[bsrsharma]

SD Realtor & FLU,

Keynesian economics is not today’s invention. Government intervention to prevent recessions from turning into depressions has been the accepted policy from 1930s. So, even though I share your feelings towards debt, (especially when excessive), it may be the only way to prevent Hoovervilles from becoming commonplace. I agree CFC has many problems; but at least the intention of fuel efficiency can’t be questioned; especially when much bloodshed has been over oil (directly or indirectly). In fact, the loaded cost of oil has been estimated to be about $200 per barrel if you include the cost of all military misadventures. Being a government program, obviously it was corrupted and porked up. But I would direct my outrage towards Congress buying more weapons that Pentagon doesn’t want or keeping U.S. troops in Japan, Germany, UK, Italy etc., 64 years after WWII. There is a lot of government waste; but C4C is not the top of list.

[bsrsharma]

Interesting perspective. Are there any statistics on this? Another important but often forgotten fact is that most of the jobs created nationally in recent times are not family or living wage jobs that allow for purchase of a house, at least the good kind. Thus, we should expect a rise in the number of involuntary renters.

[bsrsharma]

Interesting perspective. Are there any statistics on this? Another important but often forgotten fact is that most of the jobs created nationally in recent times are not family or living wage jobs that allow for purchase of a house, at least the good kind. Thus, we should expect a rise in the number of involuntary renters.

[bsrsharma]

Interesting perspective. Are there any statistics on this? Another important but often forgotten fact is that most of the jobs created nationally in recent times are not family or living wage jobs that allow for purchase of a house, at least the good kind. Thus, we should expect a rise in the number of involuntary renters.

[bsrsharma]

Interesting perspective. Are there any statistics on this? Another important but often forgotten fact is that most of the jobs created nationally in recent times are not family or living wage jobs that allow for purchase of a house, at least the good kind. Thus, we should expect a rise in the number of involuntary renters.

[bsrsharma]

Interesting perspective. Are there any statistics on this? Another important but often forgotten fact is that most of the jobs created nationally in recent times are not family or living wage jobs that allow for purchase of a house, at least the good kind. Thus, we should expect a rise in the number of involuntary renters.

[bsrsharma]

Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don’t have

Flu,

I think that comment borders on patronizing (car buyers). Firstly, statistics show most of the buyers have been middle class and better. Secondly, in this day and age, which idiot financier will advance a dodgy loan on a fast depreciating asset? I think most of the buyers are pretty good credit risks. This is a generally good program except for the politically inspired “gerrimandering” of allowing low MPG trucks for purchase. Also, the scrappage could have been done better – for example by offering to exchange the trade in vehicles, when feasible, (for free) with really old & polluting vehicles (like the pre 1990s for example) or donating to Mexico and destroying like number of Mexican clunkers (many without any emission controls and some still using leaded gas).

On the whole, a better program than the completely dysfunctional “foreclosure prevention” crap and other stimulus boondoggle (like wire transferring funds from treasury to Goldman via AIG, almost like in a third world tinpot dictatorship).

[bsrsharma]

Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don’t have

Flu,

I think that comment borders on patronizing (car buyers). Firstly, statistics show most of the buyers have been middle class and better. Secondly, in this day and age, which idiot financier will advance a dodgy loan on a fast depreciating asset? I think most of the buyers are pretty good credit risks. This is a generally good program except for the politically inspired “gerrimandering” of allowing low MPG trucks for purchase. Also, the scrappage could have been done better – for example by offering to exchange the trade in vehicles, when feasible, (for free) with really old & polluting vehicles (like the pre 1990s for example) or donating to Mexico and destroying like number of Mexican clunkers (many without any emission controls and some still using leaded gas).

On the whole, a better program than the completely dysfunctional “foreclosure prevention” crap and other stimulus boondoggle (like wire transferring funds from treasury to Goldman via AIG, almost like in a third world tinpot dictatorship).

[bsrsharma]

Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don’t have

Flu,

I think that comment borders on patronizing (car buyers). Firstly, statistics show most of the buyers have been middle class and better. Secondly, in this day and age, which idiot financier will advance a dodgy loan on a fast depreciating asset? I think most of the buyers are pretty good credit risks. This is a generally good program except for the politically inspired “gerrimandering” of allowing low MPG trucks for purchase. Also, the scrappage could have been done better – for example by offering to exchange the trade in vehicles, when feasible, (for free) with really old & polluting vehicles (like the pre 1990s for example) or donating to Mexico and destroying like number of Mexican clunkers (many without any emission controls and some still using leaded gas).

On the whole, a better program than the completely dysfunctional “foreclosure prevention” crap and other stimulus boondoggle (like wire transferring funds from treasury to Goldman via AIG, almost like in a third world tinpot dictatorship).

[bsrsharma]

Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don’t have

Flu,

I think that comment borders on patronizing (car buyers). Firstly, statistics show most of the buyers have been middle class and better. Secondly, in this day and age, which idiot financier will advance a dodgy loan on a fast depreciating asset? I think most of the buyers are pretty good credit risks. This is a generally good program except for the politically inspired “gerrimandering” of allowing low MPG trucks for purchase. Also, the scrappage could have been done better – for example by offering to exchange the trade in vehicles, when feasible, (for free) with really old & polluting vehicles (like the pre 1990s for example) or donating to Mexico and destroying like number of Mexican clunkers (many without any emission controls and some still using leaded gas).

On the whole, a better program than the completely dysfunctional “foreclosure prevention” crap and other stimulus boondoggle (like wire transferring funds from treasury to Goldman via AIG, almost like in a third world tinpot dictatorship).

[bsrsharma]

Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don’t have

Flu,

I think that comment borders on patronizing (car buyers). Firstly, statistics show most of the buyers have been middle class and better. Secondly, in this day and age, which idiot financier will advance a dodgy loan on a fast depreciating asset? I think most of the buyers are pretty good credit risks. This is a generally good program except for the politically inspired “gerrimandering” of allowing low MPG trucks for purchase. Also, the scrappage could have been done better – for example by offering to exchange the trade in vehicles, when feasible, (for free) with really old & polluting vehicles (like the pre 1990s for example) or donating to Mexico and destroying like number of Mexican clunkers (many without any emission controls and some still using leaded gas).

On the whole, a better program than the completely dysfunctional “foreclosure prevention” crap and other stimulus boondoggle (like wire transferring funds from treasury to Goldman via AIG, almost like in a third world tinpot dictatorship).

[bsrsharma]

As it is being done, it is a poor plan; especially with the loophole allowing one to buy low MPG trucks. But done the way EconProf suggested, it would have done a lot of good. U.S. drivers get to buy newer cars, U.S. workers get jobs, pollution is reduced, a lot of goodwill is generated abroad. What government program comes anywhere half as good? Much of postwar (1945) government expenditure has been on creating and fighting imaginary enemies (and transfer payments).

[bsrsharma]

As it is being done, it is a poor plan; especially with the loophole allowing one to buy low MPG trucks. But done the way EconProf suggested, it would have done a lot of good. U.S. drivers get to buy newer cars, U.S. workers get jobs, pollution is reduced, a lot of goodwill is generated abroad. What government program comes anywhere half as good? Much of postwar (1945) government expenditure has been on creating and fighting imaginary enemies (and transfer payments).

[bsrsharma]

As it is being done, it is a poor plan; especially with the loophole allowing one to buy low MPG trucks. But done the way EconProf suggested, it would have done a lot of good. U.S. drivers get to buy newer cars, U.S. workers get jobs, pollution is reduced, a lot of goodwill is generated abroad. What government program comes anywhere half as good? Much of postwar (1945) government expenditure has been on creating and fighting imaginary enemies (and transfer payments).

[bsrsharma]

As it is being done, it is a poor plan; especially with the loophole allowing one to buy low MPG trucks. But done the way EconProf suggested, it would have done a lot of good. U.S. drivers get to buy newer cars, U.S. workers get jobs, pollution is reduced, a lot of goodwill is generated abroad. What government program comes anywhere half as good? Much of postwar (1945) government expenditure has been on creating and fighting imaginary enemies (and transfer payments).

[Author]

Posts