Originally Posted By DAR <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers_25" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...nkers_25</a> And yet we'll be able to afford a massive health care overhaul.
Originally Posted By mawnck Not one of the more brilliant programs to come out of this administration, huh. Who'd'a thunk it? People actually pouncing on an offer that gave them $4500 for a $600 car? We are SO screwed ...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Why is this being painted as a bad thing? It stimulates commerce, generates tax revenues for states, gives a boost to auto manufacturers that desperately need sales, and removes fuel inefficient vehicles from the roads. I'd much rather have this program in place than the Bush tax write-off program for SUVs weighing over 7,000 lbs. Remember that one? Under Bush, small businesses were able to use the entire cost of a massive SUV as a tax write-off. It was a disgusting incentive to buy fuel inefficient vehicles. Cash for clunkers does the reverse and can also benefit many more citizens than just small business owners.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure this was the BEST use of that kind of money but it wasn't a bad idea. I think the government is always a little suprised when one of their programs actually works.
Originally Posted By ecdc Sport Goofy, don't offer facts when it's much easier to just make fun of government. And we could afford healthcare, but asking Americans who make over $500,000 a year to raise their taxes by $1,500 caused a total meltdown. Because raising rich American's taxes by .3% is socialism. THAT is why we are so screwed. Greed, not government, will do us in.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>that gave them $4500 for a $600 car<< ... that will be used towards the purchase of a $20,000 vehicle. This is a pretty good program overall, and it's moving some cars. Some complained that stimulus money needed to get directly into the economy -- this does. I wish the fuel efficiency standards to get this deal had been much higher, that's my only problem with it.
Originally Posted By mawnck The main reason it's a bad thing is that $4500 per clunker is absurd. If they'd set it at $1000 (still higher than any clunker is worth) the effect would've been identical, but would've gotten 4.5 times as many clunkers off the road. The guvmint ran through a billion dollars in one week with this thing. And now they're going to throw another 2 billion at it? Also, who do you think is taking advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime offer? People with an EXTRA clunker, that's who. The poorer folks who are driving a hoopty because that's all they can afford ain't going to be able to trade it in on a new car, even with $4500. Unless you give them a loan they can't possibly pay back - hey now THERE'S an idea. The Chinese have stopped buying our bonds, you know. And where are those "fiscally conservative" Republicans? Having a hissy about birth certificates and uppity black Harvard professors. I reiterate ... we are SO screwed.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Or, if they'd have set it at $1,000, people might not have been at all motivated to take the plunge and buy a newer more fuel efficient vehicle at all.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We are screwed not because Republicans are broken or Democrats are broken. We are screwed because the political system is broken.
Originally Posted By DAR <<and can also benefit many more citizens than just small business owners. >> Because God forbid the small business owner gets to enjoy some success. Never mind the fact that most probably left a job they already had, put most of their life savings into starting a business and then not seeing any type of profit for years. Not to mention sacrificing many hours away from loved ones. And yet they're labeled as wealthy. Or how about the doctor or lawyer that spends years and years in medical or law school. Starting out on the bottom and yet when they finally get some success, this President wants to say you're making too much money. Look I'm fine with the really rich being taxed. They can afford it. But someone making $250k a year the threshhold the President set during the campaign is not the same as some making $250 million. And let's think about somebody on that lowest end of the "rich" pay scale. Let's say their taxes keep going up. And they have to cut back on some things. Let's say that they paid $10,000 for somebody to provide a lawn and landscaping service. But because of their taxes increasing they can't afford it. On the surface I would say oh boo hoo, take care of the yard yourself. But by cutting out that service the two or three guys that worked for the lawn company are going to lose income from that customer. Just something to think about.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>this President wants to say you're making too much money<< No, what he's saying is that he wants those that have benefitted most from this country's infrastructure, systems, opportunities to kick in a somewhat larger share for the benefit of the country.
Originally Posted By beamerdog >>that gave them $4500 for a $600 car<< For a brief moment I did think about buying one of those clunkers to...
Originally Posted By DAR <<No, what he's saying is that he wants those that have benefitted most from this country's infrastructure, systems, opportunities to kick in a somewhat larger share for the benefit of the country.>> Nothing wrong if you've acheived your success through hard work and honest means.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Because God forbid the small business owner gets to enjoy some success. >> So, you are in favor of tax breaks for small business owners to buy $60+K Cadillac SUVs for businesses that have no need for those sorts of vehicles? Lamenting the small business owner is a wondersful psychological ploy that is often used by conservatives. I have small business owners in my family and small business owners as friends. It makes my head hurt to watch how poorly they manage their businesses while siphoning off as much money as possible to support an excessive lifestyle. Then they wonder why their business ends up in bankruptcy. Could it be because instead of updating the office computer system to something that can efficiently operate in the real world, they went out and bought Cadillac Escalades for their children to drive? Of course, I know small business owners that still run their businesses without computers at all. And then they complain that they can't compete in today's marketplace. They still always have a shining new vehicle in the driveway, though.
Originally Posted By DAR <<So, you are in favor of tax breaks for small business owners to buy $60+K Cadillac SUVs for businesses that have no need for those sorts of vehicles?>> If that's what they earned with their money who are you or I to tell them what they can't do. As long it's being used for legal means I don't have a problem with it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << If that's what they earned with their money who are you or I to tell them what they can't do. >> Except it's your money -- as a taxpayer you are subsidizing this. What do you want to subsidize, SUVs or fuel efficient vehicles?
Originally Posted By ecdc While I'm sure there are plenty of small business owners who run their businesses perfectly, my experience tends to be in line with Sport Goofy's. I have a good friend who owns a bookstore. Now, he doesn't live extravagantly. You won't see a new BMW in his driveway. But he also doesn't run his business very...well...business-like. He only computerized his inventory three years ago. He doesn't have a website. His computers are all used and some days they work better than others. But of course, he laments Amazon.com despite not having a website himself. He's simply unwilling, contending that he can't afford to, invest in modernizing more and remaining competitive. I love the guy, but he has some serious entitlement issues. He seems to think since he's gone to the trouble of creating his business, he should just automatically have customers and business. He gets very frustrated when it doesn't work out that way, even though there's definite steps he could take to improve. And frankly, the attitude is one I've seen among many small business owners.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly. If someone who makes a success with a small business wants to buy a 60K SUV, go for it. But why should he get that subsidized? This Bush-era plan was a terrible one that encouraged Detroit to devote more and more of their fleet percentage to SUV's (which - surprise! - no one wanted to buy once gas went through the roof and Detroit was stuck with them). It also encouraged higher gas consumption, which Bush's oil pals no doubt loved, but that's not good national policy either.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>We are screwed not because Republicans are broken or Democrats are broken. We are screwed because the political system is broken.<< Well, OK, but it's more because WE'RE broken. The Dems were in charge of keeping the Repubs big business and Moral Majority buddies from taking over the government, and the Repubs were in charge of making sure the Dems didn't spend every dollar in the world (past present and future) on stupid stuff. Both have proven too cowardly and/or too craven to do either. But we elected them. The big question is "how did we get so gullible"? And that's a whole nother topic.
