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.
The Wall Street Journal suggests that the 70% of economic growth that's driven by consumer spending is shifting into reverse. High, middle, and low income consumers are cutting back their spending.
Lower and middle income consumers are selling their gold and using pawnshops to pay their bills as food and energy prices hit record levels.
Isn't spending what got us in this mess in the first place?
Yeah, I've never been able to figure how spending is going to get us out of a crisis that was caused by excess borrowing and spending....
Lower and middle income consumers are selling their gold and using pawnshops to pay their bills as food and energy prices hit record levels.
Huh? Who told you this? Whoever it was, he's lying. Gasoline is $2.49. My electric and gas bills have gone down slightly. I haven't noticed any substantial rise in food prices. Record levels? Is this another hysterical talking point?
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....
Completely missing the point that the obvious consequences weren't even thought of, let alone addressed.
Oh wait a minute, I get your thinking - you support another bailout for the banks/lenders when the Cash for Clunkers buyers default on their car loans.
EXACTLY, And when these people default on their car payments it will demonstrate that liberal, wealth distribution policies fail. Just like the housing bubble on a smaller scale.
When people default on their car payments (and I'm assuming some will), yes, it will be just like the housing bubble ... when people make the wrong damn decision!
No one is forcing people to participate in the CARS program, just as no one forced people to take on mortgages they should have known they couldn't afford.
Unless you're suggesting somehow that the government should "protect" people from making such decisions? I wouldn't think you were a supporter of such "nanny state" policies ....
Oh wait a minute, I get your thinking - you support another bailout for the banks/lenders when the Cash for Clunkers buyers default on their car loans.
With such a wonderful crystal ball, shouldn't you be at a craps table in Vegas?
Just wait. You'll see. When Satan reveals himself, you'll get yours. You just wait!!
I just bought a new Harley on credit. My home is paid for. My car and truck are paid for. My job is secure. So please, if you would, tell me how I'm going to default on my bike loan?
Completely missing the point that the obvious consequences weren't even thought of, let alone addressed.
Oh wait a minute, I get your thinking - you support another bailout for the banks/lenders when the Cash for Clunkers buyers default on their car loans.
You're now bordering into (okay, unnecessary, I take it back) let's just say you aren't getting it....
Cash for Clunkers DOESN'T ARRANGE FINANCING!!!!
Financing is arranged independently. ANY finance deal made during this program that is a poor risk for the banks was just a stupid finance decision BY the bank, NOT the fault of the Cash for Clunkers program...
Oh wait a minute, I get your thinking - you support the banks STILL not lending to anyone and the economy not budging one iota.
You're now bordering into the stupid SOB category...
Cash for Clunkers DOESN'T ARRANGE FINANCING!!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!
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?
Quote:
Financing is arranged independently. ANY finance deal made during this program that is a poor risk for the banks was just a stupid finance decision BY the bank, NOT the fault of the Cash for Clunkers program...
Only true if the Cash for Clunkers program was not providing any of the money involved in the purchase of the new car.
Quote:
Oh wait a minute, I get your thinking - you support the banks STILL not lending to anyone and the economy not budging one iota.
Do you really think the way out of a debt-overload induced economic crisis is to pile on more debt?
"To date an overwhelming percentage of the people taking advantage of this program have traded vehicles that were free of encumbrances. Now they are in bondage, trapped into making payments during a time of great economic uncertainty. A number of the vehicles being traded in are in amazing condition. So, through this program we now eliminate a large segment of the used car market, vehicles that could be sold in the $3,000 to $6,000 range to those on tighter budgets.
[1] People decide whether they want to participate or not. Freedom of choice - is this a great country, or what?
[2] If a person trades in a paid-for vehicle in "amazing condition", knowing that the federal government will pay the dealer either $3500 or $4500 towards the purchase of a new car, and in the process the person incurs a debt .... if that person is okay with that, what's your problem? Don't you want people to decide these things for themselves?
[3] There are many vehicles made over the last 25 years that do not qualify. Those used cars will be making their way into used car lots through the normal "trade-in & buy new" process. I'll be trading in a '99 Ford Escort that unfortunately doesn't qualify.
[4] As anyone who has taken a few minutes to read over the FAQ section of the CARS website knows, "The entity crushing or shredding the vehicles in this manner will be allowed to sell some parts of the vehicle prior to crushing or shredding it, but these parts cannot include the engine or the drive train."
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?
Only true if the Cash for Clunkers program was not providing any of the money involved in the purchase of the new car.
From the lenders' standpoint, the program is identical to a transaction involving a trade-in. (Indeed, these transactions do involve trade-ins.)
So tell me, what is specific to this program that will cause buyers to default at a higher rate than those with traditional trade-ins?
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?
Its only considered for the downpayment, but the creditor still needs to have the credit and the work history in order to pass the credit requirements. You will not be eligible for you have a 500 credit score..Period. I don't care if the White House gave $10K, if you do not have the payment history or job history to pay the remaining balance, guess what your not qualified.
Only true if the Cash for Clunkers program was not providing any of the money involved in the purchase of the new car.
Do you really think the way out of a debt-overload induced economic crisis is to pile on more debt?
if the debtor fail in balancing out their finances to know that they will not be able to afford that car, that is on them, not the dealer, the bank or the government.
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.
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.
