39 thoughts on “Cash For Clunkers; Screw the Poor”

    1. Better to have done nothing than screw things up in a different way. You heard the first rumbling of this occurring during the program when folks complained about having the junk perfectly good engines and other parts that could have been resold.Report

    1. Perhaps we could lobby for the government to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay you to write an essay explaining how Cash for Clunkers was supposed to work in theory and how Republicans screwed it up and kept it from working the way it was supposed to.Report

  5. Could we get a working definition of “concern trolling”?

    The cynical definition I used to have is “not being on board despite claims to lifelong party membership” but don’t see how that definition applies as used above.Report

    1. Can we table that discussion by agreeing to convert “smug concern-trolling” to “snotty smugness”? It doesn’t really matter what you call it; it remains the fact that this place has been a crushing bore today for anyone who deviates even slightly from the conservative economic line.Report

        1. No, this is Ryan’s version of, “Please say something interesting because I’m getting bored listening to everyone always regurgitating talking points.” I didn’t accuse anyone of any kind of moral weakness.Report

          2. Talking points?

            Argh, that’s a tactic I hate. “You don’t really have this position, you’re just repeating it.”

            Here’s what I wrote wayback when:
            http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/the-unintended-consequences-of-economic-populism/

            That’s July.

            Go to the bottom half of the page… that’s where my essays are.

            I wrote those. Myself. They are not “talking points”.

            Jesus Christ.

            Do you believe that it is theoretically *POSSIBLE* to honestly come to a conclusion other than the one you’ve come to? Do you really think that the people who don’t agree with you are in some sort of conspiracy where one guy comes up with something to say and hands it out and everybody else starts parroting it?Report

            1. It’s also worth nothing that you were right about shifting sales forward.

              Though in a purely misery loves company sense, I love that the nation is using California-esque gimmicks ala Cash for Clunker.Report

              1. I read somewhere that we could have spent the same amount of money as the stimulus by just not collecting income taxes for a fixed period of time with the added bonus of having multipliers throughout the economy.

                Wouldacouldashoulda.Report

    2. The cynical definition I used to have is “not being on board despite claims to lifelong party membership” but don’t see how that definition applies as used above.

      Hm. My working definition is ‘pretending to fret that some action of members of party A might turn out to hurt party A, when in fact the fretter is opposed to party A’.

      But I think we’ve reached the point where ‘glibertarian concern troll’ has become the non plus ultra of content-free political insults. I intend to employ it slavishly. “Noted glibertarian concern-troll E.D. Kain opines. . ‘ etc. Good times.Report

      1. Can opposition to Cash 4 Clunkerz be, like, opposition to money being spent poorly?

        I mean, if I am a Secret Republican Operative (or SRO), and I show up and scream about spending money that won’t be spent well or wisely or usefully and scream about how it’s going to end up doing more harm than good and then when the money turns out to not have been spent well or wisely or usefully and, yep, it looks like more harm was done than good, painting that as something that only someone opposed to the Democrats would focus on strikes me as… well, it strikes me as a pretty goddamn effective way to change the subject.

        Hrm. I may have to rethink this.Report

        1. Was that intended as a reply to me? I wasn’t accusing anyone of being a concern troll. I thought we were having a conversation about vapid political insults.

          I don’t have an opinion, at all, about Cash for Clunkers, because the only thing I know about it is that my 70K Subaru Outback didn’t qualify, and that if it would have I’m slightly more likely to have bought a new VW Rabbit. Which might make me a glibertarian. I really don’t know. My opinion of your opinion of Cash for Clunkers is that I approve of your having it and it seems well thought out.Report

      2. Hm. My working definition is ‘pretending to fret that some action of members of party A might turn out to hurt party A, when in fact the fretter is opposed to party A’.

        That’s how I see it.

        The jaw dropper for me on concern trolling was Joe Klein and Fox News. I mean, did he really have to use the term sedition? That was just nuts.Report

  6. The effect on Cash for Clunkers for thrifty used cars should be minimal. Those typically get above 18mph and thus are not among those being destroyed. They shouldn’t be driving the prices up except on used cars that were getting poor mileage which tend to either be bigger vehicles or muscular ones. Not cars that were selling for $2500 in yesteryear.Report

  8. The funny thing is that prices of used vehicles have been increasing for over a year. While it would be convenient to blame cash for clunkers, the real reason is much more mundane: during recessions there is a substitution from new cars to late model used cars in an effort to save money.Report

      1. In a small segment of the used car market, perhaps. The “late model used cars” weren’t eligible for C4C, so not much effect there. If anything, C4C helped by pushing people to buy new cars and thus lowering the demand for LMU and creating a greater supply for used cars.

        For old used cars, the effect is likely primarily limited to those vehicles available for C4C, which doesn’t really include the “college cars” (as I understand them to be) referred to in the article. The only effect on small old used cars is a cascading effect of people buying an Escort when otherwise they might have bought a Taurus (the latter eligible for C4C, but the former not).Report

    2. I should have just looked at the original. It was an anecdote from a couple looking to buy a minivan. What a joke! As if anyone should expect them to have any sort of expertise on what is “expensive” or what things were like compared to a year ago. Back when I sold cars, they were all too expensive. The final deal was always “more than I expected to pay.”Report

  9. My father and I bought a used car earlier this year, from CarMax. It was a GM, a year-old post-rental Chevrolet Cobalt with a lot of options (pretty much everything but a spoiler, chrome wheels, and Sirius XM). It was less than $11,000, and gets about 30 mpg average. The payments are only about $115 a month, comparable to my summer electric bill.

    I agree that it wasn’t such a great policy (it certainly could have been structured better), but I’m with Trumwill. IMO the biggest reason for an increase in the (upfront) cost of used cars is that crappy cars are worth less. You would end up paying enough more on gas and maintenance to make up the difference, especially since just about nobody (especially the poor-but-not-too-poor-to-afford-a-car) pays the whole thing upfront.Report

Comments are closed.

Related Stories

On Ad Hominems Part 1: The Messy World

gabriel conroy August 7, 2016 76

The Pain of Tradition

Mike Dwyer November 25, 2015 13
johndaquan

The Montauk Catamaran Company Chronicles 10/23/15: Well begun is half done…?

David Ryan October 23, 2015 5

You may have missed

blueprincemenu

Saturday Morning Gaming: Blue Prince

Jaybird April 26, 2025 2
2025-04-25 TDoRS C5118 (04.29.17)

The First Barefoot of the Season

Clare Briggs April 25, 2025
Bradstreet Window

POETS Day! Anne Bradstreet

Ben Sears April 25, 2025
1903_World_Series_-_Boston_Americans

Series! Recap of World Series of the 1900s

Mike Schilling April 25, 2025