• 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!

Clunkers' Effect on Pollution? A Blip

sam_w said:
U.S. ‘Clunkers’ Add 0.5 Percentage Point to GDP: Chart of Day
Bloomberg News


Suck it
Click to expand...

Rising GDP is not necessarily indicative of getting out of a recession. Prove to me that quality of life is going to rise.
 
Orius said:
So, because one program is not living up to expectations, the entire effort to reduce pollution is not worth while.

Got it. :roll:
Click to expand...

LOL!

who's talking about "entire efforts to reduce pollution?"

the entire thread was about "one program," which, according to YOU, "is not living up to expectations"

silly
 
So it just saved us one hour per year of something that never actually existed in the first place? LOL

What's Obama's plan to protect us from the boogie man and the monsters in our closets?
 
phattonez said:
So then why do banks fail?
Click to expand...

Are you really going there? Banks fail (for the most part) because of their own stupid "investments" or risks that they take. If a bank fails, it's the banks fault. If the economy depends on people spending money (which it does) then it's the consumers' faults.
 
Gill said:
Yes, you are wrong. Next question?
Click to expand...

Why do you molest children? And no, I don't mean it as a personal attack. I mean it as a question that I can state without proof, as you just did. Why don't you back up your argument instead of just saying I'm wrong. Perhaps you're wrong about everything in life. Until proof is shown either way, it's all speculation and heresay.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Are you really going there? Banks fail (for the most part) because of their own stupid "investments" or risks that they take. If a bank fails, it's the banks fault. If the economy depends on people spending money (which it does) then it's the consumers' faults.
Click to expand...

Do these "stupid" banks only invest their own money??
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Why do you molest children? And no, I don't mean it as a personal attack. I mean it as a question that I can state without proof, as you just did. Why don't you back up your argument instead of just saying I'm wrong. Perhaps you're wrong about everything in life. Until proof is shown either way, it's all speculation and heresay.
Click to expand...

Very simple. Because rich people's, or poor people's, money doesn't sit in banks. The money you put in banks is loaned to people to buy cars, houses, furniture, or whatever.

Banks wouldn't make any money if they left it sitting in a vault would they?

If the rich people don't put money in the banks, the banks have no money to loan to you.
 
Gill said:
Do these "stupid" banks only invest their own money??
Click to expand...

So you're saying that because rich people put their money in the bank, the bank invested their money in stupid endeavors, causing them to fail? :doh
 
Gill said:
Very simple. Because rich people's, or poor people's, money doesn't sit in banks. The money you put in banks is loaned to people to buy cars, houses, furniture, or whatever.

Banks wouldn't make any money if they left it sitting in a vault would they?

If the rich people don't put money in the banks, the banks have no money to loan to you.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. The banks would still have money if it was flowing through the economy. If more people had more money (through cash flow) then they'd need to loan less. At the same time, banks would be making money through their loans and the larger number of people with a surplus of money would be banking that extra money. Just because there's cash flow doesn't mean money DOESN'T sit in banks.
 
Gill said:
Very simple. Because rich people's, or poor people's, money doesn't sit in banks. The money you put in banks is loaned to people to buy cars, houses, furniture, or whatever.

Banks wouldn't make any money if they left it sitting in a vault would they?

If the rich people don't put money in the banks, the banks have no money to loan to you.
Click to expand...

This is what I was trying to get him to realize for himself by asking all of my questions.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
I think you're missing the point. The banks would still have money if it was flowing through the economy. If more people had more money (through cash flow) then they'd need to loan less. At the same time, banks would be making money through their loans and the larger number of people with a surplus of money would be banking that extra money. Just because there's cash flow doesn't mean money DOESN'T sit in banks.
Click to expand...

If everyone is spending their money, then what money do banks have to loan out?
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
So you're saying that because rich people put their money in the bank, the bank invested their money in stupid endeavors, causing them to fail? :doh
Click to expand...

What he's trying to say is that the physical backing for loans is the money that people put into banks.
 
phattonez said:
If everyone is spending their money, then what money do banks have to loan out?
Click to expand...

I addressed this already. People spending their money is instantaneous. You think people won't put money in the bank just because they're spending? I'm not representative of the population, but I always bank my money and pay using a debit card- and I'm only a broke college student. I don't think this is unusual especially considering the amount of online shopping many people do.
 
phattonez said:
What he's trying to say is that the physical backing for loans is the money that people put into banks.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He's trying to draw a parallel between rich people leaving money in the bank and banks failing. Since banks basically invest other people's money (more or less), they wouldn't have large amount of money to play the risky game if people didn't put so much money into the bank.

You know, it's funny that I've been attacked for knowing nothing about how the economy works when nothing's been said that compromises my position.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Exactly. He's trying to draw a parallel between rich people leaving money in the bank and banks failing. Since banks basically invest other people's money (more or less), they wouldn't have large amount of money to play the risky game if people didn't put so much money into the bank.

You know, it's funny that I've been attacked for knowing nothing about how the economy works when nothing's been said that compromises my position.
Click to expand...

You're jumping to a conclusion here that just isn't true. Answer some more questions for me.

Does a bank only loan out the money that it has in reserve? Well no, because we know that banks fail, and this happens when people cannot get all of the money back that they had given to the bank. So then banks fail, and it is because they loaned out more money than they had. So tell me, when banks are loaning out money that they do not have, is the act of investing really responsible for those bad loans?
 
phattonez said:
This is what I was trying to get him to realize for himself by asking all of my questions.
Click to expand...

I know, but I don't think he's ever going to get there.

amazing !!
 
phattonez said:
You're jumping to a conclusion here that just isn't true. Answer some more questions for me.

Does a bank only loan out the money that it has in reserve? Well no, because we know that banks fail, and this happens when people cannot get all of the money back that they had given to the bank. So then banks fail, and it is because they loaned out more money than they had. So tell me, when banks are loaning out money that they do not have, is the act of investing really responsible for those bad loans?
Click to expand...

How about this. I've already answered y'alls last ten questions or so. How about if I'm so wrong, y'all just explain to me how ignorant of economics I am (or whatever). I'm really getting tired of this game as I've answered the last few questions with nothing to show for it except "yeah, well answer these questions now." One of y'all made the statement that I should stop talking about economics because I know nothing about it yet it's taking a load of questions to get nowhere.

Just explain how I was wrong instead of making me answer a gauntlet of questions.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
How about this. I've already answered y'alls last ten questions or so. How about if I'm so wrong, y'all just explain to me how ignorant of economics I am (or whatever). I'm really getting tired of this game as I've answered the last few questions with nothing to show for it except "yeah, well answer these questions now." One of y'all made the statement that I should stop talking about economics because I know nothing about it yet it's taking a load of questions to get nowhere.

Just explain how I was wrong instead of making me answer a gauntlet of questions.
Click to expand...

phattonez said:
Does a bank only loan out the money that it has in reserve? Well no, because we know that banks fail, and this happens when people cannot get all of the money back that they had given to the bank. So then banks fail, and it is because they loaned out more money than they had. So tell me, when banks are loaning out money that they do not have, is the act of investing really responsible for those bad loans?
Click to expand...

You said that investing money was responsible for bad loans.
 
I was surprised to learn that the chemical used to seize the engine can not be removed by recycling, and that the engine blocks can not be scraped.

Chemical wast in the land fill FTW :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
I was surprised to learn that the chemical used to seize the engine can not be removed by recycling, and that the engine blocks can not be scraped.

Chemical wast in the land fill FTW :2wave:
Click to expand...

Interesting, got a Link? seems to me that the small amount of chemical isn't enolugh to impact the millions of tons of scrap metal recycled each year...
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Sodium silicate.

The Killer App for Clunkers Breathes Fresh Life Into 'Liquid Glass' - WSJ.com

Sodium sillicate may make it impossible to separate cast iron from aluminum and steel.
Click to expand...

Congress is worried about cheaters, what a concept.....:2razz:

I can think of easier, faster ways to ruin the engines, running it with no oil and no water alone is enough.
My family, all 3 of them were there, ran one of our cars without water and it warped the head of a Mopar slant 6, an almost indestructible engine. They called me and asked what to do after a hose started leaking, and I told them to get a ride home and I would deal with it after work. Instead, some guy told them it would be OK to drive it home. Why bother calling me if you are just going to take the advice of a complete stranger?
Pistons are aluminum, some small steel pellets poured into the intake of a fast running engine would destroy the pistons and score the cylinder walls.
That should be enough....
 
WI Crippler said:
I'll be honest, I'm not really sold on this "buy American" when it comes to cars. I mean, if I buy American, I inevitably am supporting the UAW which I don't like. If I buy a foreign made car, say a BMW, which has a plant 1 hour south of me, or a Subaru which has a plant in Indiana, I am supporting non-union jobs in this country. The money at the top is going to somewhere overseas, but people that high up aren't really my concern. It seems I support American workers no matter what car I buy.

But its a moot point, since I'll never buy a new car anyway. I always buy used.
Click to expand...

We may agree on many things.
I have found, o'er the past 60 years that dealing with car retailers can be distasteful...hence, the Saturn... I guess that did not work...
I too, always buy used, dealing with one man is so much easier.
I'm, at this point in time, neither pro nor anti UAW....but, there are many problems.
The UAW AND the executives must quickly move into the 20st century..
So, for the past 20-30 years, its been Saab,Honda, VW, and some strays.
American automakers will never be able to design and build a decent passenger vehicle until either the MPG regulations are fully enforced(apply to all vehicles, not some) or until the price of fuel is at the European level.
Our nation must have one goal, not 3.
That one goal must be to eliminate the importation of Islamic oil to our country...
Emissions, safety must be secondary..
Cash for clunkers will have a little positive effect.
Better is the Diesel engine and the government and environmentalists working together in a spirit of cooperation...maybe for the first time...
 
UtahBill said:
Congress is worried about cheaters, what a concept.....:2razz:

I can think of easier, faster ways to ruin the engines, running it with no oil and no water alone is enough.
My family, all 3 of them were there, ran one of our cars without water and it warped the head of a Mopar slant 6, an almost indestructible engine. They called me and asked what to do after a hose started leaking, and I told them to get a ride home and I would deal with it after work. Instead, some guy told them it would be OK to drive it home. Why bother calling me if you are just going to take the advice of a complete stranger?
Pistons are aluminum, some small steel pellets poured into the intake of a fast running engine would destroy the pistons and score the cylinder walls.
That should be enough....
Click to expand...

Or we could just..I don't know...NOT destroy the cars ;)
 
Jerry said:
Or we could just..I don't know...NOT destroy the cars ;)
Click to expand...

per the news, some scrap dealers say they won't accept them, certainly won't PAY for them.....

but junk yard owners aren't all that smart either. the corporate owned, idiot managed ones put perfectly good collectibles out in the yard to be torn apart.

SOME yards have a section where those older collectibles are sold as whole cars, but many don't. I tried to get one yard to sell me the 2 early 70's Plymount Dusters they had just got in, both with fine bodies, small v8 engines, auto trans. I would have paid $4000 for the pair, but the gal running the place said company policy is to not sell whole cars...she wouldn't even call corporate and ask for me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom