'Cash for Clunkers'

[SuBe]

Once again the filthy rich hide behind small business owners.

You can always give tax credits to small business owners. I'm sure they already do though.

Being "rich" is "filthy"?

 

[Nivek]

Lindsay Lohan, Courtney Love, and that guy from Twilight look pretty smelly to me?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Being "rich" is "filthy"?

lolz. Like I invented the term.

 

[Addendum]

Being "rich" is "filthy"?

If they don't hire someone to wash them or wipe their ass, yeah they would be filthy

 

[Handsome Rob]

Careful you're dangerously close to accusing rich people of screwing up, which will invariably bring out their defenders to explain to you how capitalism requires rewarding incompetance but only when it's initiated from the top. Which is then promptly followed by a quick word about trickle down, "I piss on you", economics which of course is followed by my head exploding.

Yeah, I'm not sure this plan is good at all, but at least it's temporary and we can gauge how effective it can be.

I don't know a single true capitalist who believes in rewarding incompetence; although, the federal government seems to revel in it, given the amount of bailouts our tax dollars have been subjected to. We bailed out GM, for example . . . and THAT was a CAPITAL success.

True capitalists believe that incompetence, when not propped up by the government, leads to failure, which leads to a loss of market share, revenue, and eventually means going out of business. Then, those that do business well (i.e., are competent and even exceptional) are rewarded by taking up the failed company's business.

No, capitalism doesn't reward incompetence. Government does. Politicians do, as do people who think that ______ "can't be allowed to fail." After all, epic failures like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid would never survive as independent businesses (nor would the USPS) if they actually had to compete with other businesses to provide their services to consumers. But, as long as they have the government teat from which to suckle taxpayer dollars from, they'll continue to be incompetent failures of programs and pseudo-businesses.

 

[Handsome Rob]

They didn't raise your taxes to pay for it so what's the problem.

They didn't raise your taxes to pay for the Iraq War, either . . . so, are you gonna complain about the "waste of taxpayer dollars." Or, will you say the same thing to those that do?

 

[hippie_hunter]

God dammit. I just love how this Congress and Administration literally piss away money.

 

[SuBe]

I don't know a single true capitalist who believes in rewarding incompetence; although, the federal government seems to revel in it, given the amount of bailouts our tax dollars have been subjected to. We bailed out GM, for example . . . and THAT was a CAPITAL success.

True capitalists believe that incompetence, when not propped up by the government, leads to failure, which leads to a loss of market share, revenue, and eventually means going out of business. Then, those that do business well (i.e., are competent and even exceptional) are rewarded by taking up the failed company's business.

No, capitalism doesn't reward incompetence. Government does. Politicians do, as do people who think that ______ "can't be allowed to fail." After all, epic failures like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid would never survive as independent businesses (nor would the USPS) if they actually had to compete with other businesses to provide their services to consumers. But, as long as they have the government teat from which to suckle taxpayer dollars from, they'll continue to be incompetent failures of programs and pseudo-businesses.

Word.

 

[Paradoxium]

It will always devolve into that hippie_hunter. It's nature of it; temptation. If it's not your money, you are quite often nonchalant about it. It somewhat reminds me of the Chinese saying - fu bu guo san dai (富不过三&#20195 - Wealth does not pass three generations. The people least likely to piss away money are the ones who don't want to be there in begin with (partisan and ideals aside), and only do the gig as a duty of sorts, not a ****ing career.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I don't know a single true capitalist who believes in rewarding incompetence; although, the federal government seems to revel in it, given the amount of bailouts our tax dollars have been subjected to. We bailed out GM, for example . . . and THAT was a CAPITAL success.

So none of the fortune 500 companies have any capitalists in them?

True capitalists believe that incompetence, when not propped up by the government, leads to failure, which leads to a loss of market share, revenue, and eventually means going out of business. Then, those that do business well (i.e., are competent and even exceptional) are rewarded by taking up the failed company's business.

Either that or you pay off some politicians to give you unfair tax breaks, muscle out competant buisness and have your accountants do that special kind of math to insure you get bonus' you don't deserve at the expense of the company. Which is kinda the status quo at the moment unfortunately.

No, capitalism doesn't reward incompetence. Government does. Politicians do, as do people who think that ______ "can't be allowed to fail." After all, epic failures like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid would never survive as independent businesses (nor would the USPS) if they actually had to compete with other businesses to provide their services to consumers. But, as long as they have the government teat from which to suckle taxpayer dollars from, they'll continue to be incompetent failures of programs and pseudo-businesses.

that's adorable and it would apply if unchecked buisnesses couldn't just insure that they provide a united front in screwing customers over. See credit card companies for more on this.

I'd say it's more than just the gov. teat which insures they linger on sucking us dry. There are no standards or real penalties for doing this type of thing. What after making billions you might go to white collar jail? One guy can do more damage than any spree killer could wet dream about and they get 10 years of shuffle board as a worst case senario? This is your problem, when you make it easy and actually profitable to be as corrupt and incompetant as possible and you even reward fudging numbers in your buisness without reprecussion, how do you expect people will act? The sad truth is none of our buisness leaders have much of an idea of what being a leader actually is and taking responsibility for anything more then their own ass.

 

[Handsome Rob]

So none of the fortune 500 companies have any capitalists in them?

Of course they do. Does that mean that they are populated only by real capitalists? Of course not.

Either that or you pay off some politicians to give you unfair tax breaks, muscle out competant buisness and have your accountants do that special kind of math to insure you get bonus' you don't deserve at the expense of the company. Which is kinda the status quo at the moment unfortunately.

And paying off politicians means government interference in the free market--which, of course, is what a capitalist would oppose. As for creative accounting, that's what we have independent auditors for. Naturally, as in the case of Enron and their auditors (Arthur Andersen), they can collude to fudge accounting; however, the expectation is there that the auditors help ensure that the financial statements of the public companies they audit are a reasonable representation of the actual position and performance of that company for the time period covered by the statements. And no, I wouldn't say that creative accounting is the status quo, unless you want to accuse the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the SEC of colluding along with them--or, that they're completely ineffective.

that's adorable and it would apply if unchecked buisnesses couldn't just insure that they provide a united front in screwing customers over. See credit card companies for more on this.

Providing a "united front," which I assume you mean to be price-fixing outside of credit card companies, is illegal under the Sherman Act (1890). As to credit card companies, no one is forced to have a credit card or to charge anything to it. And, do you have any expectation on the part of the customer to both read the fine print AND understand it before taking on the responsibility of a credit card? After all, credit card companies are pretty much the only businesses out there that are willing to give people short-term loans and charge no interest (assuming they pay back the entire amount by the due date). Try asking for a no-interest loan from a bank or lender for any length of time.

I'd say it's more than just the gov. teat which insures they linger on sucking us dry. There are no standards or real penalties for doing this type of thing. What after making billions you might go to white collar jail? One guy can do more damage than any spree killer could wet dream about and they get 10 years of shuffle board as a worst case senario? This is your problem, when you make it easy and actually profitable to be as corrupt and incompetant as possible and you even reward fudging numbers in your buisness without reprecussion, how do you expect people will act? The sad truth is none of our buisness leaders have much of an idea of what being a leader actually is and taking responsibility for anything more then their own ass.

I would say that the government tries to reward companies and individuals for their incompetency all the time. If we would step back and let the market take its course, these businesses would be gone (if not in the short term, definitely in the long term). And, if illegal practices are employed, then those individuals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Oh, my CEO and top executives took no compensation increase this year (just like the rest of us) due to the financial environment. So, don't say that none of our business leaders know much about leadership and taking responsibility. I'm sure there are more out there.

 

[StorminNorman]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional officials say the government plans to suspend the popular "cash for clunkers" program amid concerns it could quickly use up the $1 billion in rebates for new car purchases.

The Transportation Department called congressional offices late Thursday to alert them to the decision to halt the program, which offered owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle.

The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Through late Wednesday, 22,782 vehicles had been purchased through the program and nearly $96 million had been spent. But dealers raised concerns of large backlogs in the system, prompting the suspension.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99P2U9G1&show_article=1

 

[Matt]

This is a fairly big embarrassment for COngress.

 

[StorminNorman]

It is chuckle worthy, certainly.

 

[Wiseman]

I remember someone on this board saying what a stupid idea this was and how it would fail and he was told he was nuts.........congrats Malice, you proved you know what you're talking about yet again

 

[BlackLantern]

wow...CongressFail....I guess trying to trick even more americans into debt worked better than they thought

 

[Marx]

wow...CongressFail....I guess trying to trick even more americans into debt worked better than they thought

I didn't realize that there were that many cars that got 18 mpg or less.

 

[Jager X]

It's amazing what people have stashed away for those highly unlikely rainy days.

 

[SuBe]

This is a fairly big embarrassment for COngress.

Embarrassment? This is standard procedure. The Ineffiecencies of Government and the people that blindly believe them is amazing.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Honestly, I'd rather have them bailing out the public with this kind of program than giving away trillions to the bankers. If they are going to blow billions of dollars, they might as well let taxpayers be on the receiving end of some of that money. My parents participated in this program. Traded in my dad's 1994 GMC Sierra that he hasn't driven in 3 years along with their 2002 Nissan Altima for a 2009 Mazda 6.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Of course they do. Does that mean that they are populated only by real capitalists? Of course not.

See this is the problem, the capitalists you speak off only exist in imagination and fantasy. It's like communist true believers. Theoritacally it should work perfectly, but people are too corrupt to be completely trusted without rules and oversight.

And paying off politicians means government interference in the free market--which, of course, is what a capitalist would oppose. As for creative accounting, that's what we have independent auditors for. Naturally, as in the case of Enron and their auditors (Arthur Andersen), they can collude to fudge accounting; however, the expectation is there that the auditors help ensure that the financial statements of the public companies they audit are a reasonable representation of the actual position and performance of that company for the time period covered by the statements. And no, I wouldn't say that creative accounting is the status quo, unless you want to accuse the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the SEC of colluding along with them--or, that they're completely ineffective.

Or free market interference in gov? Potato, pototo. Sure they'd oppose that unless they can make a fortune by pushing out something else.

Providing a "united front," which I assume you mean to be price-fixing outside of credit card companies, is illegal under the Sherman Act (1890). As to credit card companies, no one is forced to have a credit card or to charge anything to it. And, do you have any expectation on the part of the customer to both read the fine print AND understand it before taking on the responsibility of a credit card? After all, credit card companies are pretty much the only businesses out there that are willing to give people short-term loans and charge no interest (assuming they pay back the entire amount by the due date). Try asking for a no-interest loan from a bank or lender for any length of time.

When has illegal mattered in terms of buisness or gov.? Unless you're caught with your hand directly in the cookie jar you can just back up and let your lawyers drag out anything for years until no one cares or the other party's dead or unable to continue. You win by cheating and muscling, that's the story of most major buisness today. Look at hemp. It was made illegal to pave the way for the plastics industry. Rather than compete you just use politican's to muscle out your competition. Microsoft is like this.

I would say that the government tries to reward companies and individuals for their incompetency all the time. If we would step back and let the market take its course, these businesses would be gone (if not in the short term, definitely in the long term). And, if illegal practices are employed, then those individuals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But aren't those rewards set up by those same buisness' lobbists'? It's like prosecuting a murderer but ignoring the person that actually paid for the murder and profits from it. Your idea of just stepping back, that's called chaos, rules are necessary for any gov./system/group/unit/individual person. It's been true throughout history, without oversight the powerful can stay in power, wrongfully so, by cannibalizing the weaker.

Oh, my CEO and top executives took no compensation increase this year (just like the rest of us) due to the financial environment. So, don't say that none of our business leaders know much about leadership and taking responsibility. I'm sure there are more out there.

Yeah, you're right their might be eight in all. Question did all of you refuse bonus' you were entitled to or was there just no increase given period? Cause if it's the second sounds more like they just didn't demand something extra, which isn't too amazing or noble.

 

[BlackLantern]

They didn't take those bonuses BECAUSE of the perception, not because they really felt they shouldn't

 

[BlackLantern]

edit double post...I blame 'Cash for Clunkers'

 

[Marx]

Honestly, I'd rather have them bailing out the public with this kind of program than giving away trillions to the bankers. If they are going to blow billions of dollars, they might as well let taxpayers be on the receiving end of some of that money. My parents participated in this program. Traded in my dad's 1994 GMC Sierra that he hasn't driven in 3 years along with their 2002 Nissan Altima for a 2009 Mazda 6.

 

[Marx]

MCCAIN WILL LEAD GOP OPPOSITION TO 'CASH FOR CLUNKERS'
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...position-to-cash-for-clunkers-2009-08-02.html

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will lead Republican opposition to the popular cash-for-clunkers program in an attempt to block additional funding when it comes up for consideration in the Senate this week.

The House voted 316 to 109 Friday to pour $2 billion more into the program, which has proved so popular that it is running out of money before anticipated end-date in November.

But Republican senators, led by McCain, will try to block it.

“My children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for these cars and we’re helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren’t getting the help,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. “The role of the federal government is not to run the used car business.”

“We’re definitely going to debate it and I’ve heard that John McCain is going to stand up and try to stop it and I’m going to work with him every way that I can,” he said. “This is crazy to try to rush this thing through again.”

"I just think this is a great example of the stupidity that's coming out of Washington right now, and I think Americans realize the numbers that we're throwing around don't work," DeMint added.

DeMint declined to say whether Republicans would be able to mount a successful filibuster to halt the legislation.