Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Ron Paul: "Cash For Clunkers Hurts The Poor"

15 comments:

Christopher said...

Wow. Ron Paul actually has a point. Destroying the clunkers will definitely hurt everyone in the long-term. So why isn't he lobbying to have them stored on government lots? Oh yeah! He is a shameless demagogue!


Why can't we tax the rich anymore? Ron Paul = idiot.

Josh said...

Ron Paul isn't one to lobby much...as it typically requires trading favors, which he doesn't have many to trade given the principled stand he takes.

Regardless, why would he lobby to have them stored on government lots?

KoTeach said...

Because he wants to help the poor, obviously!

Josh said...

Why would having clunkers stored on government lots help the poor?

Christopher said...

So that they can be sold in the future, obviously.

Ron Paul's complaint was that the program was hurting the poor because the clunkers were no longer in the market because they were being destroyed. Are you daft?

Josh said...

Right, so he supports leaving them in the market where the less fortunate is able to purchase them.

Why is the not a legitimate solution?

Having the government spend money to buy them simply to place them in a lot and resell them would be a huge waste of resources which would hurt everyone.

Christopher said...

"Right, so he supports leaving them in the market where the less fortunate is able to purchase them."

And as a compromise positions he also must accept storing them in government lots for sale later on.

:)

"Why is the not a legitimate solution?"

20% unemployment.

"Having the government spend money to buy them simply to place them in a lot and resell them would be a huge waste of resources which would hurt everyone."

Why?

Josh said...

That's not really a compromise position.

Paul is not without the ability to compromise. He has said publicly recently that he would support a $1 trillion health care bill if they cut spending from over seas to pay for it. I think he's betting that won't happen, it'd be interesting if did though because I think he'd still have a hard time voting for the health care bill.

But what you're proposing is still a tremendous waste. Why not allow private used car dealerships buy and sell these cars in the open market? Or even just private individuals? Then the rest of the public wouldn't need to pay to buy these cars or store these cars and they'd still be available for sale to the general public.

All your suggesting is that government to stop destroying working cars, and then use public tax dollars to store them. Though, destroying these cars is the whole point. The government wants to destroy these working vehicles because their gas mileage isn't high enough.

What does unemployment have to do with this?

Christopher said...

"That's not really a compromise position."

True, but it is the logical conclusion of your cynical use of "the poor" as counter-argument if you really care about the poor. If you really cared about the poor, you would have automatically had said that keeping the traded-in clunkers on government lots so that they could be sold in the future is a good idea. But you didn't. Why? Because you are just spewing propaganda. Logically speaking, if you care about the poor, you should support the gov keeping the clunkers. It is just that simple.

"I think he's betting that won't happen, it'd be interesting if did though because I think he'd still have a hard time voting for the health care bill."

And that is what makes him disingenuous.

"But what you're proposing is still a tremendous waste. Why not allow private used car dealerships buy and sell these cars in the open market? Or even just private individuals? Then the rest of the public wouldn't need to pay to buy these cars or store these cars and they'd still be available for sale to the general public."

Ok, you don't understand what is going on.

"Though, destroying these cars is the whole point. The government wants to destroy these working vehicles because their gas mileage isn't high enough."

Are you smoking crack again? They are destroying them because they want the factories to build new cars, bonehead. Do you know how many companies are involved in the production of a car? It is a huge economy.

"What does unemployment have to do with this?"

Selling cars keeps people employed, causes the factories to create new cars, etc. It spreads out in every direction throughout the economy. The economy is much, much more than investment, and until you realize this, you will be making bad arguments.

Josh said...

"Logically speaking, if you care about the poor, you should support the gov keeping the clunkers. It is just that simple. "

Please enlighten me on the logic behind that statement.

"And that is what makes him disingenuous."

Dad would argue he's disingenuous for using the Republican party as a vehicle for his own beliefs.

"Ok, you don't understand what is going on."

Enlighten me.

"Are you smoking crack again? They are destroying them because they want the factories to build new cars, bonehead. Do you know how many companies are involved in the production of a car? It is a huge economy."

Breaking a window to hire someone to fix it does not help the economy, even if it does give someone something to do for a day.

"Selling cars keeps people employed, causes the factories to create new cars, etc. It spreads out in every direction throughout the economy. The economy is much, much more than investment, and until you realize this, you will be making bad arguments."

You don't think that creating a rise in auto sales through a subsidy of this nature might only be temporary and be followed with the inevitable drop in auto sales afterward? You don't think that someone who might wait until next year to buy car, would do it today for the incentive, creating a bubble in auto sales, and damaging auto sales in the future? All the while eliminating a market for used cars?

Christopher said...

"Please enlighten me on the logic behind that statement."

The government saving the clunkers would help the poor. Josh supports helping the poor.
Therefore, Josh supports the government saving the clunkers.

It's an undeniable syllogism, Josh.

"Dad would argue he's disingenuous for using the Republican party as a vehicle for his own beliefs."

That's because he preaches principles, but acts as if power is the only way to change it.

""Ok, you don't understand what is going on.""

The gov has lots of land it could put the cars on for later. It would cost little and help people in the future.

"Breaking a window to hire someone to fix it does not help the economy, even if it does give someone something to do for a day."

Hiring wage slaves in China creates a wage slave society.

"You don't think that creating a rise in auto sales through a subsidy of this nature might only be temporary and be followed with the inevitable drop in auto sales afterward? You don't think that someone who might wait until next year to buy car, would do it today for the incentive, creating a bubble in auto sales, and damaging auto sales in the future? All the while eliminating a market for used cars"

Depends on why people stopped buying and if a majority of those people are going to buy again. I think a majority of those people will buy again. I think most of them are not spending because they think the sky is going to fall. Once that passes, everything will get better. Stimuluses accelerate this process, morally.

Josh said...

"Josh supports helping the poor."

The means do not justify the ends. I do not support stealing from one group of people to help from another. I do, however, support helping the poor as a choice. The clunkers being sold within the free market helps the poor. Government bureaucracy and force are not needed.

"That's because he preaches principles, but acts as if power is the only way to change it."

He uses the pullpit he has gotten as a congressman to promote his principles. If you listen to anything he says, he promotes educating your peers as a solution, not the use of power. He does not encourage his followers to run for office, but he does support those that do. He believes that if the ideas the public supports change, those that have power will be forced to adapt to those ideas. So no, he does not act as if power is the only way to change policy toward his principles.

"The gov has lots of land it could put the cars on for later. It would cost little and help people in the future."

They could simply save the cost and help people NOW by leaving these vehicles in the free market instead of distorting the auto market.

"Hiring wage slaves in China creates a wage slave society."

Well apparently it has created a society where the standard of living has been increasing for 20 years, and is projected to continue to do so, a society which has a GDP that is growing still a large paces, a society that has been transformed from a third world country 20 years ago to a society which is project by most to be the great world power of the coming century.

They were only slave wages in comparison to the Western civilization who had already gone through their own growth for the past 200 years; and during the majority of this time most people were making what you would consider slave wages.

"I think a majority of those people will buy again."

Maybe in five years, if they still have jobs. If they don't, they'll run those cars until they're scrap metal.

"Once that passes, everything will get better. Stimuluses accelerate this process, morally."

A prediction based on faith, and faith only. Stimuluses decelerate the recovery, distort the economy, cause inflation and pain to those who are not in the government's good graces, and for all of these reasons (plus that the government has no money to pay for them) the stimuluses are completely immoral.

Christopher said...

"The means do not justify the ends."

Yes, actually they do when a philosophy keeps 40% of the population in poverty because of a "principle". Definitely.

"I do not support stealing from one group of people to help from another."

Then you are against the working class, because you define stealing along simplistic lines when the working class is the class that creates profit. The working class deserves its fair share and forcing the capitalist class to pay them fair wages is thus not stealing, but payment of wages the capitalist stole in the first place.

Josh said...

Please name me one historic instance where 40% of the people were living in poverty under and free-market, sound-money system.

I define stealing along simplistic lines because the definition of stealing is simple.

Christopher said...

"Please name me one historic instance where 40% of the people were living in poverty under and free-market, sound-money system."

Pre-union struggle 18th and 19th century North America and Europe. The Great Depression. Present day China.

In fact, all the successful societies are societies that employed the New Deal paradigm. South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore. They employed nationalized, unionized industries that paid people high wages to spend. Places where this has not occurred have stayed shitholes.

"I define stealing along simplistic lines because the definition of stealing is simple."

The definition of stealing is not simple scientifically. But you just keep acting as if we are all little independent gods beamed independently into cause-and-effect from the free will mother ship.