How government programs work...

UncleBob

UncleBob

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Has anyone been following this "Cash For Clunkers" program? It's been a wonderful example of how government-ran programs work.

First, the EPA changes the rules of the game after the program started. Surprise!
Then, the $1,000,000,000 (That's 1 Billion Dollars, by the way) disappeared quicker than Obama's teleprompter could refresh the words on the screen.
Then, the government starts fouling up the repayment process, blaming it on "the computers".
Then, we go back to Congress and ask for another $2 Billion - twice as much as what was allotted to the program to begin with!

I can't wait for this wonderful execution process to go into place for our health care.
 
Are you referring to the mileage changes on some cars? Considering the use this program has seen, it doesn't seem to have hurt much. Also, i believe that was done before the official start of the program.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']First, the EPA changes the rules of the game after the program started. Surprise![/quote]
My wife and I have a car whose MPG was changed on the 24th that made the car go from eligible to ineligible. We had already decided on the car we wanted and were waiting for the program to begin because LIKE THE DAMN BILL SAID, the money was dependent on EPA rules after the program started. Now we'll just not be getting a new car. The rules changed before it officially started. Your statement is factually incorrect. Not being basically retarded and following the rules to the letter have prevented my wife and I from getting into trouble with this. But personal responsibility is for stupid people.

So dealers (who should know the rules better than the people who wrote the damn rules) overplay their hand and take early deals knowing they take on risk. The sellers do so as well (or don't read the rules which is just as bad right?) and also assume risk. It screws some of them.

And you complain that it's government's fault. *facepalm*

Then, the government starts fouling up the repayment process, blaming it on "the computers".
Click to expand...
um ok. I guess using your analogy we can all feel good about this one because HMOs NEVER EVER EVER dick things up and then blame their computers. Thank god for that.
Then, we go back to Congress and ask for another $2 Billion - twice as much as what was allotted to the program to begin with!
Click to expand...
Are you taking the position that the program should not be continued or just complaining for the sake of it?

BUT OH CHRIST, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE MOAR MONEY FROM US!!!111 ANOTHER 2 BILLION DOLLARS NEEDS TO BE ALLOCATED FROM SOMEWHERE THAT ISNT THE STIMULUS PACKAGE THATS SUPPOSED TO STIMULATE PURCHASING AMIRITE???

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had said earlier that the additional money would come from funds Congress approved earlier in the year as part of a $787 billion economic stimulus bill."

Oh. Never mind.
I can't wait for this wonderful execution process to go into place for our health care.
Click to expand...
Everyone bends the rules and it's the government's fault. I don't get it.
 
Trying to change the OP into some sort of point, I think what we're looking for here is that the govt just doesn't have much business sense. Which is intrinsicly true to a certain extent. They don't have to worry about loss on investment because they can just tax all of us to get more cash. Politicians tend to be from the legal field and not the business field. To that end they don't have the financial/accounting logic at hand to make decisions. They make decisions based mostly upon constitutionality, rule of law, donations of lobbyists and the desire to retain their position.

While that may be the case here with the car program, blending it into health care is silly. If you want to know how bad govt run health care will be, go stand in line at the DMV or the post office.
 
Yeah, I was going to say I've never waited more than 5 min at the post office and 10 min at the DMV.

I figured I'd be in the minority though. But now that I see FOC has the same experience, I guess I'm not.
 
Some dealers who were burned by making early deals have actually tried forcing people to pay them the money or return the car. It's their own fault for making the early deals before everything was finalized.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, I was going to say I've never waited more than 5 min at the post office and 10 min at the DMV.

I figured I'd be in the minority though. But now that I see FOC has the same experience, I guess I'm not.[/QUOTE]

It's just like anything else. Hit it at peak times and you wait. Don't know what you're doing and wait.

The post office has become really easy with the Automated Postal Center.

Renewing vehicle registration? I did that online and got a $5 discount.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn'] Renewing vehicle registration? I did that online and got a $5 discount.[/QUOTE]

A lot of the stuff that you would need to do at a post office (i.e. change of address) has been transferred to online transactions, which I'm assuming that most of us on these forums are willing to use. Going forward more things will be done online.

Things such as scheduling appointments and the such should be able to be performed in an automated process.

The health care system should work given our current technology by reducing unneeded overheads and connecting information rather than having disconnected systems which must communicate with each other slowly, but it seems that our government isn't exactly willing to be the pioneers of the modern age.
 
terrible thread... are you talking about this just because fox is? because even with fox's spin there's really nothing to rag on.

Cash for Clunkers was (and remains) a great idea, a great program, it's been extraordinarily successful. Considering just how successful it's been and the relatively low cost, I wish we had funded a long term Cash for Clunkers program instead of handing those billions over to the CEOs...
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah, I was going to say I've never waited more than 5 min at the post office and 10 min at the DMV.

I figured I'd be in the minority though. But now that I see FOC has the same experience, I guess I'm not.[/QUOTE]

I spent more than 3 hours at the DMV a few weeks ago just to renew my license (check eyes, take picture, run credit card for fee, blam, 5 minutes at the window after more than 3 hours of waiting).
 
[quote name='Koggit']terrible thread... are you talking about this just because fox is? because even with fox's spin there's really nothing to rag on.

Cash for Clunkers was (and remains) a great idea, a great program, it's been extraordinarily successful. Considering just how successful it's been and the relatively low cost, I wish we had funded a long term Cash for Clunkers program instead of handing those billions over to the CEOs...[/QUOTE]

Can't say I watch FOX (News, that is)

I would have preferred not handing billions over to CEOs and not giving money to people to trade in their used, working "junkers" for new cars with new loans that they're probably going to default on in a year or so anyway. Let's save that money for, I dunno... securing our borders? Paying off the billions we already owe?

I love the blame that's being put on the dealers - as if they haven't been successfully taking in trade-ins for years without hundreds of pages of paperwork and government interference.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
I would have preferred not handing billions over to CEOs and not giving money to people to trade in their used, working "junkers" for new cars with new loans that they're probably going to default on in a year or so anyway. Let's save that money for, I dunno... securing our borders? Paying off the billions we already owe?
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, since we printed the money for the bailouts, it wouldn't have really worked to use the money to pay off our trillions in debts. See: Zimbabwe. Also, it doesn't seem like many politicians actually care about securing our borders, so that wouldn't work either. I think the best thing we could have done would be to not print/spend the trillions, and instead have no risk of hyperinflation, and a much lower debt.
 
How they can re-calculate some 15 year old vehicles that had an inflated mpg estimate of 15 in 1995, to be recalculated to 16 -17mpg is a complete mystery to me. I call shenanigans on this one.


I can only imagine the first day of US Health Program. This car program only set aside money to sell 250,000 cars. Do you know how many people go to the doctor, dentist, specialist, hospital and ambulances every day? The lines for care will be staggering, the demand will far outweigh the supply, and the money will be in short supply and slow in coming. And some of you don't believe rationing will ever happen. Just try getting a dentist appointment after everyone is told dental care is now free.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']How they can re-calculate some 15 year old vehicles that had an inflated mpg estimate of 15 in 1995, to be recalculated to 16 -17mpg is a complete mystery to me. I call shenanigans on this one.


I can only imagine the first day of US Health Program. This car program only set aside money to sell 250,000 cars. Do you know how many people go to the doctor, dentist, specialist, hospital and ambulances every day? The lines for care will be staggering, the demand will far outweigh the supply, and the money will be in short supply and slow in coming. And some of you don't believe rationing will ever happen. Just try getting a dentist appointment after everyone is told dental care is now free.[/QUOTE]
I can't wait! I'm going to camp outside the clinic, waiting for it to open on the first day of free government care. It will be just like Black Friday!
 
Government health care will work out if they raise taxes the requisite 10-25% beforehand.

Now, should it be a consumption tax or rate tax? Should there be tax breaks if you are healthier than the average person?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup - let's raise taxes on those nasty rich folks who aren't paying their fair share...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

I mean, the top 1% of earners paid in over 40% of all income taxes paid. More than the bottom 95%. Only 40%. Those bastards.[/QUOTE]

What is scary is the top 1% of earners paid over 40% of all income taxes paid AFTER deductions. If we forced everybody to use the standard deduction, how much would those "richers" pay as a percentage of taxes? 99%? 750%? Infinity%?
 
lesko.jpg

This guy is running these programs
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If this was a $3B tax credit for the wealthy, y'all would still be jerking off to the Bill Kristol op-eds touting its success.[/QUOTE]
Not me.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup - let's raise taxes on those nasty rich folks who aren't paying their fair share...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

I mean, the top 1% of earners paid in over 40% of all income taxes paid. More than the bottom 95%. Only 40%. Those bastards.[/QUOTE]

fuck 'em.

Seriously.

You don't like taxes? Stop earning over $410,000 per year. Simple as that.

I'm sure we'll find somebody happy to take over your spot on the socioeconomic ladder. Meanwhile, we'll find you a nice part-time job as a honeydipper, where you won't have to pay any taxes at all, except via the consumables you buy, the rent you pay, the utilities and services you can use (presuming you can afford them). You'll be living in thrillsville.

Meanwhile, your biased-think-tank based research showed that AGI increased 3.9% over 3 years, while their tax burden increased 3.4%.

The marginal income tax rate exceeded 70% nearly thirty years ago, and had been for decades and decades. I don't have any problem returning to that standard - given that actual income is such a small portion of the ultra-wealthy's overall income and assets, nobody will be going to the poorhouse on account of that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']fuck 'em.

Seriously.

You don't like taxes? Stop earning over $410,000 per year. Simple as that.

I'm sure we'll find somebody happy to take over your spot on the socioeconomic ladder. Meanwhile, we'll find you a nice part-time job as a honeydipper, where you won't have to pay any taxes at all, except via the consumables you buy, the rent you pay, the utilities and services you can use (presuming you can afford them). You'll be living in thrillsville.

Meanwhile, your biased-think-tank based research showed that AGI increased 3.9% over 3 years, while their tax burden increased 3.4%.

The marginal income tax rate exceeded 70% nearly thirty years ago, and had been for decades and decades. I don't have any problem returning to that standard - given that actual income is such a small portion of the ultra-wealthy's overall income and assets, nobody will be going to the poorhouse on account of that.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that the people you are attacking actually do something with their money, and have a much higher tax rate than the ultra-rich? People who make multi-millions and more a year end up paying much less of their income in taxes than what you call the rich. Plus, its not like the ultra-rich spend much of their money.
 
...and? Is there something about earning more than 99% of the rest of the country that makes you think they deserve more sympathy than the other 99%?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...and? Is there something about earning more than 99% of the rest of the country that makes you think they deserve more sympathy than the other 99%?[/QUOTE]
I don't get why you think someone who makes $400,000 a year is so evil, and you think we should raise their taxes ridiculously. These people are often small business owners, who employ people. You raise their taxes and its likely they won't employ as many people.
 
look at the history of the debt you're so scared of: the explosive growth of deficit spending coincided with the *halving* of the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest from over 70 to around 35% under Reagan.

I know you only want to see the conclusions that satisfy your ideology, but I'm afraid they don't get much more direct than "CUT TAXES MEANS DEFICIT GROWTH."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I know you only want to see the conclusions that satisfy your ideology, but I'm afraid they don't get much more direct than "CUT TAXES MEANS DEFICIT GROWTH."[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

Lowering taxes while expanding military expenditures means deficit growth.

Reagan and the commies.

Bush II and Iraq.

If we weren't so busy spending more than the rest of the world on weapons, we may not have any debt.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']look at the history of the debt you're so scared of: the explosive growth of deficit spending coincided with the *halving* of the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest from over 70 to around 35% under Reagan.

I know you only want to see the conclusions that satisfy your ideology, but I'm afraid they don't get much more direct than "CUT TAXES MEANS DEFICIT GROWTH."[/QUOTE]
You don't get what I'm saying. Reaganomics was a terrible idea. I'm not against raising the tax rate on the wealthiest, instead of the poor and middle class. I'm against raising the tax rate on some of the most productive people, who make enough for you to call them "rich". People who make $400,000 provide many jobs, while people with billions tend do little to help anyone. Its better to raise taxes on the ultra-rich than the poor and middle class, but that doesn't mean you should just rack up a huge deficit, and rely on the ultra-rich to pay for it. They won't. They will go some place else. I would suggest you look at the Grace Commission's report for more on this.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']You don't get what I'm saying. Reaganomics was a terrible idea. I'm not against raising the tax rate on the wealthiest, instead of the poor and middle class. I'm against raising the tax rate on some of the most productive people, who make enough for you to call them "rich". People who make $400,000 provide many jobs, while people with billions tend do little to help anyone. Its better to raise taxes on the ultra-rich than the poor and middle class, but that doesn't mean you should just rack up a huge deficit, and rely on the ultra-rich to pay for it. They won't. They will go some place else. I would suggest you look at the Grace Commission's report for more on this.[/QUOTE]


The grain of truth is that they WILL go somewhere else as evidenced by the lengths people, and especially corporations, will go to avoid paying taxes. You democrats like to call it "outsourcing". There's a reason behind outsourcing, right? Get ready for the outsourcing tidal wave when healthcare passes.

I live in the State of Michigan where the legislature is hell-bent on finding new ways to tax business earnings and find new "revenue". Then they complain about business that's leaving the State. So, they all get together and decide to give tax breaks to specific industries and corporations to entice them to stay. They know full well that tax lowering is incentive to produce and tax raising is impetus to failure.

This is exactly Myke's logic, and when its's taken to conclusion, those $400,000 plus "earners" will simply leave. Or they will just hide their assets. Then who will foot the bill for the cradle to grave safety net? Me, and, you, and you too. We'll all be equally poor. Myke has this psychotic break with reality that defines rich people as vacuous, non-productive money sinks who's purpose is to steal money from the rest of us. He has no concept of what it means to actually produce anything of value, never having done so himself. Not everyone who is "rich" has had the convenience of inheriting it from someone else. And almost always, the origin of that money was earned by contributing something of value to our way of life. Value and wealth are foreign concepts to the Left. They are perceived as things which can just be shifted around by in exchange for political power. When you treat them this way they will disappear.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What is scary is the top 1% of earners paid over 40% of all income taxes paid AFTER deductions. If we forced everybody to use the standard deduction, how much would those "richers" pay as a percentage of taxes? 99%? 750%? Infinity%?[/QUOTE]


I'm not exactly trying to call out FOC on his logic here, merely pointing out that using a % of a % as an argument is spurious at best. If you make one of those percentages a real number, you begin to see how ridiculous it all is.
Let's say there are 100 people that pay taxes.
I've made an overly simplified chart here. Using a flat 5% of AGI here's how the top 5% end up paying over 1/5th of all tax revenue. This is before any notion of tax shelters or adjusting your AGI enters into play which can severely lower the top 10% AGI on which tax is paid.

group earnings 5% Percentage of TTR
2 10000 500 1.35%
8 15000 750 2.03%
10 20000 1000 2.70%
10 25000 1250 3.38%
10 30000 1500 4.05%
10 40000 2000 5.41%
10 50000 2500 6.76%
10 60000 3000 8.11%
10 70000 3500 9.46%
5 80000 4000 10.81%
5 90000 4500 12.16%
5 100000 5000 13.51%
5 150000 7500 20.27%
Total Tax Revenue: 37000

So, is it fair that the top 5% pays 20% of the total tax revenue? Certainly doesn't sound that way, but when you think of it in terms of real numbers, they're paying the same amount in taxes as everyone else (using the 5% guideline), but by virtue of their higher income they pay the larger share of the total amount. This is completely fair.

Edit: Ok, that chart got really nasty after I copied it over from excel, hopefully it isn't too hard on the eyes.
 
My dad took advantage of the Cash for Clunkers think and traded in a 1994 Mazda MPV for a 2010 Toyota Corolla LE for $12k.

I rather see more programs like this to help stimulate the economy then money being blindly thrown at companies. The cash for clunkers program helps the auto industry, consumers, banks, and perhaps even more.
 
It's all rather pointless anyways, as there are plenty of legal and quasi-legal ways to get around paying taxes, and most of the super rich people take advantage of these. If we're really intent on taxing the rich, then the first step is to eliminate all tax shelters.
 
[quote name='ananag112']My dad took advantage of the Cash for Clunkers think and traded in a 1994 Mazda MPV for a 2010 Toyota Corolla LE for $12k.

I rather see more programs like this to help stimulate the economy then money being blindly thrown at companies. The cash for clunkers program helps the auto industry, consumers, banks, and perhaps even more.[/QUOTE]
If you don't mind me asking, what was his car payment before (if any) and what is his payment after (if any)?

The program sounds good on paper, but I fear that too many people are trading in perfectly good vehicles (gas consumption notwithstanding) for debt they didn't have before.
 
The worst problem I see is that decently running cars are being destroyed because they don't get as good gas mileage as the newer cars, but there are plenty of people down the food chain who have even worse cars yet can't get these "destroyed" cars which may have been a step up from what they're currently driving.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']If you don't mind me asking, what was his car payment before (if any) and what is his payment after (if any)?

The program sounds good on paper, but I fear that too many people are trading in perfectly good vehicles (gas consumption notwithstanding) for debt they didn't have before.[/QUOTE]

My dad bought the old car with cash when he got it in 94 and he put the minimum down on the new car to finance it as you have to finance a part of it to qualify for the $4500. He doesn't have any debt either. He just wanted a cheap car to take to work daily and we had this old minivan in our garage which we sometimes used when we had family come over.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='bmulligan']The grain of truth is that they WILL go somewhere else as evidenced by the lengths people, and especially corporations, will go to avoid paying taxes. You democrats like to call it "outsourcing". There's a reason behind outsourcing, right? Get ready for the outsourcing tidal wave when healthcare passes.

I live in the State of Michigan where the legislature is hell-bent on finding new ways to tax business earnings and find new "revenue". Then they complain about business that's leaving the State. So, they all get together and decide to give tax breaks to specific industries and corporations to entice them to stay. They know full well that tax lowering is incentive to produce and tax raising is impetus to failure.

This is exactly Myke's logic, and when its's taken to conclusion, those $400,000 plus "earners" will simply leave. Or they will just hide their assets. Then who will foot the bill for the cradle to grave safety net? Me, and, you, and you too. We'll all be equally poor. Myke has this psychotic break with reality that defines rich people as vacuous, non-productive money sinks who's purpose is to steal money from the rest of us. He has no concept of what it means to actually produce anything of value, never having done so himself. Not everyone who is "rich" has had the convenience of inheriting it from someone else. And almost always, the origin of that money was earned by contributing something of value to our way of life. Value and wealth are foreign concepts to the Left. They are perceived as things which can just be shifted around by in exchange for political power. When you treat them this way they will disappear.[/QUOTE]

Forgive me for not following your logic: if we tax the rich, they might commit tax fraud and tax evasion. So we should be nicer to them so they don't commit felonies.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']The worst problem I see is that decently running cars are being destroyed because they don't get as good gas mileage as the newer cars, but there are plenty of people down the food chain who have even worse cars yet can't get these "destroyed" cars which may have been a step up from what they're currently driving.[/QUOTE]

Yup.

[quote name='ananag112']My dad bought the old car with cash when he got it in 94 and he put the minimum down on the new car to finance it as you have to finance a part of it to qualify for the $4500. He doesn't have any debt either. He just wanted a cheap car to take to work daily and we had this old minivan in our garage which we sometimes used when we had family come over.[/QUOTE]

Which is another thing I hate about this program. You're punishing people for *not* going in debt by refusing to allow them to take part in the program. Between this , not letting people buy better used cars and the destruction of perfectly good vehicles - this program is quite flawed.

[quote name='mykevermin']Forgive me for not following your logic: if we tax the rich, they might commit tax fraud and tax evasion. So we should be nicer to them so they don't commit felonies.[/QUOTE]

So all these evil, hated rich folk (that you seem to pretend like shouldn't even be allowed to complain about their taxes) are cheating the tax system and still paying 40% of the taxes going into the Federal Government? Damn, I'd probably look for every single loophole in the system I could find as well.

Tell me, Myke - what percentage of the incoming Federal Tax dollars *should* the top 1% be responsible for - in your opinion, of course.
 
http://www.choicerealestate.net/blog/2008/01/23/auto-mileage-deduction-for-2008-505-cents-per-mile/

Let's say a cabbie drove a cab with a 40 MPG.

The cabbie gets an average per mile exception of 54.5 cents.

Let's say the cabbie charges 55 cents per mile driven.

Considering the mileage exception is on Schedule A and doesn't interfere with standard deductions, how many miles does the cabbie have to drive before a family of four MUST pay any federal taxes?

http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/quicktaxfacts08.htm

Single: $5,450
Head of Household: $8,000
Married Filing Joint: $10,900
Married Filing Separately: $5,450
Qualifying Widow/Widower: $10,900
Dependent: $900-$5,450*

$12700.00-$21800.00/0.5 cents per mile = 2,540,000-4,360,000 miles.

Let's argue the cabbie can only drive 50 miles per hour 12 hours per day. That's 219,000 miles per year max. He won't be paying any federal or state income taxes. His family can be on welfare.

What is his gross pay? $120,450.

What are his gross expenses? Fuel @ $1 per 10 miles equals $21,900. A car and all of its repairs for $20,000 per year. So, $80K for 4380 hours of labor a year. That works out to around $14 per hour adjusting for time and a half for hours after 40 hours per week ... and he pays no federal taxes and qualifies for ANY welfare services out there such as food stamps.

That's just a rough example. Realistically, the cabbie can charge far more than 55 cents per mile, work fewer hours, have his "company" buy outstanding medical coverage and still take home the same pay and be on welfare. Actually, the house could be "the garage" the cab stays at and employs a dispatcher and a mechanic. They're paid minimum wage, given lavish health care and there happens to be $50K laying around after taxes.

Not that hard to game the system.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I disagree.

Lowering taxes while expanding military expenditures means deficit growth.

Reagan and the commies.

Bush II and Iraq.

If we weren't so busy spending more than the rest of the world on weapons, we may not have any debt.[/QUOTE]

Wow, FOC the voice of reason? ;)
 
[quote name='ananag112']My dad bought the old car with cash when he got it in 94 and he put the minimum down on the new car to finance it as you have to finance a part of it to qualify for the $4500. He doesn't have any debt either. He just wanted a cheap car to take to work daily and we had this old minivan in our garage which we sometimes used when we had family come over.[/QUOTE]
So he didn't have debt before...but now he does, and he had to finance the difference to qualify? Is that a program rule or something the dealer tacked on?
 
And FoC's numbers can be taken way farther. My wife and I went to dinner Sunday night with a law firm partner and his wife. They expensed the dinner, over $400 when it was all said and done. My dinner was $13 and my wife's was $18. We had no wine (they did). We did not speak about business.

Business expense. Not on the books.
 
If it was a partner, then I can see expensing the dinner. A reward for a good job, relationship building, etc... it could still be related to the business, even if you didn't specifically talk about business.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']So he didn't have debt before...but now he does, and he had to finance the difference to qualify? Is that a program rule or something the dealer tacked on?[/QUOTE]

Right, its a program rule. I think its to make a little extra money off of it and to stimulate the banks as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top