Printable View
well i for one would be glad to see the demand for foreign gas drop. Notice i did not say oil. We currently import 10 % of our gasoline as well, because we don't have enough refineries. And of course have any of you actually driven that volvo in question? As far as any of us know, it's been rear-ended. My volvo had a smaller engine than that one and i averaged 24mpg with a standard tranny. Volvos are not designed for gas mileage. My escort got over 30 with the same size engine.
I would agree. Unfortunately, the department of energy created for this very reason has bloated to an obscene size and yet we are ever more dependent on foreign oil. (Notice I say oil, although gasiline imports may be significant).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Unfortunately, such programs as this have so little impact [fuel consumption]; 3 billion dollars would have been better spent on achieving one of its goals instead of driving a larger wedge into the fragile economy - which this bill does directly.
A tax deduction is a better way of getting less fuel efficient cars off the road. Is this unfair for those who don't pay taxes or have a rather small tax bill? Not at all; you shouldn't be buying a new car!
Additional taxes do not, and will not work. There is already an enormous tax on gas guzzlers, yet has done nothing to deter the purchase of said vehicles - the 'rich' can afford it anyway. Taxing gasoline directly will have a regressive effect.
Carrots are always a much better incentive to do something than sticks.
Even with a tax-deduction, I still couldn't afford a new car, even if I wanted one... the tax deduction does nothing to make it more affordable. Sure it's an incentive, but one still has to be able to afford it. Same thing with the first time home buyers tax credit deal... great! Finally an incentive to buy a house for me... only I couldn't get a loan with terms that I could afford. So I'm still stuck... and it sucks. And now it'll just be one more carrot I get to miss out on.
While I think the concept of the cash for clunkers is a good one ... it was the execution that was handled badly. First, I don't see how or why it was so badly underestimated. Also, while it seems popular now, what's going to happen in 3 months when it is over for good? What are all of those dealerships going to do then? Fold. Because they will have sold everyone a new car already... Their service depts will pick up some business as people come in for their maintenance, sure, but not everyone goes back to the dealership for that kind of stuff. When I first heard about the CFC, I thought "what a neat idea" .... now I've had a chance to see it in action... and time to think about it. It could possibly cause more harm than good in the long run.
Personally, I think this is one time when a single party-controlled govt is a bad thing. My prediction: in three years, there will be a huge turn over, a majority of the incumbents will be tossed out, both Republicans and Democrats, and Republicans will re-gain control, and Obama will be re-elected.
-tg
Obviously if other News sources cheat, that means Fox News is totally reliable all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Right wingers LOVE straw-man arguments.
I'm not sure of the pictures you posted, you didn't post sources, though I wouldn't be surprised if they're true.
But I have to make a correction about the missles, they were photoshops done by the Iranian government.
As for my source of Fox News photoshopping Liberal Journalists to make them look uglier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfCsQeOnsrk
A tax deduction is not, and never is, and never will be, designed to make anything 'more affordable'. Likewise, this cash-for-clunkers hasn't done that either. The only way to make 'things' - anything - more affordable is to increase ones income.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I'm in the same boat - my vehicle is a prime candidate for the cash for clunker program (actually, the value is the same as the rebate, so it makes no difference). And likewise, with a tax deduction, I still couldn't afford a new car, simply because I do not have the disposable income or savings to buy a new car. A tax incentive would steer me financially to a car which gives the incentive, rather than one that doesn't, when I'm in the market for a new vehicle.
It doesn't prevent choice, and places no burden on the tax payer when no-one takes advantage of a tax deduction. The alternative would be to increase taxes on the 'bad' things (the 'stick') and as we all know, doing so has decreased the demand for SUVs, right? [Don't research this, because you'll just poke a hole in my argument here...].
It's an incentive to move towards an [insert government goal here]. In this case, an increase in fuel economy (theoretically, a lower dependence on foreign commodities). A pure tax deduction is 100% scalable. The more people who take advantage of said deduction, the more money that stays in the economy, and the goal is achieved in a scalable fashion. True, less taxes, but that's the 'cost' of achieving the stated goal. Effectively we get a double bonus whammy: the government (sic) spends money on achieving said goal, and people get to keep that money to spend on other things - like health insurance...(that's another story, though).
When did I ever say Fox News was perfect? Talk about a straw man... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Clueless left wingers love making broad generalizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
And distributed world-wide by Agence France-Press in a blatant attempt to mislead the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
i found it interesting that SUVs still qualify to get the deduction, as long as you are still trading up.
Rather amazing, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Here's another turn of the screw. Germany has now spent $5 billion on a similar program that the Deutch launched in January, 2009.
So, if ours is as successful as Germany's, how much more revenue will be needed to keep our CFC program afloat for seven more months? $5 billion, $10 billion, or $20 billion?
Forum, please advise.
so somehow selling as many cars in three months as they normally would in a year will make them fall bankrupt? How exactly did you come to that conclusion? There is also the fact that this gives the automakers a boost in sales which help keep factories from closing, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Really, you sound like you think this program is taking money from your own pocket. It's the US government. They print the money. And they have been spending non-existent money for years. This is what drives inflation. We are really set for a huge increase of prices of general items, similar to the one we had during the carter administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Doc
"so somehow selling as many cars in three months as they normally would in a year will make them fall bankrupt? How exactly did you come to that conclusion? There is also the fact that this gives the automakers a boost in sales which help keep factories from closing, etc."
I didn't say they would go bankrupt.... but in 6 months when the program is over... what's to prevent them from failing again? That was my point, by flooding the market now with a bunch of new car owners... and creating a demand when there wasn't one before (the ONLY reason these people are buying a car is because they are getting something out of it) ... what is going to happen in 6 months? Sure, it's going like gangbusters now... but I have to wonder if anyone has thought through the long term effects of this.
-tg
all you have to do is look at history to see. a similar program was in effect in 1976, selling 1977 models. There are no new ideas in politics.
So the moral of the story is: "Save the planet - drink as much beer as you can - TODAY!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Davadvice
My carbon footprint must be almost negative then.
Lord O. said, "Really, you sound like you think this program is taking money from your own pocket. It's the US government. They print the money. And they have been spending non-existent money for years. This is what drives inflation. We are really set for a huge increase of prices of general items, similar to the one we had during the Carter administration."
-----------------
And when did you stop paying taxes? If you figured out how to do that successfully, I'm all ears. I'd like to ride that train.
I fear that government takes money from your pocket daily. It needs that money to support itself and it relentlesly collects it.
[QUOTE=Code Doc;3577513]Lord O. said, "Really, you sound like you think this program is taking money from your own pocket. It's the US government. They print the money. And they have been spending non-existent money for years. This is what drives inflation. We are really set for a huge increase of prices of general items, similar to the one we had during the Carter administration."
-----------------
And when did you stop paying taxes? If you figured out how to do that successfully, I'm all ears. I'd like to ride that train.
I fear that government takes money from your pocket daily. It needs that money to support itself and it relentlesly collects it.[/QUOTEi]
if you are merely talking about income tax, that is easy. I am at poverty level and get all my paid in tax back.
The latest twist .... Dealerships are running low on inventory (the 2010 models haven't been delivered yet).... meanwhile the lots are filling with "clunkers" that can't be scrapped yet until the money comes from the gov't.
-tg
+1. Several new-car dealers are now sold out of new cars and their lots are all packed with clunkers that they cannot sell. Used car buyers can't even consider them. Interesting development. Even the show rooms are empty. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I agree, they really should have just let most of GM go completely out of business (outside of maybe a few successful sub-brands into seperate companies).Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
That will leave more marketshare for Ford and any existing car company.
ford is pretty much the only american one left making any money right now.
And incidently those photos above? There was a special on nova last night and it actually showed two of the photos. The smoke was done by a foreign government to make damage look worse.
Which one? The photo of Beirut with the badly cloned smoke was taken (and edited) by freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, and then circulated via Reuters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165165/
The photo of the missile launch was distributed via AFP and apparently obtained from Iranian state media.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Vj9dn9pWaVMCJQ
the first one. It was said to have been ordered done by lebanese government.
That photo was in fact instrumental in the creation of a program to find duplicated pixels in an image. Adobe systems is now owner of the software, as they purchased it from the creator (i didnt bother to memorize his name) but there were also issues with light sources in photos and light-source eye reflections that they can detect now.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
that was what they were saying on Nova.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
The Cash For Clunkers program inspired Conan O'Brien to create Conan Please Blow Up My Car. If Conan selects your car to be blown up after your car is blown to smithereens using high grade explosive you get a new 2010 Lexus HS250h hybrid car.
Conan, Please Blow-Up My Car
I was watching Conan last night and some guy created a rap video for the contest that wasn't bad featuring him and his car.