idrankwhat

Are you familiar with the "spending multiplier" concept in economics? Just a bit. And that's not an understatement.

It's called "stimulus". The idea is that we get back more than we put in. And this package actually seems to work (for a change). I don't see what the problem is other than that it doesn't help the "I hope Obama fails" mentality of the Grand Obstructionist Party.

No. Absolutely. True, but more people can than would be able to without the credit. I saw one ad recently that was for a Nissan Versa. After the rebates and incentives it came to about $6k for a brand new fuel efficient car. Not too shabby.

Actually it apparently drives them down. We drove billions of miles fewer last year, dropped consumption, drove prices down and apparently caused such a rapid change in oil demand that they were storing oil offshore in tankers. It was cheaper to store the oil than it was to bring it on to market at the lower price. We're $1.50/gal cheaper than we were a year ago.

Not true. Our family would be a great example. If we were to take advantage of the program this week we could take one 1985 clunker out of action, and also combine it with a trade in of a 34 mpg/250k mile car (running nicely) and a 26 mpg/150k small pickup. The dealer would end up selling a new car, scrapping one and gaining two fuel efficient automobiles that could be sold or auctioned. edited to add: putting more fuel efficient cars on the road will reduce fuel demand, driving down prices. High fuel prices hit poorer families disproportionately.

OMG! This program is more successful than I could have imagined. In one week, one simple, relatively inexpensive program not only reduces fuel demand, reduces foreign oil demand and boosts the economy but it turns right wing hardliners into science embracing, global warming adherent environmentalists whose primary concern lies with the potential impact of the poorest citizens of not only our country but the world! WOW!!!!!! I can't wait to see how this new found concern pans out in the upcoming cap and trade and health care debates.

Absolutely nothing. Please don't turn this into another Lou Dobbs moment.

Fewer gallons of fuel sold. Less dependence on foreign oil. Cleaner air. More money in the pockets of people who will spend it. Give me a minute and I'll come up with some more.

It will probably be extended. It's obviously one of the most effective stimulus actions the government has taken in quite a while. They're likely to find the funds in the TARP program. One week. Over 20,000 gas guzzling, pollution belching vehicles off the road. Over 20,000 new cars sold. That means heavy dealer traffic. New bank loans. New taxes collected by State's and localities. And not one executive bonus of which I'm aware. I think the government owes beer on this one

Yea, but some people get that sort of stuff confused with "news".

That's f'd up. Keep us posted on their response....and yours.

As well as others. Not sure if this is a repost. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/23/more-media-follies And I completely agree with his closing sentence.

Careful Bill, the "party of ideas" obviously has none. Best not to give them any.

I didn't realize that you were talking about simply your ideal system. I was referring to how to deal with the failures of the one we have now. I don't know that I, or my kids want are ready to allow the US system to collapse so we can be reborn from the ashes.

So you're saying that you are completely familiar with the composition of all of the investments made by your chosen banking institution and its subsidiaries and partners? If so, I'm impressed.

It needs more illustrations. Try some of these.

I believe that what I heard was this interview regarding analysis from these folks.

Actually I was thinking "Mickey".

Not wanting to drift too far away from the thread topic but... I need to find the source but there appear to be some strong indicators that we're at the bottom of the recession. I'll admit that there was a lot of waste in the bailout package but if we avoided a depression then maybe it worked. The same goes for the auto bailout. The automakers went in and out of bankruptcy extraordinarily quickly. We won't know for sure what would have happened if we didn't implement these bailouts. We still have an economy and we still have an auto industry. For me it's a toss up. We've maintained more of the status quo than I would have preferred but we're also not living in a nation with over 20% unemployment and a collapsed banking system. Maybe the latter would have been better for the country in the long run. My hope is that recent mistakes don't get forgotten too soon and that we work towards a more sustainable existence, as opposed to the "get mine now and get out" attitude.

I agree with you. But what do you do when they screw up so badly that their failure would cause a complete collapse of a financial system, plunging the entire country into a deep depression? It's a tough call.

Ooops. You're right. I accidentally lumped your response in with the Limbaugh Digest version of the mortgage crisis that was being posted. (is that a word?)

So you think that it's fine that banks can make up whatever rules they want with regard to lending and investing? Why, if they did that they might lend massive amounts of money to anybody and everybody, including people who have no documentation, collect the closing fees, wash their hands of any responsibility by bundling the mortgages as securities and dumping them off on other banks who leverage themselves by 30 times in the investment, as enabled by the bogus score that they essentially bought from credit rating firms. Then, after these junk securities have polluted practically all of the banks in the entire world, the house of cards can collapse and drag down the world economy and hit the "richest" (in paper only) nation so hard that it requires a massive influx of government borrowing to stabilize and provide bonuses for those who ran their businesses, as well as others, into the ground. I know it's far fetched to think that banking institutions might not act in the long term best interest of themselves, their shareholders and their fellow countrymen, but it could happen. No wait....it did happen.

Good Stuff!! I hope Lou Dobbs saw it

Thanks for the "....." at the end of your statement. It's an honest way to show that at least half the argument is missing.

Keep this up and I'll end up buying you a six pack. I'd prefer to see them spend at least half their time in their districts, and their raises handled on local ballot initiatives.