• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

Still avoiding the questions, eh?

Goobie, they're still trying to figure out how to answer why we're still in Iraq, why we've beefed up troops in Afghanistan, why we haven't even begun to close Gitmo, why unemployment has skyrocketed despite the stimulus, why only corporate America is the only part of the economy recovering, why Medicare is about to be cut down under UHC, and an assortment of other broken promises from Obama still linger.

Slow down.
 
Seems like both of you are at a Mexican standoff.
No... I asked the question and she refuses to answer.
That's not a standoff, that's her running away.
 
No... I asked the question and she refuses to answer.
That's not a standoff, that's her running away.

I pointed out that your questions are based on a flawed premise. Until you address that flawed premise, I would be foolish to answer the question. At least mine is an honest question, and would allow you to actually clarify your question.
 
You made that claim.
You have not yet shown that claim to be true - see my post to that effect.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-win-cash-clunkers-game-2.html#post1058184361

Until you do show that claim to be true, or until you actually adsdress the question, you're simply desperately avoiding the issue.

Not that I blame you.

And as always, you continue to try and mislead. Check out the title of the thread that you yourself made. While demand for fuel might go up, it is not, as you imply, going to be due to "Cash for Clunkers", which should hopefully reduce fuel demands.
 
And as always, you continue to try and mislead. Check out the title of the thread that you yourself made. While demand for fuel might go up, it is not, as you imply, going to be due to "Cash for Clunkers", which should hopefully reduce fuel demands.
Still waiting for you to illustrate that false premise.
 
Still waiting for you to illustrate that false premise.

False, you simply are unwilling to accept my statements. The problem is with you, not me.
 
False, you simply are unwilling to accept my statements. The problem is with you, not me.
:rofl

I graciously accept your concession of the point.

When you decide to grow a spine and address the questions I asked, please let me know.
 
:rofl

I graciously accept your concession of the point.

When you decide to grow a spine and address the questions I asked, please let me know.

I have a spine. In fact, I am not so spineless that I have to be dishonest to make political points, which is more spine than you have.
 
I have a spine. In fact, I am not so spineless that I have to be dishonest to make political points, which is more spine than you have.
If that were the case, you'd have already answered my questions.
 
So, when gas prices go up again, are the liberals going to blame The Obama for all the new trucks and SUVs on the road, driving up demand?

Or will they still blame Bush and Cheney?

I dont have a thing to prove, as I haven't stated a position.

I did, however, ask two questions.
Care to answer them?

Actually, they can - your post is nothing more than a lame attempt to avoid doing so.

When'd you stop beating your wife Goobieman?

Come on, answer the question, or are you going to avoid doing so.

Naturally I'm being sarcastic because the above is essentially what you did. You created a loaded question, based on a flawed premise, and then when people called you on that premise you decided to have a little hissy fit and moan and complain with the fact they, rightfully, won't answer your loaded questions.

When/If prices for gas goes up again liberals may blame Obama or they may blame Bush, but its unlikely they're going to blame clunkers for cash because it frankly doesn't make sense.

Clunkers for Cash isn't putting more SUV's or Trucks on the streets in regards to them having an impact on the gas price. Why? Because whatever car they got rid of to get those SUV's and Trucks had WORSE gas mileage than the SUV or Truck and therefore they would actually, in theory, be helping to bring the demand for gas DOWN despite having the SUV and truck.

So your first question is flawed, illogical, and ignorant, because the new SUV's and Trucks on the road aren't going to drive up demand because they're BETTER gas mileage than the cars they traded in.

Whether they'll blame Obama or they'll blame Bush/Cheney is beyond me, likely a bit of both, but only ones that are ignorant of facts will blame Cash for Clunkers because of all its issues and potential problems (as Right showed in regards to how they're advertising it and the perception its giving people) taking away a car/truck/suv with low gas mileage and giving them a truck/suv with better gas mileage is not somehow a problem in regards to demadn for gas.
 
Whether they'll blame Obama or they'll blame Bush/Cheney is beyond me, likely a bit of both, but only ones that are ignorant of facts will blame Cash for Clunkers because of all its issues and potential problems (as Right showed in regards to how they're advertising it and the perception its giving people) taking away a car/truck/suv with low gas mileage and giving them a truck/suv with better gas mileage is not somehow a problem in regards to demadn for gas.

I still dispute the bolded part. A 5 % to 10 % increase in feul millage is not insignificant. It's not as much as some, but certainly has a potential positive impact.
 
I still dispute the bolded part. A 5 % to 10 % increase in feul millage is not insignificant. It's not as much as some, but certainly has a potential positive impact.

But how many years of use will it take for the fuel saved to outweigh the energy/pollution involved in making the new car and junking the old?

At the end of the day, this is several billion dollars being spent for the sole benefit of the auto manufacturers and retailers.
 
When'd you stop beating your wife Goobieman?
As explained before, that's not a comparable question.

Naturally I'm being sarcastic because the above is essentially what you did. You created a loaded question, based on a flawed premise,
You're the second person to make the flawd premise claim.
At least you're decent enough to try to show how it is flawed.

When/If prices for gas goes up again liberals may blame Obama or they may blame Bush, but its unlikely they're going to blame clunkers for cash because it frankly doesn't make sense.
Sure it does.

Clunkers for cash is selling SUVs and trucks, as noted in the story. The piss-por mileage of SUVs and trucks was the war cry for the left over the last several years, as the price of gas climbed, peaking last year, and th eleft blamed these vehicles for every bit of it.

If you trade in your 15MPG Suburban for an 18MPG Tahoe, you're still driving an 18 MPG Tahoe, driving up fuel demand over the smaller, more efficent cars that the left had championed -- but, apparently, that's OK because even though the mileage still stinks, its "better".

Clunkers for Cash isn't putting more SUV's or Trucks on the streets in regards to them having an impact on the gas price. Why? Because whatever car they got rid of to get those SUV's and Trucks had WORSE gas mileage than the SUV or Truck and therefore they would actually, in theory, be helping to bring the demand for gas DOWN despite having the SUV and truck
Aha!
THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.

So your first question is flawed, illogical, and ignorant, because the new SUV's and Trucks on the road aren't going to drive up demand because they're BETTER gas mileage than the cars they traded in.
But, they ARE going to drive it up compared to if the buyers had bought the more fuel efficient cars previously championed by the left, rather than SUVs. CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.

Under CARS, you can get a SUV or truck with as low as 15MPG. The administratiuon chose to allow that possibility, and so is respobsible for every 15MPG SUV/truck bought under the program, and the demand that these vehicles created over the smaller, more fuel efficent cars the left has been talking about.

Whether they'll blame Obama or they'll blame Bush/Cheney is beyond me...
No its not -- you know as well as I do that The Obama will get no blame, and Bush/Cheney will still be villified.
 
But how many years of use will it take for the fuel saved to outweigh the energy/pollution involved in making the new car and junking the old?

At the end of the day, this is several billion dollars being spent for the sole benefit of the auto manufacturers and retailers.

I made a bundle on Ford stock.
 
But how many years of use will it take for the fuel saved to outweigh the energy/pollution involved in making the new car and junking the old?

At the end of the day, this is several billion dollars being spent for the sole benefit of the auto manufacturers and retailers.

Do you have any figures on how much fuel it takes to make a car? Without that it is hard to say, and does not take into consideration all the other factors.

This is a program to help auto manufacturers, though a relatively benign one, and seems to be working. It might put me back to work even.
 
If you trade in your 15MPG Suburban for an 18MPG Tahoe, you're still driving an 18 MPG Tahoe, driving up fuel demand over the smaller, more efficent cars that the left had championed -- but, apparently, that's OK because even though the mileage still stinks, its "better".

Until you can understand how going from 15 miles per gallon to 18 miles per gallon means you use less fuel, you will never understand how your premise is flawed. Using less gas does not make for more demand for gas, no matter how hard you try and spin it.
 
I still dispute the bolded part. A 5 % to 10 % increase in feul millage is not insignificant. It's not as much as some, but certainly has a potential positive impact.
Alow me to repeat myself:
THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.
 
Until you can understand how going from 15 miles per gallon to 18 miles per gallon means you use less fuel, you will never understand how your premise is flawed. Using less gas does not make for more demand for gas, no matter how hard you try and spin it.
Alow me to repeat myself AGAIN:

THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.
 
Alow me to repeat myself AGAIN:

THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.

If all the vehicles bought under Cash for Clunkers get better millage than the ones traded in, then demand goes down based on the effect of Cash for Clunkers.
 
If all the vehicles bought under Cash for Clunkers get better millage than the ones traded in, then demand goes down based on the effect of Cash for Clunkers.
Only in comparison to pre-CARS levels. Maybe. You -assume- that those that get the slightly-better mileage will not simply drive slightly more.

And, in any event, this does not change the fact that "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand as a 18MPG Tahoe -still- gets worse mileage than ALL of the cars under CARS. CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.
 
As explained before, that's not a comparable question.

Yes, it is.

Clunkers for cash is selling SUVs and trucks, as noted in the story. The piss-por mileage of SUVs and trucks was the war cry for the left over the last several years, as the price of gas climbed, peaking last year, and th eleft blamed these vehicles for every bit of it.

True, that was part of the cry from the left. That said, you stated

"So, when gas prices go up again, are the liberals going to blame The Obama for all the new trucks and SUVs on the road, driving up demand? "

No, they're not, because "all those new trucks and SUV's on the road" aren't going to be driving up the demand, not in the way that you're implying. Your implying through your words that "all those new trucks and SUV's" from cash for clunkers are going to drive up demand as compared to if Cash for Clunkers didn't happen, which isn't the case because "all those SUVS and Trucks" have BETTER gas mileage than the ones prior to Cash for Clunkers.


If you trade in your 15MPG Suburban for an 18MPG Tahoe, you're still driving an 18 MPG Tahoe, driving up fuel demand over the smaller, more efficent cars that the left had championed -- but, apparently, that's OK because even though the mileage still stinks, its "better".

Whether or not its okay, if demand goes up for gas again you can't blame Cash for Clunkers for doing it by putting more "18 MPG Tahoe's on the road" because if they DIDN'T do Cash for Clunkers it would instead be 15 MPG Suburbans on the road and demand would arguably be HIGHER up so instead they could, theoritically, actually THANK Obama for demand not going up AS MUCH because better gas mileage SUV's and trucks are on the road.

Aha!
THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

Yes, but it won't drive up demand AS MUCH as the lower gas mileage cars they got rid of, thus you can't blame Cash for Clunkers for INCREASING demand which would be needed if your premise is to be true.

That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.

No, it doens't, but it does mean one can't BLAME CARS and Obama on the increased in demand POST-CARS (at least in this instance) because the pre-CARS demand would've been even higher because it would've been more lower mileage vehicles on the road.

But, they ARE going to drive it up compared to if the buyers had bought the more fuel efficient cars previously championed by the left, rather than SUVs. CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.

So you're attempt is saying that because they helped by getting low mileage cars/trucks/suv's off the road...but allowed it to be used for SUVs/Trucks that get better gas mileage than those previous ones but not better than small cars...they should be blamed for the rise in demand?

That's just asinine.

There's many potential ways to blame Obama if the price of gas rises again. Blaming a program that takes low mileage cars off the road and puts higher mileage ones on is not one of those ways.

Under CARS, you can get a SUV or truck with as low as 15MPG.

To have it that way you'd have to be trading in a car/truck/suv that got as low as 13 MPG for $3,500 or 10 MPG for $4,500, which still ultimately putting a higher gas mileage vehicle on the road then previously would've been, which is a net positive for demand.

Not to mention you're also using ANOTHER flawed assumption; that all those people trading in their SUV's/Trucks for ones in the Cash for Clunkers program would've still done it if they would've been forced to get a compact car isntead of another SUV/Truck.

The administratiuon chose to allow that possibility, and so is respobsible for every 15MPG SUV/truck bought under the program, and the demand that these vehicles created over the smaller, more fuel efficent cars the left has been talking about.

Yes, they're responsable for the 2 to 5 mile per gallon demand that they've managed to save.
 
Do you have any figures on how much fuel it takes to make a car? Without that it is hard to say, and does not take into consideration all the other factors.

I don't know the exact numbers, as I imagine they're almost impossible to calculate, but it's almost certainly a much larger amount than would be saved. Think about this: The average person drives approx 12k miles per year. A car that would have gotten 18mpg would thus use 666 gallons of gas per year. A new car getting 22mpg would use 545 gallons of gas per year. That's 121 gallons saved/year.

When you think about the massive amount of energy that goes into extracting and creating the metal, pounding it into shape, building the car, doing the interior, painting the thing, shipping the car to the dealership, etc. it's certainly far more than that.

Professor Michael Gerrard said what is good for the economy could also have benefited the environment. But he noted the law fell well short of that goal.

“It was sold as good for the auto industry, good for the environment and good for energy security,” Gerrard said. “It was sold as a three-fer. It’s more of a one-fer.”

...

In turn, Gerrard noted that will result in small reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gases if at all, especially when the energy costs of building the new cars are factored in.

Any energy savings, Gerrard said, could take several years to realize after taking into account what he calls “carbon dioxide payback time,” the time it takes the fuel savings from a new car to exceed the energy cost used to make a new vehicle.

“The program appears to have been a spectacular success in increasing auto sales, which is a remarkable and worthwhile achievement,” Gerrard said, “but as approved by Congress it’s not a cost-effective way to reduce fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions.”

This is a program to help auto manufacturers, though a relatively benign one, and seems to be working. It might put me back to work even.

But that's not what it was sold to the public as.
 
Yes, it is.
No. The question you cite is a logical trap.
Try answering "no" to each and see what you get.

No, they're not, because "all those new trucks and SUV's on the road" aren't going to be driving up the demand, not in the way that you're implying
Sure they do. They just dont do it as much as the vehicles they replace.
Demand goes up, just not as much.

Your implying through your words that "all those new trucks and SUV's" from cash for clunkers are going to drive up demand as compared to if Cash for Clunkers didn't happen, which isn't the case because "all those SUVS and Trucks" have BETTER gas mileage than the ones prior to Cash for Clunkers.
That's your inference.
Fact is, if the pre-CARS SUVs drove up demand, then so do post-CARS SUVs - just not as much.

Remember - "drive up demand" necessitates a baseline for comparison.
Whatever that demand was last year, if we have 90% of that demand this year, its still up from that baseline.

Now, it may be down from last year, but it is still "up" from that baseline, and it is "up" from what it would be had the CARS program required that the new vehicle get, say 22 MPG or more.

No, it doens't, but it does mean one can't BLAME CARS and Obama on the increased in demand POST-CARS (at least in this instance) because the pre-CARS demand would've been even higher because it would've been more lower mileage vehicles on the road.
BUT you CAN blame him, as he allowed the SUVs to be bought under the CARS program to begin with. Had he chosen to specify that ALL vehicles get at least 22 (or whatever) MPG, then these new SUVs would not have been purchased, with better mileage cars bought in their stead.
 
BUT you CAN blame him, as he allowed the SUVs to be bought under the CARS program to begin with. Had he chosen to specify that ALL vehicles get at least 22 (or whatever) MPG, then these new SUVs would not have been purchased, with better mileage cars bought in their stead.

But this is a logical fallacy based on your assumption that all those people that are trading in SUV's/Cars/Trucks with low enough gas mileage to qualify would've done so still if they could've only purchased a small compact car instead of SUV's or trucks.
 
Back
Top Bottom