Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org)

Go Back   Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org) > General Discussion > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-18-2008, 07:00 AM
Schrauf's Avatar
Schrauf Schrauf is offline
Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 97
Default Democrat Proprosal to Encourage Car Purchases

This is just classic. Auto industry bailout is one discussion, but this is an entirely separate discussion.

A new proposal this week:

"The bill includes provisions to help taxpayers afford new car purchases and to save jobs in the auto industry. Specifically, the bill creates “above the line” tax deductions for interest payments on car loans and state sales/excise taxes for new cars purchased between November 12, 2008 and December 31, 2009."

http://www.democrats.senate.gov/news...cfm?id=305042&

Umm, I understand we have a rough economy, but could we at least use this as an opportunity to push only efficient vehicles, if any at all? And like we need to encourage more consumer debt right now - with the deduction for interest on car loans. Granted, this benefit is small, and probably more for show than anything else.

And typically I support democrat proposals!

Let the auto industry fail and reorganize. It will be rougher for all of us in the short-term, but much better in the long-term. A mix of incentives to encourage efficient vehicle production, and retraining for some employees that will need to find work elsewhere, are the most important compenents of any "bailout".

As I think more about capitalism and a strong economy, the inherent conflict of interest between those concepts and a sustainable lifestyle becomes more apparent.

It does not have to be that way - a strong economy can be based primarily on consumption of services, rather than consumption of goods. But that just seems unlikely. Ever.

Last edited by Schrauf; 11-18-2008 at 07:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-18-2008, 07:10 AM
Richard Seton Richard Seton is offline
Junior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Default

Well, in that case, I'd like to see tax deducations for buying bicycles, and bicycle parts. We need to keep our local shops in business. We want local wrenches to earn a living wage.

Four out of the five bikes our family owns were made in the US. Why don't we offer support for the US bicycle manufacturing industry?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-18-2008, 07:28 AM
Duncan Duncan is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Tabor
Posts: 188
Default

Because the bike industry doesnt lobby DC like the big 3 do?

(Q up "I am changing my name to Chrysler")

Seriously though I think that there should be a whole lot of strings tied to the big 3 bailout- including barring them from contesting environmental regulations, and (as the previous poster said) attach a minnimum MPG requirement (or better yet a maximum GVW) to the tax rebate. Also mandate CAFE increases.

One of the big things that the big 3 suffer from is the fact that they are competeing with carmakers whose home countries have nationalized health insurance- some of the car makers have threatened to go to the WTO and try and get that called an unfair trade advantage, while what shoule really happen is that the US should start taking the health insurance burden off of employers. If GM could hand over the cost of insuring its workers it would realize an extra 1200$ in profit per car it sold (well realisticly somewhat less because that national HI would be paid with taxes, some of which would be leveed against GM... but still)

The UAW fights this because they know that they have a platinum HI setup, one that is not sustainable for everyone... A national HI system would include deductables and copays (neither of which the UAW will discuss). That is what makes this a golden time for negotiating- the big 3 (and by extention the UAW) are coming to the feds hat in hand begging mercy- this is the time the new administration could demand huge changes in their environmental and safety policies and offer to ake over the UAW HI system which could then be expanded to national coverage. GM wins, the UAW wins because more workers with slightly more expensive insurance is better then lots of unemployed, uninsured workers and the US can sunset the era of the 10000 lb GVW 12MPG SUV.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-18-2008, 07:57 AM
Bent Bloke's Avatar
Bent Bloke Bent Bloke is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Outer SE Portland
Posts: 179
Default Just build new engines, not new cars

Why is the push to build entirely new vehicles when it's just the engines that are inefficient? New, clean, energy-efficient engines could be built to replace existing engines in cars. The US could get a jump on other nations if we got our heads out of this throw-away mindset. And the actual replacement would happen at the dealership/mechanic shops, boosting local economies. Much better than purchasing a new vehicle manufactured overseas. Old engines could be melted down and recast as the new engine blocks.

Manufacturing new autos causes pollution and wastes resources. We would be better served by replacing the engines in perfectly good vehicles with gas-hog engines.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-18-2008, 08:14 AM
biciclero's Avatar
biciclero biciclero is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 239
Default Mass

Quote:
Why is the push to build entirely new vehicles when it's just the engines that are inefficient?
I'm no automotive engineer (far from) but I think part of the reason smaller cars are more efficient is that they are lighter, meaning less car for the engine to push around, meaning the engine uses a greater percentage of its power to move people and cargo. Building a more efficient engine and then making it lug around 8000 lb of vehicle before it can move 600 lb of people would not go very far.

One of the reasons bikes are so awesome is that the "driver" weighs more than the vehicle, so most of a rider's energy goes toward moving him/her self, rather than a big, heavy vehicle. If Lance and I traded bikes, and then we loaded him down with 400 lbs of junk, his highly trained, efficient body would struggle more than mine would at my mediocre, less efficient fitness level.
__________________
Dang! You got shocks, pegs... lucky! --Napoleon Dynamite
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-18-2008, 08:56 AM
canuck canuck is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 172
Default

How exactly does this save the big three?

No where in the proposal does it focus these tax cuts on vehicles produced by US manufacturers.

If I were in the market for a car I'd be looking at a Honda, Nissan, Toyota, or KIA before a Ford, GM or Chrysler. This might make it worthwhile for people to get rid of their US gas guzzlers and get into an efficient well made foreign brand.

Another quick fix, sounds good, feels good government program that doesn't address the issue it claims to resolve.

If this is the big change that was promised then we've been had, again.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-18-2008, 10:13 AM
Attornatus_Oregonensis's Avatar
Attornatus_Oregonensis Attornatus_Oregonensis is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sellwood
Posts: 568
Default

A lot of progressive people seem to worship the Democrats as though they've got all the answers. They don't. They're merely the lesser of two evils, generally speaking. Here's a good example of how they're still beholden to the big money interests. But at least they haven't created a fake attack and used it as a pretext to invade another country since Vietnam, unlike the other ones.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-18-2008, 11:52 AM
canuck canuck is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 172
Default

AO,

Vietnam war was escalated beyond providing military advisers based on a false attack. See USS Maddox, USS Turner Joy and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

This was done under President Johnson a Democrat.

There were also quite a few Democrats who approved of and voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Plenty of guilt to go around for both parties when it comes to US interference around the world.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-18-2008, 12:02 PM
Attornatus_Oregonensis's Avatar
Attornatus_Oregonensis Attornatus_Oregonensis is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sellwood
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck View Post
AO,

Vietnam war was escalated beyond providing military advisers based on a false attack. See USS Maddox, USS Turner Joy and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

This was done under President Johnson a Democrat.

There were also quite a few Democrats who approved of and voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Plenty of guilt to go around for both parties when it comes to US interference around the world.

That is exactly what I was attempting to convey. Was that not clear?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-18-2008, 12:44 PM
Grant Grant is offline
Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SW Portland
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attornatus_Oregonensis View Post
But at least they haven't created a fake attack and used it as a pretext to invade another country since Vietnam...
Seems pretty clear to me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:41 AM.




A production of Pedaltown Media Inc. / BikePortland.org
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.