Economics is far more complex that that. During recessions, running a deficit is expected, as a means to replace the lost consumer spending...problem is that our gov't ran a deficit during the boom years and that is why we have so much debt. Clinton manage to keep us at a surplus, Bush - well, we all know what he did. Obama is right to borrow in hard times, capitalism is founded on the idea of leveraging capital that you don't own. Loans and debt are the engine of America - I hate to break it to you, but much of the wealth...in fact, the entire banking industry exists because of the principles of using debt to inject capital into the economy.
I'm pretty sure that they’re people who are attempting to take advantage of this program only to find out they did not qualify. I’m also sure, some of these same people end up purchasing a vehicle anyway. It is bringing more people to the dealership (which is a good thing), and giving them a chance to engage with the car salesmen. Remember only 10 to 15% of their customers are qualifying for this program anyway, so do you honestly think that a skilled car salesmen are only convincing people to purchase a car who are eligible? A Novice vs. Car salesmen HA!
I'm not quite sure I'm following you. Do you mean a budget surplus to pay for the bill? There is no budget surplus. Anyway if you are saying there isn't enough funding actually raising the MPG requirement is likely to make the program more solvent since less people are likely to take advantage of it if the requirements are stricter. Although that will lessen the environmental benefit. I don't know what the average ownership of driving a car so I can't say whether most people will drive them that long. Consider though that 5 years is the break even point so at that point there is no environmental benefit yet just no environmental loss. Wouldn't it make more sense to instead just encourage people to drive less and do so as efficiently as possible?
no, because people who drive are going to drive anyway. the only thing that's proven to make people drive less is losing their job or higher gasoline prices.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was saying that there wasn't enough of a surplus of 40 mpg vehicles out there. I don't have a problem with doing both cash for clunkers and encouraging people to drive less and drive efficiently when they drive. Why not do both?
