Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Cash for Clunkers Success (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31144)

dellinger63 08-09-2009 01:05 PM

Cash for Clunkers Success
 
Top ten models sold

1: Ford Focus

2: Toyota Corolla

3: Honda Civic

4: Toyota Prius

5: Toyota Camry

6: Ford Escape

7: Hyundai Elantra

8: Dodge Caliber

9: Honda Fit

10: Chevrolet Cobalt

[via CNN Money]

So the program is a success? How? We spent billions to bail out GM and they have one model on the list ranked 10th. We then spend $3 billion to increase sales and Toyota and Honda dominate. Those people who were in the market for a new car no longer are and won't be for at least 5 years. But then the top ten clunkers turned in are ALL American made and of course means less service work for American dealers. Then the clunkers turned in are handed over at least in Chicago to mob controlled outfits to be parted out and scraped. So where's the success? Riot?

Ford F-Series
Ford Explorer
Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Ram
Chevrolet Blazer
Jeep Cherokee
Dodge Grand Caravan
Dodge Dakota
Ford Ranger

Danzig 08-09-2009 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
Top ten models sold

1: Ford Focus

2: Toyota Corolla

3: Honda Civic

4: Toyota Prius

5: Toyota Camry

6: Ford Escape

7: Hyundai Elantra

8: Dodge Caliber

9: Honda Fit

10: Chevrolet Cobalt

[via CNN Money]

So the program is a success? How? We spent billions to bail out GM and they have one model on the list ranked 10th. We then spend $3 billion to increase sales and Toyota and Honda dominate. Those people who were in the market for a new car no longer are and won't be for at least 5 years. But then the top ten clunkers turned in are ALL American made and of course means less service work for American dealers. Then the clunkers turned in are handed over at least in Chicago to mob controlled outfits to be parted out and scraped. So where's the success? Riot?

Ford F-Series
Ford Explorer
Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Ram
Chevrolet Blazer
Jeep Cherokee
Dodge Grand Caravan
Dodge Dakota
Ford Ranger


the govt continues to overstep its bounds with programs like this. again, is the money made from the sales of these cars worth the cost to the american taxpayer? are programs like these paying off in the end? or does it do more harm than good because of the cost incurred? oh, but wait...it's govt money, it's free! :rolleyes:

Riot 08-09-2009 01:31 PM

>> We spent billions to bail out GM and they have one model on the list >>ranked 10th. We then spend $3 billion to increase sales and Toyota and >>Honda dominate.

Damn the American public on their selection choices! Didn't they know they were supposed to buy only crappy cars that get poor gas mileage, even if those cars didn't qualify for the program?

>> But then the top ten clunkers turned in are ALL American made and of course means less service work for American dealers.

Shocking! Gosh darn it - we are Americans, it is our patriotic duty to continue buying crappy clunkers that cost us tons of money in exorbitant gasoline costs, and break down constantly, just to support the car dealers that sell such crap in the first place!

Americans - give them a little freedom to choose, and look what they do with it.

dellinger63 08-09-2009 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
>> We spent billions to bail out GM and they have one model on the list >>ranked 10th. We then spend $3 billion to increase sales and Toyota and >>Honda dominate.

Damn the American public on their selection choices! Didn't they know they were supposed to buy only crappy cars that get poor gas mileage, even if those cars didn't qualify for the program?

>> But then the top ten clunkers turned in are ALL American made and of course means less service work for American dealers.

Shocking! Gosh darn it - we are Americans, it is our patriotic duty to continue buying crappy clunkers that cost us tons of money in exorbitant gasoline costs, and break down constantly, just to support the car dealers that sell such crap in the first place!

Americans - give them a little freedom to choose, and look what they do with it.

Look I'm not faulting the American public at all just this insanely stupid plan. By the way I drive a Hyundai 4WD Sportage and love it. My point is this plan backfired big time!!!

dellinger63 08-09-2009 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
>>, just to support the car dealers that sell such crap in the first place!
Americans - give them a little freedom to choose, and look what they do with it.

No this Administration did that. The average Joe six pack is far wiser than to be buying crap.

Riot 08-09-2009 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
Look I'm not faulting the American public at all just this insanely stupid plan. By the way I drive a Hyundai 4WD Sportage and love it. My point is this plan backfired big time!!!

Backfired big time? How? You didn't even support GM and buy a GM car! How the hell do you think GM got to needing a bailout - due to people like you that bought FOREIGN over AMERICAN!

:D

Riot 08-09-2009 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
No this Administration did that. The average Joe six pack is far wiser than to be buying crap.

Yeah, and you're getting really angry over the average Joe sixpack doing exactly that, posting the cars they DID buy :D

So if you and average Joe sixpack are far wiser than to be buying crappy cars, how is this plan a failure, based upon what YOU posted about why it was a failure? :D

SCUDSBROTHER 08-09-2009 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
Look I'm not faulting the American public at all just this insanely stupid plan. By the way I drive a Hyundai 4WD Sportage and love it. My point is this plan backfired big time!!!

Any possible way to cut down on the amount of gasoline used by Americans is a big success. Right away, these people will be giving less money to the Muslim Scum that fund terror groups. That $5-$10/ tank of gas (that will be left in their wallets) will be spent on something other than paying Muslim Scum in white robes. It's brilliant, and I am not surprised that many Americans are too dense to see it.

dellinger63 08-09-2009 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
Backfired big time? How? You didn't even support GM and buy a GM car! How the hell do you think GM got to needing a bailout - due to people like you that bought FOREIGN over AMERICAN!

:D

You answered the question yourself. GM needed a bailout because they make inferior cars and trucks or crap as you put it. People like me don't like crap. So the President using 'our' money bails out the company making crap, then comes up with a plan to help sell more cars and their competition gets more than the lion's share of 'our' money. GM loses twice both in service work and sales which may have gone to them if a $4500 incentive wasn't there to buy a more expensive Honda or Toyota. Cause some people will buy crap if it's the only thing they can afford.

One point that is missed in all of this are the charitable companies that take 'clunkers' in for a donation, (tax deduction) fix them up and provide them back to people who can't afford a new car with the money made going to charitable causes. It's really not that hard to understand now is it?

Maybe I'm forgetting the hole Hope thing as in you buy a piece of crap and Hope it doesn't break down.

Danzig 08-09-2009 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Any possible way to cut down on the amount of gasoline used by Americans is a big success. Right away, these people will be giving less money to the Muslim Scum that fund terror groups. That $5-$10/ tank of gas (that will be left in their wallets) will be spent on something other than paying Muslim Scum in white robes. It's brilliant, and I am not surprised that many Americans are too dense to see it.


the car companies should have offered the incentive-they could have afforded to do that with their bailout money. now, the govt bails them out, and then offers a rebate on top of it. twice the help at twice the price.

but you're right, anything that takes $ away from those who want to commit acts of terror is a good thing.

dellinger63 08-09-2009 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
Yeah, and you're getting really angry over the average Joe sixpack doing exactly that, posting the cars they DID buy :D

So if you and average Joe sixpack are far wiser than to be buying crappy cars, how is this plan a failure, based upon what YOU posted about why it was a failure? :D

see my last post

SCUDSBROTHER 08-09-2009 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig
the car companies should have offered the incentive-they could have afforded to do that with their bailout money. now, the govt bails them out, and then offers a rebate on top of it. twice the help at twice the price.

but you're right, anything that takes $ away from those who want to commit acts of terror is a good thing.

Well, even if it's done this way, it's still brilliant. Take a 15 mpg car off the road, and replace it with a 25 mpg car. Use 30,000 miles/year, and say $3.50 a gallon for gas. See what happens in 4 years of use. That's over $10k that will be available to be put back into the economy. Even if it's only the clunker discount amount that is returned into the economy, it's still 5k being kept away from terrorist-supporting Muslims. It's a no-brainer. Muhammad is up there in a full-diaper rage. How dare you cut down on the money the non-believers have to give his loyal followers. It's an outrage.



30,000miles/ 25mpg =[1200gallons] x $3.50/gallon=[$4200/year] x 4years =$16.8k

30,000/15 = [2000] x $3.50=$7000 x 4= $28k

Riot 08-09-2009 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig
the car companies should have offered the incentive-they could have afforded to do that with their bailout money. now, the govt bails them out, and then offers a rebate on top of it. twice the help at twice the price.

but you're right, anything that takes $ away from those who want to commit acts of terror is a good thing.

??? The bailout money went for bills owed, to keep those companies out of bankruptcy.

It wasn't extra money given to offer customers rebates.

Riot 08-09-2009 02:50 PM

Quote:

GM loses twice both in service work and sales which may have gone to them if a $4500 incentive wasn't there to buy a more expensive Honda or Toyota. Cause some people will buy crap if it's the only thing they can afford..
:zz: So your position is that people should be forced to buy crap? :rolleyes:

You should be comforted that the socialist takeover of of the auto companies by our government will result in cars that are fuel-efficient and that sell.

Cash for Clunkers is a resounding success. Car dealers have had their best quarters in years. They are running out of new cars - thus the manufacturers have to gear up production. That creates and keeps jobs (the Taurus is coming back, btw) and spreads throughout all the manufacturing and ancillary segments that supports the auto industry (railroad and OTR transport, plastic companies, steel companies, etc)

Crappy old cars that don't get good gas mileage and cost people alot in repairs (you pointed that out) are off the road in favor of new, more mileage-efficient cars that put more money in the pockets of people that own them, year after year, in lowered gas and repair costs.

I see no reason to get angry, as you did, about people buying cars that will break down less, and cost their owners less money as a result. Gives people alot more money in their pockets to spend and help the economy recover.

And those cars are manufactured in the US, thus providing jobs, jobs, jobs.

And as Scuds pointed out, and a major goal of the clunkers program, was that we use less oil as a country, a very good thing, keeps us less dependent upon foreign oil and keeps the cost down by keeping demand down.

Riot 08-09-2009 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Muhammad is up there in a full-diaper rage. How dare you cut down on the money the non-believers have to give his loyal followers. It's an outrage.

Oil producing countries have always pegged Americans for being huge, "live only for today" spenders whether it's heating our homes or driving our Hummers. They don't believe America could or will ever "green up" (even just as you said, by buying a car that gets 10 mpg more than current) and become less dependent upon buying their oil.

Surprise.

And you are right, Scuds - some of our oil money funds terrorists.

SCUDSBROTHER 08-09-2009 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
And as Scuds pointed out, and a major goal of the clunkers program, was that we use less oil as a country, a very good thing, keeps us less dependent upon foreign oil and keeps the cost down by keeping demand down.

OMG. How is this not the most important part? Even the most self-centered Americans can eventually be taught to see the upside of giving Muslims $5-$10 less each time they go to fill up. Even if they hate to help the car industry, there's an even more important aspect. I don't know if the other money spent on programs comes back, but whatever is spent on this program starts coming back into the economy in $5-$10 chips (right away.) People can't see this?

Danzig 08-09-2009 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
??? The bailout money went for bills owed, to keep those companies out of bankruptcy.

It wasn't extra money given to offer customers rebates.


didn't gm declare bankruptcy anyway?

Coach Pants 08-09-2009 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Any possible way to cut down on the amount of gasoline used by Americans is a big success. Right away, these people will be giving less money to the Muslim Scum that fund terror groups. That $5-$10/ tank of gas (that will be left in their wallets) will be spent on something other than paying Muslim Scum in white robes. It's brilliant, and I am not surprised that many Americans are too dense to see it.

Do you believe it will cut down the amount? If so, I've got a bridge I'll sell ya.

Danzig 08-09-2009 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
:zz: So your position is that people should be forced to buy crap? :rolleyes:

You should be comforted that the socialist takeover of of the auto companies by our government will result in cars that are fuel-efficient and that sell.

Cash for Clunkers is a resounding success. Car dealers have had their best quarters in years. They are running out of new cars - thus the manufacturers have to gear up production. That creates and keeps jobs (the Taurus is coming back, btw) and spreads throughout all the manufacturing and ancillary segments that supports the auto industry (railroad and OTR transport, plastic companies, steel companies, etc)

Crappy old cars that don't get good gas mileage and cost people alot in repairs (you pointed that out) are off the road in favor of new, more mileage-efficient cars that put more money in the pockets of people that own them, year after year, in lowered gas and repair costs.

I see no reason to get angry, as you did, about people buying cars that will break down less, and cost their owners less money as a result. Gives people alot more money in their pockets to spend and help the economy recover.

And those cars are manufactured in the US, thus providing jobs, jobs, jobs.

And as Scuds pointed out, and a major goal of the clunkers program, was that we use less oil as a country, a very good thing, keeps us less dependent upon foreign oil and keeps the cost down by keeping demand down.


but it's not just clunkers going off the road. i could trade in my four year old car and get a rebate if i found something that got better mileage. as for saving money....my husbands f-250 is paid for, is only five years old with about 55k miles on it-we don't use it much. so, if i got rid of it, and bought a car that cost me 20k but got ten more miles to the gallon--just how many gallons of gas would i have to buy over how many years to pay back the $20k i spent to get a more fuel efficient ride? depending on what you're trading in, maybe it'll be cost effective. but more often than not, it won't be. but it puts sales on the car co's books, so they can pay off a better dividend to their shareholders at the end of the next quarter.

and i won't be getting rid of the truck, it pulls our bass boat when we go fishing.

herkhorse 08-09-2009 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig
but it's not just clunkers going off the road. i could trade in my four year old car and get a rebate if i found something that got better mileage. as for saving money....my husbands f-250 is paid for, is only five years old with about 55k miles on it-we don't use it much. so, if i got rid of it, and bought a car that cost me 20k but got ten more miles to the gallon--just how many gallons of gas would i have to buy over how many years to pay back the $20k i spent to get a more fuel efficient ride? depending on what you're trading in, maybe it'll be cost effective. but more often than not, it won't be. but it puts sales on the car co's books, so they can pay off a better dividend to their shareholders at the end of the next quarter.

and i won't be getting rid of the truck, it pulls our bass boat when we go fishing.

If your car or truck is worth more than 4500.00, it makes no sense to trade it in for cash for clunkers because that is all you get.

Danzig 08-09-2009 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by herkhorse
If your car or truck is worth more than 4500.00, it makes no sense to trade it in for cash for clunkers because that is all you get.

right, no trade in because of the requirement that the vehicle be destroyed....i guess using my truck was a bad example.

SCUDSBROTHER 08-09-2009 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants
Do you believe it will cut down the amount? If so, I've got a bridge I'll sell ya.


Anyone else think it won't play a part in reducing the amount of gas used by Americans? Join coach's club of f'n brilliance.

JJP 08-09-2009 11:13 PM

Guess what vehicles are still eligible to be bought in this program? Yukons, Hummers and Suburbans. So much for less gas being used.

The real problem with this program is that its just taking away sales that figured to happen 6 months or a year or two down the line. So we'll see a short term jump in auto sales but in 2010 they will fall again. Right in time for us to re-enter a recessionary period again.

SCUDSBROTHER 08-10-2009 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJP
Guess what vehicles are still eligible to be bought in this program? Yukons, Hummers and Suburbans. So much for less gas being used.

These are the models you can trade in. They are maily trucks n' SUVs from the 90's. Some medium to large cars also.

http://www.edmunds.com/cash-for-clun...-vehicles.html

In all situations involved, there WILL be gas saved. You can't trade a light truck (or a car) in to buy a Hummer. You would have to trade something in that's even worse than a Hummer. It can't cost more than 45k. You must upgrade your mpg, and/or efficiency(cleaner.) Don't you think people trading in a heavy SUV are going to be more interested in saving $4500 on a 20k car than on a 44k truck? Remember that the value of what your trading in is gunna be more likely to be worth less if it's smaller than the types you mentioned. Think about what you're saying. O.K.? If you have some massive SUV from the 90's, you can save 20-25% off the price of a car, or 10% off of the price of another big gas guzzler(one that's not quite as wasteful as the one you're trading in.) All the incentive is aimed at trading in that big SUV for something with much better gas mileage. If you want to only save 10% on the price, then be my guest. You gunna rush to do that? If you do, it's still a small savings in gas. They are not gunna give you a $4500 discount if you don't improve the gas efficiency(if you only save slightly on the mpg, you'll also only save about 10% on the price of something big like that.)


New car has to cost less than 45k.

Min. Fuel Economy for New Vehicle Passenger Car =22 mpg ..to get $3500 voucher need 4 mpg Mileage improvement....for $4500 voucher need an improvement of 10 mpg

min. fuel economy for Light-Duty Truck (under 6k lbs)= 18 mpg..to get $3500 voucher need 2 mpg Mileage improvement....for $4500 voucher need an improvement of 5 mpg

min fuel economy for Large Light-Duty Trucks(6k - 8.5k lbs)= 15 mpg..to get $3500 voucher need 1 mpg Mileage improvement....for $4500 voucher need an improvement of 2 mpg

Commercial trucks(8.5k - 10k lbs)= n/a Trade-in must be at least pre-2002

SCUDSBROTHER 08-10-2009 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
So where's the success?

OMG. O.K...Look at the mpg these most being traded in are getting:

Ford F-Series
Ford Explorer
Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Ram
Chevrolet Blazer
Jeep Cherokee
Dodge Grand Caravan
Dodge Dakota
Ford Ranger

Now how many mpg are the following getting?

1: Ford Focus
2: Toyota Corolla
3: Honda Civic
4: Toyota Prius
5: Toyota Camry
6: Ford Escape
7: Hyundai Elantra
8: Dodge Caliber
9: Honda Fit
10: Chevrolet Cobalt

Seriously? You're asking where the savings is? Gas, sir. A lot of it. That's a Government program that's working nicely to save gas. It maybe the smartest American Government program ever. Giving people an incentive to trade in gas guzzlers, and buy gas savers? Yea, it's a total no-brainer. Somebody was thinking.

Danzig 08-10-2009 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJP
Guess what vehicles are still eligible to be bought in this program? Yukons, Hummers and Suburbans. So much for less gas being used.

The real problem with this program is that its just taking away sales that figured to happen 6 months or a year or two down the line. So we'll see a short term jump in auto sales but in 2010 they will fall again. Right in time for us to re-enter a recessionary period again.

i thought they had to have a fairly high mpg?

SCUDSBROTHER 08-10-2009 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig
i thought they had to have a fairly high mpg?

If they want to get $4500 off a Hummer, then they have to trade in something that gets worse mpg than a Hummer gets. That's important.

Even if you have something as bad on gas as a Hummer, the model of Hummer you could buy has to cost less than 45k. Why would you want 10% off ($4500 of 45k) of something when you can get 20-25% off of a car that costs 18-25k? You can see the list Dell put up. They trading in big trucks n' SUVs, but buying 25 mpg cars(not Hummers.) They probably allow people to trade in something big(poor mpg) to buy something big (only a little tiny improvement in mpg) because it allows people a lot of freedom to do what they want, but all the incentives are naturally encouraging them to buy something smaller. You want to pay 40k for a lousy Hummer model, or pay 15-20k for a 20-25k priced car? It's your choice, but only if you've got something from the 90's as bad on gas as a Hummer. People aren't gunna be able to trade a '99 Monte Carlo in for a $4500 voucher towards a Hummer. They have to buy something 10 mpg better than the Monte Carlo (if they want the $4500.)

Coach Pants 08-10-2009 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Anyone else think it won't play a part in reducing the amount of gas used by Americans? Join coach's club of f'n brilliance.

Yes exchanging a car for 1 mpg improvement is going to dramatically reduce emissions. Forget the fact that people drive more when they get a new car.

Dur. It's like I'm talking to someone smoking bones.

dellinger63 08-10-2009 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Well, even if it's done this way, it's still brilliant. Take a 15 mpg car off the road, and replace it with a 25 mpg car. Use 30,000 miles/year, and say $3.50 a gallon for gas. See what happens in 4 years of use. That's over $10k that will be available to be put back into the economy. Even if it's only the clunker discount amount that is returned into the economy, it's still 5k being kept away from terrorist-supporting Muslims. It's a no-brainer. Muhammad is up there in a full-diaper rage. How dare you cut down on the money the non-believers have to give his loyal followers. It's an outrage.



30,000miles/ 25mpg =[1200gallons] x $3.50/gallon=[$4200/year] x 4years =$16.8k

30,000/15 = [2000] x $3.50=$7000 x 4= $28k

only problem is people drive 12K miles a year on average and gas at least here is $2.80/gallon

so 12,000 miles/25mpg = 480 gallons x $2.80/gallon= $1300/year X 4 years= $5,200

12,000 miles/15mpg = 800 gallons x $2.80/gallon= $2240/year x 4 years= $8,960

a savings of $3,760 over 4 years.

I'm not saying that cutting consumption is a bad thing and I love the fact we'll be less reliant on arab and venezuelan oil but people we're going to make the change to more efficient cars on their own without being bribed using tax payer money with only a small fraction being used on G.M. products. The real benefactors in this were Toyota and Honda.

GM and Ford continue to make crap sans their trucks (ever drive a Cobalt or Focus?)

Cannon Shell 08-10-2009 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Anyone else think it won't play a part in reducing the amount of gas used by Americans? Join coach's club of f'n brilliance.

I dont think it will so I am a member of the club.

Cannon Shell 08-10-2009 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
OMG. O.K...Look at the mpg these most being traded in are getting:

Ford F-Series
Ford Explorer
Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Ram
Chevrolet Blazer
Jeep Cherokee
Dodge Grand Caravan
Dodge Dakota
Ford Ranger

Now how many mpg are the following getting?

1: Ford Focus
2: Toyota Corolla
3: Honda Civic
4: Toyota Prius
5: Toyota Camry
6: Ford Escape
7: Hyundai Elantra
8: Dodge Caliber
9: Honda Fit
10: Chevrolet Cobalt

Seriously? You're asking where the savings is? Gas, sir. A lot of it. That's a Government program that's working nicely to save gas. It maybe the smartest American Government program ever. Giving people an incentive to trade in gas guzzlers, and buy gas savers? Yea, it's a total no-brainer. Somebody was thinking.

Yeah except now people with the new cars will drive them more!

SCUDSBROTHER 08-10-2009 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I dont think it will so I am a member of the club.

Shocking..

SCUDSBROTHER 08-10-2009 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Yeah except now people with the new cars will drive them more!


Sure...Brilliance indeed...They are all gunna pleasure drive the gas savings away...If you can't come up with a good argument, just sell a foolish one. They will buy anything in here (if you appear confident.)

dellinger63 08-10-2009 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
Sure...Brilliance indeed...They are all gunna pleasure drive the gas savings away...If you can't come up with a good argument, just sell a foolish one. They will buy anything in here (if you appear confident.)

yea like the dems thinking the following is possitive proof the economy is improving

Bailouts for financial firms and billions in tax revenue lost because of the recession drove the deficit to a record $1.3 trillion in July, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Tax receipts that have fallen due to the poor economy and increased spending to save car companies, banks and mortgage firms were major contributors to the federal deficit, according to CBO, which provides official budget numbers for Congress. The federal deficit grew by another $181 billion in July.

Spending through July of 2009 has increased by $530 billion, which is 21 percent over the same period in 2008. The bailout money for banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae accounted for almost half of the spending increase. Unemployment benefits have more than doubled, Medicaid spending has grown by a quarter and Medicare spending has increased by 11 percent.

Tax revenue for the first three quarters of 2009 has fallen by approximately $350 billion, or 17 percent compared to the same period last year, due mostly to the effects of the recession on payroll, income and corporate taxes. A third of the decline is due to tax breaks in the stimulus, including the middle-class tax cut that President Obama campaigned on during last year's election.

The independent budget scorekeeper has projected the deficit to reach $1.8 trillion by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The deficit in 2008 reached $455 billion, which was a record at the time.


is the goal to increase the deficit cause if it is they're doing a heck of a job?

Beating the previous record set by Bush by 395% is something to be proud of and we haven't even seen the effect this healthcare bill and cap and trade will be. Maybe the goal is 1000%.

gales0678 08-10-2009 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
yea like the dems thinking the following is possitive proof the economy is improving

Bailouts for financial firms and billions in tax revenue lost because of the recession drove the deficit to a record $1.3 trillion in July, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Tax receipts that have fallen due to the poor economy and increased spending to save car companies, banks and mortgage firms were major contributors to the federal deficit, according to CBO, which provides official budget numbers for Congress. The federal deficit grew by another $181 billion in July.

Spending through July of 2009 has increased by $530 billion, which is 21 percent over the same period in 2008. The bailout money for banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae accounted for almost half of the spending increase. Unemployment benefits have more than doubled, Medicaid spending has grown by a quarter and Medicare spending has increased by 11 percent.

Tax revenue for the first three quarters of 2009 has fallen by approximately $350 billion, or 17 percent compared to the same period last year, due mostly to the effects of the recession on payroll, income and corporate taxes. A third of the decline is due to tax breaks in the stimulus, including the middle-class tax cut that President Obama campaigned on during last year's election.

The independent budget scorekeeper has projected the deficit to reach $1.8 trillion by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The deficit in 2008 reached $455 billion, which was a record at the time.


is the goal to increase the deficit cause if it is they're doing a heck of a job?

Beating the previous record set by Bush by 395% is something to be proud of and we haven't even seen the effect this healthcare bill and cap and trade will be. Maybe the goal is 1000%.



dell you're not going to convince anyone that this isn't bush's fault because people just like to keep on the blinders ..... jeb will be ready in '12

SCUDSBROTHER 08-10-2009 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
yea like the dems thinking the following is possitive proof the economy is improving

I'm talking about this Cash for Clunkers. You guys are way off on this. Any way to get people into the models of gas-saving cars (that you listed 1 thru 10) is terrific. It's almost like any loyal CONSERVATIVE/ LIBERTARIAN etc. is afraid we're gunna cut down on the gas we use. I can feel the fear in the desperately drawn up arguments being made. The fear of success is pretty obvious.

dellinger63 08-10-2009 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
I'm talking about this Cash for Clunkers. You guys are way off on this. Any way to get people into the models of gas-saving cars (that you listed 1 thru 10) is terrific. It's almost like any loyal CONSERVATIVE/ LIBERTARIAN etc. is afraid we're gunna cut down on the gas we use. I can feel the fear in the desperately drawn up arguments being made. The fear of success is pretty obvious.

I was referring to your statement "If you can't come up with a good argument, just sell a foolish one. They will buy anything in here (if you appear confident.)"

Kind of like the quote by Joe Biden listed as my signature

dellinger63 08-10-2009 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gales0678
dell you're not going to convince anyone that this isn't bush's fault because people just like to keep on the blinders ..... jeb will be ready in '12

Marty I thnk I may have heard our candidate speak last night on CSPAN. His name is Herman Cain and doesn't he look Presidential?


Smooth Operator 08-10-2009 04:45 PM

He looks like one of my old hs b-ball coaches.



Jeb and Herman, eh





Somehow I don't think BO is quivering in fear ... lol

dellinger63 08-10-2009 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator
He looks like one of my old hs b-ball coaches.



Jeb and Herman, eh





Somehow I don't think BO is quivering in fear ... lol


that's racist LOL


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.