The Use of Tax Money

[Fashion Lad!]

Under the Cash for Clunkers bill passed by Congress in June 2009, the passenger car you trade in must meet two criteria:

1. The car has been registered and in use for at least a year (this provision prevents people from buying an old beater from a junkyard and trading it in for a new car);
2. The vehicle must have a combined city and highway fuel-economy rating of 18 mpg or less.

The new car you purchase also has two criteria to meet:

1. To qualify for the Cash for Clunkers program, the new car must be priced at $45,000 or less;
2. The new car must have a federal fuel-economy rating that is at least 4 mpg better than the old car you’re trading in to qualify for a $3,500 voucher, or be rated at least 10 mpg better to get the maximum payment of $4,500.

For light- and standard-duty model trucks, which includes most sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and pickup trucks:

* The old vehicle must have a fuel-efficiency mileage rating of 18 mpg or less
* The new vehicle must be rated at least 2 mpg better to qualify for the $3,500 voucher or at least 5 mpg better for the $4,500 payment.

For heavy-duty trucks, which includes models with a gross vehicle weight of 6,000-8,500 pounds:

* The old truck you’re trading in must be rated 15 mpg or less.
* The new truck must be rated at least 1 mpg better to get the $3,500 voucher and at least 2 mpg better to qualify for the $4,500 voucher.

That's the criteria.

I'm pretty much against government intervention as a whole. It's a free-market, the government just needs to keep it free.

People who support this seem to also support a national health care system to help those who cannot afford health care. This is where I ask, "where the hell is the consistency?" With cash for clunkers, those who could afford new cars got new cars and we destroyed a lot of good used cars. So we drove up the price of good used cars because there are fewer of them on the road and so now the poor have to pay more to get something of quality without buying new. Awesome. In addition to that, those who cannot afford to buy a new car and have to fix it, good used parts just became more scarce. I want consistency!!!! This was an auto-industry bail-out! This wasn't to help the environment because the requirements for the new vehicles don't off-set most of the carbon footprint from manufacturing, hauling and destroying.

And even more awesomely, we screwed over the people who cannot afford a new vehicle and have to rely on older vehicles. Way to go! I want as little government as possible. Make sure my military is good and strong. My roads are safe. And my teachers paid so they teach. My emergency response teams well-funded and staffed. That's it.

[Rapscallion]

Thanks for the info. Our system is quite a bit simpler, just based on age of vehicle and the owner having had it for a full year before trading in.

I'm pretty much against government intervention as a whole. It's a free-market, the government just needs to keep it free.

To me, a true free market means no boundaries or laws - no consumer protection. A law such as the bait-n-switch law would be government intervention, preventing the free transfer of money. This isn't arguing the for the sake of it - I'm interested in your definition.

My usual stance on such as this, though, is that no matter what political or sociological system you come up with, humans are going to fuck it up good and proper. Come up with a good idea of how things could be great for everyone, and some smegger will foul the waters.

People who support this seem to also support a national health care system to help those who cannot afford health care. This is where I ask, "where the hell is the consistency?" With cash for clunkers, those who could afford new cars got new cars and we destroyed a lot of good used cars. So we drove up the price of good used cars because there are fewer of them on the road and so now the poor have to pay more to get something of quality without buying new. Awesome. In addition to that, those who cannot afford to buy a new car and have to fix it, good used parts just became more scarce. I want consistency!!!! This was an auto-industry bail-out! This wasn't to help the environment because the requirements for the new vehicles don't off-set most of the carbon footprint from manufacturing, hauling and destroying.

I don't quite see the link with the health care system?

I'm pro health care, but I think the scrappage scheme is crap - for different reasons.

And even more awesomely, we screwed over the people who cannot afford a new vehicle and have to rely on older vehicles. Way to go! I want as little government as possible. Make sure my military is good and strong. My roads are safe. And my teachers paid so they teach. My emergency response teams well-funded and staffed. That's it.

I understand your attitude better after that last paragraph. However, you're a capable, intelligent person. Half the population by definition are below average intelligence. There are those of your fellow citizenry who cannot fend for themselves properly.

I don't have any easy solutions for that sort of situation. The Darwinistic solution is to allow nature to let the genuinely incapable be dominated by the stronger elements, the humanistic solution is to give them basic living allowances/conditions and allow them or their descendants to try and better themselves.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

Yeah.... I can understand Darwin's theories.

I just feel that all too much when the government gets involved, prices of certain things go higher. Here in America, the fuel we put into our car has probably been taxed at least a half a dozen times. From refining it, to selling it, to hauling it, to selling it again and to buying it ahain. I think if the government steps back, make sure there are laws to protect but not to hinder free markets, everyone would be much better off. Laws are in place to prevent health insurance cpmpanies from competeing against state lines. I bet that drives up the cost because there is actually *less* competition. We are taxed too much, and money is spent needlessly.

[AFPheonix]

You want a free market? Then go to Somalia. Little to no government regulation, the Invisible Hand reins supreme!

We already saw what less regulation does to an economy. Peeling back regulations and stipulations on financial businesses is why we are where we are today.

The free market is fine and good, but it cannot be completely unfettered, because it pretty much takes a giant dump on everyone else.

As for CARS, it may have been an artificial bump in auto sales, but it also got people who otherwise would not have bought anything out there buying. I'm not talking about people who couldn't afford a new car, I'm talking about people who are normally too fiscally conservative to not drive a car into the ground first. Nothing wrong with those people, I'm frankly one of them myself.
But it didn't just help "the auto industry". It helped small business owners like car salesmen, who have been getting their asses kicked the last year or two.

[Fashion Lad!]

You can't borrow money to make money. Where did the government get this money? They borrowed it from China. So now we gave away money and have to pay it back with a whole bunch of fucking interest. Let's just delay the inevitable. American is living beyond its means and we are spending money to keep that fucking dream a live.

This was a corporate bail-out. And not a very good one. Out of the 5 automakers that benefited, one was an American company.

And did I say anything about complete deregulation? Hell no. I know there needs to be protections in place to protect everyone involved. But the government has gotten far too involved and that's why in some states, out of every dollar some people earn, the government gets their "fair share" which is equaling 60 cents per dollar.

[AFPheonix]

You can't borrow money to make money. Where did the government get this money? They borrowed it from China. So now we gave away money and have to pay it back with a whole bunch of fucking interest. Let's just delay the inevitable. American is living beyond its means and we are spending money to keep that fucking dream a live.

This was a corporate bail-out. And not a very good one. Out of the 5 automakers that benefited, one was an American company.

And did I say anything about complete deregulation? Hell no. I know there needs to be protections in place to protect everyone involved. But the government has gotten far too involved and that's why in some states, out of every dollar some people earn, the government gets their "fair share" which is equaling 60 cents per dollar.

Is that were the money for CARS came from? Or did it come from other areas of government, like say the savings we got from killing the F-22?
Not to say that borrowing from China is good, it's not. That was a mistake of the previous administration and Congress. I don't know if Obama will be able to make good on getting debt as under control as he'd like, but I do know that sometimes shitty economies like ours is right now do need wheel greasing. Spending on public works like the CCC's was effective in the 40's, spending to benefit the public now is also helpful.
I'm not even necessarily saying CARS was all that great, but even if it did line some corporate pockets, it also helped out small business owners, including those that own Toyota dealerships.

We don't lose our tax money into a vacuum. It doesn't just go poof. It makes it so we have safe food. We have roads to drive on. It goes to a variety of services that makes our society work so well. I really don't mind the taxes I pay, because I know I get more benefit out of the little I pay to the government than I'd ever be able to get on my own out of that same amount of money.
Of course, there is waste. That's why it's imperative that citizens get involved, especially at a local level, to keep officials honest.

[Rapscallion]

You can't borrow money to make money.

Most business owners do. Well, the successful ones, anyway.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

You can't borrow money to make money.

Of course you can. That's almost the definition of capitalism. And it's why the economy tanked when the credit market froze.

[Fashion Lad!]

Is that were the money for CARS came from? Or did it come from other areas of government, like say the savings we got from killing the F-22?
Not to say that borrowing from China is good, it's not. That was a mistake of the previous administration and Congress. I don't know if Obama will be able to make good on getting debt as under control as he'd like, but I do know that sometimes shitty economies like ours is right now do need wheel greasing. Spending on public works like the CCC's was effective in the 40's, spending to benefit the public now is also helpful.

Wait, I'll answer your question, but first I need to laugh, a lot. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, Obama will not be able to get spending under control, and this is even with his own predictions. Obama will be spending pretty much what Regan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr spent combined. 20 years of presidency spending vs his 8 year prediction of spending. You cannot honestly say, "since we killed the F-22 project, we can just spend this money." What about all the rest of the money that we're borrowing and spending?!

Just watch this video.

Blaming the previous Administration. That's Obamas' way of justifying spending 3 times what Bush spent. That's not fixing ANYTHING! NOTHING. So, Obama is going to have to kill a lot more projects than just the F-22 to make up for his spending. Nearly $10 trillion dollars. Wow. This is Obama's economy now.

Now, most likely in order to make up for this massive spending. Obama is going to have to break his promises of not taxing that extra 95% or we'll have to print more money and devalue the dollar. I'm betting on the latter, and I have my wheel barrow ready for when I want to buy a gallon of milk.

Most business owners do. Well, the successful ones, anyway.

Rapscallion

In what the government is doing is borrowing money to give it away. They have to get that money back, but they won't collect it from us with interest. Apparently, a lot of the loans that our government took out are at like 10%. So, we're just going to continue to lose more and more money.

Maybe before we start borrowing money to keep our economy afloat, we should find the inefficiencies and the needless spending and eliminate that first? I actually know why, because the government would lose its job.

Maybe I should run for President. I'd campaign on a true fiscal conservative platform. Non-intervention foreign policy. And I'd be all for eliminating all strings of government inefficiency and special interest groups.

[BroomJockey]

Maybe I should run for President. I'd campaign on a true fiscal conservative platform. Non-intervention foreign policy. And I'd be all for eliminating all strings of government inefficiency and special interest groups.

And you'd be elected the week after complete universal entropy.

[Rapscallion]

Maybe I should run for President. I'd campaign on a true fiscal conservative platform. Non-intervention foreign policy. And I'd be all for eliminating all strings of government inefficiency and special interest groups.

Try this guy for size. He's caused quite a stir in Doncaster (a place sort of near me).

I think you'd like him.

Rapscallion

[protege]

Of course you can. That's almost the definition of capitalism. And it's why the economy tanked when the credit market froze.

Yeppers But, there's a difference between someone taking out (and repaying) a loan...and some idiot living well beyond their means, and being in debt up to their eyeballs

I too do not agree with the cash for clunkers program. Sure, it gave another bailout to the auto industry. However, I think the environmental impact will be much more than people are letting on. Why? Well, when you consider that it takes a crapload of energy to make just one vehicle. It also takes a crapload of energy (but not as much) to recycle a vehicle. With that said, wouldn't it be better to either keep an older vehicle on the road...or put one back on the road? Also, if you maintain an older vehicle properly, it can be just as "green" as a newer one.

Here's what we should have done with the clunkers. Why not fix them, and send them to developing countries? I'm sure they'd appreciate a "newer" vehicle, and it possibly might help them out quite a bit. We take the fact that we can get new vehicles for granted here. Other countries--especially those in Africa--aren't so lucky.

While I'm on the subject of automotive bailouts... I thought I'd mention this. As much as I call Ford "the other F word," you have to give them props for not taking the bailout...yet still doing OK. Go figure

[BroomJockey]

if you maintain an older vehicle properly, it can be just as "green" as a newer one.

No, no it can't. It can be close, but unless you do a complete retrofit to the point where it *isn't* an older vehicle except in frame, it just won't benefit from the advances in efficiency in engine design and fuel efficiencies. I'm sorry, but I don't count "replacing the engine" as "proper vehicle maintenance."

[protege]

By "proper maintenance," I meant keeping the thing tuned. That is, in good condition, so you don't lay a smokescreen down the highways, or puddles of oil when its parked

I know that my MG will never be as efficient as a newer vehicle. However, it has been modified a bit. For one, it doesn't use leaded fuel any more. That required an "unleaded" cylinder head and hardened valve seats. While I was at it, I had some machining done so it breathes a bit easier. I get about 29-30 miles per gallon now. Not bad, considering that the car is so old, still runs the original (but rebuilt) engine...and that when they were new, only got about 22-25 miles per gallon

Eventually, I'd like a five-speed...so the engine isn't screaming at highway speeds. But, to fit one is an expensive pain in the ass

[Fashion Lad!]

Try this guy for size. He's caused quite a stir in Doncaster (a place sort of near me).

I think you'd like him.

Rapscallion

Gotta love a politician that cuts spending rather than raise taxes to spend more.

Ron Paul is actually who I wanted to be President. I agree with his stances on the issues more than any other candidate that was up for President in 2008.