DIY Home Improvement, Remodeling & Repair Forum > General Discussion > General Chit-Chat > Government CARS program




Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-02-2009, 08:38 PM  
dakuda
Senior Member
 
dakuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 174
Default Government CARS program

People seem to be using this program widely (ran out of first $1B, approved for another $2B).

Any thoughts on the 'Cash for Clunkers' in the US? Good/Bad?



__________________
dakuda is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2009, 03:29 PM  
oldognewtrick
Moderator
HRT_MODERATOR.png
 
oldognewtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 5,160
Liked 433 Times on 363 Posts
Likes Given: 140

Default

I heard a economist the other day on talk radio say this is basically voodoo economics. What will happen is that people will by now but you disrupt the natural buying cycle of autos. People can only by so many cars. Couple that with people buying things they can't afford and we are back in the same position that put us where we got started in this cycle. I personally think the government needs to stay out of business and let the economy seek its own level without manipulating everything it touches. Look at the terrific job they have done with social security, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, military spending, highways, education now they want to control banking, wall street, autos and health care. Sorry for the rant but enough is enough. Giving money to en debt people is not about saving the auto industry, its all about control of the masses.

OK, rant off now.

Just my 2 cents, bet your sorry you asked now.



__________________

Last edited by oldognewtrick; 08-03-2009 at 03:31 PM.
oldognewtrick is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2009, 08:46 PM  
majakdragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lafe Arkansas, Arkansas
Posts: 165
Default

I do have a problem with the stipulation that the clunkers must be crushed, not parts sold from them. I agree that allowing more people to spend money they may not have is silly.

__________________

if you have never made a mistake, you probably haven't done much.

majakdragon is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2009, 08:58 PM  
dakuda
Senior Member
 
dakuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by majakdragon View Post
I do have a problem with the stipulation that the clunkers must be crushed, not parts sold from them. I agree that allowing more people to spend money they may not have is silly.
I just thought that the engines had to be destroyed and that they could sell the other parts?
__________________
dakuda is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2009, 10:24 PM  
Nestor_Kelebay
Emperor Penguin
 
Nestor_Kelebay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,844
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

I think it makes sense for your government to use stimulus money to help Americans buy things that will put other Americans to work. Cars are a good example because a strong auto industry means a high demand for steel, petroleum (to make plastics), glass, electronics and rubber. And, that's not even mentioning the spin-off industries like insurance, tourism and the hundreds of thousands of people making a living fixing cars and filling tanks at the service stations around the country.

In a similar way, it's precisely the fact that house building requires material input from so many different sources that kept the US economy booming right up to the financial collapse in the late summer of 2007, and why a SURPLUS of houses on the market at that time threatened to result in a long and drawn out recession. Building houses keeps many people working, not just carpenters. And, just like cars, home ownership keeps people spending money too. It's not until you own your own home that you need your own appliances; your own lawn mower and snow blower, and your own DIY books.

Those economics profs that said that a spike in auto sales would result in a lower demand for new cars in future don't know what they're talking about. A new car will typically last 15 to 20 years, and if only 5 percent of drivers bought new American cars over the next few years as a result of this program, that'd keep the big 3 busy for years trying to meet that demand. And, it's reasonable to expect that the driver population of the US will grow by MORE than 5 percent over the next 15 to 20 years, thereby resulting in a net INCREASE in the demand for consumer goods, (like cars) rather than any decrease. That is, the predictable decrease in future car sales over the next 20 years will be more than offset by the increasing driver population over the next 20 years. More drivers means you need more cars; MUCH more than a few years worth of increased production.

I'd very much like to see a similar stimulus program to help people buy ELECTRIC cars. Once American auto manufacturers start producing electric cars and Americans start buying them, America will no longer be dependant on Saudi oil. America will be dependant on Canadian hydro electricity! Here in Manitoba, we got more hydroelectric potential than you can shake a scimitar at. The only reason we're not building more hydroelectric dams in Manitoba is that there just isn't any demand for more hydroelectricity outside of the peak daytime and supper time hours. Once every driver in the US starts charging their lithium car batteries as soon as they get home from work, there will be a steady demand for electricity 24 hours a day, and that means Manitoba will be able to sell more electricity to the US.

__________________

Last edited by Nestor_Kelebay; 08-03-2009 at 11:11 PM.
Nestor_Kelebay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-04-2009, 04:10 PM  
oldognewtrick
Moderator
HRT_MODERATOR.png
 
oldognewtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 5,160
Liked 433 Times on 363 Posts
Likes Given: 140

Default

If the US government would put 2 BILLION a week into auto incentives people would probably continue to buy American made cars. We simply cannot afford to continue to bail out businesses like this. At some point in time someone will have to pay for all this stimulus money being spent. With all the stimulus money that has been spent tax revenue is down over 50% from businesses and 28% form individuals. Seems to me we need to spend another TRILLION or 20. Maybe that will help......

I would love for electric or renewable energy cars to be more widely produced, our dependence on foreign oil is our Achilles heel. I'd really like to run an extension cord to your neck of the woods and not have to feed the Sheiks and South American Dictators. Canadians are a lot more friendly, don't want to blow us up and hey you have Hockey!

Part of the cause of our economic problem is we have based our economy on housing starts, since we have moved most other manufacturing jobs overseas. The housing bubbles pops and everything goes to heck, a result of several factors.

It's been estimated that 15% of the autos that have been turned in have been rejected from the Clunker Program leaving the dealer to eat the 4500.00 bucks. Govt needs to stay out of running anything and everything that it was never intended to be involved in. Cut taxes, let people keep more of their money and they will spend it and invest it. Nothing I thought of. It was a concept put into effect by Kennedy(D) and Reagan(R).

Nestor, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on a few points. I am interested to hear your thoughts on Govt sponsored health care though.

__________________
oldognewtrick is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-04-2009, 08:09 PM  
Nestor_Kelebay
Emperor Penguin
 
Nestor_Kelebay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,844
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldog/newtrick View Post
Nestor, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on a few points. I am interested to hear your thoughts on Govt sponsored health care though.
You guys probably should go with a government run health care system cuz that's what we got in Canada, and I don't see any major problems with it.

The way it works is this: Everybody over 18 gets a health card with a number on it. If you get sick or something happens to you, you go to the hospital and the nurse takes down all your symptoms and puts them into a computer. She also "triage's" you to determine how urgently you need attention. If you're young and healthy and you're coming to see a doctor because of a slight cough, well you can pretty well expect to be put last in the priority ladder and wait pretty much all day to get seen by someone. On the other hand, if you're lucky enought to get driven to the hospital in a nice new ambulance with flashing lights, you go straight to the front of the line and get to be the first one the nice doctor sees. And, for everything in between, you get triage'd somewhere in between. And, the next time you go to the hospital, they can punch in the number from your health care card and find out your medical history, because apparantly that's important in treating you now. From that perspective, it's simple as mud, and that's prolly the key to saving some money.

The system seems to work OK here, and so it'll prolly work there.

PS: I live in Canada, but it would be a stretch to call me a Canadian. I'm what you would probably call a space alien,... but I live in Canada. In my view, that's not quite the same thing as being "Canadian". Canadians make better beer, better hockey and better abductees. They have something called the Aurora Borealis (the Northern Lights) in Canada, so it's no big deal for Canadians to see lights in the sky, and they don't get all twisted out of shape over it. And, that makes my job a little easier.

Yeah, go with the government run health care program. It can be annoying waiting all day to see a doctor, but it's a lot better than facing a hefty medical bill if you have to have an operation or something and don't have insurance to pay for it.

Also, they have a law here in Canada that limits the cost of prescription drugs, and THAT was the reason that prescription drugs imported into the US from Canada were cheaper, not because they were any less safe.
__________________

Last edited by Nestor_Kelebay; 08-04-2009 at 08:15 PM.
Nestor_Kelebay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-04-2009, 08:22 PM  
dakuda
Senior Member
 
dakuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 174
Default

The health care angle interests me, in an academic way. I am not sure if I would want it here, but I would be interested to see how it would actually work.

One thing about the US is that the political parties are so polarized on certain issues (but essentially the same on most), you never really hear much about the proposals. All you hear is the quarreling and Chicken Little predictions from the party that opposes whatever issue is at hand.

They are all just there to protect their own interests anyway. The number one goal of any politician is to get reelected. The way to get reelected is to raise money from lobbyists. We need more serious political parties.

__________________
dakuda is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-04-2009, 11:02 PM  
Nestor_Kelebay
Emperor Penguin
 
Nestor_Kelebay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,844
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
One thing about the US is that the political parties are so polarized on certain issues (but essentially the same on most), you never really hear much about the proposals. All you hear is the quarreling and Chicken Little predictions from the party that opposes whatever issue is at hand.
It's the same or worse over here. They have shows on the CBC (the government owned Canadian Broadcasting Company) called "Question Period" and "This Week in Parliament", and it's nothing but a bunch of people yelling at each other. From what I've seen of your government, at least your Senators and Congressmen/women appear to act their age. Currently, I'm being "represented" by someone who acts like an irate three year old.

It'd be comical if it wasn't pathetic, and if that monkey wasn't drawing a six figure salary that comes out of the taxes I pay.
__________________

Last edited by Nestor_Kelebay; 08-04-2009 at 11:53 PM.
Nestor_Kelebay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2009, 07:35 PM  
oldognewtrick
Moderator
HRT_MODERATOR.png
 
oldognewtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 5,160
Liked 433 Times on 363 Posts
Likes Given: 140

Default

I was talking to a friend of mine today who is a commercial painter and he said that he thought the clunker program was a pretty good deal. Really starting to get people buying some cars. When i told him it was his tax dollars paying for these rebates and asked him if anyone who got this free money even bothered to stop and say thanks his opinion changed. Dang that never occurred to me that I'm paying for someone else's car.

Whenever I watch a live or taped telecast of our Governments on TV I'm always stunned at no matter how much I think we have evolved as a society what smucks we elect to represent us. Oh well I guess we get what we deserve.



__________________
oldognewtrick is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On