Care to read my quote again? Unless you believe that Obama became President while W was still in office and prevented people from buying cars during that period too. Don't tell me you think people just recently stopped buying cars. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.Where the hell do you think the money paying for this program came from? Magical fairies raining money from on high?
Not really. If people can't afford a car, it'll be hard to convince a bank to give them a loan if they're already in debt. My personal idea would be to buy one of those clunkers off a poor guy for $2500 or so (even if it's only worth $1500) and then trade it in. That way I come out $2000 ahead (assuming the max $4500 trade-in), the guy comes out on top $1000, and the car lot gets business. The poor guy wouldn't be able to buy a new car anyway, so he makes $1000 and buys either a better car than he had or does something good with the money.Well if you're not you're making a serious error in judgment by failing to take into account the demographics which are driving around the cars that qualify for this program (speaking as someone who drives a $1500 car), but beyond that buying cars is a source of debt itself. They are going to dealerships, buying cars from people who's job is to saddle people with as much debt as humanly possible.
Prove that the money would be better used than if used in the stimulative package. Obama operates on taxing the rich more than the poor. The rich, by definition, have a lot of money sitting around. A lot of money sitting around does NOT help the economy.You're spending this money. Presumably it comes from somewhere. That money, before the government takes it out of the economy, was having a stimulative effect, making taking it out of the economy destimulative. Some of it goes back into the economy in the planned way, other parts of it go to paying for operating expenses for the bureaucracy required to administrate the program. As this money is going where the government decided it should go (which it presumably would not go if managed by people who care about price and quality, hence why the government took it in the first place), and subsequently is a less efficient manner of using the funds in the economy. As a product of this, the net effect of said program is the opposite of stimulative.
A joke at best? Maybe we should stop pussy-footing around and do something. If this does anything helpful, it's better than not doing anything helpful. Sure, the effect might be small now, but it's not like this is the only thing Obama has done for the green movement. Also, this isn't just an environmental move. This is part of a stimulative action that just so happens to be related to the environment.It decreases our national by .005%. If you care about actually helping the environment, and not just patting yourself on the back about helping the environment, selling this program as an environmental program (subsequently coming at a cost to the political capital to be dedicated to future environmental programs) is a joke at best.
This doesn't even make sense. I already addressed most of these points above.It's bad for the economy, both in damaging profitable businesses and in giving competitive advantage to unprofitable businesses. It's the UAW using the government as a means of stealing from productive citizens, and the democratically elected government is not only complicit in this, they are the ones stealing the money and giving it to the UAW. It sucks as an environmental program, it hurts the economy, it encourages people who need to save the most to increase their consumption and places them in a situation where they more than likely will take on even more debt (as obviously we haven't run into any problems from poor people taking on too much debt at any point in our recent history), there really isn't anything to like about it.