Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on August 27, 2009, 09:17:19 AM
-
Big winners in Cash for Clunkers: Toyota, Honda, and Nissan; Update: Parts business big losers?posted at 8:48 am on August 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Obama administration spent three billion dollars subsidizing the destruction of 700,000 vehicles in order to boost car sales. Which auto makers actually benefited from these American tax subsidies? Reuters reports that foreign car manufacturers gained market share, while the two bailed-out American automakers lost significant portions of theirs in the big summer sale. Only Ford managed to hold its own:
Transportation Department figures on the “clunkers” incentive, which offered consumers up to $4,500 when they traded in their older vehicles for more fuel efficient new models, showed on Wednesday that total sales amounted to just under 700,000 with $2.87 billion in rebates. …
According to the figures, Toyota’s “clunkers” market share was 19.4 percent, compared with its year-to-date U.S. share through July of 17 percent. Honda captured 13 percent of the “clunkers” market compared with 11 percent for the first seven months of the year.
Nissan accounted for nearly 9 percent of “clunkers” sales compared with a January-July share of 7 percent. Hyundai was the biggest winner with a 7 percent share compared with 3 percent for the year through July.
Ford’s “clunkers” sales topped 14 percent, compared with a 15 percent share for the year through July. GM reported 17 percent of “clunkers” business compared with 21 percent from January to July. Chrysler’s “clunkers” share was 6.6 percent, compared with 11 percent otherwise.
Ford had the only two American-made vehicles in the top 10 models sold in Cash for Clunkers. Toyota and Honda both had three, while Nissan and Hyundai both had one each. Two of Toyota’s entries were in the top three, the Corolla and the Camry.
Why did GM and Chrysler, both owned in part by the same government that launched C4C, do so poorly? In part, they didn’t have cars to sell. Both GM and Chrysler had curtailed their production during their bankruptcies but had worked to have inventory ready for the new sales year.
By launching C4C in the middle of the summer, when most dealers are already cutting prices to move inventory off the lot, the administration practically guaranteed that C4C would leave them on the sidelines. Chrysler had the worst inventory problems, but GM also had serious inventory issues. Ford, which didn’t take the bailout, had continued production and had inventory ready to sell.
Shouldn’t the owner of GM and Chrysler had known this? Didn’t anyone on the Auto Task Force — say, Ron Bloom, the auto czar with no automaking experience — bother to check whether their companies were ready to compete in this program, and whether July was a smart time to launch this even apart from that? This is what happens when government enters the private sector; it makes decisions based on politics rather than sound business sense, and it picks leaders based on cronyism and political payoffs rather than expertise and competence.
Update: Commenter Daft Punk lists the top ten models destroyed in C4C:
Ford Explorer 4WD
Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
Ford Explorer 2WD
Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
Jeep Cherokee 4WD
Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
Ford Windstar FWD Van
All of these are American models. Now, what happens to the companies that make parts for these cars? Under normal circumstances, people would replace parts as they fail while keeping the cars on the road. Suddenly, the after-market parts industry has 700,000 fewer cars for maintenance. And since Americans mainly traded American cars for foreign vehicles, that parts market will not bounce back for years.
________________________ ________________
What a complete disaster.
-
no shit
Chyrysler was in BK (how many dealers closed) and both Chrylers and GM make the cars that people don't want
why are you acting so suprised
-
no shit
Chyrysler was in BK (how many dealers closed) and both Chrylers and GM make the cars that people don't want
why are you acting so suprised
I'm not, I fully expect the govt to be a complete incompetent mess in everything it does.
-
I'm not, I fully expect the govt to be a complete incompetent mess in everything it does.
yeah - we get that about you already
maybe we should dismantle the US since it suck so much and can't do anything right
-
yeah - we get that about you already
maybe we should dismantle the US since it suck so much and can't do anything right
It should stick to what it is supposed to do under the constitution and thats it.
-
It should stick to what it is supposed to do under the constitution and thats it.
So you think we should give back all lands gained in the Louisiana Purchase?
-
It should stick to what it is supposed to do under the constitution and thats it.
was there anything in the constitution about having military bases and soldiers stationed all over the world?
was there anything in there about protecting consumers (a concept that didn't even exist at the time) from hazerdous practices and products.
anything about safe working conditions and practices for workers (weren't we mostly farmer and ranchers back then).
etc...
-
was there anything in the constitution about having military bases and soldiers stationed all over the world?
was there anything in there about protecting consumers (a concept that didn't even exist at the time) from hazerdous practices and products.
anything about safe working conditions and practices for workers (weren't we mostly farmer and ranchers back then).
etc...
Where does it end Straw? Tell me, what is your limit?
And no, we should not be the worlds' cop.
-
The purchase was a vital moment in the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. At the time, it faced domestic opposition as being possibly unconstitutional. Although he felt that the US Constitution did not contain any provisions for acquiring territory, Jefferson decided to purchase Louisiana because he felt uneasy about France and Spain having the power to block American trade access to the port of New Orleans.
33333666,
Do you want to give back all lands from the Louisiana Purchase? If not, why?
-
The purchase was a vital moment in the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. At the time, it faced domestic opposition as being possibly unconstitutional. Although he felt that the US Constitution did not contain any provisions for acquiring territory, Jefferson decided to purchase Louisiana because he felt uneasy about France and Spain having the power to block American trade access to the port of New Orleans.
33333666,
Do you want to give back all lands from the Louisiana Purchase? If not, why?
Typical Straw man argument, but this thread is about C4C and what a disaster that was.
I have to look at the history behind the purchase and will get back you on it. So my answer is no.
-
Where does it end Straw? Tell me, what is your limit?
And no, we should not be the worlds' cop.
I don't recall anything in the constitution that says children should go to school and I dont' recall anything about restricting child labor
Why should the govt get in the way if poor people want me to employee their kids for a pittance and make them work 12 hours a day
It's free country dammit. Don't sap my American Spirit
-
Typical Straw man argument, but this thread is about C4C and what a disaster that was.
I have to look at the history behind the purchase and will get back you on it. So my answer is no.
Its not at all.
Thomas Jefferson thought it was Unconstitutional and would not have any mention of the Louisiana Purchase as an accomplishment on his headstone. He went to the grave bothered by his purchase.
He knew he subverted the Constitution and that it in no way provided him with any authority to acquire lands.
You want to contend that we follow what the Constitution explicitly says or provides for, therefore you have to concede the largest land purchase in history, the Louisiana Purchase.
Again, do you think the United States should give this land up?
-
It should stick to what it is supposed to do under the constitution and thats it.
333 - you're the one that entered the constitution into the argument as a reason against C4C so questions on that subject are a valid part of the discussion (IMO)
-
Furthermore, some argue that Lincoln mobilizing troops and fighting the Civil War was Unconstitutional.
Lincoln cited the oath of the Presidency in his justification for doing so, NOT the Constitution.
So I guess you are one of those people who think the Civil War was Unconstitutional and should not have been fought, letting the chips fall where they may.
-
Furthermore, some argue that Lincoln mobilizing troops and fighting the Civil War was Unconstitutional.
Lincoln cited the oath of the Presidency in his justification for doing so, NOT the Constitution.
So I guess you are one of those people who think the Civil War was Unconstitutional and should not have been fought, letting the chips fall where they may.
In his oath as President he swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States
-
In his oath as President he swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States
Exactly which is why many at the time thought his justification was Unconstitutional since there was nothing in the Constitution that explicitly allowed Lincoln this option.
Do you think the Louisiana Purchase should be repealed because there was nothing at all in the Constitution that allowed Jefferson to purchase these lands?
-
Exactly which is why many at the time thought his justification was Unconstitutional since there was nothing in the Constitution that explicitly allowed Lincoln this option.
Do you think the Louisiana Purchase should be repealed because there was nothing at all in the Constitution that allowed Jefferson to purchase these lands?
Well actually I'm Native American, so yes I think all you white devils should give me the land and go back to Europe.
-
Well actually I'm Native American, so yes I think all you white devils should give me the land and go back to Europe.
Native Americans do not have to live under the United States Constitution at all if they choose. What tribe are you?
-
Native Americans do not have to live under the United States Constitution at all if they choose. What tribe are you?
Lakota
-
Lakota
Your people seceded from the entire United States over a year ago, almost two. Your people do not recognize the United States Constitution nor any single treaty made with the United States nor do they allow United States citizens to be a part of their nation. You must renounce United States citizenship entirely to be a part of their nation.
Are you a traitor to your people since you come on here and try defend the Constitution?
-
Your people seceded from the entire United States over a year ago, almost two. Your people do not recognize the United States Constitution nor any single treaty made with the United States nor do they allow United States citizens to be a part of their nation. You must renounce United States citizenship entirely to be a part of their nation.
Are you a traitor to your people since you come on here and try defend the Constitution?
So what? You think I live on a fucking reservation? Ok Hitler Youth, don't ever pretend you know anything about the Lakota people.
I defend the constituion just fine, you just have to go off on a 1000 different tangents of shit that happened 200 years ago.
-
So what? You think I live on a fucking reservation? Ok Hitler Youth, don't ever pretend you know anything about the Lakota people.
I defend the constituion just fine, you just have to go off on a 1000 different tangents of shit that happened 200 years ago.
So you disagree with the Louisiana Purchase since there is no Constitutional justification for a President to purchase land without the consent of congress?
-
So what? You think I live on a fucking reservation? Ok Hitler Youth, don't ever pretend you know anything about the Lakota people.
I defend the constituion just fine, you just have to go off on a 1000 different tangents of shit that happened 200 years ago.
Oh so passage of time makes everything justified. I see. So anything done now will be justified as long as 200 years passes.
-
Oh so passage of time makes everything justified. I see. So anything done now will be justified as long as 200 years passes.
Where is your line TA?
I have never heard you be in favor of even one restraint of the govt powers, even once.
-
So you disagree with the Louisiana Purchase since there is no Constitutional justification for a President to purchase land without the consent of congress?
No i agree with it, there are extenuating circumstances as to why Jefferson felt he needed to do it. You know like having a world power like France sitting in your back yard with the ability to cut off you ability to export goods. But I guess he could have just done it the old fashioned way, let France cut the US off an go to war over Louisiana.
-
No i agree with it, there are extenuating circumstances as to why Jefferson felt he needed to do it. You know like having a world power like France sitting in your back yard with the ability to cut off you ability to export goods. But I guess he could have just done it the old fashioned way, let France cut the US off an go to war over Louisiana.
So then you agree that something does not have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution in order for it to be carried out justly. This is in total contradiction to what you have been spouting for weeks. (Where does it say xxxx in the Constitution. We should just follow what is in the Constitution and nothing more)
Oh well. You like to have it both ways, don`t you?
-
So then you agree that something does not have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution in order for it to be carried out justly. This is in total contradiction to what you have been spouting for weeks. (Where does it say xxxx in the Constitution. We should just follow what is in the Constitution and nothing more)
Oh well. You like to have it both ways, don`t you?
There is nothing I can do about what happened 200 years ago, but I can voice my opinion about the here and now. You think you are really clever don't you?
-
Where is your line TA?
I have never heard you be in favor of even one restraint of the govt powers, even once.
Of course I am. I am against wire-tapping, imprisonment without habeas corpus, military draft and conscription, illegal wars based on faulty evidence, imprisonment under the Espionage Act.....I could name a whole host of things.
-
TA - this thread is about Cars for Clunkers.
Are you saying the C4C can be justified along the same lines as the Louisiana purchase?
-
There is nothing I can do about what happened 200 years ago, but I can voice my opinion about the here and now. You think you are really clever don't you?
I am just using your words against you, that is all. You like to have things both ways without even realizing it.
-
Of course I am. I am against wire-tapping, imprisonment without habeas corpus, military draft and conscription, illegal wars based on faulty evidence, imprisonment under the Espionage Act.....I could name a whole host of things.
Yet you have no problem allowing the govt to impose al sorts of restrictive regulations on people and businesses with regard to finances, gun control, health care, etc?
-
TA - this thread is about Cars for Clunkers.
Are you saying the C4C can be justified along the same lines as the Louisiana purchase?
Cash4Clunkers is in no way a subversion of the Constitution or questionable by any means and is justified under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;/b]
Giving the Executive power to purchase lands without the consent of Congress is not however justified by the Constitution specifically and does deviate from the power entrusted to the Executive.
Remember that Congress always controls the purse strings. Jefferson bypassed Congress totally.
-
Yet you have no problem allowing the govt to impose al sorts of restrictive regulations on people and businesses with regard to finances, gun control, health care, etc?
Depends on the regulation, where and how it is applied.
-
Article 1, Section 9
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
-
;)