Dealers Still Waiting For 'Clunker' Cash...

Charles Martel said:

And....we should all realize cfc was nothing but a rebate...manufacturers have been doing this for years and for the same reason...a temporary boost in sales that either lighten current inventories or market a target vehicle or both.

Click to expand...

No doubt their rebate programs didn't cost as much.

Charles Martel said:

And....we should all realize cfc was nothing but a rebate...manufacturers have been doing this for years and for the same reason...a temporary boost in sales that either lighten current inventories or market a target vehicle or both.

Click to expand...

And let's also not forget that this joke of a program was also put on the backs of the US taxpayers who will get the bill for paying someone else to buy a new car which will do NOTHING to increase the productivity of the nation for more than one measly quarter.

Again, the notion that by dipping your bucket into one side of the lake and then pouring it back in on the other side and claim you are raising the lakes level can only be believed by the gullible, the ignorant or those who willingly suspend their disbelief.

Truth Detector said:

After suffering through this long winded diatribe which basically says NOTHING; it is begging for a point. What is your point?

Click to expand...

Your argument is based on fallacy and draws a invalid conclusion because of it.

Truth Detector said:

Is it in support of the Government stealing money from hard working taxpayers and giving it to specific groups for purely partisan political purposes is a good thing?

Click to expand...

This is a complex question and is fallacious. So I will not answer it. My argument is in support of cash for clunkers however.

Truth Detector said:

Is it supporting a Government that has spent us into a $1.6 trillion dollar hole as a good thing?

Click to expand...

No, it is in support of cash for clunkers. Nice try at a straw man.

Truth Detector said:

Is it suggesting that watching the National Debt continue to climb at the rate of $1 million a day is a good thing?

Click to expand...

No, I addressed this. You are commuting the fallacy of division to relate cash for clunkers to the entire debt. Cash for clunkers is a very small portion of the 10 to 11 trillion dollar debt.

Truth Detector said:

What is your point dude? Perhaps it is just an effort to prove you don't know what the hell you are talking about like Golden Boy and think that borrowing and printing money the Government doesn't have is a good thing?

Click to expand...

My point is your arguments against cash for clunkers are fallacious and draw invalid conclusions. I argue in favor of cash for clunkers as I think it has benefited the economy.

Here, read this again:

drz-400 said:

To recap all you have proven to me is the economy is in a downturn and this program (cash for clunkers) amounts to taking money from one group and giving it to another group.

I happen to think cash for clunkers was effective at increasing demand for cars, selling cars, and stimulating the auto industry during this recession. The article supports my opinion saying:

The article does say cash for clunkers has been slow to pay for some sold cars. This is a downside to the program that I will not deny, but it does not mean the program has been a failure. Especially when at the end of the article it said, “…Billion thinks he'll get his money eventually, it just may take longer than what the government first said.”

Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:

It once again raises the question; if after another two years of this stupidity there are no improvements in the economic malaise we are in, will you then acknowledge that Obama is a moron who is destroying the country and you were a fool for buying into this rabid stupidity?

Click to expand...

I will now if you can prove my argument wrong. Otherwise you should admit my argument is the better one.

drz-400 said:

Your argument is based on fallacy and draws a invalid conclusion because of it.

Click to expand...

I ma failry certain based on your diatribes, that you have NO idea what my argument is; why don’t you tell me what you think it is.

drz-400 said:

This is a complex question and is fallacious. So I will not answer it. My argument is in support of cash for clunkers however.

No, it is in support of cash for clunkers. Nice try at a straw man.

Click to expand...

Your notions about what constitutes a straw man are about as trite as your economic assertions about the benefits of Cash for Clunkers.

With that, it begs the question; how does taking money from one class of individual and giving it to another class of individual for purely partisan political purposes going to help an economic recession?

In other words, what this program constitutes, as does the whole notion about the stimulus (pork project) program, is merely an attempt to dip the water bucket into one side of the economic lake, walking over to the other side having a BIG news conference while pouring the water back into the lake claiming you are increasing the level of the lake.

How does that make consumers start buying again?

drz-400 said:

No, I addressed this. You are commuting the fallacy of division to relate cash for clunkers to the entire debt. Cash for clunkers is a very small portion of the 10 to 11 trillion dollar debt.

Click to expand...

Wrong; I am saying that stealing money from one class of taxpayer to give it to another taxpayer for a program as dumb as “cash for clunkers” where perfectly serviceable cars are also demolished does NOTHING to boost economic output other than having a very temporary effect that will just extend the suffering.

drz-400 said:

I will now if you can prove my argument wrong. Otherwise you should admit my argument is the better one.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by drz-400
To recap all you have proven to me is the economy is in a downturn and this program (cash for clunkers) amounts to taking money from one group and giving it to another group.

I happen to think cash for clunkers was effective at increasing demand for cars, selling cars, and stimulating the auto industry during this recession. The article supports my opinion saying:

The article does say cash for clunkers has been slow to pay for some sold cars. This is a downside to the program that I will not deny, but it does not mean the program has been a failure. Especially when at the end of the article it said, “…Billion thinks he'll get his money eventually, it just may take longer than what the government first said.”

The above is not an argument; it is merely an opinion which cannot be supported by any facts.

My argument will bear itself out when after the next quarter jobs continue to disappear, unemployment continues to rise, consumers continue to hold onto what little cash they have, businesses continue to shut down at an alarming rate, banks continue to close at an alarming rate, home foreclosures continue to climb and commercial foreclosures become the latest news.

Unlike you, I cannot wallow in self induced denial pretending that this administration has the first clue about economics based on the idiotic assumption that Government can borrow and print their way into an economic recovery based on purely partisan political purposes.

The bottom line is that up until now, the Democrat morons who infest our Government have been dishonest about the tax increases it will take to pay for their beloved Librul agenda; but the bottom line is that it will be ALL of us who continue to pay for it and will continue to stifle recovery because of the criminally negligent way this Government is spending.

Those are FACTS, not just OPINIONS. We haven’t even touched on the effect State Governments like Michigan’s, New York’s and California’s are impacting consumer confidence with their own vast set of tax increases and failed Democrat policies.

Truth Detector said:

Again, the notion that by dipping your bucket into one side of the lake and then pouring it back in on the other side and claim you are raising the lakes level can only be believed by the gullible, the ignorant or those who willingly suspend their disbelief.

Click to expand...

Gullible, ignorant, or liberal, you are correct.

Truth Doctor said:

I ma failry certain based on your diatribes, that you have NO idea what my argument is; why don’t you tell me what you think it is.

Click to expand...

Truth Doctor said:

My argument is nothing but factual; $1.6 trillion deficit and over 6,000,000 jobs lost. Obama's program based on the last 180 days has been an abject failure and we continue to shed hundreds of thousands of jobs every month.

Click to expand...

This was your first argument. It is a non-Sequitur becuase it affirms the consequent. I already have discounted this arguement in my first post.

Truth Doctor said:

Your notions about what constitutes a straw man are about as trite as your economic assertions about the benefits of Cash for Clunkers.

Click to expand...

It is, I argued cash for clunkers was effective at increasing demand for cars, the amount of cars sold, and stimulating the auto industry. You asked me if I was arguing in support of something different, the entire government budget, so you could easily tear it down.

This seems to fit another fallicy you continue to make, Division.
Cash for clunkers is not the only part of the government budget that created the $1.6 trillion defecit; in fact, it is a small part of it. Cash for clunkers was expected to cost $3 billion, thats 0.2% of the entire defecit and 0.1% of the entire budget ($3 trillion).

Truth Detector said:

With that, it begs the question; how does taking money from one class of individual and giving it to another class of individual for purely partisan political purposes going to help an economic recession?

Click to expand...

You fail again to support your conclusion (hence why you say you are begging the question, which is a fallicy in a debate); that it will not help and it is purely partisan, and leave me with the burden of proof. You cannot simply assert an arguement.

Truth Detector said:

In other words, what this program constitutes, as does the whole notion about the stimulus (pork project) program, is merely an attempt to dip the water bucket into one side of the economic lake, walking over to the other side having a BIG news conference while pouring the water back into the lake claiming you are increasing the level of the lake.

How does that make consumers start buying again?

Click to expand...

In theory, it encourages consumers start buying again by offering incentives to buy a car. In practice it seems to have worked.

I will stick with my original argument that it has in fact helped to increase the demand for cars and the amount of cars sold as well as stimulate the auto industry.

The article contains information to back up my arguement:

“Auto makers will release their monthly sales reports Tuesday and they're expected to show the first year-to-year increase since 2007.
…
During the month long program, Billion Automotive sold close to a thousand vehicles…”

Click to expand...

I want to make sure you realize this is information saying the auto industry has been stimulated by increased sales and the particular car dealership in the article sold a large amount of cars during the month cash for clunkers was running. These are not my opinions.

Truth Doctor said:

Wrong; I am saying that stealing money from one class of taxpayer to give it to another taxpayer for a program as dumb as “cash for clunkers” where perfectly serviceable cars are also demolished does NOTHING to boost economic output other than having a very temporary effect that will just extend the suffering.

Click to expand...

Maybe if you did not argue by question I would know your position. Still, you were asking me if my arguement was suggesting watching the debt increase everyday was a good thing. I said no. Do I really have to state my arguement again?

You also introduce a previously unsaid position, that cash for clunkers is stupid for demolishing used cars.
I disagree with this aspect of the program as well. My original position on cash for clunkers remains, however.

Truth Doctor said:

My argument will bear itself out when after the next quarter jobs continue to disappear, unemployment continues to rise, consumers continue to hold onto what little cash they have, businesses continue to shut down at an alarming rate, banks continue to close at an alarming rate, home foreclosures continue to climb and commercial foreclosures become the latest news.

Unlike you, I cannot wallow in self induced denial pretending that this administration has the first clue about economics based on the idiotic assumption that Government can borrow and print their way into an economic recovery based on purely partisan political purposes.

The bottom line is that up until now, the Democrat morons who infest our Government have been dishonest about the tax increases it will take to pay for their beloved Librul agenda; but the bottom line is that it will be ALL of us who continue to pay for it and will continue to stifle recovery because of the criminally negligent way this Government is spending.

Those are FACTS, not just OPINIONS. We haven’t even touched on the effect State Governments like Michigan’s, New York’s and California’s are impacting consumer confidence with their own vast set of tax increases and failed Democrat policies.

Click to expand...

You have argued with opinion and fallicy. You may have presented facts about the economy and debt but you fail to recognize the connection you draw with those facts and cash for clunkers is fallacious.

drz-400 said:

This was your first argument. It is a non-Sequitur becuase it affirms the consequent. I already have discounted this arguement in my first post.

It is, I argued cash for clunkers was effective at increasing demand for cars, the amount of cars sold, and stimulating the auto industry. You asked me if I was arguing in support of something different, the entire government budget, so you could easily tear it down.

This seems to fit another fallicy you continue to make, Division.
Cash for clunkers is not the only part of the government budget that created the $1.6 trillion defecit; in fact, it is a small part of it. Cash for clunkers was expected to cost $3 billion, thats 0.2% of the entire defecit and 0.1% of the entire budget ($3 trillion).

You fail again to support your conclusion (hence why you say you are begging the question, which is a fallicy in a debate); that it will not help and it is purely partisan, and leave me with the burden of proof. You cannot simply assert an arguement.

In theory, it encourages consumers start buying again by offering incentives to buy a car. In practice it seems to have worked.

I will stick with my original argument that it has in fact helped to increase the demand for cars and the amount of cars sold as well as stimulate the auto industry.

The article contains information to back up my arguement:

I want to make sure you realize this is information saying the auto industry has been stimulated by increased sales and the particular car dealership in the article sold a large amount of cars during the month cash for clunkers was running. These are not my opinions.

Maybe if you did not argue by question I would know your position. Still, you were asking me if my arguement was suggesting watching the debt increase everyday was a good thing. I said no. Do I really have to state my arguement again?

You also introduce a previously unsaid position, that cash for clunkers is stupid for demolishing used cars.
I disagree with this aspect of the program as well. My original position on cash for clunkers remains, however.

You have argued with opinion and fallicy. You may have presented facts about the economy and debt but you fail to recognize the connection you draw with those facts and cash for clunkers is fallacious.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you cannot begin to comprehend my argument and cling to your farcical notions about the cash for clunkers program.

I am sure over the next 12 months we will have plenty of opportunity to dispel the mythical efforts by you and Obama's administration that Government spending money they don't have will lead to recovery won't we?

The notion that you can steal money from one person and give it to another as a good way to boost economic output is absurd to say the least; but lets give it some time and then perhaps the REALITY of what I am posting will have had time to sink in.

I am just curious how many more months of economic doldrums and bad news it will take for those of you who desperately cling to the idiotic economic policies of this administration.

FACT: things will be getting MUCH worse over the next six months and the Christmas buying season will be one of the worst on record. I can only say I am glad I am not a retailer right now.

Truth Detector said:

FACT: things will be getting MUCH worse over the next six months and the Christmas buying season will be one of the worst on record. I can only say I am glad I am not a retailer right now.

Click to expand...

Fact: that is unrelated to cash for clunkers.

You cannot comprehend that this is a fallicy. It is the fallicy of division.

Truth Detector said:

The notion that you can steal money from one person and give it to another as a good way to boost economic output is absurd to say the least; but lets give it some time and then perhaps the REALITY of what I am posting will have had time to sink in.

Click to expand...

I have accepted this reality. Every transaction in the economy takes money from one person and gives it to another. How can this hurt the economy or cause cash for clunkers to fail?

drz-400 said:

I have accepted this reality. Every transaction in the economy takes money from one person and gives it to another. How can this hurt the economy or cause cash for clunkers to fail?

Click to expand...

You would of course be terribly wrong; but this explains your willingness to swallow the swill being dished out by this administration.

Your views are also an example of what I call the difference between Liberal thinking and Conservative thinking; Liberals think the economic pie is finite and therefore, if one person gets MORE, some other person must correspondingly have given something up. But this is false; the economic pie is infinite and through private investment, technology inventions and new businesses can grow infinitely. The jobs created by the development of Apple Computers and Microsoft are two great examples.

:2wave:

How does that mean cash for clunkers has failed?

You put your words in my mouth.

I said a transaction in the economy involves a transfer of money from one person to another. How is this wrong by definition? It has nothing to do with the economy growing or shrinking.

I wish they would do cash for clunkers for big trucks. I have this old clunker setting in the woods in Medford, looks kinda like this one, of course the tires are all flat and rotten.

The bumper still has a bit of chrome left though…such as it is, in between the rust spots; all but one window is broken out. I believe the bumper would hold up long enough to make it to the dealer if the guy with the hook didn’t hot rod it too much. Wouldn’t hurt if he put another chain around the front axel as well as the bumper. Must be the conservative side of me coming out, ya know belt and suspenders and all that rot.

I had a wino living in it for a while but had to kick his** last week, the smell was getting so bad the skunks were running the other direction.I have my bloodshot eyeballs on a nice shiny Peterbilt, with twin chrome stacks, air ride suspension, chrome lugs on the aluminum wheels. I guess I could scrape by with an ISX/450 Cummalong for the power, gotta have the Raised roof though, like them condos. Yep, sure would be nice if we had a cash for clunkers for big trucks. You think there is a chance of that making it thru congress TD? :shock: