U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2009, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864

Advertisements

I can't argue with both Greengene and Ovcatto at the same time on this, because both of you are all over the place.

My position is that the administration's objective is to enhance new car sales. Steps have already been taken to drive car owners into the new car camp in two ways. One, bribe them to get rid of their old car, and Two, restrict participation in the plan to new car purchases, thus removing choice to that degree. I predict that this plan will not achieve the desired results, and an even more aggressive plan will bel undertaken to exert even more force on the car owners. My original point was predictive, based on a clearly laid out objective. I predicted the car clunker program would expand to the same degree of force as the health plan, and conjoined the two for that illustrative purpose.

Most buyers cannot take part in the plan without incurring a huge additional burden of debt, which is already spiraling out of control at a time when job security is extremely low. For this reason, I argued that new car purchases are extremely imprudent for most families in this economy. The Obama plan encourages people who can least afford it, at a vulnerable time in their lives, to commit themselves to a sudden 5-figure expenditure, in nearly all cases by assuming a crushing if not catastrophic credit load.

In short, Obama is saying "Worried about low job security and spiraling debt? Borrow ten or twenty thousand dollars and buy a new car." I object, and refuse to endorse that as a sound idea. The administration wants to bail out the auto industry on the backs of those who can least afford it---namely, the demographic that is currently driving older cars. Most will be buying an entry-level POS that is historically unlikely to outlast the payment book.

You can argue all you like that people driving older cars are likely to be among the more secure and affluent Americans who can best afford to take on this new debt burden and display of opulence, but you are unconvincing. I've already outlined what I thought would be a better plan, and as I recall, one or both or you agreed that it was sound, but it would fail to meet the objective---bail out the auto industry. The plan has no intention whatsover to help the beleaguered consumer.

Last edited by jtur88; 07-08-2009 at 07:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2009, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,641 posts, read 5,339,698 times
Reputation: 4781
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I can't argue with both Greengene and Ovcatto at the same time on this, because both of you are all over the place.


Thanks for the belly laugh! If I'm "all over the place", it's because I'm trying to follow you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
My position is that the administration's objective is to enhance new car sales.
Yes, you have said that before, and I have agreed before. The intent of the program all along has been to help the auto industry by making new cars more affordable via vouchers from the government. This was widely acknowledged and commented upon months ago. For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/op...lunkers&st=cse
"President Obama’s rescue plan for the automotive industry has given the presidential seal of approval to a little-noticed movement in Congress to clear the roads of gas-guzzling clunkers and replace them with more fuel-efficient cars. It’s an excellent idea, with clear benefits for the environment and — Mr. Obama hopes — beleaguered carmakers."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The plan has no intention whatsover to help the beleaguered consumer.
Wrong ... again. It directly helps the consumer by making a new car purchase more affordable. It's up to interested consumers to make the final decision on whether or not to participate in the program - as I showed earlier, the program is completely voluntary.

Meanwhile, the gems you came out with earlier in this thread (see below) have been completely discredited - strangely enough, with no comment from you. I wonder why. Could it be that you were - gasp! - W R O N G ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
2. Force every driver to buy a new car, to bail out the auto industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Very few people will take advantage of it ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
But nobody is buying, even at those kinds of discounts.
Now, your last post was excellent. I wish you had started out framing your views in this manner. Instead, you continually stated as facts things that were both foolish and totally incorrect, making it very difficult to take you seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
:

Meanwhile, the gems you came out with earlier in this thread (see below) have been completely discredited - strangely enough, with no comment from you.

.


2. Force every driver to buy a new car, to bail out the auto industry.


---I already said, numerous times, that that is a predictive statement based on a) the intended goal of the program, b) a similarly forced program on health insurance, and c) the exclusion of genuine choice available to participants in this program.



Very few people will take advantage of it ...

----The number of participants will be disappointingly low. I've seen estimates of 250,000 units, which would be 2.5% of otherwise expected sales.



But nobody is buying, even at those kinds of discounts.


---the huge discounts already in place for the past year, comparable to the clunker discounts, produced only slight gains in car sales. Annual sales are down from the decade average of 16 million to a current rate of ten million a year.

Last edited by jtur88; 07-08-2009 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 11:46 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,051,757 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I can't argue with both Greengene and Ovcatto at the same time on this, because both of you are all over the place.
I'm with Greengene on this one, we have only followed the argument that you have attempted to put down. As I stated before and as Greengene mentioned you like to move the goal posts of the discussion rather than respond the the citations that we've supplied.

"I predict that this plan will not achieve the desired results,"

Greengene has already addressed that prediction, restating it doesn't advance your argument.

"an even more aggressive plan will bel undertaken to exert even more force on the car owners."

You are dangerously tilting in the direction of the gunnutdom.

"My original point was predictive, based on a clearly laid out objective." and very little fact or reasoning, take for example:

"Most buyers cannot take part in the plan without incurring a huge additional burden of debt, which is already spiraling out of control at a time when job security is extremely low. For this reason, I argued that new car purchases are extremely imprudent for most families in this economy."

Most buyers, who are these "most buyers?" Huge additional debt, how do you define huge? As for the imprudence of a new car purchase, who is to make that determination, you?

You then go on to make even more wildly exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims.

"The Obama plan encourages people who can least afford it, at a vulnerable time in their lives, to commit themselves to a sudden 5-figure expenditure, in nearly all cases by assuming a crushing if not catastrophic credit load."

Since the program is tied to credit markets during a period of exceedingly tight money, the credit worthiness of buyers will be very hard for those who can "least afford it" to participate in the first place. So, where that is coming from is beyond me. As for 5-figure expenditures, I'm sorry but a 2-3 year loan on $7,000 - $12,000 ain't exactly in the area of the catastrophic!


"Worried about low job security and spiraling debt?" Job security is a problem but the only solution to that situation is a return of consumer demand. As for spiraling debt... we are in a period of record savings.

"Borrow ten or twenty thousand dollars and buy a new car." I object, and refuse to endorse that as a sound idea."

Duly noted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I

"an even more aggressive plan will bel undertaken to exert even more force on the car owners."

You are dangerously tilting in the direction of the gunnutdom.


As for 5-figure expenditures, I'm sorry but a 2-3 year loan on $7,000 - $12,000 ain't exactly in the area of the catastrophic!


As for spiraling debt... we are in a period of record savings.
.
What would you have said about gunnutdom if I had predicted a couple years ago that people would be fined $1,000 if they did not or could not afford to buy a product from a private corporation?

Last time I counted, there were five figures in 12,000. Millions, maybe tens of millions of people who drive older cars havef 5 figures in their credit card balance, and they can barely afford the minimum payment.

We are in a time of record savings because people are terrified to spend money when there could be a pink slip in any paycheck. Administration's answer? Blow that savings on a new car. We'll pay a quarter of it, you cash in for the rest.

Like all other government plans, this is a plan for the rich. Your second car getting old? Got an extra $10K burning a hole in your pocket? Here---the nanny state for the rich will make the down payment on (Come on Down . . . .) A New Carrrrrrrr!. What's next, Johnny? A hutch?

Last edited by jtur88; 07-08-2009 at 12:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
By the way, what's going to happen to the clunkers that are turned in? I can only think of three possibilities.

1. They go into the crusher, so there will be no spare parts available later on for people who have kept their old car.

2. The dealer gets the car free, washes it and changes the oil, and puts it in his used car lot with a price tag of a few thousand dollars in free money. Poor buyers put the car right back on the road. Big business wins again with another sweetheart deal from the people's government.

3. Demolition Derbies will make a huge comeback.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:55 PM
 
8,649 posts, read 14,870,155 times
Reputation: 4563
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Actaully the clunker paln was done by the state here in Texas. The purpose was to get many of the high polluting vehicles off the roadway as they contribute so much to it. It was very successful and the money that was alotted ranout pretty quickly. It allowed some to get a new vehicle and took alot of clunkers off the roadway.People con themselves into believing that electric and hydrogen vehicles are just around the corner when they will be expensive;take tons of new infratructure and have their own pollution problems like battery disposal ansd the electric grind. The main thing is they won't be cheap ;so this plan makes some sense;especially when you look at the rest of the stimulus much of which does nothing for the common man really. I'd much rather see some mother with kids riding down the highway in a new corrola say than some junker with the wheels about to fall off and burning more oil than gas.
If the money ran out so fast how did I get $3,000.00 from them approx. 12 days ago to buy a new car? The new car is now sitting in the driveway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,641 posts, read 5,339,698 times
Reputation: 4781
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
By the way, what's going to happen to the clunkers that are turned in? I can only think of three possibilities.
You can think of three possibilities, but that's not necessary. The law spells out what will happen to the clunkers.

Have you been talking about something all this time that you haven't even read?

Congrats - you're well on your way to Congress!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,556,197 times
Reputation: 35864
I googled /clunkers crusher/ and found nothing informative. Why don't you see if you can contribute something useful to the discussion by telling us what the law says.

What will ultimately happen to the clunkers will not change the defects in the plan. It's only an aside.

------

I just spend ten more minutes searching. So far, I've only found Congressman Bart Gordon's FAQ, saying"they will be recycled". He did not elaborate.

At another source, I found this:

The aftermarket may benefit from this bill by receiving good running parts cars that would be sent to dismantlers, however, nether of the bills have a clear outline of what would happen to the “clunker” once it is turned it. With out clear definitions on this aspect of the legislation the environmental gains could be limited or even detrimental if vehicles are not properly dismantled and disposed of, or if they simply end up being exported to Mexico and Central America the overall “carbon emissions” will only increase world wide.

Last edited by jtur88; 07-08-2009 at 01:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,641 posts, read 5,339,698 times
Reputation: 4781
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post

2. Force every driver to buy a new car, to bail out the auto industry.


---I already said, numerous times, that that is a predictive statement based on a) the intended goal of the program, b) a similarly forced program on health insurance, and c) the exclusion of genuine choice available to participants in this program.
Ah! A predictive statement. Making a prediction. Very good.

Now, most people, especially if they want to make sure that the other person understands just what it is that they are saying, would phrase a predictive statement so that it would appear .... predictive.

For example,

"I predict every driver will be forced to buy a new car."

Alternatives include: "I think....", "In my opinion...", and so forth.

But no, being clear isn't exactly your strong suit, is it? You'd rather say something that gives every appearance of a statement of fact (Force every driver to buy a new car) and leave it up to the reader to somehow divine just what the hell you mean.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Very few people will take advantage of it ...

----The number of participants will be disappointingly low. I've seen estimates of 250,000 units, which would be 2.5% of otherwise expected sales.
Now this is excellent!! You've seen estimates ... where? Link, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
But nobody is buying, even at those kinds of discounts.

---the huge discounts already in place for the past year, comparable to the clunker discounts, produced only slight gains in car sales. Annual sales are down from the decade average of 16 million to a current rate of ten million a year.
Thank you - you've just proven what I've been saying all along. Anyone who equates no buyers with 10,000,000 buyers is a person so confused and/or woefully uninformed that s/he is clearly beyond my ability to help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top