Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 08-03-2009, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,553 posts, read 2,435,448 times
Reputation: 495

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Does Cash For Clunkers Offer Support for Conservative Viewpoints?

No, because a liberal Democrat came up with it- or copped it from Germany.

Had a Republican done the same, it would be the Democrats complaining about it.
Cash for old cars is not a new idea, it's been kicked around at the state level in the past but, to help reduce pollution and for not as much money too. California had a program my brother took advantage of and it must have been at least 5 years ago. Here's an article from 7/1/08 talking about it:

States Offering Cash for Clunkers - U.S. News Rankings and Reviews
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:33 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,293,134 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Hmmm... the Cash for Clunkers money is considered when financing is arranged, is it not? What about that extra money would not reduce the loan to value risk to the lender?
I'm sorry, but we're talking NEW cars here.... I have very little sympathy for a bank that forks over a $9K loan (probably the cheapest possible for a new car less the $4500) on a shoddy credit risk... Again, it ain't the fault of the program.

It also isn't as though the banks are living inside a bubble shielded from outside news. Dontcha think they're aware of the CFC program?


Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Only true if the Cash for Clunkers program was not providing any of the money involved in the purchase of the new car.
Again, the banks aren't operating inside a vacuum here, and we aren't talking chump change... Look at the people's credit, job history, and current delinquencies and find out if they're worthy to lend to....

I dont' care if it's for $9K, or for $30K. A bank needs to do this and it isn't the CFC program's fault if they don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Do you really think the way out of a debt-overload induced economic crisis is to pile on more debt?
It is my opinion that we're spending our way toward putting off the inevitable economic crash and eventual value reset on items from autos to houses to gasoline to bread....

I'm not really here to champion big spending, nor am I going to discount it until it's an obvious failure.... All I know is we'd BEEN spending big on out of country concerns. NOW we're spending on OUR country's concerns.

I'm willing to give it a chance. Fiscal irresponsibility? Well, as I recall there's been only one President who balanced the budget in my lifetime and he wasn't a Republican. So I'm going to give the Dems a chance before I b***h and moan about their policies.

Fair enough to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Upstate
9,495 posts, read 9,811,110 times
Reputation: 8883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Completely missing the point that part of the purpose of this program is DESIGNED to get these cars off the road to promote those with better gas mileage....
The rules say you can trade a clunker in up to 18MPG for a new car getting 22 MPG.

How come you can't trade a car that got 19MPG on a car that gets 45MPG? Isn't that a better DESIGN?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Upstate
9,495 posts, read 9,811,110 times
Reputation: 8883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
I'm sorry, but we're talking NEW cars here.... I have very little sympathy for a bank that forks over a $9K loan (probably the cheapest possible for a new car less the $4500) on a shoddy credit risk... Again, it ain't the fault of the program.
Guess you forgot about FannieMae and FreddieMac.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:36 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,475 posts, read 12,243,147 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Try to follow genius.... You're attempting to blame the Cash for Clunkers program for potentially poor financing decisions....

Hey, if a bank or dealer finances these people, it ain't the program's fault...
You're starting to sound like Barney Frank
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:37 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,525,112 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04 View Post
The rules say you can trade a clunker in up to 18MPG for a new car getting 22 MPG.

How come you can't trade a car that got 19MPG on a car that gets 45MPG? Isn't that a better DESIGN?
How come you can't trade a car that got 20MPG on a car that gets 46MPG? Isn't that a better design? Isn't b*tching fun?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:38 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,293,134 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04 View Post
Guess you forgot about FannieMae and FreddieMac.
I haven't forgotten, but it isn't my job to remember... I would hope the banks lending the money would. FTR Fannie and Freddie were encouraged to lend to poor risks for MUCH higher-ticket items....

CFC simply offers a rebate, it doesn't tell the lenders what decision they should or shouldn't make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:38 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,525,112 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04 View Post
Guess you forgot about FannieMae and FreddieMac.
What on earth do Fannie and Freddie have to do with the CARS program?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:39 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,038,764 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04 View Post
The rules say you can trade a clunker in up to 18MPG for a new car getting 22 MPG.

How come you can't trade a car that got 19MPG on a car that gets 45MPG? Isn't that a better DESIGN?
That is a whole new set of issues, so nice job of moving the goal posts.

The 18 vs 19 mpg is an issue. There are some makes where the difference in mpg is just a matter of which transmission you originally opted to buy. I would also criticize the program on several other technical issues but that isn't what is being debated here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2009, 01:41 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,293,134 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobolt View Post
You're starting to sound like Barney Frank
Really? Then I agree with Barney on this one.... So what?

The man spews as much hot air as anyone, but it doesn't mean that nothing of value ever comes out of his mouth...
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top