Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
4110 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
For questions about how the program works or to discuss program details, please visit our discussion titled, "Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?"
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 01, 2009 2:24 pm)  At least that is how I am looking at the C4C program. I'm hoping to take advantage of it in September and since my taxes are going to pay for it one way or another, I figure I'm just getting some of my money back. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kathyc2 (Jul 01, 2009 2:39 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 01, 2009 11:17 am) I can attest that most of these trains are packed. This train goes through DC, baltimore, Philadelphia, northern NJ and into NYC. Major cities. Sometimes you need to physically be at a location. My job cannot be done by video conferencing. Some professions can adjust their schedules and to some extent this already happens. Many retailers don't start until 10. Hospitals vary their shifts. Its not a bad idea but not sure hwo feasible it is. If you feel those international cities are better off than living in any city in the US (minus Detroit) simply because they don't have mass transit, have fun living there. I live 32 miles from work. Driving is the only way I can get to work. I liek th idea of a Star Trek transporter though. 
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 01, 2009 11:17 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kathyc2 (Jul 01, 2009 2:10 pm) Seriously, if they will give you the money you think that Torrent is worth and still sell you a Vibe at 300 over, I wouldn't be picky. I would grab ANY Vibe and run like a thief in the night! I'm very serious because something sounds wrong!
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jul 01, 2009 5:53 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: chetj (Jul 01, 2009 7:00 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jun 30, 2009 6:14 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 01, 2009 1:52 pm) This is very true. The real question is how much regulation and subsidies do we favor? What percentage of our output of goods an services should be allocated to (federal, state and local) governments? Reasonable, intelligent people will differ on the answers to these questions, depending on how much faith, or concern, they have about government and free markets. However, let's all be clear on one thing, and that is there are important tradeoffs for various mixes of government and free market activities. Make no mistake about that. European countries have tended to favor more government involvement in their economies than the U.S. (until recently, at least). As a result, they tend to have more even income distributions, with fewer extremes. One significant tradeoff, however, is that we've traditionally enjoyed a lower unemployment rate, and less structural unemployment. Also, our young people (again, at least until recently, but maybe now too) have found it easier to find employment and to pursue their economic dreams than their European counterparts. Compare the innovation in the U.S. and Europe. Many Americans say the European system is better, but I've met many Europeans who envy what we have. There's probably some "the grass is always greener on the other side" effect here. As I've mentioned several times, I favored the rescue of our financial system, because of the devastation that a financial meltdown would have caused, but I have serious reservations about whether the aid given to GM and Chrysler will be worthwhile in the long run. I tend to doubt it, but will try to keep an open mind until we find out whether these two companies survive, and the cost of saving them is tallied. I tend to think that Chapter 11 or 7 would have been preferable. Other companies would have purchased the assets of these companies that are worth saving. For example, someone would have purchased the Corvette brand, and maybe Chevy, Cadillac and Jeep, if not the others. The number of vehicles sold in the U.S. would not have been materially affected. I'm also not convinced that pouring tens of billions into GM and Chrysler will result in a net reduction in unemployment in the end. Proponents of the bailouts will cite the surge in unemployment that bankruptcies would have caused, and quickly accuse those who favored bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler, and some suppliers, as lacking compassion. It remains to be seem just how compassionate the rescue of GM and Chrysler will turn out to be. It's too early to say whether the jobs saved will, in the end, not be more than offset by the effects associated with the increases in the deficit. Proponents and opponents of more versus less government frequently accuse those that disagree with them of not "getting it." How often have you heard some variation of "conservatives just don't get it...," or liberals just don't get it...." I think it's more a case of people with reasonable intelligence and judgment reaching different conclusions because their priorities differ. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jul 02, 2009 2:48 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
