Do you Support "Cash For Clunkers"?

[Person Man]

Analysts predict billions in benefits from 'Cash for Clunkers'

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/07/cash.for.clunkers/index.html

Story Highlights

-Analysts: $3 billion for program may provide $18 billion boost for economy
-Critics: Program just shifts consumer spending from one area to another
-Consumers save in gas, maintenance; auto industry sells twice as many cars

Exactly.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Polls like this never fail to remind me of this classic, BTW...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQvnwO0Q5Ak

Then would it surprise you to know that we think the EXACT same thing about Republicans?

[Rowan]

Polls like this never fail to remind me of this classic, BTW...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQvnwO0Q5Ak

Then would it surprise you to know that we think the EXACT same thing about Republicans?

But we have two mavericks acting all mavericky up in here. That means we're not zombies.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I see this as creating another mini lending crisis down the line. Think about it:

1. Poor people trade in their trashy cars for $4500.
2. They use that money as the down payment for cars that will be financed through some sort of lender.
3. They make the initial payments, but then it turns out they cannot afford to keep making them on their new car.
4. The government begins having to repossess all these new cars that the poor people could not afford in the first place and were only given because the government essentially payed their down payment.

Sure, it may be a good idea, but in the long term it's going to cause problems.

[Richard]

I bet all those small auto shops that are trying to make a living will be thrilled with the program.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I bet all those small auto shops that are trying to make a living will be thrilled with the program.

They actually did run a story on that on the local news with a man who said his business was already dropping off after this program was put into place. He said a customer that had been coming to him for twenty years told him he was finally going to cash in his car for a new one. This is one of the negative side effects to this program.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

NPR has done a story on this.  Dealers where these car are being turned in have to "kill" almost all the cars first (as per the bill... because the car has to be "dead"), by running them for several weeks on end on their machines... and all the work they have to put into it means that, in the end, they hardly make any money off the deal.

Actually, it only takes a couple minutes to kill the engine permanently.  There have been several stories on it in the local paper because local companies are some of the suppliers of the wondrous oil additive (very finely pulverized sand basically) used to freeze the engine blocks according to spec.  One problem they are having is that since they weren't expecting the sudden jump in demand (the product's usual uses are for other purposes) they basically went though their stockpiles in nothing flat.

[Eraserhead]

Think about the unintended and long-term consequences for a sec, and your answer would obviously be no.

But since the US government is now running a car company, I can understand why it's being done.

As I've noted before, these games continue until they don't and I don't want to be around when they do.

Economic. Holocaust. omfg.

[Richard]

What about all those college kids that want to buy their first car?  Think the supply side of the market changed a bit?  It is wonderful.  They voted for Obomonation.  Now kiss his GM ring.

[AkSaber]

Hmmm, do I support it? Well, that depends. If one can buy Mustangs, Challengers, Chargers, or Camaros, then yes.

Seriously though, can muscle cars be bought through CFC, or is it just puny city cars they want people of get?

[Torie]

No. There are more pressing matters to spend money on, or to put it more accurately, this is one of many matters to not spend money on, since we are insolvent for all intents and purposes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No. There are more pressing matters to spend money on, or to put it more accurately, this is one of many matters to not spend money on, since we are insolvent for all intents and purposes.

It's only 3 billion dollars so far, with some estimates saying it could generate 18 billion in economic activity. I wouldn't really call it a bad thing.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Short term it is fine. But what will this lead to down the road? The housing boom was great too in the short term, but it certainly ravaged our economy long term. I hope we aren't bailing out car lenders next because these people buying new cars now cannot afford to make their auto payments. It's a never ending cycle.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No. There are more pressing matters to spend money on, or to put it more accurately, this is one of many matters to not spend money on, since we are insolvent for all intents and purposes.

Like taking the bailout money and spending it on building extensive light rail transit in every major American city?

[Torie]

No. There are more pressing matters to spend money on, or to put it more accurately, this is one of many matters to not spend money on, since we are insolvent for all intents and purposes.

Like taking the bailout money and spending it on building extensive light rail transit in every major American city?

No! 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No (R) - mainly for Sam's reason #1.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm debating on whether or not to give this a proper explanation of support.