billvon 2,405
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,405
>1. it doesn't promote the american car manufacturers.
Right, it doesn't promote one over the other. But from a recovery perspective, we are better off getting people to buy US-built Toyotas than Mexican-built Fords.
Right, it doesn't promote one over the other. But from a recovery perspective, we are better off getting people to buy US-built Toyotas than Mexican-built Fords.
kallend 1,635
Quotewho gives a damn what the approval rating is?? And if they do, why? What matters is what you think!
Fuck approval ratings. Numbers are so simply twisted.
My general response to people quoting approval stats is along the lines of "what, can't form your own opinion so you have to see which group you should go along with?"
Wow, Rob, you are one angry dude. Fancy getting so worked up about a poll.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote>Of course, if that $100 that someone would have spent in your store
>gets taken by the government and given to people to spend at the other
>store and your wife loses her job, you might not come out ahead.
Right. Which is why it makes sense to use the cash for clunkers program to encourage people to buy cars from car companies, instead of from the government.
Your response doesn't even make sense.
billvon 2,405
>Your response doesn't even make sense.
OK. Then I'll be a little more verbose:
You said that if that $100 went to the government instead of the store, and the store got none of it, that would be bad. I agreed. Fortunately, the cash-for-clunkers program gives people cash to buy cars from car manufacturers, not to give back to the government, so your concern has been addressed.
OK. Then I'll be a little more verbose:
You said that if that $100 went to the government instead of the store, and the store got none of it, that would be bad. I agreed. Fortunately, the cash-for-clunkers program gives people cash to buy cars from car manufacturers, not to give back to the government, so your concern has been addressed.
Quote>Your response doesn't even make sense.
OK. Then I'll be a little more verbose:
You said that if that $100 went to the government instead of the store, and the store got none of it, that would be bad. I agreed. Fortunately, the cash-for-clunkers program gives people cash to buy cars from car manufacturers, not to give back to the government, so your concern has been addressed.
No. Re-read what I said - mentioned nothing about the government keeping the money.
Person A has $100 that they would normally spend at store A.
Government takes the $100 from Person A and gives it to Person B to spend at Store B (Car Dealers)
Your argument: Store B benefits, it's all good right?
My point: Person B and Store B benefit at the expense of store A and Person A.
The money doesn't come out of nowhere.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuote>Your response doesn't even make sense.
OK. Then I'll be a little more verbose:
You said that if that $100 went to the government instead of the store, and the store got none of it, that would be bad. I agreed. Fortunately, the cash-for-clunkers program gives people cash to buy cars from car manufacturers, not to give back to the government, so your concern has been addressed.
No. Re-read what I said - mentioned nothing about the government keeping the money.
Person A has $100 that they would normally spend at store A.
Government takes the $100 from Person A and gives it to Person B to spend at Store B (Car Dealers)
Your argument: Store B benefits, it's all good right?
My point: Person B and Store B benefit at the expense of store A and Person A.
The money doesn't come out of nowhere.
The only way to avoid such scenarios is to eliminate ALL taxes and excise duties. CforC is no different from any other use of government money, including to pay for the military, roads, police, fire departments, parks, bridges. Someone pays, and someone else gets a benefit.
Using that as justification for criticizing CforC is just futile and redundant.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,405
>Government takes the $100 from Person A and gives it to Person B to
>spend at Store B (Car Dealers)
Ah, I see the confusion.
Economic stimulus during recessions involves both tax cuts (so government takes LESS from person A) and direct stimulus (government gives $100 to person B.) Both A and B have more so they can spend more. Stores hire more employees, construction workers build new stores, the velocity of money increases.
This money doesn't come from nowhere, of course. It comes from deficit spending, and must be paid back once the economy has recovered. When the economy _has_ recovered, all those people working and all those stores selling stuff will be paying more in taxes - and thus money is fed back in in preparation for the next recession.
Now, we are doing far too much deficit spending lately. We're deficit spending in good times as well as bad, and that's nuts; we absolutely have to fix that. (And we should, once the economy recovers.)
>spend at Store B (Car Dealers)
Ah, I see the confusion.
Economic stimulus during recessions involves both tax cuts (so government takes LESS from person A) and direct stimulus (government gives $100 to person B.) Both A and B have more so they can spend more. Stores hire more employees, construction workers build new stores, the velocity of money increases.
This money doesn't come from nowhere, of course. It comes from deficit spending, and must be paid back once the economy has recovered. When the economy _has_ recovered, all those people working and all those stores selling stuff will be paying more in taxes - and thus money is fed back in in preparation for the next recession.
Now, we are doing far too much deficit spending lately. We're deficit spending in good times as well as bad, and that's nuts; we absolutely have to fix that. (And we should, once the economy recovers.)
azdiver 0
holy shit, im finding my self agreeing with bill, unfortunate that its not happening that way. to many newer, safer, w good mpg cars are being traded in, instead of the worst cars on the roadQuote> I guess the cash for clunkers program forgot to tell people they
>should buy fuel efficient cars with the money.
Uh, no, they didn't. You have to buy a more efficient car. If someone really needs a truck, and they are trading in a 12mpg truck for one that gets 15mpg we still come out ahead. In fact, trades like that are a lot more important than the guy who trades his old Honda Civic for a Prius.
light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak
billvon 2,405
>to many newer, safer, w good mpg cars are being traded in . . .
In this program you can't trade in high-MPG cars. The car generally has to get less than 18mpg to be eligible as a trade-in.
In this program you can't trade in high-MPG cars. The car generally has to get less than 18mpg to be eligible as a trade-in.
kallend 1,635
Quote>to many newer, safer, w good mpg cars are being traded in . . .
In this program you can't trade in high-MPG cars. The car generally has to get less than 18mpg to be eligible as a trade-in.
Indeed - my wife's Saturn is a clunker for sure, but didn't qualify on account of its mpg.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuotewww.gallup.com/Home.aspx
Still 53% approval despite the systematic program of lies being spread around by the GOP.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
51% DISapproval, by the pollsters that have the best record out there, regardless of the partisan whine.
That wouldn't by any chance be an "appeal to authority" would it?
Someone on here criticized that just today in another thread.
WHY
- it was [url "http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3648765#3648765"] mnealtx!...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote>to many newer, safer, w good mpg cars are being traded in . . .
In this program you can't trade in high-MPG cars. The car generally has to get less than 18mpg to be eligible as a trade-in.
Yes, the problem is that you can still buy a hummer under this program.
airdvr 198
Would have more more green sense to be adjusted for the MPG difference. Trading in a 12MPG one for a 25MPG should have been worth more.
Please don't dent the planet.
Destinations by Roxanne
Destinations by Roxanne
billvon 2,405
>Yes, the problem is that you can still buy a hummer under this program.
If it gets good enough gas mileage - yes, you could. Which is how it should be. The "hummer" brand isn't evil or anything, it's just that they make really low mileage vehicles for the most part.
If it gets good enough gas mileage - yes, you could. Which is how it should be. The "hummer" brand isn't evil or anything, it's just that they make really low mileage vehicles for the most part.
azdiver 0
yeah most under 18 mpg qualify-suv's new today would qualify for trade in under that guide line. a clunker shouldn't be based solely on that, mileage, mft date should have been in place as well, newer cars still have better emissions than older year cars, wouldn't it be better to get a million 80's and 90's off the road then 2000's. On the news looking at the cars they were showing that had been traded in were late 90's and early 00's, they should be on the road instead of the cars spewing black smoke, and leaking oil allover the place
light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak
Quote>Yes, the problem is that you can still buy a hummer under this program.
If it gets good enough gas mileage - yes, you could. Which is how it should be. The "hummer" brand isn't evil or anything, it's just that they make really low mileage vehicles for the most part.
no, it's exactly that- evil and stupid. The reason it's part of the program is to clear out the inventory so it can be put to bed finally.
It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway.
azdiver 0
my point, cars that are unreliable and worn out dont always qualify while good cars do, now there on their way to the scrap yard, and bad cars are still falling apart on the road.
light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak
billvon 2,405
>It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is
>not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway.
I agree. Which is why it's not part of the debt funded giveaway. They have to get >18mpg to qualify.
>not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway.
I agree. Which is why it's not part of the debt funded giveaway. They have to get >18mpg to qualify.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuote>Yes, the problem is that you can still buy a hummer under this program.
If it gets good enough gas mileage - yes, you could. Which is how it should be. The "hummer" brand isn't evil or anything, it's just that they make really low mileage vehicles for the most part.
no, it's exactly that- evil and stupid. The reason it's part of the program is to clear out the inventory so it can be put to bed finally.
It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway.
4 mpg is the minimum improvement. The average has to be better than that (mathematics, even if you don't believe DOT data).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
>29% approval, 69% disapproval, 2% undecided.
AAHHHH! People who spend their entire days on Facebook don't like Obama! He's doomed for sure! All those people with jobs don't matter; it's the facebookers and the twitterers who are the REAL people here in the US!
Coming up next - graffiti in video arcades is primarily ANTI-Obama! Why is he even still in office?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites