Or, is is because the down side makes them look stupid?

[Ron 10]

Quote

I didn't make the claim

Sure you did... You claimed consumer reports had all the answers.

That's OK John... we all know that you can sleep at night since you have done your part to "Help" the poor.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Ron - I totally understand what you are saying, but if you think you can just wave your magic wand and the American public as a whole is going to become as financially responsible as you are, you're completely unrealistic.

I never once mentioned a magic wand.

Johnny - If you think that the answer to helping the poor is to get them more in debt and increase their debt to income ratio... they you are being completely unrealistic.

If you think that some Govt program that encourages them to go into debt is a solution to really help the poor and elevate them from poverty ... they you are living in a fantasy world.

You keep making the claim.

Please provide DATA indicating the extent to which POOR PEOPLE are going into debt as a result of THIS PROGRAM.

It's a very simple request.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Then why encourage people who can't really afford a new car to buy one? How is this better?

You mentioned yourself that you borrowed money to buy your $25K car. This program is not aimed at the poor. But if that route is the one the debate is going to take then look at it this way. The program gives the poor borrower a brand new automobile that he could turn around and sell for a profit the next day.
There, now he's better off. Not my idea but if we're going to pigeon hole the argument.....

Quote

Again, I agree. But if everyone did precisely that, right now, our economy would collapse.

Quote

It would not collapse, it would just have a slower more healthy recovery. Pumping it up artificially will have a drawback later...

I don't know, I'm still thinking collapse/deep depression, but is the drawback better or worse than the repercussions of collapsing our financial system? That was the whole idea behind all of the bailout discussions.

Quote

Just look at the desire to have everyone own a home and how that crashed.

There are numerous threads which address this issue, which is much more complex than you're presenting here.

Quote

Part of that is to accept that we will never have the manufacturing base we used to have. Americans are not willing to pay the higher costs that it would take to make products over here.... The big three should be proof of that.

I'm thinking of a completely new economy, not simply helping the old one survive. We could take the lead position in the world with regard to the development of the alternative energy economy. Or we can do what we're doing right now, which is drive production and innovation overseas. If we wait long enough we can buy that technology from Abu Dhabi.

Quote

Cutting demand for Gas will only cause the oil industry to lower output to keep demand high.

And delay the end of cheap oil, hopefully long enough for us to get off the fossil fuel binge.

Quote

AND cutting gas consumption will only cause a reduction in revenue from the taxes on each gallon... We have seen this already. So the Govt will just have to raise the revenue by raising the tax on each gallon.

Right. We need to find other sources of revenue than the necessity for gas guzzling polluting automobiles.

Quote

I'm willing to bet that most people are enjoying at least a $25-$50/wk savings on their gasoline bills as compared to a year ago.

Quote

And how much of a gas savings will be needed to offset 160/mth car payment?

160 is 61 gallons of gas where I live, or 1100 miles on an 18MPG car.

That's going to depend on your commute, the difference between your old and new mileage rates and the price of gas. There are too many variables to give a simple answer. But besides that, how much would someone be willing to pay for a car that has a safer suspension, air bags, ABS brakes, a nice sound system, latch system for their kid's seats, new phthalate smell, sun roof, floorboard that doesn't leak, alloy wheels, sleek paint job, lower CO2 emissions, (and California emission, isn't that right Bob)? It's up to the consumer to decide which of those are important.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I didn't make the claim, you did. I asked for your evidence - WHICH APPARENTLY YOU DON'T HAVE.

Why is evidence important? You didn't require any to believe the White House claims.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So until the details of EVERY transaction are released you won't believe the numbers. I hope you have fun analyzing them for accuracy.

And you forgot the INSURANCE requirement too.

This Administration has already been guilty of making detailed, but pie in the sky predictions on unemployment. The righties here keep trumpeting that out - the bailouts were rushed to keep employment high, but it didn't work.

So did this program work, or do they just want to rush a 2B$ expansion before it can be found out? If they had data to generate this summary result, they have data they can release: zip code, old car, new car, old mpg, new mpg, date. Simple SQL query that could be run in 60 seconds. Now is the best time to get such data, since it would be harder to doctor it now.

Or perhaps they only sampled records to come up with their summary, in which case it would be nice to know how they sampled. Perhaps they ignored every record in Texas and only looked at Bay Area transactions.

Minimal insurance for a 10+ year plus 3rd car isn't very high.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't make the claim, you did. I asked for your evidence - WHICH APPARENTLY YOU DON'T HAVE.

Why is evidence important? You didn't require any to believe the White House claims.

Is anything posted on SC ever primary evidence? You appear to have different standards for different posters.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I didn't make the claim, you did. I asked for your evidence - WHICH APPARENTLY YOU DON'T HAVE.

Why is evidence important? You didn't require any to believe the White House claims.

Is anything posted on SC ever primary evidence? You appear to have different standards for different posters.

hush, now - adults are talking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I didn't make the claim, you did. I asked for your evidence - WHICH APPARENTLY YOU DON'T HAVE.

Why is evidence important? You didn't require any to believe the White House claims.

Is anything posted on SC ever primary evidence? You appear to have different standards for different posters.

hush, now - adults are talking.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Ron, you seem to be stuck on the poor. Do you think only the poor are using this program? This whole discussion seems completely useless without some data on which income segments are taking advantage of this program.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

So until the details of EVERY transaction are released you won't believe the numbers. I hope you have fun analyzing them for accuracy.

And you forgot the INSURANCE requirement too.

This Administration has already been guilty of making detailed, but pie in the sky predictions on unemployment. The righties here keep trumpeting that out - the bailouts were rushed to keep employment high, but it didn't work.

.

There's a BIG difference between predicting the future and reporting the past. This isn't classified intelligence that the administration can hide.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Ron, you seem to be stuck on the poor. Do you think only the poor are using this program? This whole discussion seems completely useless without some data on which income segments are taking advantage of this program.

He doesn't have any such data, isn't that obvious?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

I didn't make the claim

Sure you did... You claimed consumer reports had all the answers.

That's OK John... we all know that you can sleep at night since you have done your part to "Help" the poor.

Maybe you can explain why the financial sector, having lost hundreds of $Billions (maybe $Trillions) pushing home loans on people who were underqualified for the credit, would now be pushing auto loans on people who are similarly underqualified.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Maybe you can explain why the financial sector, having lost hundreds of $Billions (maybe $Trillions) pushing home loans on people who were underqualified for the credit, would now be pushing auto loans on people who are similarly underqualified.

Because when the government deems something "too big to fail" it's essentially a guarantee that they'll try to clean up any mess the company makes.

This results in zero perceived risk for the company. If they make some money, then great. If not, the government will always be there to bail them out right? No real downside for them, thus the moral hazard.

It's not that hard to figure out.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

The financial system as a whole is too big too fail. Individual componants of it are not. Lehman Brothers is an example of that.

Furthermore the scale of mortgages and default swaps and asset backed paper is significantly greater than car loans. Comparing the two is really, really silly.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I didn't make the claim

Sure you did... You claimed consumer reports had all the answers.

That's OK John... we all know that you can sleep at night since you have done your part to "Help" the poor.

Maybe you can explain why the financial sector, having lost hundreds of $Billions (maybe $Trillions) pushing home loans on people who were underqualified for the credit, would now be pushing auto loans on people who are similarly underqualified.

Because Dodd, Schumer, Frank et all pushed them (to some extent) by telling them they would have consequensed if they didnt.

Remember that a few year back Bush wanted more regulation but the Senator from CA, Dodd and Schumer said Fanny and Freddie were fine?
Want to see the youtube play back of them saying it yet again?



But all you got is it is the evil financial secotor because government is the savior to all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I didn't make the claim

Sure you did... You claimed consumer reports had all the answers.

That's OK John... we all know that you can sleep at night since you have done your part to "Help" the poor.

Maybe you can explain why the financial sector, having lost hundreds of $Billions (maybe $Trillions) pushing home loans on people who were underqualified for the credit, would now be pushing auto loans on people who are similarly underqualified.

Because Dodd, Schumer, Frank et all pushed them (to some extent) by telling them they would have consequensed if they didnt.

Remember that a few year back Bush wanted more regulation but the Senator from CA, Dodd and Schumer said Fanny and Freddie were fine?
Want to see the youtube play back of them saying it yet again?



But all you got is it is the evil financial secotor because government is the savior to all

Here

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I didn't make the claim

Sure you did... You claimed consumer reports had all the answers.

That's OK John... we all know that you can sleep at night since you have done your part to "Help" the poor.

Maybe you can explain why the financial sector, having lost hundreds of $Billions (maybe $Trillions) pushing home loans on people who were underqualified for the credit, would now be pushing auto loans on people who are similarly underqualified.

Because Dodd, Schumer, Frank et all pushed them (to some extent) by telling them they would have consequensed if they didnt.

Remember that a few year back Bush wanted more regulation but the Senator from CA, Dodd and Schumer said Fanny and Freddie were fine?
Want to see the youtube play back of them saying it yet again?



But all you got is it is the evil financial secotor because government is the savior to all

Here

Tried them. Told me all stock has been sold to a John Kallend (could be the inflatable John Kallend though)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This Administration has already been guilty of making detailed, but pie in the sky predictions on unemployment. The righties here keep trumpeting that out - the bailouts were rushed to keep employment high, but it didn't work.

.

There's a BIG difference between predicting the future and reporting the past. This isn't classified intelligence that the administration can hide.

It speaks to credibility. And yes, so far it appears to be hiding the information. The 2B has been approved, so now maybe we'll see if it was kosher all along, or if they pulled a fast one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Maybe you can explain why the financial sector, having lost hundreds of $Billions (maybe $Trillions) pushing home loans on people who were underqualified (sic) for the credit, would now be pushing auto loans on people who are similarly underqualified (sic)

Sure, for them to make money they have to loan money out. They are in the business of making money and that requires taking some risk. Since they just were bailed out once, I am sure they feel the current risk is worth it to try and make more money.

Maybe you can now explain how getting more in debt is a good way to get out of debt?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

You keep making the claim.

Please provide DATA indicating the extent to which POOR PEOPLE are going into debt as a result of THIS PROGRAM.

Sure, as soon as you provide the DATA form the DOT, not CR.

As soon as you explain how going more in debt is a smart way to get out of debt.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you can explain why the financial sector, having lost hundreds of $Billions (maybe $Trillions) pushing home loans on people who were underqualified (sic) for the credit, would now be pushing auto loans on people who are similarly underqualified (sic)

Sure, for them to make money they have to loan money out. They are in the business of making money and that requires taking some risk. Since they just were bailed out once, I am sure they feel the current risk is worth it to try and make more money.

Maybe you can now explain how getting more in debt is a good way to get out of debt?

Well, in theory it's doable, if risky. If what you borrow to pay off your existing debt also helps increase your overall production sufficiently, you could wind up with a net surplus at the end of the day. A lot of business models submitted with, for example, SBA loan applications are essentially based on doing just that.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You mentioned yourself that you borrowed money to buy your $25K car.

I did. I also paid all 25k off in about a year. I had just moved for a new job and my current car broke down. I was in a new city with no support systems. I needed a car to continue to work and didn't have the time to find a good used car.

Still, I paid it off as fast as I could, and now have a significant fund set aside for the next car already.

I never said there were not times when some things are necessary... But needed does not make it the best move. Trading in a car that runs to buy a new car on credit is not the same as taking out a loan cause your car is dead.

Quote

The program gives the poor borrower a brand new automobile that he could turn around and sell for a profit the next day.

That's not true. The next guy could just go buy a new car as well. Plus, that is not what they are doing, and you know it.

Quote

I don't know, I'm still thinking collapse/deep depression, but is the drawback better or worse than the repercussions of collapsing our financial system? That was the whole idea behind all of the bailout discussions.

I guess we will never "know" the real answer... People still debate the 29 crash and depression today.

You and I both don't know if the system would have collapsed.... I doubt it since there are other Country's that have been in FAR worse shape and pulled through.

Quote

I'm thinking of a completely new economy

One way to build that new economy is to allow people to invent without being handcuffed. If we allowed the same regulations we have in place now back when Ford started.... It would have died right then and there.

That is not to say "Damn the torpedoes" but you can't cripple the effort either.

A lot of people are going to have to accept that the old model of the US being a manufacturing based economy is over. What is the new economy going to be based on???? As soon as you figure it out, let me know so I can get rich with you.

Quote

And delay the end of cheap oil, hopefully long enough for us to get off the fossil fuel binge.

Europe has had VERY high gas costs for a long time and they have not found new sources of energy.

Quote

That's going to depend on your commute, the difference between your old and new mileage rates and the price of gas. There are too many variables to give a simple answer. But besides that, how much would someone be willing to pay for a car that has a safer suspension, air bags, ABS brakes, a nice sound system, latch system for their kid's seats, new phthalate smell, sun roof, floorboard that doesn't leak, alloy wheels, sleek paint job, lower CO2 emissions, (and California emission, isn't that right Bob)? It's up to the consumer to decide which of those are important.

When THEY are paying for the car, it is up to the consumer... When *I* am buying their car, I have a say.

"a nice sound system, new phthalate smell, sun roof, floorboard that doesn't leak, alloy wheels, sleek paint job"

I should not have to pay so you can have a cool ride.

That's important... It is not MY job to give you fun things.

Plus, while you can tout lower emissions... Several discussions have already taken place that you are not really saving pollution when you factor in building the new car, and destroying the old.

And the savings.... Yeah it is going to matter based on your commute... But an additional 1100 miles to make up the difference between the MIN improvement?

You really think that is a good thing?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron, you seem to be stuck on the poor. Do you think only the poor are using this program?

You have proof that the rich are using this? Who do you think it is aimed at? Who do you think it was designed for?

Do I think some "rich" people used it? Sure.... But I bet more people took out loans to buy the new car than paid cash.... you wanna put some money on that?

Do you really think going deeper into debt is the smart way to financial strength?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

This isn't classified intelligence that the administration can hide.

Yet they still are hiding it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Well, in theory it's doable, if risky.

So you think that it is a wise personal fiance move?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334