WARNING GRAPHIC video cash for clunkers

[Calabrio]

Correct - it isn't an either/or proposition... but, it is a comparison. We are stuck with the government's doling out money in the form of stimulus funds. I think that the economy is better served with stimulus money going to a program like this.

We currently HAVE a government doling out money because people like YOU have supported it.
But it's not the only solution and it's not inevitable.
That's why all efforts to CONTINUE this program need to be stopped.

And as far as resenting the fact that your money is going to supplement my car purchase - I can understand that as well. I would be resentful, it is human nature.

You should know that well, leftist politics and the class warfare rhetoric of the left plays upon jealousy and resentment.
But that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here.

I certainly don't resent your ability to buy a new car. I applaud you for it. Buy two.
With your own money.

I don't even resent you taking advantage of this crappy, ill conceived, vote buying program. I resent a government that takes MY money to buy YOU a new car. I resent a government program that takes money from people who can't afford a new car and supplements people who bought expensive, fast depreciating cars, so that they can buy new cars now.

Be honest- would you have replaced that Explored if this government theft program didn't' exist? Maybe not this month, but in the coming year or so? I expect that you would have...

And on another level, I framed this as stealing from one group of people and giving it to another financial affluent group.
That's actually not accurate.

This $4500 expense isn't being robbed from me or some person who can't afford a new car, it's actually being stolen from future generations. All of this money is borrowed. Borrowed, printed, inflated.... so, we're robbing our kids and grandkids to buy cars today.

But it's getting money moving? And it's better than a poke in the eye.....

 

[1bad4.6l]

Poke me in the eye please!

 

[foxpaws]

1bad4.6l - well, go for the revolution - maybe it is time. republics don't last forever... In fact, not very long. Anything that is of the people, by the people and for the people will be as flawed as the people themselves... We will probably degrade into anarchy - the typical result of revolutions - or go into a dictatorship. Dictatorships have only to be worried about how flawed one man is - not millions... /////sssss

However the system of voting does work, has worked for 230 years, and probably will continue to work if people care, become educated, participate and vote.

So, you didn't answer me Cal about the homeowner question. I am going to assume that you do own a home and are paying down a mortgage -

Well, do it with your own money please - I am tired of the write offs for these people who think they 'deserve' something - I bet you have more than one bedroom... I resent people who think they need more than one bedroom or more than one bathroom... You and your fancy write-off for a home.

You are stealing from me, and from the rest of America, and from our children and our grandchildren, and heck from my nieces and their boyfriends...

So, do you really want all programs like this - write offs for only certain people, stopped?

However, I know how and why mortgage interest write-offs were put in place. We have become a nation of homeowners because of it - which in the long run is very healthy for the economy-renters aren't as good for the economy's long term outlook, but as with all things there are good and bad points.

I would have replaced the Explorer in late 2010 or early 2011. I would have had the vehicle for 10 years+ at that point. I usually keep 'drivers' for that length of time. I haven't bought a new car, ever, until now. You know, they really do smell like new car.

There are good points and bad points to the CASH program, just like there are good points and bad points to all tax programs.

 

[Calabrio]

So, you didn't answer me Cal about the homeowner question. I am going to assume that you do own a home and are paying down a mortgage -

You're changing the subject.

So, do you really want all programs like this - write offs for only certain people, stopped?

Yes I do.

 

[foxpaws]

Instead of bailouts and CARS, didn't it ever occur to anyone in Gov't to give incentives to bring manufacturing back to the USA? not just money to American companies going under, Tax incentives to companies that manufacture in America. Those woud probably trickle down alot faster, and not give the impression of communism these programs seem to portray.

Obama is trying to close loopholes for business that off-shore. The previous administrations created a lot of tax law that made it easy for jobs and manufacturing to go off-shore. Sort of why you now talk to India when you have a tech problem, instead of Seattle.

Once again, there are good points and bad points - profits will go down because it is so much cheaper to outsource many things overseas, but perhaps unemployment will diminish - hard to say.

 

[foxpaws]

You're changing the subject.

Nope - if you own a home, you are getting more from the government then those who rent. Every year your income bracket gets to be lowered and you pay less in income taxes. It is not changing the subject, it is showing how there are many programs similar to this one that many people take 'advantage' of.

So, once again, since I assume that you own a home, the pot is calling the kettle black in this case.

Yes I do.

So, you are for flat tax?

 

[Calabrio]

Obama is trying to close loopholes for business that off-shore. The previous administrations created a lot of tax law that made it easy for jobs and manufacturing to go off-shore. Sort of why you now talk to India when you have a tech problem, instead of Seattle.

Once again, there are good points and bad points - profits will go down because it is so much cheaper to outsource many things overseas, but perhaps unemployment will diminish - hard to say.

Obama and the Democrats running the government are doing everything in their power to make the U.S. as hostile an environment for business as possible. Be it Cap & Trade, expanded union power, or just increased punitive taxation, this administration, if left unchallenged, will DRIVE industry overseas.

You're good and bad point is invalid. The large multinational companies will have no problems moving operations or bearing the burden. It's the small and mid-sized companies that will be hurt or eliminated. GE will be fine, but the local manufacturer won't be able to operate in the regulation rich, tax heavy, social justice motivated business and government environment.

To address V-Tally's point, we don't need incentives to stay in the country, we simply need to lift regulation and help create a healthy economic environment. The U.S. work force is argued to be the most productive in the world, yet the cost of doing business here is simply too expensive. Not because of the wages, but because of the taxes, regulation, and associated costs.

We don't need incentives, we need to eliminate the penalties and disincentives.

 

[Calabrio]

Nope -

Yes.
You're changing the subject.

It is not changing the subject, it is showing how there are many programs similar to this one that many people take 'advantage' of.

Is the topic of this thread "wasteful government programs that Calabrio doesn't support?" If so.... it'll be a very long thread.

To the contrary, this is a thread about the wasteful Cash for Clunkers program, a program that you've loyally invested some time defending.

So, once again, since I assume that you own a home, the pot is calling the kettle black in this case.

Saul Alinsky Rule 4, how cute.

So if I tell you that I rent or that I bought my home for cash, do I get to call you a dishonest, deceptive, political operative?

But mind you, I did NOT say I "resented" you for taking advantage of the program-
I don't have any respect for your support for it, and I resent the government that steals from one to give to another.

So, you are for flat tax?

As is always the case, it depends on how it's written.
but you're changing the subject- this is you about you defending the indefensible.