'Cash for Clunkers'

[chaseter]

Look, nobody is perfect and nobody's life or liberty was ruined here. The thing is that the old disclaimer only applied to dealers and people like Mr. Heretic are claiming that they are doing this to everybody. That is very misleading.

Nobody is perfect. So, you let them handle your healthcare. I say no thanks.

You can go to the CARS.com website and find out everything you need to know there. In terms of national security, we probably don't know what the government is or is not doing (for our own good), but for the most part they are our servant and they provide a lot of information and services to the public. They are certainly not our enemy.

I thought Obama was all about transperancy?

But do you even know that it was there to begin with? I don't know of anyone who has been able to produce a snapshot of what the website looked like when it had that disclaimer. As far as I am concerned it was just urban legend.

The links you posted that you claim are accurate even said that was on there and that they changed it

Mismanaged? The program was experimental from the beginning. It was a great success. There was much greater demand than anticipated as to why the program ran out of funds. It could have ended right then and there, but because of the lobbying of the auto dealerships, it was refunded with another $2 billion in cash. If it was mismanaged, there would have been a lot of unhappy parties at all levels.

Giving out money to people is always a great success in the eyes of the public. It has been mismanaged for a number of reasons. They first off are giving out billions more when we are trillions upon trillions in debt. When is this going to stop? They are then giving out money to pump back into the auto companies that they own. Why can't other companies get this kind of deal? We had a big credit crisis less than a year ago and now they are encouraging people to go out and take on loans for a new car? The people that drive these "clunkers" are more than likely to be lower class citizens that are driving those pieces of crap for a reason. Taking perfectly working vehicles off the road is another example of stupidity disguised as helping the environment when they are trying to pump life into the failing, excuse me, failed auto companies. They can't even properly guestimate the proper amount of funds to allocate to this bill through simple division. Of course it would be a success because they are giving out freaking free money. Lastly, they forgot to put an amendment in that would require people to buy US made cars. GENUISES!

Over the last forty years we have had Medicare, COBRA, and a lot of other programs related to health care, some of them failed, others pass and are law. Medicare, COBRA, and Health Insurance Portability are programs that still exist and have been successful.

Medicare/Medicaid is not successful. It is chugging along but it is bleeding. You talk about Democrats trying to do healthcare reform when you forget that Bush made Medicare/Medicaid prescriptions vastly cheaper than they were so that the elderly could afford their medicines. But, Bush was totally evil!!!

There is no problem with healthcare reform. There is a problem with completely overhauling the system and making the bill thousands of pages long so that everyone can sneak in pork wherever they want.

What are you talking about? CARS was such a success that they gave it another $2 billion, unemployement decreased this past month, and we still have money left from the stimulus that whe haven spent. What are you basing failure on, nothing?

Alright! We have money left over from the stimulus! Lets waste it! What part of the stimulus worked? They designed all of that crap for the short term and it did nothing. TARP and the stimulus bill were complete failures.

Unemployment decreased but it is still ****ing outrageous. Celebrating this early is unwarranted.

What are you basing success on? If gauge the stimulus bill to be successful then help us all. I never said it wasn't a success, I already defined success above. I said that it was mismanaged and it has been. Like I said, it was an alright idea but the execution and management of the program have been terrible.

 

[Paradoxium]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aBHGhk3_aakc

Transferring money from taxpayers to car buyers is a transfer. The money taken from taxpayers can’t be used for something else.

This is the lesson of Frederic Bastiat’s essay, “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen.” Bastiat, a 19th century French political economist, tells the story of a shopkeeper who has to hire a glazier to repair a broken window, providing work and income for him in the process. That’s what is seen.

What is unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done if he didn’t have to pay the glazier. He might have bought shoes for his children, providing income for the shoemaker, who in turn could buy leather to produce more shoes. The glazier’s gain is the shoemaker’s loss. There is no net gain, no job or income creation, from this transaction.

Broken Window Fallacy

The “broken window fallacy,” as it is known, can be applied to all government spending. The $787 billion fiscal stimulus enacted in February transfers money from taxpayers to the government to allocate as it sees fit. The effect of the government’s expenditures shows up as growth in gross domestic product. Auto manufacturers produce more cars to meet the juiced demand, adding to GDP. This is what’s seen.

What is unseen is what would have been produced by the private sector had the government not confiscated future revenue via taxation.

Cash for clunkers requires that trade-ins be scrapped, whether they are fully depreciated or not. How is destroying something good for the nation?

James Hamilton, professor of economics at University of California, San Diego, says cash for clunkers adopts the worst of the New Deal policies and adapts it to today’s circumstances.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 “paid farmers to slaughter livestock and plow up good crops, as if destroying useful goods could somehow make the nation wealthier,” Hamilton writes on his blog. “And yet, here we are again, with the cash for clunkers program insisting that working vehicles must be junked to qualify for the subsidy.”

 

[chaseter]

That was a good read

 

[Paradyme]

NY dealers pull out of clunkers program

NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government's Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.
The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They're also worried about getting repaid.

"(The government) needs to move the system forward and they need to start paying these dealers," said Mark Schienberg, the group's president. "This is a cash-dependent business."

The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims.

Schienberg said the group's dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they've made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won't get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don't have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said.

"The program is a great program in the sense that it's creating a lot of floor traffic that a lot of dealers haven't seen in a long time," he said.

"But it's in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency," he added. "If they don't get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure."

The program is administered by the Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday that dealers will be repaid for the clunkers deals they have completed.

"I know dealers are frustrated. They're going to get their money," LaHood told reporters. He said the Obama administration would soon announce how much longer the $3 billion car incentive program will last.

Through early Wednesday, auto dealers have made clunkers deals worth $1.81 billion, resulting in 435,102 new car sales, according to the DOT.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1

I heard something similar to this last week on the radio but wanted to wait until there was more substance to it.

 

[moraldeficiency]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aBHGhk3_aakc

Associating taking cars that are both wasteful and chock full of pollutants and replacing them with new cars that are more efficient and make us less reliable of massive amounts of oil and alikening it to destroying good crops that would yield food when people are starving actually made me laugh out loud at this coffee shop. That writer has no idea what the **** they're talking about if they think that's similiar. People should try and know what they're talking about before writing things, what ****ing moron editor would let that fly? Two completely different situations and with different goals. It reads like someone opened an econ text book and just started throwing darts at random pages.

Why are we *****ing about the one bail out program that's actually been effective by putting money directly into the people's hands while making them buy a product that will save them money? Sometimes it feels like people miss getting *******d while their complaining about papercuts.

 

[Marx]

I heard something similar to this last week on the radio but wanted to wait until there was more substance to it.

When the government is slow to (or has yet to) reimburse them for this program, I can't say that I blame them for pulling out.

 

[Marx]

'CLUNKERS' TO END MONDAY
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/autos/cash_for_clunkers_end/index.htm?postversion=2009082016

 

[SuBe]

CASH FOR CLUNKERS COMES TO AN END

By
Neal Boortz
@ August 21, 2009 8:30 AM


Well, say AMF to the cash for clunkers. As of Monday the program is history. Unfortunately for Barack Obama and the Democrats, it has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths. This coincides with a debate over government running our healthcare system. Maybe the administration should have thought about the implications of this program not being a boondoggle, considering its push to run healthcare. Here are just a few of the problems with the cash for clunkers:

--Congress--relying on auto industry forecasts that the program wouldn't have a major effect on moribund sales--deeply underestimated how many people would be lured to dealerships by rebates of up to $4,500. Initially, lawmakers committed just $1 billion, an amount that was burned through in just a few weeks.

--Transportation Department officials, presented with just 30 days to get the program up and running, didn't set aside enough staff or resources and were overwhelmed by the heavy response from consumers. Systems set up to handle and reimburse dealer claims were swamped.

--Government rules to prevent fraud created paperwork requirements that many dealers didn't fully understand.

--Hungry for sales, dealers made Cash for Clunkers deals weeks in advance even though they were advised against it. This created a big backlog the moment the program officially began. And many are still filing bad paperwork that is holding up their claims, despite repeated government attempts to clear up the confusion.

Long story short? The government was ill-prepared and it has little incentive to achieve anything in a timely manner. Take New Mexico, for example. The federal government owes dealers around the state more than $3.6 million. Guess how much it has actually paid? The federal government has only sent three checks totally $14,000. Who knows when or if those dealers will get the money.

Yeah ... and you trust these people to manage your health care.

 

[moraldeficiency]

SuBe, and I say this with much much love. I would much rather hear your thoughts and points on the matter as you are far smarter and more articulate than Neil Boortz who you've done a wonderful job of demonstrating is inches from running down the street naked yelling about the downfall of the US while mainlining painkillers.

 

[SuBe]

Neal Boortz, as far as I know, is not taking pain killers. He has said often over the years that he took only 1 pain killer after his knee replacement surgery. I think you are thinking of someone else.

 

[moraldeficiency]

No I didn't say he wasn't I said he was a step away from just being a raving lunatic and I've always found the points you make in your own words (especially those I don't agree with) to be more fair, better said, and just all around less crazy and better thought out.

I don't know anything about boortz other than your posts (they haven't inspired the want to either) I said the painkillers running naked down the street thing cause he's close to a hysterical meltdown from what he says, I wasn't thinking of anyone honestly.

 

[SuBe]

Oh, well, I see a lot of other posters posting Articles they see *cough, cough Marxie, cough*. So, I thought I would do the same. Not that I have a whole lot to say, I just wanted to share what I read.

 

[moraldeficiency]

That's fine, I do it myself when writer says something better than I can.

 

[SuBe]

Also, I like how he links articles in his Postings. I wish I could do that...

 

[moraldeficiency]

Just sayin I'd read a sube blog over a boortz blog any day of the week and twice on sunday.

 

[Marx]

Oh, well, I see a lot of other posters posting Articles they see *cough, cough Marxie, cough*. So, I thought I would do the same. Not that I have a whole lot to say, I just wanted to share what I read.

You rang?

 

[SuBe]

Just sayin I'd read a sube blog over a boortz blog any day of the week and twice on sunday.

You are a sweet heart. :heart:

 

[moraldeficiency]

You are a sweet heart. :heart:

and that's a first.

 

[Paradoxium]

Associating taking cars that are both wasteful and chock full of pollutants and replacing them with new cars that are more efficient and make us less reliable of massive amounts of oil and alikening it to destroying good crops that would yield food when people are starving actually made me laugh out loud at this coffee shop. That writer has no idea what the **** they're talking about if they think that's similiar. People should try and know what they're talking about before writing things, what ****ing moron editor would let that fly? Two completely different situations and with different goals. It reads like someone opened an econ text book and just started throwing darts at random pages.

Why are we *****ing about the one bail out program that's actually been effective by putting money directly into the people's hands while making them buy a product that will save them money? Sometimes it feels like people miss getting *******d while their complaining about papercuts.

I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say. It didn't put money into anyone's hand. Low income families who rely on used cars saw a sudden increase in prices due to this program. As far as helping the environment it is almost nill to none. You've destroyed like a couple billion dollars with no payoff, other then rape the wallets of low income earners.

 

[Paradyme]

Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax
The Cash For Clunkers program is adding to the activity at treasurers' offices all around South Dakota. First, people were asking for proof of ownership, so they could show they owned their vehicle for a full year, allowing them to cash it in. Now, they'll be returning to register their new vehicle. And when they do, new owners need to bring every bit of paperwork provided to them by their dealer.

"That means they need their title, their damage disclosure, their bill of sale and the dealers have 30 days to get that to them," Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam Nelson said.

But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

For now, the biggest impact of the program hasn't hit this office yet, as most of the paperwork is still in the hands of the dealers. But Nelson expects to see move activity in her office in the next month.

"I'm anxious to see what it's going to be like. I have no idea how many people we're going to see. Hopefully the dealers can process their paperwork in 30 days," Nelson said.

And that's when the line at this office will give some indication of how many cars the government program moved off of local lots.

Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,89084

...

 

[Kelly]

No I didn't say he wasn't I said he was a step away from just being a raving lunatic and I've always found the points you make in your own words (especially those I don't agree with) to be more fair, better said, and just all around less crazy and better thought out.

I don't know anything about boortz other than your posts (they haven't inspired the want to either) I said the painkillers running naked down the street thing cause he's close to a hysterical meltdown from what he says, I wasn't thinking of anyone honestly.

He may be a lunatic, but what he wrote in that article is pretty spot on, and pretty logical to figure out.....

These dealerships have payroll to meet, but don't have the money to meet it........and, they sure as hell aren't going to get a loan from their bank.

 

[dnno1]

...

http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-06

Q: Is the credit subject to being taxed as income to the consumers that participate in the program?

A: NO. The CARS Act expressly provides that the credit is not income for the consumer.

Q: Do I have to pay State or local sales tax on the amount of the CARS program credit?

A: MAYBE. The question of whether a consumer must pay State or local sales tax on the amount of the CARS program credit depends on the sales tax law of each State or locality. Consumers should review the law of their respective States or consult a tax advisor to answer this question.

This was disclosed on the CARS.gov website and really should come to no surprise to anyone. Note that maybe means that not every state taxes the same. I live in California and it is a far gone conclusion that you will pay a tax on a cell phone even though you get it free from the cell phone provider, so that just goes with the program.

 

[Paradoxium]

Clunkers: Good for Detroit, better for Japan

Some critics of the program warned that because it let consumers buy domestic or foreign cars, Clunkers could end up spending more American tax dollars to help foreign companies than American ones.

Also note that by trading in their clunkers to avoid down payments, you are repeating the same zero down subprime thing all over again. In other words, a number the owners of clunkers cannot afford a new car to begin with, and are likely to have these cars get repossessed. If you know anyone know the car sales industry, there has been a influx of these people using this program, that has no business buying one to begin with. Hence repeating the very same moral hazard all over again. Perhaps we should see another bailout down the line.

 

[dnno1]

Clunkers: Good for Detroit, better for Japan
Also note that by trading in their clunkers to avoid down payments, you are repeating the same zero down subprime thing all over again. In other words, a number the owners of clunkers cannot afford a new car to begin with, and are likely to have these cars get repossessed. If you know anyone know the car sales industry, there has been a influx of these people using this program, that has no business buying one to begin with. Hence repeating the very same moral hazard all over again. Perhaps we should see another bailout down the line.

Buying an automobile in not quite the same as buying a house. There are more diversified financing plans with cars such as leasing, which makes them more affordable to consumers. In addition, if someone defaults on their car payment the care generally gets repossessed and resold a lot easier than a house would. My final point is that if all 700,000 cars defaulted on their loans/leases, I seriously doubt that 21 billion dollars would bring our economy down. the housing bubble was in the trillion dollar range and was on the verge of shutting down the world.

 

[Paradoxium]

I never said this will destroy the economy. Don't put words in my mouth.

Waste of money is waste of money. It's not like it is helping the environment as a net result. All you've managed to do is give Japan more money and create a few unnecessary moral hazards. Now the governments down the line will have to take care of that mess. As for the "jobs creates and saved" those numbers are ******** if you know how they came up with it.