Cash for Clunkers

[Igosplut]

Although many industries operate across state lines, they still must abide by each particular states laws...

The Feds only complicate matters and charge (or steal) big bucks...

Except Federal law trumps state laws

[Blackflag]

Naive.

We pay for other states' issues all the time.

Your argument is that something must be right, because we do it?

Farm subsidies for example. EPA cleanups.

You think that farm subsidies are good defense of federal redistribution of wealth?

We're the United State for a reason.

The states United for a common defense. That's the "reason" you're looking for.



And none of that addresses my point - that Texans' health care is the business of Texas.

[Big Train]

Yeah...a $4500 coupon for a new car is just like the GI Bill... This logic in this forum is mind-boggling.

In principle, yea it is. In that it allows the citizens to reach a little higher than they could. Not to mention all the side economic activity it creates. Ins, gas, repairs, ...all revenue generating operations based off getting that inital sale. I guess you see no economic benefit in keeping auto industry workers employed and not raiding Social Security, 401ks and unemployment.

But I guess it's just Michigan's problem right? Fuck em...

The LACK of logic is the problem in this forum.

[Blackflag]

I guess you see no economic benefit in keeping auto industry workers employed and not raiding Social Security, 401ks and unemployment.

Is that what I said? Because I thought I said a coupon for a new Focus has no similarities to the GI Bill whatsoever. Maybe you can respond to what I said and not dream up statements for me.

[Big Train]

When I respond "In principle" that should explain. But let me slow the bus down and back up so you can catch up...

The GI Bill provided benefits for American citizens. These benefits allowed said Americans to reach a little further economically. The result of these benefits (whether it was to go to school, buy a house or buy a car) enabled them to provide for their families a little better and set off a flurry of economic activity around those purchases.

In this modern version, it does not provide for an explosion of new activity so much as it helps keep existing activity fluid.

In both cases though, it provided side economic benefits beyond the initial purchase.

Thusly, it is just like the GI Bill.

[Blackflag]

These benefits allowed said Americans to reach a little further economically.

If that's the similarity between a coupon to buy a car and the GI Bill, then I guess the $4500 coupon is the same as...the GI Bill, is the same as social security, is the same as minimum wage, is the same as U.S. Savings Bonds, is the same as labor unions, is the same as the War on Drugs.

They all allow "Americans to reach a little further economically." Anything else you can think of that does that?

Thanks for that wonderful insight, jackass.

Now let me explain the differences: the GI Bill was compensation for military service. And it provided college education that added value to that person, and the overall economy, for the rest of that person's life. Also, tuition is realistically zero real cost, so that money was essentially just transferred to each college to benefit all students that attend.

On the other hand...somebody got $4500 off a new car. For doing nothing. He thanks you, and the dealership thanks you.

Great analogy.

[Big Train]

I thought it was and it is. You get upset and call me a jackass for responding to what you didn't say, but here you are doing the same.

ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, which is all I've commented on, it provides similar stimulus to the GI Bill.

Again, if your bent that the car companies get bailouts, I'm with you. If your bent that it was not "earned", again I'm with you (It's being done to protect the governments investments).

However, to not acknowledge the DIRECT economic benefits it provides in the here and now, well thats just retarded.

[Blackflag]

ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, which is all I've commented on, it provides similar stimulus to the GI Bill.

ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, the clunker thing is an immediate cash injection into the economy. The GI Bill wasn't - it was a long-term investment in education, and the money got sunk into colleges.

So they're not even similar that way...

[Big Train]

From the linked article:

"Millions also took advantage of the GI Bill's home loan guaranty. From 1944 to 1952, VA backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II veterans."


Right, so those 2.4 MILLION homes purchased via the GI bill had no direct injection into the ecomony.

Not everyone went with the school option.

For reference,
GIBILL History - (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs)

So they are not as far apart as you would assume.

[Blackflag]

From the linked article:

"Millions also took advantage of the GI Bill's home loan guaranty. From 1944 to 1952, VA backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II veterans."


Right, so those 2.4 MILLION homes purchased via the GI bill had no direct injection into the ecomony.

Not everyone went with the school option.

For reference,
GIBILL History - (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs)

So they are not as far apart as you would assume.

Do I have to point out the obvious?

That's a loan guarantee. Not a home purchase. The government doesn't even put any cash out until if and when somebody defaults years in the future.

But you're right...that's just like giving somebody a check for $4500 for doing nothing so they can go buy a car today.

[Incidentally, I wonder what happens when a government spends years making sure every man, woman, child, and dog can own their own home? Take a look around.]

[Nickdfresh]

Cash for clunkers just gives people an excuse to get another loan to buy something they don't need with money they don't have. Gee. Isn't this what caused the problem in the first place?

Right. So the banks benefit by lending, the manufacturers sell units, and the dealers sell another car. So what? And no, what caused the problem is a credit meltdown. If people are qualified, why shouldn't they get a loan for a better car that uses less gas and leaks less fucking motor oil/power-steering fluid/transmission fluid/etc.?

[Nickdfresh]

Naive.

We pay for other states' issues all the time.

Farm subsidies for example. EPA cleanups.

We're the United State for a reason.

Not too mention that some states send the feds more money than they get back to begin with...

[Nickdfresh]

ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, the clunker thing is an immediate cash injection into the economy. The GI Bill wasn't - it was a long-term investment in education, and the money got sunk into colleges.

So they're not even similar that way...

Oh fucking please, this distinction is utter shit! The "long term investment" led to a propagation of colleges and a massive expansion of campuses that benefited not just the academics. But it also benefited construction workers, local municipalities, and the businesses that are supported by the campus population. It was indeed immediate. And the massive schools that built their reputations and infrastructure on gov't money are any more deserving than the auto industry, how?..

[Big Train]

Do I have to point out the obvious?

That's a loan guarantee. Not a home purchase. The government doesn't even put any cash out until if and when somebody defaults years in the future.

But you're right...that's just like giving somebody a check for $4500 for doing nothing so they can go buy a car today.

[Incidentally, I wonder what happens when a government spends years making sure every man, woman, child, and dog can own their own home? Take a look around.]

You can, obviously, yes it was a guarantee. Did it allow people who otherwise couldn't afford it to get into a new home? Yes. Is that not the same here with these cars? And are you seriously comparing the GI Bill with "predatory lending practices"?

Do I need to point out the obvious? Nobody is "getting a check for $4500".

[Blackflag]

Do I need to point out the obvious? Nobody is "getting a check for $4500".

The dealership does, butt pirate.