Or, is is because the down side makes them look stupid?

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

In regards Rushmc's point about the program being unfair to the poor, it's also true that very few low income people are going to be able to trade a working vehicle in and spend another $10-15k at the same time, to buy a new car. Which means that only those people with the wherewithal to purchase a new vehicle to begin with are likely to benefit from this bill. So the poor might get hit two ways. The bill does nothing for them, plus it's harder for them to buy cheap used cars.

Not true. Our family would be a great example. If we were to take advantage of the program this week we could take one 1985 clunker out of action, and also combine it with a trade in of a 34 mpg/250k mile car (running nicely) and a 26 mpg/150k small pickup. The dealer would end up selling a new car, scrapping one and gaining two fuel efficient automobiles that could be sold or auctioned.

edited to add: putting more fuel efficient cars on the road will reduce fuel demand, driving down prices. High fuel prices hit poorer families disproportionately.

Less demand for fuel drives prices up. Ever heard of supply and demand. If the demand is low for a product where the supply hasn't changed then the prices go up.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

In regards Rushmc's point about the program being unfair to the poor, it's also true that very few low income people are going to be able to trade a working vehicle in and spend another $10-15k at the same time, to buy a new car. Which means that only those people with the wherewithal to purchase a new vehicle to begin with are likely to benefit from this bill. So the poor might get hit two ways. The bill does nothing for them, plus it's harder for them to buy cheap used cars.

Not true. Our family would be a great example. If we were to take advantage of the program this week we could take one 1985 clunker out of action, and also combine it with a trade in of a 34 mpg/250k mile car (running nicely) and a 26 mpg/150k small pickup. The dealer would end up selling a new car, scrapping one and gaining two fuel efficient automobiles that could be sold or auctioned.

edited to add: putting more fuel efficient cars on the road will reduce fuel demand, driving down prices. High fuel prices hit poorer families disproportionately.

That still doesn't address the fact that lower-income people who need to find a used car under $1,500, and parts to fix it with, may have a harder time finding them.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Our family would be a great example. If we were to take advantage of the program this week we could take one 1985 clunker out of action, and also combine it with a trade in of a 34 mpg/250k mile car (running nicely) and a 26 mpg/150k small pickup.

Um, you own three vehicles and you think you're poor? Or do you have more cars than that?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

In regards Rushmc's point about the program being unfair to the poor, it's also true that very few low income people are going to be able to trade a working vehicle in and spend another $10-15k at the same time, to buy a new car. Which means that only those people with the wherewithal to purchase a new vehicle to begin with are likely to benefit from this bill. So the poor might get hit two ways. The bill does nothing for them, plus it's harder for them to buy cheap used cars.

Not true. Our family would be a great example. If we were to take advantage of the program this week we could take one 1985 clunker out of action, and also combine it with a trade in of a 34 mpg/250k mile car (running nicely) and a 26 mpg/150k small pickup. The dealer would end up selling a new car, scrapping one and gaining two fuel efficient automobiles that could be sold or auctioned.

edited to add: putting more fuel efficient cars on the road will reduce fuel demand, driving down prices. High fuel prices hit poorer families disproportionately.

I'm thinking the same thing. I've got a car that will turn 200,000 next week. I've been debating whether or not to repair some things, or call it done. Doubt if anybody I could sell it to is going to spend money to repair it; so it becomes a matter of me driving it to it's grave; or retiring it a bit early (along with it's 20 MPG oil burning engine) and using the program to get myself into a clean running 30+ MPG vehicle.

I was thinking of invoking the "pursuit of happiness" clause as a good reason for the government to buy me a Bugati. Think I could get the administration to earmark some funds for that purpose, you know, strictly on Constitutional grounds.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Less demand for fuel drives prices up. Ever heard of supply and demand. If the demand is low for a product where the supply hasn't changed then the prices go up.

???

You've lost me here.

I'm pretty sure that less demand for fuel would be a factor pushing prices of fuel down. I admit that I took Econ 1A about 20 years ago, so maybe I'm rusty. I think I've still got the textbook around here somewhere. I'll go have a look. Unless you can explain what I've missed?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Less demand for fuel drives prices up. Ever heard of supply and demand. If the demand is low for a product where the supply hasn't changed then the prices go up.

Actually it apparently drives them down. We drove billions of miles fewer last year, dropped consumption, drove prices down and apparently caused such a rapid change in oil demand that they were storing oil offshore in tankers. It was cheaper to store the oil than it was to bring it on to market at the lower price. We're $1.50/gal cheaper than we were a year ago.

[kallend 2,027]

Hey, did you ever find that reference to "GOD" in the Constitution?

(And you need a refresher on supply and demand).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Hey, did you ever find that reference to "GOD" in the Constitution?

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god

Quote

God

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Less demand for fuel drives prices up. Ever heard of supply and demand. If the demand is low for a product where the supply hasn't changed then the prices go up.

Actually it apparently drives them down. We drove billions of miles fewer last year, dropped consumption, drove prices down and apparently caused such a rapid change in oil demand that they were storing oil offshore in tankers. It was cheaper to store the oil than it was to bring it on to market at the lower price. We're $1.50/gal cheaper than we were a year ago.

You are correct; the other person has it backwards. For a fixed supply, reduced demand equals lower price, and increased demand equals a price increase.

Of course with the price drop, production will eventually go down and a new equilibrium will be reached. Although in today's world, equilibrium may be unattainable. More realistic would probably be non-shocking fluctuations winthin an acceptable range.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Ion01 2]

No I have it correctly. I work in the oil and gas industry. the reason prices dropped, particularly in natural gas, is because when prices were high they wanted to sell a whole bunch of gas so they dilled and pumped as hard and fast as they could! When the economy tanked the demand dropped but they continued to pump the same amount out of the ground as they did before which ment the supply went up dramatically. When factories shut down that left huge supplies of natural gas and oils that were going to be used left in tanks generating a huge supply with low demand thus lower prices. As a result they have responded by not dilling and pump as much, also because they can't afford it at these low prices, which will reduce the supply moving prices up.
Seriously, its simple economics people.

Also, lets remember this cash for clunkers. Who is the cash coming from? The government? No. US! the tax payers. The money is just making a circle! The government takes it from us and gives it back in the form of "stimulus plans". Why not just not take the money in the first place? Because that means less power for the government!

Also, for all you who think that the oil and gas industry is horrible think about the fact that they employ more people than any other industry and right now numerous oil and gas companies have had to file for bankruptcy or shut down due to the current prices. This in turn raises unemployment.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In regards Rushmc's point about the program being unfair to the poor, it's also true that very few low income people are going to be able to trade a working vehicle in and spend another $10-15k at the same time, to buy a new car. Which means that only those people with the wherewithal to purchase a new vehicle to begin with are likely to benefit from this bill. So the poor might get hit two ways. The bill does nothing for them, plus it's harder for them to buy cheap used cars.

Not true. Our family would be a great example. If we were to take advantage of the program this week we could take one 1985 clunker out of action, and also combine it with a trade in of a 34 mpg/250k mile car (running nicely) and a 26 mpg/150k small pickup. The dealer would end up selling a new car, scrapping one and gaining two fuel efficient automobiles that could be sold or auctioned.

edited to add: putting more fuel efficient cars on the road will reduce fuel demand, driving down prices. High fuel prices hit poorer families disproportionately.

Have you read the reports of those buynig say the Prius's? More miles driven, and more speeding tickets than others.

Ya, the program is a success, to those who have the same mind set as you I suppose......

And by the way, many can not afford the cars required under the program but if it works for you like is good.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Also, these engines will eventually be melted down to make new ones which of course will add a bunch of carbon to the atmosphere during the melting down process.

AND, it will be done in a country that has little of any polution control systems being used..

You both should research the amount of CO2 produced in making a ton of steel from scrap compared with the amount produced in making a ton of steel from iron ore before writing comments like that.

On balance, we are FAR better off making steel from recycled scrap.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Have you read the reports of those buynig say the Prius's? More miles driven, and more speeding tickets than others.

No.

Quote

Ya, the program is a success, to those who have the same mind set as you I suppose......

Absolutely.

Quote

And by the way, many can not afford the cars required under the program but if it works for you like is good.

True, but more people can than would be able to without the credit. I saw one ad recently that was for a Nissan Versa. After the rebates and incentives it came to about $6k for a brand new fuel efficient car. Not too shabby.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Have you read the reports of those buynig say the Prius's? More miles driven, and more speeding tickets than others.

No.

Quote

Ya, the program is a success, to those who have the same mind set as you I suppose......

Absolutely.

Quote

And by the way, many can not afford the cars required under the program but if it works for you like is good.

True, but more people can than would be able to without the credit. I saw one ad recently that was for a Nissan Versa. After the rebates and incentives it came to about $6k for a brand new fuel efficient car. Not too shabby.

Yea for free money

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No I have it correctly.

Uhmm, no you don't. If supply is equal and demand goes down, prices have to go down to try and create demand. That is supply and demand in it's simplest form.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Yea for free money

It's called "stimulus". The idea is that we get back more than we put in. And this package actually seems to work (for a change). I don't see what the problem is other than that it doesn't help the "I hope Obama fails" mentality of the Grand Obstructionist Party.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The idea is that we get back more than we put in.

Are you familiar with the "spending multiplier" concept in economics?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

The idea is that we get back more than we put in.

Are you familiar with the "spending multiplier" concept in economics?

Just a bit. And that's not an understatement.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No I have it correctly. I work in the oil and gas industry. the reason prices dropped, particularly in natural gas, is because when prices were high they wanted to sell a whole bunch of gas so they dilled and pumped as hard and fast as they could! When the economy tanked the demand dropped but they continued to pump the same amount out of the ground as they did before which ment the supply went up dramatically.

Uh, you're talking a lot of bullshit, but the clearest fault is that in your inversion of actual supply and demand theory, you specified that supply was a constant. In that circumstance, a dropping of demand will absolutely result in a drop in price.

Now you're stating that supply varied considerably.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why does it bother you that 23,000 inefficient, polluting vehicles have been taken out of service in less than a month?

Well, given they're being replaced at a cost of a billion dollars to buy nearly as inefficient, polluting vehicles, I have a huge problem with it.

there's no reason, aside from propping up Chrysler, to give people 4500$ for a 4mpg increase in efficiency. And given the price of these vehicles, it would seem to be giving cheaper cars to people who don't need it so much.

If this were about pollution or gas use, it should have been trading in cars getting < 20 in exchange for ones getting > 30.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Yea for free money

It's called "stimulus". The idea is that we get back more than we put in. And this package actually seems to work (for a change).

You mean the idea is that we get what others are forced to put in? You think no one is going to have to pay for this down the line?

I'll admit I hope Obama fails. I say this because I don't support giving taxpayer money to failed companies, government takeover of industry, finance, and health care, continuing unnecessary wars, socialism, the viral growth of failed government regulation, wealth redistribution, or any form of "social planning" that seems to be to prevalent within this administration.

That being said, stopping that doesn't appear to be the platform of the GOP either. The GOP seems to be "Obama lite". So why such disdain for a party that is similar in everything except name to your own?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

That being said, stopping that doesn't appear to be the platform of the GOP either. The GOP seems to be "Obama lite". So why such disdain for a party that is similar in everything except name to your own?

My disdain for the left side of the aisle is less than that for the right, though nearly equal. There are minor differences like the left supporting a war where our enemies are while the right seems to prefer them where our enemies aren't. The left supports welfare for those in need while the right supports welfare for those who donate. These are generalizations of course.

Most of my ire towards the right stems not from a difference in their historical ideology but from where their political strategy has moved. They spent more time and energy going after Clinton over (expensive) petty nonsense than they did any of his policies. Now (skipping over their reign of insanity with Bush and the feeding frenzy at the Treasury) they want to attack Obama over things like his birth certificate and the CARS program, what appears to be a somewhat successful policy.

In the meantime the real issues, such as REAL health care reform are pushed to the wayside. The lack of any real debate on any of the numerous REAL issues, as facilitated by the party of "NO" and their methods of distraction and diversion, will result in yet another crappy, pork laden rape of the Treasury whose primary beneficiary will be insurance, PhMRA and other large donors.

I'm not interested in the status quo with regards to our government. The right seems intent on distracting with fallacious arguments and obstruction. It's frustrating to those who would like to hear a constructive idea thrown into the mix. Just ONE would be a nice change of pace. And maybe the GOP actually has a few but I'm not hearing any of them due to the drumbeat of the noise machine.

[marks2065 0]

You both should research the amount of CO2 produced in making a ton of steel from scrap compared with the amount produced in making a ton of steel from iron ore before writing comments like that.

On balance, we are FAR better off making steel from recycled scrap.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Why does it bother you that 23,000 inefficient, polluting vehicles have been taken out of service in less than a month?

Mass defaults resulted when home buyers were steered into property they couldn't afford and accelerated when times got tight.

The government is encouraging people who probably can't afford new cars and probably don't have car payments to buy property they can't afford with more debt. Anecdotally, people who are in a financial position to buy new cars which are averaging close to $30,000 and would run $500+ a month already have a trade-in worth more than the credit.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Not true.

You are missing where he said it was "being unfair to the poor".

If I had a clunker I could use the program since I have the cash to buy a new car.... If you are poor, you don't have that cash and would trade in your old (most likely paid off) car and trade it in for a new car that comes with new car payments.

So, the people that can afford the new car... Most likely already have it. The people that can't afford a new car are not likely to get rid of one they have so they can now have a car payment. And those that are poor would be ill advised to go deeper in debt....Even if they can get a loan right now.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334