repellent is offering free trade. That has been done a lot.

 

[Ame®icano]

I think that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Level the playing field.
Or they gonna remove tariffs on our products, or we gonna put tariffs on theirs. Either way it will work better for us.

When in the long history of tariffs has that ever happened? The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole and never will.

Tariffs on American product abroad works fine for those countries, does it?

Works fine as a tax yes. You didnt answer my question.

Question... when that ever happened?

First of all, I don't think Trump is a protectionist.

Tariffs were always used as protectionist measure, or as tariff countermeasure.

Was it ever tried as a tariff repellent? I think that's what he's doing and it's worth to try.

Tariff repellent is offering free trade. That has been done a lot.

Free trade should go both ways, not just free trade on products sold in the US.

For example, Japan's MFN tariff for US:
Agriculture products - 14.3%
Clothing - 9.0%
Footwear, leather - 9.4%

They can sell any of their products in US tariff free.

Trump was talking about tariff on cars. The truth is, they do not have tariff on US cars in Japan. At least they don't call it tariffs, since is induced in different ways, for example: currency manipulation and discriminatory taxes, standards, entry procedures, distribution structures, zoning requirements, etc. That results in US selling in Japan less cars in a year, than Japan sell in US in a single day.

While Ford Focus in US costs cca $18,000, the same car in Japan is $30,000. They may not call it tariff, but sure looks like one.

 

[Brain357]

When in the long history of tariffs has that ever happened? The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole and never will.

Tariffs on American product abroad works fine for those countries, does it?

Works fine as a tax yes. You didnt answer my question.

Question... when that ever happened?

First of all, I don't think Trump is a protectionist.

Tariffs were always used as protectionist measure, or as tariff countermeasure.

Was it ever tried as a tariff repellent? I think that's what he's doing and it's worth to try.

Tariff repellent is offering free trade. That has been done a lot.

Free trade should go both ways, not just free trade on products sold in the US.

For example, Japan's MFN tariff for US:
Agriculture products - 14.3%
Clothing - 9.0%
Footwear, leather - 9.4%

They can sell any of their products in US tariff free.

Trump was talking about tariff on cars. The truth is, they do not have tariff on US cars in Japan. At least they don't call it tariffs, since is induced in different ways, for example: currency manipulation and discriminatory taxes, standards, entry procedures, distribution structures, zoning requirements, etc. That results in US selling in Japan less cars in a year, than Japan sell in US in a single day.

While Ford Focus in US costs cca $18,000, the same car in Japan is $30,000. They may not call it tariff, but sure looks like one.

What do we care if they want high taxes?

 

[Ame®icano]

Tariffs on American product abroad works fine for those countries, does it?

Works fine as a tax yes. You didnt answer my question.

Question... when that ever happened?

First of all, I don't think Trump is a protectionist.

Tariffs were always used as protectionist measure, or as tariff countermeasure.

Was it ever tried as a tariff repellent? I think that's what he's doing and it's worth to try.

Tariff repellent is offering free trade. That has been done a lot.

Free trade should go both ways, not just free trade on products sold in the US.

For example, Japan's MFN tariff for US:
Agriculture products - 14.3%
Clothing - 9.0%
Footwear, leather - 9.4%

They can sell any of their products in US tariff free.

Trump was talking about tariff on cars. The truth is, they do not have tariff on US cars in Japan. At least they don't call it tariffs, since is induced in different ways, for example: currency manipulation and discriminatory taxes, standards, entry procedures, distribution structures, zoning requirements, etc. That results in US selling in Japan less cars in a year, than Japan sell in US in a single day.

While Ford Focus in US costs cca $18,000, the same car in Japan is $30,000. They may not call it tariff, but sure looks like one.

What do we care if they want high taxes?

Would you care if your widget in Japan is sold with 50% tax and concurrent Japanese widget with no tax?

 

[Brain357]

Works fine as a tax yes. You didnt answer my question.

Question... when that ever happened?

First of all, I don't think Trump is a protectionist.

Tariffs were always used as protectionist measure, or as tariff countermeasure.

Was it ever tried as a tariff repellent? I think that's what he's doing and it's worth to try.

Tariff repellent is offering free trade. That has been done a lot.

Free trade should go both ways, not just free trade on products sold in the US.

For example, Japan's MFN tariff for US:
Agriculture products - 14.3%
Clothing - 9.0%
Footwear, leather - 9.4%

They can sell any of their products in US tariff free.

Trump was talking about tariff on cars. The truth is, they do not have tariff on US cars in Japan. At least they don't call it tariffs, since is induced in different ways, for example: currency manipulation and discriminatory taxes, standards, entry procedures, distribution structures, zoning requirements, etc. That results in US selling in Japan less cars in a year, than Japan sell in US in a single day.

While Ford Focus in US costs cca $18,000, the same car in Japan is $30,000. They may not call it tariff, but sure looks like one.

What do we care if they want high taxes?

Would you care if your widget in Japan is sold with 50% tax and concurrent Japanese widget with no tax?

I don't care how Japan chooses to tax it's citizens. That is their problem.

 

[Ame®icano]

Question... when that ever happened?

First of all, I don't think Trump is a protectionist.

Tariffs were always used as protectionist measure, or as tariff countermeasure.

Was it ever tried as a tariff repellent? I think that's what he's doing and it's worth to try.

Tariff repellent is offering free trade. That has been done a lot.

Free trade should go both ways, not just free trade on products sold in the US.

For example, Japan's MFN tariff for US:
Agriculture products - 14.3%
Clothing - 9.0%
Footwear, leather - 9.4%

They can sell any of their products in US tariff free.

Trump was talking about tariff on cars. The truth is, they do not have tariff on US cars in Japan. At least they don't call it tariffs, since is induced in different ways, for example: currency manipulation and discriminatory taxes, standards, entry procedures, distribution structures, zoning requirements, etc. That results in US selling in Japan less cars in a year, than Japan sell in US in a single day.

While Ford Focus in US costs cca $18,000, the same car in Japan is $30,000. They may not call it tariff, but sure looks like one.

What do we care if they want high taxes?

Would you care if your widget in Japan is sold with 50% tax and concurrent Japanese widget with no tax?

I don't care how Japan chooses to tax it's citizens. That is their problem.

That's not what I asked you.

 

[Brain357]

Tariff repellent is offering free trade. That has been done a lot.

Free trade should go both ways, not just free trade on products sold in the US.

For example, Japan's MFN tariff for US:
Agriculture products - 14.3%
Clothing - 9.0%
Footwear, leather - 9.4%

They can sell any of their products in US tariff free.

Trump was talking about tariff on cars. The truth is, they do not have tariff on US cars in Japan. At least they don't call it tariffs, since is induced in different ways, for example: currency manipulation and discriminatory taxes, standards, entry procedures, distribution structures, zoning requirements, etc. That results in US selling in Japan less cars in a year, than Japan sell in US in a single day.

While Ford Focus in US costs cca $18,000, the same car in Japan is $30,000. They may not call it tariff, but sure looks like one.

What do we care if they want high taxes?

Would you care if your widget in Japan is sold with 50% tax and concurrent Japanese widget with no tax?

I don't care how Japan chooses to tax it's citizens. That is their problem.

That's not what I asked you.

I answered your question. Maybe that taxing is why Japan has been stagnant for a very long time.