I love my country, I just hate democracy?
Sure. We could be.
When you say ‘democracy’, if you mean that 51% of the population can vote to take from, and make decisions for, the other 49% against their will…then yes.
I would prefer a constitutional republic. Which is what I thought we had.
Wait. So a government program is “successful” because you give away free money and people want it? It’s hard to not be successful under those standards.
I agree with the OP because:
-
It was very poorly planned. They expected $1billion to last until Nov 1. It didn’t last one week.
-
It benefits many people who didn’t need it. How many people were ready to trade in for a new vehicle anyways?
-
It encourages poor choices. Trade in that SUV getting 14mpg for one getting 19mpg, when you really don’t need an SUV to begin with. Still get full government stipend.
-
It doesn’t benefit many people who need it. I have a 20mpg car and I would like to buy a 40+ mpg hybrid. Guess what? No money for me, even though my CURRENT car is better than what others are getting money to trade INTO.
-
Cost overruns. Sure, we thought it would cost $1billion, but it is really $3b. So what? We are just printing it anyways…
Maybe, but Medicare (Medicaid is run by the states) is over 40 years old. I wasn’t around when it rolled out. 
C4C is the most recent high profile federal government program, so it seemed relevant for comparison. Maybe I’m cherry picking by selecting C4C. But if you’d like to discuss a different government program that was recently rolled out, I’d be happy to change subjects.
Maybe. But would you feel comfortable hiring that store manager to run your national supply chain?
Sure, now it’s a problem.
Yes. Damn those Democrats for having a public referendum in which 51% decided to pass Cash for Clunkers. They really should have tried to push that through the Senate–a body where voters from Wyoming are exponentially more powerful than voters from New York–instead of bypassing it by going straight for Athenian direct democracy.
Who cares about Democrats or Republicans?
Why would you want to allow anyone the power to take your money and direct it to a particular pet project or cause, other than those strictly outlined in the Constitution?
Medicaid is not completely run by the states. The states exercise a lot of control, but within a federal framework set up by Congress. Which, as I understand it, will be not unlike the Health Exchanges at the center of the health care reform. But they have had 40 years to work out kinks in Medicare/Medicaid, that’s true. My point was merely that Medicare/Medicaid is an example of a well-run government program that happens to be very similar to the kind of program we’re pontificating about.
I’m not sure I want to go down the road of picking programs that I think are good and debating every policy to come along in the last 8 years. But do you really think that the government is some sort of reverse King Midas where everything it touches turns to shit? There isn’t a single recent program you like?
I’m anxiously awaiting the argument in which Cash for Clunkers is portrayed as unconstitutional.
Because, like the framers, I believe that we cannot outline every single exercise of the Congressional spending power in a comprehensive written list which we then insert into the Constitution. And, like the framers, I believe in a system of democratic checks and balances to keep the government in line.
I would ask you what Alexander Hamilton asked the anti-federalists: what keeps the states from doing exactly what you claim? They have a general police power and are not a government of limited, explicit ends. Why don’t you think the states just take all the rich people’s money and give it to the poor majority?
You must be joking. Or are you going to cite the Elastic Clause?
Ah, they could. And a few of them, like New York and California, are trying their damn-dest.
There is a natural check on the states ability to do this, however…
-
People can move from one state to another and remain US citizens, as well as move their businesses
-
It is illegal for states to create a fiat currency like the federal government does, so they cannot print their way out of a hole.
The result is that states can reinvent themselves, as California soon might, once they reach a point of near collapse. The Federal gubmint will be able to kick the can farther down the road. Unfortunately, the pain will be greater when that point comes.
Well, they suck at trying, let me tell you. 6.85% taxes and the highest bracket is $20,000? That’s like a redistribution mechanism designed by monkeys, and not particularly smart monkeys. South Carolina, on the other hand, has a 7% rate. The liberal-redistributers have much more power there, obviously.
A-ha, the ol’ comedy club argument. Rather than making a coherent case, accuse the other party of being a stand-up comedian, or worse, an improv comedian.
Those of you praising the program for being successful due to high demand are bizarre. Of course there’s high demand for free money.
If the government ran a “free cheesecake for everyone!” program where you could stop at every post office and pick up a slice of cheesecake, and millions and millions of people stopped in because hey - free cheesecake! but they screwed up the production and logistics so that only a few post offices had the cheesecake and it was spoiled by the time it got there, would you call that a wild success because people stopped in for their cheesecake?
That doesn’t necesarily indicate that a government insurance plan is doomed to failure, but it’s not a good sign. It also shows your absurd biases when you call C4C (which is both conceptually and in practice a clusterfuck) as a great success.
That’s a marginal income tax rate on individuals. A couple points
-
As discussed in other, current threads, it’s not how much you TRY to get via higher rates. It’s how much you actually GET. Mr Laffer tried to explain this effect.
-
The tax rates on businesses in California (there is a corporate income tax, and workmen’s compensation rates are staggering…an order-of-magnitude higher than many other states) are certified job-killers.
-
Regulation and additional job-killing restrictions will further shrink the pie.
-
The fiscal house, of course, is a combination of revenue and spending. Not just revenue. California’s spending has consistently grown faster than population growth plus inflation for many years.
I don’t know much about South Carolina, but if they get as bad as California in all 4 factors cited above I imagine they will probably be in a world of hurt, too.
What if we have a Universal Health Care and Free Cheesecake bill? Who could be against cheesecake?
It’s a great success because it is getting people to buy cars. More importantly it’s not just stimulating the economy with the $4500, it’s stimulating it with the remainder of the car’s cost. The whole point of stimulus is to get people spending.
Will someone correct me if I have this wrong? If you put a billion dollars into a project you generally generate $1.7 something billion with the multiplier effect, right? A person spends a dollar for a candy bar, that dollar goes to the store owner’s payroll, and is spent by an employee of the store for a cheeseburger and so on.
A billion dollars in this project generates the billion in sales, plus the remainder of the car cost, let’s say two billion (I assume most cars are going for at least 3 times the C4C rebate), plus the multiplier, so $5 billion to the economy, right?
Unless you’re one of those moonbats who think economic stimulus is crazytalk or that cutting the deficit is the key to leaving a recession :rolleyes:, I can’t see how anyone but the most unthinking partisan can see this as a failure.
It massively stimulates the economy.
It helps car manufacturers.
It gets older, less efficient cars off the road.
It’s “shovel ready” in the extreme.
And on topic:
This is anything but a failure. They’re adjusting to the demand. Demand was way higher than they thought. They are fixing it. Where is the problem?
IdahoMauleMan:
That CA has economic policies you don’t personally like, or that hurt their economy, is entirely beside the point. You’re arguing that “New York and California, are trying their damn-dest” to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Yet, obviously, they aren’t trying to do that in any but the most limited ways. To the extent they are redistributing wealth, it’s by things like workman’s comp (!). Well, if they could just directly take money and pay it out to workers, why go through the whole illusion of only doing so if workers are injured on the job? The obvious answer, which your theory cannot offer, is that they either do not want to or cannot do so because of the political process.
You’re missing Hamilton’s fundamental point, which is that the political structures are a check aside from explicit constitutional checks. IOW, that whole republican form of government thingie.
And I should add, another part of republican government is agreeing to abide by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law, which you seem entirely unwilling to do. You come in here with your personal constitutional theories and claim that those who follow the Supreme Court’s rulings are the wild masses opposed to proper republican government.