does the money saved on gas annually seriously make up for the amount of monthly payments made on a new car? I could be wrong, because I honestly do not know.......but somehow I REALLY, REALLY doubt it.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -Sir Winston Churchhill We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. -Carl Jung
why are you looking just at 4 mpg. but what the average mpg of the cars turned in, then minus that from the average mpg of what is being bought to find the true number?
no i suppose not at all. but then if you really want to look at cost difference then you start looking at whatever average a person would use in those next 2 or 3 years for maintenance on the used vehicle they would be driving. and then you take into account the actual discount they are getting which brings the cost of the car down again. and the cost difference all together is smaller again. as for what that difference is all together averaged out. hell if i know
i know exactly. and thats not the type of person i am. what is the point of any of it. for example ill take what trader jorge said at the top of this thread about the taliban leader being killed and dismissing it as something trival. if a repub were in office and taken that same event with all the exact same facts of the situation it would have been job well done. and same thing take a ultra left wing person here (or anywhere) and give them the same situation it would be some excuse why its not a positve thing. its duhhhhm
landlord you had been doing so well in shedding your wingnuttiness. but to go to the, its just a bandaid card (which implicitly advocates doing nothing) and then the I don't believe cnn card. tisk tisk
A. Of course you did. You claimed "That's not the case", when it is, in fact, the case. B. Interesting, except CNN didn't come up with the facts. They just reported them. If you have alternative data or evidence that the data is false, please feel free to share it. I don't believe global warming to be fictitious, and I don't think this compromises millions of jobs. It's adding new vehicles to the market - which have to be produced - and is taking old vehicles off the market. The total number of vehicles out there doesn't change. Selling a used car requires fewer jobs than selling a new car because the used car just has to be sold, rather than built and sold. So overall, it will provide more jobs to sell the new car than the old one. It's also easy to say blah blah blah when I respond about your environmental claims and you ignore them with a bunch of irrelevant information about economic claims.
I'm looking at how stupid the requirement is...the requirement should be higher because although some people will exceed the 10mpg requirement for $4500, some won't... I think it's good that most likely people will exceed the 4-10mpg thing, but that's the point. That's what's supposed to happen...people are supposed to get more fuel efficient cars. The problem is...some people won't have to, with the "4mpg thing". I would like it if everyone had to get a really fuel efficient car. Not 4mpg more than the one they own...that's ridiculous. You don't hand out $4500 in tax dollars to people so they can get a car that gets 4 more mpg than they already had...that's a waste of money, imo, and it's our money.
Who do you think is paying for the "more jobs"? When it comes to cash for clunkers, roughly 20% of their salary is being paid from tax dollars. We pay taxes for military to defend our country, police to defend our cities and homes, firefighters to put out fires, construction workers to repair roads. We DO NOT pay taxes for people to buy and sell cars. The other 80% of their salary is coming from consumer debt. I know this is a VERY VERY difficult concept for liberals to understand, but debt is BAD. The only good debt is if you have cashflow that exceeds your debt. Debt is what is killing this country. Instead of paying 4500 for people to go into debt to buy a new car in the name of "green", encourage them to keep their paid off car for another 5 years, take that 20,000 or whatever and invest in renewable energies for their homes. At least they will SAVE money from electricity for years to come. What a novel idea! If that plan was implemented, the only question that would remain is how the democrats intend to find a kickback for the auto industry.
Just weighing in here. I'm not a fan of the Cash for Clunkers program and think the environmental benefits are questionable. The mileage increase is too low but even without that everytime you purchase a new car there is an invested energy in the manufacture and transport of that new car. Even with a 10 MPG increase you would still look at probably 5 years of driving before you made up in energy savings the amount of energy invested in the new car.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm glad someone else also is making the same point I am...you care about the environment, cost savings on fuel, and emissions...then do it right. Make the requirement a 40+ mpg car.
Yes, so the alternative is to not purchase automobiles, because they have to be transported, and driven. I've heard this argument and it makes no sense without a reasonable alternative. Is it that consumers should have to be magically transported to the place of the car's manufacture so as not to consume energy? Or is it to not buy any new cars at all? The green effect is small, but the economic effect is satisfactory, and if green cars are what's being bought, then this is a good move in the long run, because the industry will focus on that.
If you drove a car 20k a year, with price of gas about $3 a barrel, and you moved up from 20mpg to 30mpg, you'd save $80 a month. I would assume lower maintence cost with the higher insurance probably would cancel each other out. So no, it won't make up for the payment entirely...but why would you expect that? Personally, i think this program is good for the auto industry as a stimulas - but not as a permanent program.
It was done wrong from the start (as an environmental incentive). Now that it's politically popular, it'd be difficult politically to tighten the standards.
You aren't making sense. Your family being unemployed isn't the barometer used to see if the program is stimulating the economy. Furthermore, the jobs don't appear over night. It takes time. $4500 is not the value of a new car. That is what Cash for Clunkers gives, so your argument about used cars and new ones having the same value makes no sense. Auto dealers love the program, and have been very supportive. So it isn't thanks for nothing. It is actually simulating the economy. Maybe because of your unemployed family members you are to close to get an objective look. I'm not sure. But I will say that your post just didn't really make any sense.
There's not much logic in this thread. What I'm seeing a lot of is: "Well, yeah, the environmental, fuel-saving, emission-lowering stuff may not be true and may not work...but it's good for the car industry..." Good for the car industry? I thought our bailout money was good for the car industry? You want good for the car industry, how about handing out $4500 to everyone who wants to get a new car? Why not that? Oh, the environment, you say? You want to help the environment and do something good at the same time? Oh...then do it! This stuff drives me insane. There are so many liars involved in this thing it's just sickening. Now my tax dollars get used for people to buy cars that can be minimally more fuel efficient than their last car.
Actually it is good for the environment and the auto industry. These cars may only make a small difference in the environment, but they will drive research and trends toward more energy efficient automobiles, which will be much more beneficial for the environment. It is only one small step. Secondly, the argument that we shouldn't do it because it only minimally helps the environment doesn't make sense either... at least not without an alternative. I will ask again. What is the alternative? ...that nobody should purchase a new car? ...that only people who live near the plant where they are made can purchase one because no fuel will be used to transport the auto? Seriously if the problem with the program is that it isn't as good for the environment as hoped for, because of those reasons, then what's the alternative? It is a ridiculous argument.
What your saying makes no sense. I never said people shouldn't buy cars, period. What I'm saying is people should buy cars with their own d@mn money, not mine. You keep saying "What is the alternative?"...I've already posted it 15 times...these people who get $4500 dollars should be required to get a car that gets at least 40mpg. Why? Because that is actually 'really good for the environment', if you care about that, which the people who made this thing were supposed to... That's why I say this whole thing is full of crap and was based on lies...these people don't care one lick about the environment of saving money on fuel cost. This is just good ol' fashioned take money from everyone to give to some...and it's without reason.
