backtop

Print 20 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Aug 24 at 9:05 AM
The popular Cash for Clunkers program will likely end by Labor Day

The Transportation Department is expected to announce by the end of the week that it is winding down the "Cash for Clunkers" trade-in program, noting the $3 billion program should run out of funds by Labor Day.

President Barack Obama reportedly has no interest in getting additional funds for Cash for Clunkers, and will hopefully be able to end when completed clunker deals provide necessary reimbursements to dealers.  Originally launched on July 24, some believed the program would last a couple of weeks, while others were convinced it could go until late September.

In the past 24 hours, there have been 23,500 vouchers and $97 million requested; to date, 435,102 vehicles and $1.81 billion has been claimed.  Furthermore, dealerships are submitting at least 20,000 vouchers per day, leaving just two more weeks left in the program.

Even when the program ends, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) officials said all auto dealerships will be reimbursed.

Cash for Clunkers was started with $1 billion in funds, but was granted an additional $2 billion to ensure the program could be extended.

Despite the program expected to end soon, actual demand for the program is still up in the air, with some analysts saying interest dropped 15 percent recently when compared to a July peak.  The $4,500 rebate, alongside rebates offered by automakers during a tough economy, have led many Americans with gas guzzlers to purchase new cars simply for the thousands of dollars saved.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood fired back at critics of the program, saying it has been a success.  Furthermore, CNW Research indicates new-car buyers absorbed car-loan debt that they would have avoided if not for the program, which helped stimulate the economy -- and got gas guzzling cars off the roads.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By SiliconDoc on 8/20/2009 5:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
In our often loan and debt based economy of pay for it some time in the future, or the grandchildren can, we have this gem, indicating the brainwashing is complete:
" The $4,500 rebate, alongside rebates offered by automakers during a tough economy, have led many Americans with gas guzzlers to purchase new cars simply for the thousands of dollars saved. "
---
I'll point out again, that buying a new vehicle NEVER saves thousands of dollars, but IN FACT SPENDS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
I know, it's hard for people to believe that kind of thing nowadays, hence the ballooning debt all around.
Advertisers used to say things like: " Come SPEND ! SPEND! SPEND ! your money in our store."
Nowadays, when you buy anything you are saving money. This is our new, nationwide, gross basket case of lying idiots, culture.
Now the gas price calculating tards can chime in, please, make an attempt. Be certain to calculate the DIFFERNCE in gallons used price, include the INTEREST on the car loan, and add in all the INVESTMENT INCOME lost by the purchaser because they were hammering out a payment every month.
Thanks, have a nice cry trying.




RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By MatthiasF on 8/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2009 9:07:32 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Just to run down the argument quickly.

How about I run down yours quickly?
quote:
Debt is not a bad thing. Only the ignorant make it out to be evil.

Yes, it is. Debt is what happens when you don't have the money to pay for something that you purchase. Personally, the only reasonable things to go into debt for are a house and *sometimes* a car if need be. Chalking up debt on credit cards to pay for clothing, books, utilities, etc is completely stupid. If you don't have the cash to pay for it, you shouldn't buy it.

However in this case, the unemployment rate is reaching 10%, banks are going under, the housing market is in shambles, and people are in this mess because...THEY HAVE NO MONEY OR JOBS. The government has taxed them to the brink, and encouraged them to spend money they don't have. When people don't have money, its completely irresponsible for the government to tell people to go buy new cars so they can act like the $787B stimulus bill is actually having any effect at all - if not just negative effects. So take that $3B, factor in the interest we have to pay China on it, then take 50% of that money and give it to Japan. And what do you have? A $1.5B bailout to the auto unions and government motors on the backs of taxpayers who don't have any business being encouraged to spend more money that they don't have.

Government debt is even worse. It devalues the currency, thus making products more expensive because the money in your wallet is worth less than it was previously. Perhaps you should look back at Germany many decades ago when people would wheel barrel money to the store to buy bread, and people were paid 2 or 3 times a day because the value of currency dropped so fast that it was worth less as the day went on.
quote:
Even when you put money into a savings account, you are creating debt, so quit the bull.

False. By putting CASH into an account that draws interest, you are creating wealth - by allowing the banking industry to loan it out for profit and netting yourself profit as well. Cash is king.
quote:
most of the owners of the new cars are getting no-interest/low-interest deals for 3-5 years, so that issue is moot

The only thing moot is how ridiculous you sound. If a car costs $20,000 and you get a $4,500 government rebate...you didn't save $4,500...you spent $15,500 plus taxes/fees and interest.

You sound like when my girlfriend goes to the mall to tell me how much she saved at Express on new clothes when the fact is she came home with less money and more debt than she left with.
quote:
Last, any effort to decrease the price of commodities (oil,gasoline, steel, etc.) saves us all a lot of money and it's likely to be a lot more than the cost of any interest spent in achieving the reduction.

Spending 15k, 20k, 25k in an effort to save a few hundred dollars a year in gasoline costs doesn't pay off. You may have lower fuel costs per week/month, but you now have a new/higher car payment and/or less money in the bank.

You know how much fuel we can buy with $3 billion dollars? Why not just split that money up for each Federal TAXPAYING family, and let them use that to pay for their fuel?
quote:
Government action works over decades.

Government action is targeted at an immediate reaction, and often times leads to long term destruction. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, USPS, etc....all of these government programs provide a service which is inefficient and costs taxpayers incredible amounts of money that DOES NOT work over decades. In fact, its the decades that have cost all these programs to be on the verge of bankruptcy.
quote:
We're having problems now because of government inaction over the last decade.

What planet are you living on? Was it the "government inaction" that told banks to lend to people who have shitty credit and have no business with a home loan? Was it the government's inaction of double dipping into the social security lock box that is causing it to possibly be insolvent in 2 years? Was it government inaction that created a welfare entitlement state motivating people to sit on their asses and collect checks bigger than what they could get with an entry level no-skill job?
quote:
Now that things are being corrected, loud whining should be expected from the wheels.

Unless you refer to reparations and redistribution of wealth to the poor and urbanites as "correction", you are grossly misinformed.


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By WeaselITB on 8/20/2009 3:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
False. By putting CASH into an account that draws interest, you are creating wealth - by allowing the banking industry to loan it out for profit and netting yourself profit as well. Cash is king.


Err, if no one is going into debt since debt is evil, how in the world are you turning a profit on your savings account?

quote:
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, USPS, etc....all of these government programs provide a service which is inefficient and costs taxpayers incredible amounts of money that DOES NOT work over decades.


Umm, the USPS has been completely self-contained for many years, and in fact under Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, they're required to at least break even. Most years (until recently) have seen them turning a rather large profit.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/...
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postal...


By FITCamaro on 8/21/2009 8:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you missed it but even Obama thinks the USPS is a failure. I mean it destroyed the point he was trying to make (that government run things are good), but still.

I mean if they're doing so well why are they talking about cutting out saturday delivery service, closing thousands of post offices, and removing mailboxes which don't get that much mail?


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By MatthiasF on 8/20/2009 9:12:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Debt is what happens when you don't have the money to pay for something that you purchase.


No. That's like saying "air is the stuff we breath". While true, you're describing something complex by using a common idea and ignoring the complex aspects.

Debt/credit (same thing, different sides of it) is the actuation of obligations spread over time using loans, bonds, stock, etc. It's important in today's world because the size of the projects being done require it. While you might want to focus on credit card debt, most debt is not owed by consumers but by corporations to each other, investors or governments.

You really think many of those Manhattan sky scrappers would have been built if the developers had the cash up front? Or international trade been the same without the East India companies? Or the Hoover dam completed using only tax revenues during the Great Depression?

Nearly every major project humanity has undertaken involved some type of debt. Even the creation of Alexandria in Egypt used debt. But while debt was limited only to royalty, feudal lords, wealthy merchants, Popes, etc. for a long time, finally it's powers can be used by the average person. Just because some can't handle the obligations, that doesn't mean the debt itself is evil.

quote:
False. By putting CASH into an account that draws interest, you are creating wealth - by allowing the banking industry to loan it out for profit and netting yourself profit as well. Cash is king.


Where's the interest coming from? Another one of the bank's clients, which the bank could be making 3 to five times as much. So, having that savings account that makes you 1.5-2 percent interest is making the bank 5-10 percent. And that's only on a 1 to 1 reserve ratio, most banks run at 20 or 30 to 1. Meaning that $1000 you deposited into a savings account, let the bank make $20000 in loans. So, you made $20 in a year and they made $2000. For whom are you really creating wealth? Not you, obviously.

quote:
Government debt is even worse. It devalues the currency, thus making products more expensive because the money in your wallet is worth less than it was previously. Perhaps you should look back at Germany many decades ago when people would wheel barrel money to the store to buy bread, and people were paid 2 or 3 times a day because the value of currency dropped so fast that it was worth less as the day went on.


Comparing a nation burdened by war reparations isn't exactly fair, is it? Germany had heavy obligations to the victors that made their credit rating tank, destroying investor confidence in it's currency and debt. Zimbabwe's issues today more closely resemble this with Mugabe's racist redistribution of land than what's happening in the USA. Our country's credit rating is still one of the highest in the world.

quote:
The only thing moot is how ridiculous you sound. If a car costs $20,000 and you get a $4,500 government rebate...you didn't save $4,500...you spent $15,500 plus taxes/fees and interest.

....

Spending 15k, 20k, 25k in an effort to save a few hundred dollars a year in gasoline costs doesn't pay off. You may have lower fuel costs per week/month, but you now have a new/higher car payment and/or less money in the bank.


Cash for Clunkers sales in most states are exempt from sales tax. Most car loans being made are at incredibly low or no interest rates. If the car owners are going from 15 MPG to 25MPG, then each person turning in a car is saving 400 gallons a year. At $2.50 a gallon, each of these people are saving $1000 a year.

If they made a five year car loan at around $15,000 like you state, they'd be paying around $3000 a year and saving $1000. Not a bad deal.

Your girlfriend has good taste in clothes, btw.

quote:
Government action is targeted at an immediate reaction, and often times leads to long term destruction. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, USPS, etc....all of these government programs provide a service which is inefficient and costs taxpayers incredible amounts of money that DOES NOT work over decades. In fact, its the decades that have cost all these programs to be on the verge of bankruptcy.


http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visual...

(Set Age to the top/left in hierarchy).

Look at the number of US citizens living past the age of 65 and even 65 since the 1930s when Social Security and Medicare were introduced. Both age regions grew when social security and medicare began to kick in. Both have done a lot of good pulling our country's elderly out of poverty. While the cynical might see them as leeching off society, many of us think of it as an honor to help those that came before us live longer, more productive lives.

And none are in trouble. The last seven graduating HS classes have been larger than the largest group of the Baby Boomer's generation. There will be plenty of people paying into Social security and Medicare to help the hippies retire. All of the sensationalized models predicting doom used population means from the 1980s, when there was a slump in births. The real reason for the hysterics was a drive by investment bank lobbyists to coax the government to let the surplus out into the public markets instead of only central bank debt, so the could make tons of money trading it (and use as collateral to avoid the credit crunch that was beginning).

quote:
What planet are you living on? Was it the "government inaction" that told banks to lend to people who have shitty credit and have no business with a home loan?


Bush created the housing bubble and sub-prime mortgage crisis when he pushed through policies to increase home ownership starting in 2002, even helping to create the predatory practices targeting minority communities that relaxed the information necessary to get a loan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin...

quote:
Unless you refer to reparations and redistribution of wealth to the poor and urbanites as "correction", you are grossly misinformed.


Most of the country lives in metropolitan areas and the median annual household income is around $50,000 a year. When companies are paying their management millions or even billions a year, when thirty years ago it was capped below a million, there's going to be a lot of resentment. Would you rather there be riots or government taxation and social programs?


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By MatthiasF on 8/20/2009 9:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at the number of US citizens living past the age of 65 and even 65 since the 1930s when Social Security and Medicare were introduced. Both age regions grew when social security and medicare began to kick in.


Second 65 should be 85. Pardon the mistake.


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2009 8:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah the advancement of medical technology, people eating better than ever before, and a generally higher standard of living have nothing to do with people living longer....its due to Medicare and Social Security.


By MatthiasF on 8/23/2009 10:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
So in the decade at exactly the point where Social Security and Medicare would begin paying out, suddenly everyone is eating better and getting better health care?

You're kidding yourself.

Poverty was the leading cause of death in the elderly before Social Security and Medicare. Poverty that wouldn't let them eat well or get health care. And now they have both.

Poverty is the same reason why USA's life expectancy is so low compared to other industrialized nations. Our infant mortality rate is incredibly high for a country so advanced and it brings down our average by a great deal. Hence the development of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPs), giving our country's young the same benefits of our elderly.


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2009 7:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really think many of those Manhattan sky scrappers would have been built if the developers had the cash up front? Or international trade been the same without the East India companies? Or the Hoover dam completed using only tax revenues during the Great Depression?

And now you're talking corporate debt and investments, not exactly personal debt. They have the assets to back up their loans most times, ordinary people do not. Quite a different animal wouldn't you say?
quote:
If they made a five year car loan at around $15,000 like you state, they'd be paying around $3000 a year and saving $1000. Not a bad deal.

They aren't saving anything. They are still spending thousands of dollars a year more than they were in the first place driving the clunker - to go the same distance and get to the same places. This method of thinking reminds me a lot of Joe Biden's gaffe: "We need to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt", or whatever his exact statement was.
quote:
Bush created the housing bubble and sub-prime mortgage crisis when he pushed through policies to increase home ownership starting in 2002, even helping to create the predatory practices targeting minority communities that relaxed the information necessary to get a loan.

Ok, your left leaning side has just jumped to the front. You're obviously trying to find partisan blame on this topic here, but you know full well that Bush did not create this problem at all.

First off, economists have been warning about this since the 1990's when Bill Clinton's administration passed bills encouraging these loans. The democrats were in love with Fannie and Freddie (Barney Frank was, literally) as a government entity, and encouraged this entire process to keep going. You're smarter than this MatthiasF, I know for all the times you hear "the last 8 years", there is no possible way in hell you can link the housing mess of unqualified buyers to being started by Bush's administration. Hell, I don't even like Bush, but that claim is just ridiculous. He should have done something to stop it, that I agree...but as the cause, he definitely was not.
quote:
Would you rather there be riots or government taxation and social programs?

Personally, I think you're starting to see the beginning of those riots against big government social programs and taxation. To be honest, I support them in this cause. Social entitlement programs are out of control, and causing this country to go to the brink of bankruptcy. Taxation is a mess and our government is wasting so much money on stupid things. I think we can cut our taxes by more than half, the government can scale back all the entitlement programs, get rid of all the pork and waste, and go back to being a government who's responsibility is only to regulate and defend...not provide. And we'd all be better off in the long run.


By MatthiasF on 8/23/2009 10:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And now you're talking corporate debt and investments, not exactly personal debt. They have the assets to back up their loans most times, ordinary people do not. Quite a different animal wouldn't you say?


Personal debt is underwritten using other consumer/corporate/government debt, so as far as I'm concerned (and most economists), they are one in the same. Each credit card company is merely loaning you a portion of a loan it received and making money off the difference on the interest the two sides pay.

quote:
They aren't saving anything. They are still spending thousands of dollars a year more than they were in the first place driving the clunker - to go the same distance and get to the same places. This method of thinking reminds me a lot of Joe Biden's gaffe: "We need to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt", or whatever his exact statement was.


They're turning in vehicles worth less than credit value, making money off a depreciated asset. So, let's say they have a 10 year old Ford Explorer (best selling SUV in 1999 and most traded in vehicle in CARS) with 150k miles and four-wheel drive in good condition, it's worth $1,400 blue book. Meanwhile, if they bought a Ford Focus (the best selling car for CARS), they would have made $4500 off it, saved money on maintenance on a 10 year old car, fuel savings, etc.

It was a good deal, hence why so many people took it.

quote:
Ok, your left leaning side has just jumped to the front. You're obviously trying to find partisan blame on this topic here, but you know full well that Bush did not create this problem at all. First off, economists have been warning about this since the 1990's when Bill Clinton's administration passed bills encouraging these loans. The democrats were in love with Fannie and Freddie (Barney Frank was, literally) as a government entity, and encouraged this entire process to keep going. You're smarter than this MatthiasF, I know for all the times you hear "the last 8 years", there is no possible way in hell you can link the housing mess of unqualified buyers to being started by Bush's administration. Hell, I don't even like Bush, but that claim is just ridiculous. He should have done something to stop it, that I agree...but as the cause, he definitely was not.


Yes, I do. Classic case of Republicans trying to destroy an organization they don't like by creating policies aimed at taking advantage of it. Democrats love Fannie Mae because it helped nearly double home ownership since the Depression from below 45% up to nearly 70%. When Bush created the policies targeting minorities, his administration left it so open that it was easily abused to create the predatory lending of sub-prime loans that caused most of the mess during the credit crunch. He forced more than $400 billion dollars of loans to be given out without legitimate paperwork. No matter how you spin it, it was either incredibly stupid or devious.

As much as I admire the naive notions of "things going back to where they were" that you argue in your last paragraph, things are not the way they were in the world. The government practices of today were created to deal with current issues as they arrive. To remove all the safeguards would lead us back to the same problems again. Why do this? Because of an ideal you hold of some utopia that can exist without a government? Seems short-sighted at best, complete idiocy at worst.

And no, I don't consider Fox-sponsored mobs as anti-government riots. The people who watch Fox News are the most ignorant and naive people in the country, so I don't take them seriously.


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2009 8:31:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You really think many of those Manhattan sky scrappers would have been built if the developers had the cash up front? Or international trade been the same without the East India companies? Or the Hoover dam completed using only tax revenues during the Great Depression?


As mdogs said, this is corporate debt largely backed up by a wealth of assets. While I am all for people buying homes and cars they want, they should at least have to valid proof of the ability to pay it back. Giving someone a home loan on the premise that "its a good thing to give minorities loans" is absurd.

quote:
Where's the interest coming from? Another one of the bank's clients, which the bank could be making 3 to five times as much. So, having that savings account that makes you 1.5-2 percent interest is making the bank 5-10 percent. And that's only on a 1 to 1 reserve ratio, most banks run at 20 or 30 to 1. Meaning that $1000 you deposited into a savings account, let the bank make $20000 in loans. So, you made $20 in a year and they made $2000. For whom are you really creating wealth? Not you, obviously.


mdogs was not saying to put all your money in a savings account. Obviously one should have investments as well. Savings is never a bad thing. But yes the interest you earn on an account comes from other people going into debt and paying interest on it and banks investing money.

quote:
Comparing a nation burdened by war reparations isn't exactly fair, is it? Germany had heavy obligations to the victors that made their credit rating tank, destroying investor confidence in it's currency and debt. Zimbabwe's issues today more closely resemble this with Mugabe's racist redistribution of land than what's happening in the USA. Our country's credit rating is still one of the highest in the world.


Yes it is for now. Largely because the world still depends on the US for much of their own economies. Americans buy crap from the rest of the world. More so than any other single nation. But when that changes, with our current level of debt, our credit rating will sink. Even China will only loan us money for so long.

quote:
Cash for Clunkers sales in most states are exempt from sales tax. Most car loans being made are at incredibly low or no interest rates. If the car owners are going from 15 MPG to 25MPG, then each person turning in a car is saving 400 gallons a year. At $2.50 a gallon, each of these people are saving $1000 a year. If they made a five year car loan at around $15,000 like you state, they'd be paying around $3000 a year and saving $1000. Not a bad deal.


A large amount of people using the CARS program are trading in their old truck for a new one. And regardless of what kind of car they buy, they're not saving anything. They're still paying that money to the government. Assuming they pay taxes. In that case they're passing it on to the rest of us and possibly their own children (depending whether their child turns out to be a dead beat like them or not). There is nothing good about this program for the nation as a whole. It only benefits those who use it.

And another fact is that extremely few dealerships are being paid for the cars they're taking. Estimates for reimbursement by dealers are in the low single digits percentage wise. Where's the money at?

There is a dealership I drive past on gym days who has all their "clunkers" on a lot across the street. They have over 50 cars just sitting there. And they're pretty much all nice cars. Just mostly older SUVs (90s-early 2000s). Some have brand new wheels and tires on them. And we're just going to crush them. If you're gonna do this crap at least be smart about it. Those cars could be some kids first car, given to battered women's shelters for reliable transportation, shit given to the poor who can't afford a new car. But to meet with their "green" objectives, we're just going to scrap them. Perfectly good parts and all. Hell this crap is going to hurt the poor since they can't get a new car anyway and now used cars are going to be more expensive and harder to find.


By MatthiasF on 8/23/2009 11:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As mdogs said, this is corporate debt largely backed up by a wealth of assets. While I am all for people buying homes and cars they want, they should at least have to valid proof of the ability to pay it back. Giving someone a home loan on the premise that "its a good thing to give minorities loans" is absurd.


What assets? Currency? Gold? Most corporations are created by stock sales, either private or public, and stock is a form of debt (the corporation has an obligation to the stock owner). The corporation than uses the cash raised by selling debt to build the business, most likely taking on more debt from other sources, using revenue and assets gained from the original investment. No corporation has been created without debt. It's the basis of a corporation.

And yes, I agree with you that people should use their available credit more wisely and the Bush policy targeting minorities was absurd and demeaning.

quote:
mdogs was not saying to put all your money in a savings account. Obviously one should have investments as well. Savings is never a bad thing. But yes the interest you earn on an account comes from other people going into debt and paying interest on it and banks investing money.


My point was that a savings account is not in your best interest, but the bank's. It's a handy place to store cash temporarily, but in the long run you're better investing it elsewhere that will get you more of a return. This can be stocks, bonds, insurance, education, property, etc., but that $20 I mentioned isn't wealth gained if it took a year and inflation made the money you deposit lose just as much value.

quote:
Yes it is for now. Largely because the world still depends on the US for much of their own economies. Americans buy crap from the rest of the world. More so than any other single nation. But when that changes, with our current level of debt, our credit rating will sink. Even China will only loan us money for so long.


The world doesn't rely ON US, we're just the easiest market to make money in because we have the best credit system. Stores can handle more merchandise, consumers can purchase more merchandise, etc. We're also one of the first countries to outlaw export tariffs (it's in our Constitution), making us the best commercial country in the world.

quote:
Hell this crap is going to hurt the poor since they can't get a new car anyway and now used cars are going to be more expensive and harder to find.


Why would you burden the poor, a teenager, or a charity with a car that has high maintenance and gas costs? This is the second time someone has tried to put a spin on the argument like this, and it's just plain stupid. You're trying to find a better place for a piece of obsolete technology that needs to be removed from our roads. Let it die (the argument and the car).


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2009 8:43:49 AM , Rating: 2
Damn hit the post button. Continuing.

quote:
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visual... (Set Age to the top/left in hierarchy). Look at the number of US citizens living past the age of 65 and even 65 since the 1930s when Social Security and Medicare were introduced. Both age regions grew when social security and medicare began to kick in. Both have done a lot of good pulling our country's elderly out of poverty. While the cynical might see them as leeching off society, many of us think of it as an honor to help those that came before us live longer, more productive lives. And none are in trouble. The last seven graduating HS classes have been larger than the largest group of the Baby Boomer's generation. There will be plenty of people paying into Social security and Medicare to help the hippies retire. All of the sensationalized models predicting doom used population means from the 1980s, when there was a slump in births. The real reason for the hysterics was a drive by investment bank lobbyists to coax the government to let the surplus out into the public markets instead of only central bank debt, so the could make tons of money trading it (and use as collateral to avoid the credit crunch that was beginning).


As I've already said, advancements in modern society is whats making people live longer. Not government programs.

But in and of themselves, they were not completely bad. The problem is that there is no money. It has been borrowed away. Maybe there are more kids today, but how many of them are going to be tax paying individuals? Hispanics are the largest growing group in America right now. And sorry the facts are that that group has a far lower likelihood of going out and getting a good job. Hell the rapidly rising Muslim population has a higher likelihood of being help to our economy than the Hispanic. I'm not saying all Hispanics are lazy, my best friend is hispanic and is getting his masters, just going off the numbers.

quote:
Bush created the housing bubble and sub-prime mortgage crisis when he pushed through policies to increase home ownership starting in 2002, even helping to create the predatory practices targeting minority communities that relaxed the information necessary to get a loan. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin...


As mdogs said, you are a blind fool if you think this problem started with Bush. This started in 1977 when the government mandated that race become a factor in giving out home loans. And has gotten worse ever since.

quote:
Most of the country lives in metropolitan areas and the median annual household income is around $50,000 a year. When companies are paying their management millions or even billions a year, when thirty years ago it was capped below a million, there's going to be a lot of resentment. Would you rather there be riots or government taxation and social programs?


Companies have the right to pay their employees whatever they wish. And where was income capped under a million 30 years ago? It's just that 30 years ago a million dollars was actually a lot of money. Now in the grand scheme of things, its a pittance. And even if you make a million dollars a year here, you're only getting to keep half of it.

Personally I want the government to allow more people to try and make a million dollars a year. Not discourage it through heavy taxation and demonize those who do. I don't see all those Congressmen (especially Democrat ones) giving all their money away. Many are making millions off the policies they enact.

And I'll be at one of those "riots" this Saturday.


By MatthiasF on 8/23/2009 11:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I've already said, advancements in modern society is whats making people live longer. Not government programs.


And governments programs lead to advances in modern society. Let's have a chicken and the egg discussion, shall we?

I'm not even going to bother responding to the racist argument you made about the country's population. We (and by proxy the government) shouldn't be worrying about a culture's impact on the whole, but how the whole can help the cultures inside it without bias.

quote:
As mdogs said, you are a blind fool if you think this problem started with Bush. This started in 1977 when the government mandated that race become a factor in giving out home loans. And has gotten worse ever since.


Hardly. I'm guessing you're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act but it has no language involving race. It was to forbid banks from using the lender's current address and purchase address as factors in their acceptance policies. There's no reason a bank shouldn't loan to a poor person in a poor neighborhood.

Imagine a family making $40k a year want to buy a $70k house. The monthly payments would be lower than $900 a month (using 15% interest which is semi-accurate for the 70s and 80s), or $10,620 a year. Banks expected households to spend no more than a third of their yearly income for it to be considered a safe loan, yet still wouldn't loan in this situation.

They would do their own quarantining of areas as unsafe, making entire areas of cities mostly rent-only, slumlord havens, and wouldn't allow people to purchase homes if they lived in them (even if they were buying in other neighborhoods). This wasn't an issue with only African Americans, but the issue was worse in their case because of the mass exodus of black families from the south up north during WW2 to grab manufacturing jobs and the reactions of banks to the new, mostly African American neighborhoods that often lost value because of racist sediment in the leaving residents.

The Fair Housing Act and it's siblings, were all written to level the playing field, and to suggest that allowing minorities to not be profiled is the cause of the credit crisis 30-40 years later is RIDICULOUS.

quote:
Companies have the right to pay their employees whatever they wish. And where was income capped under a million 30 years ago? It's just that 30 years ago a million dollars was actually a lot of money.


Prior to Reagan, the Top tax bracket was upwards of 70-90%. Now it's 35%, the lowest since the end of the Roaring 20's and most likely the cause of the Great Depression (HOARDING). When more and more of your money is going to the government, you tend to stop your salary at a point. The average CEO salary in the 70s was around a million USD.

Here's a cute graph to put things into perspective.

http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2007...

quote:
Personally I want the government to allow more people to try and make a million dollars a year. Not discourage it through heavy taxation and demonize those who do.


Money should not be the only source of respect in our country. To say you want the government to let more people make $10 billion in salary a year, is to also say you want even more people to make a lower salary than they do now. Every dollar given to a CEO is not given to someone else, who could be just as important to the corporation's well-being.


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By tmouse on 8/21/2009 9:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"No. That's like saying "air is the stuff we breath". While true, you're describing something complex by using a common idea and ignoring the complex aspects."

Now you are guilty of over simplifying. Comparing investment debt to personal debt is absurd. The facts are more and more people are defaulting on loans, most investment loans have some form of collateral, most consumer debt has none. Cars do not even have replacement value once you sign the sales contract. Some debt is unavoidable, but most in America are way beyond that point. we are at a point where we have to spend continuously to reduce the economies down fall. Most Americans do not have any savings outside of their retirement funds, more and more cannot afford a house, which has been considered the best investment for the past 5 decades. Those that do are mortgaged to the hilt since we have forced the mindset of "get it NOW, use you equity" and have little equity in their investment. Our property tax base has been artificially maintained by a yearly increase in our home values so the tax rates appeared to remain flat or even go down while having an increase in spending (how did we not see a problem here?). Of course this type of shell came could not continue and with the collapse of the housing market many are now going to see property tax rates soar or a cut in services and additional taxes because some of this spending simply cannot be cut (if the schools funding gets cut the area is less desirable and property values drop, a vicious cycle). To make things worse many have borrowed against this illusionary equity and now the banks and the owners are on the razors edge hoping things will return and not collapse leaving unpaid debt. Even with debt spending our outsourcing of production shifts significant amounts of the wealth generated by our debt spending overseas. Our corporate and governmental growth debt is funded by overseas entities. we are continuing to just put off the payments on the principle until tomorrow and now we are having a hard time just making the interest minimums. This is not healthy in anyone's book.

quote:
"Meaning that $1000 you deposited into a savings account, let the bank make $20000 in loans. So, you made $20 in a year and they made $2000. For whom are you really creating wealth? Not you, obviously."

You statement was savings creates debt, were are talking of whether a person should acquire debt or invest here, Yes the $20 is creating wealth, exactly $20 worth.

quote:
"Cash for Clunkers sales in most states are exempt from sales tax. Most car loans being made are at incredibly low or no interest rates. If the car owners are going from 15 MPG to 25MPG, then each person turning in a car is saving 400 gallons a year. At $2.50 a gallon, each of these people are saving $1000 a year."

The problem with this analysis is there is a huge amount of evidence that people drive more when their cars get better mileage. To believe this would not happen requires that people do not take fuel costs into consideration which is patently absurd since part of your argument is the fuel savings.
quote:
"If they made a five year car loan at around $15,000 like you state, they'd be paying around $3000 a year and saving $1000. Not a bad deal."

Do you work for the government? That's still a net loss of $2000 per year, maybe a loss of 2K a year to you is a "good deal" for most people I wouldn't think so.
quote:
"And none are in trouble. The last seven graduating HS classes have been larger than the largest group of the Baby Boomer's generation. There will be plenty of people paying into Social security and Medicare to help the hippies retire"

This is a totally meaningless statement, what does the number of HS students graduating have to do with anything? The facts are the average age of the US population is growing. Our population is now growing more by the influx of immigrants than anything else and a fair percentage of these are going to require more not less support. With growth spurred by children you provide a chance to better educate and in the end provide some form of support network for the elderly. When you get a full adult the chances of significantly improving their earnings potentials are FAR poorer and they will get older and if they follow our trend and do not have children the average age continues to increase along with its costs. The baby booms of the 40's to the 50's ARE a significant problem, not some made up one. They are now leaving the roles as taxpayers mostly at the top of their earnings brackets and now using the retirement benefits that were investment cash for the economy and drawing on earned government benefits. Take into account how a lot of this value has declined and more government monies will be necessary to make up these shortfalls, not to mention the increases in the average life expectancies. To say there are plenty of taxpayers is more than naive, in the long run things have to get worse and worse as fewer will have to pay for more. Note I'm certainly not against social security I do believe it's part of the job of the government to provide for the welfare of its citizens but we are not doing a good job here.


RE: That's a funny way of putting it, but typical
By MatthiasF on 8/24/2009 12:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
I apologize for not addressing every point, most most of what I responded to above with Mdog and FITCamero goes over most of your points.

quote:
Do you work for the government? That's still a net loss of $2000 per year, maybe a loss of 2K a year to you is a "good deal" for most people I wouldn't think so.


I don't work for the government, I'm just in favor of a better economy. Let the people decide if it's a loss of 2K or not. If they need to spend $2000 keeping their 12 year old Ford Explorer on the road, they're not building wealth either, are they? And they're wasting resources, gas and parts wise, keeping such an old monstrosity running.

I think the program should be offered permanently to get older cars off the road and modernize the American fleet. I'm hoping that once the data comes out and we feel the improvements, more people will agree that this should be a recurring program and not only to satisfy a failing industry's cry for help.

quote:
This is a totally meaningless statement, what does the number of HS students graduating have to do with anything? The facts are the average age of the US population is growing.


The height of the Baby Boomer generation was 1957 at 4,300 thousand births (and the middle of the period, remarkably). They'll start receiving benefits in 2022. Since 1988, US births have exceeded the average birthrate of the Baby Boomer generation every year since. That's 21 years so far of an exceptional birthday vs 16 years of the Baby Boomers, 85 million since 1988 vs 75 million Boomers.

I mentioned high school graduations, because those with a high school diploma are more likely to have a higher income.

As I said, the statistics used by the Social Security crisis crowd dwells on 1990 census data, because every year since then the births have stayed above Baby Boomer levels. They don't want you to know that by the time the bulk of the Baby Boomers are taking Social Security benefits, they'll be more new workers in the economy paying into it than leaving.

The only way Social Security can fail is if the media income over the next 15 years declines more than 28% and cost of living doesn't fall at an equal rate (which is highly unlikely, unless there are plans to return to feudalism).


By tmouse on 8/24/2009 9:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
$2000 PER YEAR is a lot more than most would require to keep many of these vehicles on the road, also I highly doubt people with high credit scores are the ones taking advantage of this program, so most would NOT qualify for 0% financing. You seem to ignore the possibility of an increase in driving habits also. Maybe this will be successful, the hoopla about its complete success is happening far too soon, let's see what happens over the next couple of months after the program ends, if sales bottom out this could easily be the push to the next wave of economic decline as dealerships go under.
As to schooling: There is really minimal difference in the employment possibilities for someone with just a high school diploma and one without. Some collage is almost required to get out of the minimum wage category today. A college degree just gets you a job that a high school degree would get you in the 50'S .
Your data is not in agreement with data from the National Center for Health Statistics. For convenience look here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html.
Even giving the 2006 & 2007 numbers of 4,265,555 and 4,317,119 you can see that except for the last 2 years, the corrected numbers do not exceed the 1957 peak as you stated. The percent of the population under 20 has dropped by 4% while the percent over 44 increased by the same amount. Please tell me how that is accomplished with 30 years of increase growth?
Now let's look at the other side of the equation: Life expectancy, it increased from 69.7 years in the 50's to 77.7 in 2004. The percent chance of reaching 60 years increased by 5%, 70 by 3.4% and 80 by 2.1%. We are putting more and more straws into a bottle that is growing smaller and smaller.


By on 8/22/2009 11:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com




"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home













botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki