[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by
unemployedagain
I read about an individual who was a graduate student, who was unemployed that went and used this program. She "admitted that she could not afford the car, yet she felt it was such a good deal".
There are so many problems with this senerio. First, has there been any screening on the ability for a car buyer to actually afford the car payments going forward?
Please advise if there was some sort of qualifying restriction on this program. I just don't see the car dealerships having the responsible where with all to institute a program and maintain the standards.
Restrictions on the program??? Uh....no more than usual for buying a car I guess. They checked my credit before I bought the car since I financed it through them. I suppse they wouldn't have done that if I had walked in with my pre-approved loan through USAA or NFCU.
This unemployed graduate student featured in the story you saw is part of the problem. It sounds like she is the typical American living on credit and buying more than they can afford. What is different in that scenario than the current housing problems?
Placing some sort of enviromental impact savings is total BS. Where is the carbon footprint data on how much is created when a automobile is produced vs. maintaining that same older car over a certain period of time. I have felt a car should last so long, much longer than what I have witnessed for the price that is being charged.
Giving a rebate, or whatever it is called for persons to buy a car using tax dollars is not responsible. Your kids, grandkids and their grandkids are going to be paying for this.
Everybody keeps talking about using tax dollars for this. I consider this a good use of tax dollars. I guess it will be a topic of contention whether this is really good for the environment. In my opinion - some are trying to argue this point on a level that I am neither interested in or smart enough to argue. Carbon footprints of building a new car or maintaining an old one? Do you have the stats to prove otherwise? Like many other deals, ideas, or programs I bet that we could each go on the internet and find articles written by **experts** praising and demonizing this program (think global warming arguments)
If this is a bad idea because they had to produce a new car in order to replace my less fuel efficient and less environmentally friendly new car that I hope to have on the road for many years to come, then repalcing your inefficient drafty windows with new ones is a bad idea too? How about the hot water heater from the 70s reaplced with a new more economical model or the washer and dryer that uses so much less detergent, and less water etc.....All of those products had to be replaced with new equipment.
They say it was a success; I believe anything that had been exhausted in a week has some serious deficencies and they should have looked at this rather than extended another 2 billion to continue.
A program having an incredible outcome is a serious deficiency? So if a company comes up with a game system (oh....XBox or PS3) and they sell out within a week then there is a problem with the system? Yeah - the problem is if this program is worth it then they made a mistake not funding it more or people made the mistake of not taking advantage of it.
I appreciate this gov't incentive. The gov't finally did something that put (or at least kept) a little bit of money in my pocket. If I'm going to get all hot over some other gov't use of taxes then I'll probably turn my attention to the TARP money by the top banks going toward the 100s of millions of dollars paid out in bonuses to their top executives!quote]
USMCFLYR