Cash for clunkers

[alan1]

That's the same normal discount you would get by a reputible dealer when trading in any old car for a new one. What is the big deal here? MSRP prices are way more than the 4500 above what the dealer actually pays for the car. You guys and the American public as a whole are idiots when it comes to trading an old car in for a new one. The government hasn't paid any auto dealer any money for the program. I wonder why? It's a scam, that's why.

But my total net worth changes based upon the value of my clunker.

 

[TT16]

Even with the payment from cash for clunkers, people still need loans, so is there an adequate supply of money from banks to meet demand?

 

[edthecynic]

Cash for Clunkers is a con game used to take away choices from people with the guise of getting paid for it. Most "clunkers" can be taken to a shop and fixed up really nice for far less than buying a new car, even a frame is valuable to those who restore cars.

It's even worse than that.

The dealers taking the trade-in are required to crush them, rather than fixing them up or liquidating them for parts.

If ya kinda-sorta didn't know better, it looks like those geniuses in the District of Crooks are trying to inflate a used car bubble.

As usual, you just make up this tinfoil hat conspiracy crap out of thin air!!!

1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 512 and 599

The program covers qualifying
transactions that occur between July 1, 2009 and November 1, 2009, so long as funds
appropriated by Congress are not exhausted. If all of the conditions of eligibility are met
and the dealer provides NHTSA with sufficient documentation relating to the transaction,
NHTSA will make an electronic payment to the dealer equal to the amount of the credit
extended by the dealer to the consumer, not exceeding the statutorily authorized amount.
The dealer must agree to transfer the trade-in vehicle to a disposal facility that will crush
or shred it so that it will never be returned to the road, although parts of the vehicle, other
than the engine block and drive train (unless the drive train is sold in separate parts), may
be sold.

 

[edthecynic]

Exactly they didn't run this, they let the private sector run it and the people decide if they wanted to use it or not.

They should use cash for clunkers as a model for health care reform.

nah....that was basicly mccains plan....

Well then McCain had a good plan, as evidenced by the success of cash for clunkers.

McCain is threatening a filibuster for the added funding, and said he was against the original funding.

White House Keeps Pushing Depleted 'Clunkers' Program as Senate Vote Awaits - Political News - FOXNews.com


But Senate Republicans are threatening to use delay tactics to kill the bill.
A spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told FOX News that he will object to the bill next week, even mounting a filibuster.
"I not only wouldn't vote for the extra $2 billion, I was opposed to the initial billion," McCain told FOX News Radio.

 

[Soaring]

The economy is not recovering, and people are taking advantage of this incentive. However, I'm guessing that most of them can't afford a new car even with this incentive. It's clearly a black hole of a program considering it wasted $1 billion in a week.

How long did it take to get where we are? How fast do you think it should recover? Do you "black hole" naysayers EVER pay attention to anything on a daily basis?

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jul. 31, 2009

"There's a constant bid in the market, you can't knock it down," said Joseph Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading.

In the last three weeks, the major gauges have all gained around 12% as investors have breathed a sigh of relief that the pace of the economic slowdown has eased and corporate profits are closer to recovering.

GDP: The pace of economic decline slowed in the second quarter, in the clearest indicator yet that the recession is winding down.

GDP, the broadest measure of U.S. economic activity, shrank at a 1% annual rate in the April-through-June period. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com thought GDP would shrink at a faster 1.5% rate.

GDP isn't an accurate measure of recovery. I think we would be well on our way to recovery had we allowed the market to correct itself. Everything the government has done has simply delayed the inevitable and made it worse in the long run.

AMEN! Our economy has been up and down for a few hundred years, and history has shown that the recovery has taken less time to recover given its' own course than with government intervention. It took WWII for the FDR years to recover. It may take another WW for ours to recover under Osama.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How long did it take to get where we are? How fast do you think it should recover? Do you "black hole" naysayers EVER pay attention to anything on a daily basis?

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jul. 31, 2009

"There's a constant bid in the market, you can't knock it down," said Joseph Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading.

In the last three weeks, the major gauges have all gained around 12% as investors have breathed a sigh of relief that the pace of the economic slowdown has eased and corporate profits are closer to recovering.

GDP: The pace of economic decline slowed in the second quarter, in the clearest indicator yet that the recession is winding down.

GDP, the broadest measure of U.S. economic activity, shrank at a 1% annual rate in the April-through-June period. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com thought GDP would shrink at a faster 1.5% rate.

GDP isn't an accurate measure of recovery. I think we would be well on our way to recovery had we allowed the market to correct itself. Everything the government has done has simply delayed the inevitable and made it worse in the long run.

AMEN! Our economy has been up and down for a few hundred years, and history has shown that the recovery has taken less time to recover given its' own course than with government intervention. It took WWII for the FDR years to recover. It may take another WW for ours to recover under Osama.

Well WW2 didn't help us recover in the least. If we accept that FDR's spending didn't help why would we assume that more government spending would help? Makes no sense. Wars don't help the economy, they hurt it. It was the reduction in spending and government control over the economy after WW2 that finally got us out of the Great Depression.

 

[Soaring]

GDP isn't an accurate measure of recovery. I think we would be well on our way to recovery had we allowed the market to correct itself. Everything the government has done has simply delayed the inevitable and made it worse in the long run.

AMEN! Our economy has been up and down for a few hundred years, and history has shown that the recovery has taken less time to recover given its' own course than with government intervention. It took WWII for the FDR years to recover. It may take another WW for ours to recover under Osama.

Well WW2 didn't help us recover in the least. If we accept that FDR's spending didn't help why would we assume that more government spending would help? Makes no sense. Wars don't help the economy, they hurt it. It was the reduction in spending and government control over the economy after WW2 that finally got us out of the Great Depression.

It wasn't more government spending that actually helped, it was putting folks back to work making war machines that got us back on track. Hell, even women who had never been outside the home went to work building war machines. And, those who went to work bought products produced by American companies, and everybody had a job. Everybody contributed to the economy. Today, we have a large contengency sucking off the rest of us who actually contribute to the economy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

AMEN! Our economy has been up and down for a few hundred years, and history has shown that the recovery has taken less time to recover given its' own course than with government intervention. It took WWII for the FDR years to recover. It may take another WW for ours to recover under Osama.

Well WW2 didn't help us recover in the least. If we accept that FDR's spending didn't help why would we assume that more government spending would help? Makes no sense. Wars don't help the economy, they hurt it. It was the reduction in spending and government control over the economy after WW2 that finally got us out of the Great Depression.

It wasn't more government spending that actually helped, it was putting folks back to work making war machines that got us back on track. Hell, even women who had never been outside the home went to work building war machines. And, those who went to work bought products produced by American companies, and everybody had a job. Everybody contributed to the economy. Today, we have a large contengency sucking off the rest of us who actually contribute to the economy.

Well none of that was actually productive, however. Sending people off to die and building instruments of death aren't really good for the economy because they don't contribute to society in any way. In fact, that all made people poorer because there were severe shortages, rationing, and price controls during WW2. None of which is reflective of a healthy economy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well WW2 didn't help us recover in the least. If we accept that FDR's spending didn't help why would we assume that more government spending would help? Makes no sense. Wars don't help the economy, they hurt it. It was the reduction in spending and government control over the economy after WW2 that finally got us out of the Great Depression.

It wasn't more government spending that actually helped, it was putting folks back to work making war machines that got us back on track. Hell, even women who had never been outside the home went to work building war machines. And, those who went to work bought products produced by American companies, and everybody had a job. Everybody contributed to the economy. Today, we have a large contengency sucking off the rest of us who actually contribute to the economy.

Well none of that was actually productive, however. Sending people off to die and building instruments of death aren't really good for the economy because they don't contribute to society in any way. In fact, that all made people poorer because there were severe shortages, rationing, and price controls during WW2. None of which is reflective of a healthy economy.

Actually, you seem to know too little about economics. It does and did help a lot. As a matter of fact, if not for WW2 we would have been worse off. First, fewer people does actually help an economy, it frees up resources, so that argument is completely messed up. Secondly, as long as our equipment is US built it stimulates the economy much better than government spending, not only does it keep more jobs here but also spurs sales of excess over seas to allies and even neutral parties. You need to get off the high horse and look at the world around you more.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It wasn't more government spending that actually helped, it was putting folks back to work making war machines that got us back on track. Hell, even women who had never been outside the home went to work building war machines. And, those who went to work bought products produced by American companies, and everybody had a job. Everybody contributed to the economy. Today, we have a large contengency sucking off the rest of us who actually contribute to the economy.

Well none of that was actually productive, however. Sending people off to die and building instruments of death aren't really good for the economy because they don't contribute to society in any way. In fact, that all made people poorer because there were severe shortages, rationing, and price controls during WW2. None of which is reflective of a healthy economy.

Actually, you seem to know too little about economics. It does and did help a lot. As a matter of fact, if not for WW2 we would have been worse off. First, fewer people does actually help an economy, it frees up resources, so that argument is completely messed up. Secondly, as long as our equipment is US built it stimulates the economy much better than government spending, not only does it keep more jobs here but also spurs sales of excess over seas to allies and even neutral parties. You need to get off the high horse and look at the world around you more.

It stimulates better than government spending? It is government spending. Who do you think is buying all this equipment for war? Actually war doesn't "free up resources," it wastes resources. Nothing produced for war helps society in any way shape or form, therefore those resources can't be used for the betterment of society. And I already explained that we experienced severe shortages, rationing, and price controls at home during WW2. How did any of that help the economy?

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises

 

[KittenKoder]

Well none of that was actually productive, however. Sending people off to die and building instruments of death aren't really good for the economy because they don't contribute to society in any way. In fact, that all made people poorer because there were severe shortages, rationing, and price controls during WW2. None of which is reflective of a healthy economy.

Actually, you seem to know too little about economics. It does and did help a lot. As a matter of fact, if not for WW2 we would have been worse off. First, fewer people does actually help an economy, it frees up resources, so that argument is completely messed up. Secondly, as long as our equipment is US built it stimulates the economy much better than government spending, not only does it keep more jobs here but also spurs sales of excess over seas to allies and even neutral parties. You need to get off the high horse and look at the world around you more.

It stimulates better than government spending? It is government spending. Who do you think is buying all this equipment for war? Actually war doesn't "free up resources," it wastes resources. Nothing produced for war helps society in any way shape or form, therefore those resources can't be used for the betterment of society. And I already explained that we experienced severe shortages, rationing, and price controls at home during WW2. How did any of that help the economy?

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises

First, Ludwig's time was very different, some age old quotes are for that age only. Secondly, while it is still "government spending" it isn't the wasteful spending Bush had done and Obama is doing, it's two birds with one stone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, you seem to know too little about economics. It does and did help a lot. As a matter of fact, if not for WW2 we would have been worse off. First, fewer people does actually help an economy, it frees up resources, so that argument is completely messed up. Secondly, as long as our equipment is US built it stimulates the economy much better than government spending, not only does it keep more jobs here but also spurs sales of excess over seas to allies and even neutral parties. You need to get off the high horse and look at the world around you more.

It stimulates better than government spending? It is government spending. Who do you think is buying all this equipment for war? Actually war doesn't "free up resources," it wastes resources. Nothing produced for war helps society in any way shape or form, therefore those resources can't be used for the betterment of society. And I already explained that we experienced severe shortages, rationing, and price controls at home during WW2. How did any of that help the economy?

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises

First, Ludwig's time was very different, some age old quotes are for that age only. Secondly, while it is still "government spending" it isn't the wasteful spending Bush had done and Obama is doing, it's two birds with one stone.

That quote was from a book published in 1919, and it always applies. A war is never good for the economy.

 

[KittenKoder]

It stimulates better than government spending? It is government spending. Who do you think is buying all this equipment for war? Actually war doesn't "free up resources," it wastes resources. Nothing produced for war helps society in any way shape or form, therefore those resources can't be used for the betterment of society. And I already explained that we experienced severe shortages, rationing, and price controls at home during WW2. How did any of that help the economy?

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises

First, Ludwig's time was very different, some age old quotes are for that age only. Secondly, while it is still "government spending" it isn't the wasteful spending Bush had done and Obama is doing, it's two birds with one stone.

That quote was from a book published in 1919, and it always applies. A war is never good for the economy.

Just because you are anti-war, doesn't mean it's bad. 1919 is a very different time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First, Ludwig's time was very different, some age old quotes are for that age only. Secondly, while it is still "government spending" it isn't the wasteful spending Bush had done and Obama is doing, it's two birds with one stone.

That quote was from a book published in 1919, and it always applies. A war is never good for the economy.

Just because you are anti-war, doesn't mean it's bad. 1919 is a very different time.

I haven't just relied on my anti-war stance to say that a war is bad for the economy, I've actually given reasons why. 1919 is "very" different from WW2? Maybe. I'm sure Ludwig felt the same way during WW2 as he did in 1919, however.

 

[Soaring]

Well none of that was actually productive, however. Sending people off to die and building instruments of death aren't really good for the economy because they don't contribute to society in any way. In fact, that all made people poorer because there were severe shortages, rationing, and price controls during WW2. None of which is reflective of a healthy economy.

Actually, you seem to know too little about economics. It does and did help a lot. As a matter of fact, if not for WW2 we would have been worse off. First, fewer people does actually help an economy, it frees up resources, so that argument is completely messed up. Secondly, as long as our equipment is US built it stimulates the economy much better than government spending, not only does it keep more jobs here but also spurs sales of excess over seas to allies and even neutral parties. You need to get off the high horse and look at the world around you more.

It stimulates better than government spending? It is government spending. Who do you think is buying all this equipment for war? Actually war doesn't "free up resources," it wastes resources. Nothing produced for war helps society in any way shape or form, therefore those resources can't be used for the betterment of society. And I already explained that we experienced severe shortages, rationing, and price controls at home during WW2. How did any of that help the economy?

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises

OK genius, then 'splain to me why after WWII our nation was prosperous.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, you seem to know too little about economics. It does and did help a lot. As a matter of fact, if not for WW2 we would have been worse off. First, fewer people does actually help an economy, it frees up resources, so that argument is completely messed up. Secondly, as long as our equipment is US built it stimulates the economy much better than government spending, not only does it keep more jobs here but also spurs sales of excess over seas to allies and even neutral parties. You need to get off the high horse and look at the world around you more.

It stimulates better than government spending? It is government spending. Who do you think is buying all this equipment for war? Actually war doesn't "free up resources," it wastes resources. Nothing produced for war helps society in any way shape or form, therefore those resources can't be used for the betterment of society. And I already explained that we experienced severe shortages, rationing, and price controls at home during WW2. How did any of that help the economy?

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises

OK genius, then 'splain to me why after WWII our nation was prosperous.

We weren't, not immediately at any rate. After WW2 the government stopped spending a large amount of money, and released its death grip over the economy. That's when the Great Depression ended.

 

[KittenKoder]

It stimulates better than government spending? It is government spending. Who do you think is buying all this equipment for war? Actually war doesn't "free up resources," it wastes resources. Nothing produced for war helps society in any way shape or form, therefore those resources can't be used for the betterment of society. And I already explained that we experienced severe shortages, rationing, and price controls at home during WW2. How did any of that help the economy?

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises

OK genius, then 'splain to me why after WWII our nation was prosperous.

We weren't, not immediately at any rate. After WW2 the government stopped spending a large amount of money, and released its death grip over the economy. That's when the Great Depression ended.

Um ... you do realize how hypocritical saying that is, right?

So then everything that's happening now is 100% Obama's fault, as well as the Democrats? Good to know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK genius, then 'splain to me why after WWII our nation was prosperous.

We weren't, not immediately at any rate. After WW2 the government stopped spending a large amount of money, and released its death grip over the economy. That's when the Great Depression ended.

Um ... you do realize how hypocritical saying that is, right?

So then everything that's happening now is 100% Obama's fault, as well as the Democrats? Good to know.

Why is it hypocritical? No, it's certainly not 100% Obama's fault. He can't be blamed for creating the bubble in the first place. He's certainly responsible for everything he's done, however. Voting for the bailouts, the stimulus package, etc...

 

[KittenKoder]

We weren't, not immediately at any rate. After WW2 the government stopped spending a large amount of money, and released its death grip over the economy. That's when the Great Depression ended.

Um ... you do realize how hypocritical saying that is, right?

So then everything that's happening now is 100% Obama's fault, as well as the Democrats? Good to know.

Why is it hypocritical? No, it's certainly not 100% Obama's fault. He can't be blamed for creating the bubble in the first place. He's certainly responsible for everything he's done, however. Voting for the bailouts, the stimulus package, etc...

Aaah ... but according to your "the economy didn't right itself until after the war" logic, then everything that happens economically is a direct result of that days actions. So yes, either the war helped the economy limp back over time, which showed to be upright at the same time the war ended, or it was because of the war ending ... those are the only two possibilities, if it was because the war ended then Obama is to blame for all our current problems as well, unless you are a hypocrite.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Um ... you do realize how hypocritical saying that is, right?

So then everything that's happening now is 100% Obama's fault, as well as the Democrats? Good to know.

Why is it hypocritical? No, it's certainly not 100% Obama's fault. He can't be blamed for creating the bubble in the first place. He's certainly responsible for everything he's done, however. Voting for the bailouts, the stimulus package, etc...

Aaah ... but according to your "the economy didn't right itself until after the war" logic, then everything that happens economically is a direct result of that days actions. So yes, either the war helped the economy limp back over time, which showed to be upright at the same time the war ended, or it was because of the war ending ... those are the only two possibilities, if it was because the war ended then Obama is to blame for all our current problems as well, unless you are a hypocrite.

I am completely lost.