Ron Paul: Cash for Clunkers hurts the poor

Amazing points by Ron Paul in this video....and something that I did not realize initially either. I was a bit angry over the whole cash and clunkers thing only because it helped people who bought gas guzzlers and not everyone else...which isn't really fair to those who can't use the program....but there's more to it than that.....watch.

reply to post by David9176


"Giving these poor people houses with Affirmative action housing" is just about where he lost me.

He also seems to think the government's interest should be in turning a profit for itself.

All I can say is thank goodness this man does absolutely nothing in Congress.

Thank you very much for that. It makes good sense. I know I couldn't go out and get a new car, but that's probably a good thing. I can't afford it. He makes a lot of sense.

Oh please. What utter nonsense, as usual.
Is there suddenly a shortage of used cars and parts? Are cars now unavailablt to the poor because of this program?
It's unfair to poor people that have...bad credit?
Yeah, we don't want to stimulate sales do we? Stimulate credit? Try to preserve manufacturing jobs.NOOOOO! That's too big brother for RP!
Let's make sure consumer confidence doesn't go up.
Oh, and never mind the whole program is voluntary.
Evil mind control is what Obama uses to make people want to trade in their cars for newer ones.
Honestly, how much space is wasted on ATS by knee jerk reactions.

Why is it that congressmen and women refer to the government as them instead of we? They speak as if they are not part of the system.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

Let me break this down for those people who didn't understand what Dr. Paul was talking about.

So this Cash for Clunkers program gives you a tax credit on a new (fuel efficient) vehicle based on what your previous car was. To even qualify for this program your car cannot be anymore than 25 years old, it has to run, has to be licensed and insured, it has to get less than 22 mpg (18 mpg for the full 4500). Now the cars mileage or condition have nothing to do with how much you get for it.

The problem with this program mirrors the Real Estate market before the crash last year. The government is inflating a car buying bubble by lending cheap money for people to go into debt and buy a car they cannot afford.
You are trading in a car that cost you maybe 2k and getting 4500 down on a car that costs 14k+. So now you have 9500 dollars in debt you didn't have before.

The problem with this program is these cars on the road A) work B) Can only be from 1984 or newer C) aren't even rated on condition or miles which really should count. So your not even getting rid of the clunkers from the 70's and earlier 80's which were complete pieces of you know what.

I have a car a 1997 Toyota Corolla and it has 261,000 miles on it and it doesn't work. I have a 1967 Mustang with 107,000 miles and it works. Because of the poor gas mileage of the Mustang this bill says technically the Mustang is a "clunker"... yet it's more dependable and has less miles... weird.


[edit on 4-8-2009 by asmall89]

No "bubble: being created here.
First, loans are offered to qualifed buyers only. BIG huge difference between a 600k home loan and a 20k car loan
Second, a "bubble" is created when something is over valued.
Car prices do not fluctuate like real estate, they do not change month to month
because of a resale market
This is nothing more than a sales incentive, like cash back or zero %.
It makes no sense to say "the poor" are discriminated against because there are things they cannot afford! Am I discriminated against because I can't afford a Rolls? Ron Paul is a knucklehead.

You also make the assumption that people are buying a car "they can't afford".You don't know that to be true.
You also site $9500 in debt. Thats really not much money. Maybe to very young people, but not to most over 30.
I'm really sick of the adoration of RP on this site. People treat every word he says as gold, but he's really just a crank super far right Republican.
Only in Texas!

Hell, by the some of this pictures I've seen these 'clunkers' are way better then my clunker! Also any amount of debt is too much when your job has been lost and your savings raped. Cash for clunkers is a joke.

I didn't hear anything here that I haven't already reasoned out and said on my own since the program began. Matter of fact, I've brought out aspects that RP didn't even address.

He didn't address the insanity of destroying the engines of the trade-ins.

But it's good to hear another pol talking about it - others have said the same things.

by OldDragger
First, loans are offered to qualifed buyers only. BIG huge difference between a 600k home loan and a 20k car loan

Correct. I've heard that buyers must have a minimum credit score of 700.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by jsobecky]

reply to post by jsobecky


True jsobecky. Another thing that isn't talked about is that while this may make the "numbers" look better on the books for the short term....these are people who will NOT be buying vehicles later because they are trying to take advantage of the program. Although this program is certainly better than giving money to the banks...it's still flawed.

My old man tried to do it, he didn't qualify because the vehicle he was trading in got 19 mpg. 1 mpg was the difference of receiving 4500 dollars...although he did end up buying the car in the end.


TO Walkingfox:

He also seems to think the government's interest should be in turning a profit for itself.

Government doesn't profit off of anything...corporations do.....not to mention the debt is so high I don't know how you could come up with that one in the first place.

All I can say is thank goodness this man does absolutely nothing in Congress.

It's kind of hard to get anything done when 90 percent of them are bought by corporate and special interests. Just because someone doesn't get their bills passed doesn't mean they aren't freakin trying.

I understand what RP is saying and that while the program was to help the poor, it really hurt them instead. However, was the program supposed to be about helping the poor? Or was it to help the struggling auto industry...which is benefitting?

Originally posted by Snooze
I understand what RP is saying and that while the program was to help the poor, it really hurt them instead. However, was the program supposed to be about helping the poor? Or was it to help the struggling auto industry...which is benefitting?

The program was intended to help the auto industry - the one that Barry nationalized and now has to help sell cars.

Too many Boy Blunder mistakes in the way it was handled to help the poor.

But just wait and see if this isn't a model program for more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners, windows, clothes, and every other aspect of your life.

reply to post by OldDragger


9500 dollars is the least you'd probably spend, and to someone who probably makes minimum wage that's almost what they'd make in a year. Yeah young people do think that's a lot of money but so do poor 30 year old's too you know.

Did you even here my criticism about the age of the cars they're getting rid of? They're not touching the cars from the 70's! They're calling cars that get 18mpg that are only a year old clunkers? C'mon this is just people trying to push the Green Agenda and get us all to drive Chevy Aveo's.

Yeah the bubble is in no comparison to the Real Estate market, but it's worse that they're encouraging people to take on more debt in a bad economy. Oh and guess what cash for clunkers was such a huge success they are trying to get another 2 billion in for it. More free money coming from nowhere, backed by nothing. Yeah this is great for the economy... Inflation won't be coming at all, the Dollar to Euro exchange is only 1.44 the highest I've seen it since September. Nope no problem here.


[edit on 4-8-2009 by asmall89]

Obviously it would be difficult for minimum wage workers and "poor" 30 year olds. They probably wouldn't qualify for a loan anyway, and would be foolish to get one! BUT, the economy can't operate on what's good for minimun wage earners. Money needs to start flowing. It's good to not carry debt, but that means DOING WITHOUT and saving your money if you want to buy a new car. simple as that! Boo hoo! People feel they are entitled to everything, sorry thats not the way life works.
The engines are destroyed to prevent fraud, so the cars cannot be resold by dealers ( collecting government cash AND reselling).Otherwise the same cars could be turned in over and over. Jeeez! Cars are scrapped every day, it's no big deal.
You state that it's the government trying to force people to drive green cars, then say it's geared to help the auto industry. Which is it?
NOBODY IS FORCED TO DO ANYTHING! If you like your 82 Cutlass, NOBODY is forcing you to turn it in!!! What do you people not get about that? If you want a cheap used car, there are MILLIONS of them for sale. What do not get about that? If you are going to criticize , at least make some sense!

reply to post by OldDragger

Originally posted by OldDragger
The engines are destroyed to prevent fraud, so the cars cannot be resold by dealers ( collecting government cash AND reselling).Otherwise the same cars could be turned in over and over. Jeeez!

Maybe you can explain what is so bad about reselling perfectly usable vehicles? It has been the norm since there were car lots...

Cars are scrapped every day, it's no big deal.

Usually for good reason; not like this, to shove a green agenda down our throats.

You state that it's the government trying to force people to drive green cars, then say it's geared to help the auto industry. Which is it?

It's both? Why is it so hard for you to see that?

If you are going to criticize , at least make some sense!

And if you are going to carry Barack's water, at least be honest about it.

Uh, as I said, the same vehicle could be sold or traded for government cash multiple times.

Cars are junked for a variety of reasons, so....?
Again, is there a shortage of used cars?
Yeah, it's both. Is it working? Are people buying cars where they were not before? Is this not a good thing? Would you rather cars not be sold, loans not made?
Obama did not nationalize anything. Did he force GM and Chrysler to come begging for public subsidies? No. What he did was brilliant capitalism. Hey, you want billions from me, my first stipulation is controlling interest in your company.
Ford did not come calling, Obama hasn't "nationalized" them.
I think it's a good idea, and would no matter who thought of it. I'm glad to support good ideas from the Republicans, on the rare occasions they come up with some.
If you are just going to oppose "Baracks" programs just because his administration thought of it, at least be honest about it.

Originally posted by OldDragger
Uh, as I said, the same vehicle could be sold or traded for government cash multiple times.

This is the stupidest reason for destroying a perfectly working engine. You would think that the CARS database could just record the VIN of each car used for a rebate so it can only be used once.

Why is that harder than destroying the engines?

Jon

I don't have a prob w/ cash for clunkers, IF you can get the loan you need.

Has anyone here tried to borrow any of those billions of dollars Obama gave to banks? Good luck. I haven't personally but I know of a few people who have tried to get a loan lately and told no dice. This govt. sucks bigtime; hell that's OUR money they gave these sorry banks and we can't even borrow it. They're saving it for "hard times" I guess.