finknottle Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 To answer your question, they are produced here, but they are still Japanese companies. Those sales add directly to Japanese GDP, not U.S. Indirectly it does help, because it helps maintain jobs and etc, but the bottom line is they are Japanese companies. You can buy stock in Japanese automakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I can't believe the lack of vision about what's happening. People are turning in cars that are paid for and paid off with cars they can't afford. It worked really good for the housing market didn't it? The gov't did the same thing for Fannie and Freddie guaranteeing the debt. Sure the market did good, for a few years. Instead of the U.S address the real issue, which is manufacturing products people want better and the world will want more of, we increase consumption with money we don't have to increase the deficit, help destroy the dollar, and pretend we saved jobs. If all these ideas worked so good why doesn't the gov't do it on everything we sell that has a "win-win" to it? Why stop on cars? We already give rebates on housing. This is madness, soon it will end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I can't believe the lack of vision about what's happening. People are turning in cars that are paid for and paid off with cars they can't afford. It worked really good for the housing market didn't it? The gov't did the same thing for Fannie and Freddie guaranteeing the debt. Sure the market did good, for a few years. Instead of the U.S address the real issue, which is manufacturing products people want better and the world will want more of, we increase consumption with money we don't have to increase the deficit, help destroy the dollar, and pretend we saved jobs. If all these ideas worked so good why doesn't the gov't do it on everything we sell that has a "win-win" to it? Why stop on cars? We already give rebates on housing. This is madness, soon it will end. What makes you think the people that are buying these cars can't afford these cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 What makes you think the people that are buying these cars can't afford these cars? Because they were driving clunkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Because they were driving clunkers. Except 2010 model Bentleys are eligible as trade-ins for the "Cash For Clunkers" program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Retarded. They used up the billion, the program's over. No need to extend it...just fund another billion next year. Hell, make it an annual program: if you've owned your car for at least three years, you get a $4000 credit if you trade it in for a newer model with 10mpg higher gas mileage. Program ends every year when the billion's gone. Missed it? Wait 'til next year. That's actually a long-term economic stimulus, that promotes energy independence, with results that would be cheap at the overall cost. So naturally, there's no way that would happen. DC Tom making sense? What gives? The program is good. Very good post Tom. Although it does seem to bring about 1970's arguements that auto makers are forcing something to become "obsolete." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 No I don't want to prod them with tax money we don't have to buy the cars. Those incentives should come from the car companies themselves. Oh that's right car companies never offer incentives. Guess what, when they do, they sell cars. Remember the incentive to pay what the GM employees pay? That's right car sales went up. They want to pull themselves out the shiitter they fund it. I think we've given enough money to corp America. Aren't you libs the ones always bitching about that? And if it's big ticket items you want to sell why not cash for energy inefficient refrigerators, washer, dryers, water heaters? Oh that's right, the government doesn't own those companies.......yet. Very good point also. The program contradicts everything and it's weird. For every point, there is a counterpoint that is just as compelling. I am always bitching about Corp. American getting all the cash. I don't like the fact that private corporations are being funded with tax payer dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 Apparently you can trade an old clunker for a new clunker like a Hummer. Also 4 of 5 new cars bought were foreign. And last but not least, instead of say, selling the cars to the oil-rich Middle East, where American A/C is prized, they've killed the engines and crushed the cars (after scavenging other parts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Figures And these guys think they can fix health care? right, they failed so much that they succeeded. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Hell, let's do it every year. !@#$ why not every day. a new Matador, a new mastodon, a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego, a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a Meteor, a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu, a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck, a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped, a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebagos we're giving 'em away, Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to: a heated kidney shaped pool, a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook, a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home, a king-size Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum, a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi, real simulated Indian jewelry, a Gucci shoetree, a year's supply of antibiotics, a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number, a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick, Rosemary's baby, a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams, a new Matador, a new mastodon, a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego, a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a Meteor, a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu, a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck, a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped, a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away, or how about a McCulloch chainsaw, a Las Vegas wedding, a Mexican divorce, a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot, or a baby's arm holding an apple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The point is, you accused me of speculating, the truth is that you were talking out of your ass in regards to that. My bad. Let me claify... I used your quote when I probably should have used anothers that made the claim that the program was a failure. In that respect - it's easier to speculate than find someone that did actual research. Except 2010 model Bentleys are eligible as trade-ins for the "Cash For Clunkers" program. You bring up a good point.. I've been too lazy to look up the answer. If you trade in sorry - turn In you car for the "Cash For Clunkers" program, who pays the balance on your car loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 right, they failed so much that they succeeded. Success is a relative term in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The news just reported out of DC is the Senate may limit the next round to people who make less than $50k annually. Guess we know the new definition of rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The news just reported out of DC is the Senate may limit the next round to people who make less than $50k annually. Guess we know the new definition of rich. No, I think you now know the definition of "lower middle class". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 No, I think you now know the definition of "lower middle class". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 No, I think you now know the definition of "lower middle class". No I think we now know the true definition of !@#$ you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 The news just reported out of DC is the Senate may limit the next round to people who make less than $50k annually. Guess we know the new definition of rich. You mean this 2 billion round, or one in the future? This one just passed 60-37 and it had to have no changes to the House bill passed earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 You mean this 2 billion round, or one in the future? This one just passed 60-37 and it had to have no changes to the House bill passed earlier. Future? You mean there's more to come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 You mean this 2 billion round, or one in the future? This one just passed 60-37 and it had to have no changes to the House bill passed earlier. They didn't elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 The news just reported out of DC is the Senate may limit the next round to people who make less than $50k annually. Guess we know the new definition of rich. Apparently it wasn't written in to the bill. They tossed it around, but the lazy bastards were in too much of a hurry to go on vacation to actually bother with amending the legislation. Dumb idea anyway. "Let's encourage people to buy new cars who can't afford the payments!" Did they not learn anything from the collapse of the mortgage market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts