Congress Just Buying People Cars Now • Hacker News Board

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#21

Post by josefresco » Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 12:18 PM UTC

marze wrote: post #10

What we have here is a wasted opportunity. This program could have required a 10 mpg improvement and could have been set up to require at least 28 mpg on the new vehicle, by using two different numbers, and it would still be very successful and have made the US less dependent on foreign oil imports. Oops. Too much influence have the firms that make "campaign contributions".

This isn't about the environment, it's about the economy. The enviro-aspects are simply a bonus and helped get this stimulus plan passed. If it was too restrictive less people would have qualified thereby killing any economic benefit.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#22

Post by jzachary » Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 12:26 PM UTC

This program is about keeping consumerism alive to benefit the economy, not about fuel efficiency, The idea of trading in clunkers for fuel efficient vehicles is a thin veil to the real goal of getting people to buy things from an industry who lobbied the government to give them a handout. Instead of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, the robbers this time are car dealers.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#23

Post by bmj » Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 12:41 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #17

bmj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Producing _anything_ isn't easy on the environment.

How about locally hand-built wooden furniture from sustainably managed forest - it sequesters carbon and provides often beautiful goods is relatively labour intensive (good for employment figures) and preserves traditional skills. Well managed forest will preserve the natural living environment of many species. Bonus points if the carpenter eats a low animal-protein diet.

Likely will still require some metal production for tools.

I'm not advocating that we don't produce things--I just think we often overlook the costs of production when we look at environmental factors.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#24

Post by jzachary » Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 12:44 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #20

josefresco wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware that banana consumption was a problem or that America depends on a healthy bike industry to thrive. News to me!

I wasn't aware that having a slightly-old car was a problem.

It isn't a problem. You car is probably perfectly fine and may get great gas mileage. The problem is that you are not consuming. Bad American!

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#25

Post by marze » Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 4:15 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #21

marze wrote: post #10

What we have here is a wasted opportunity. This program could have required a 10 mpg improvement and could have been set up to require at least 28 mpg on the new vehicle, by using two different numbers, and it would still be very successful and have made the US less dependent on foreign oil imports. Oops. Too much influence have the firms that make "campaign contributions".

This isn't about the environment, it's about the economy. The enviro-aspects are simply a bonus and helped get this stimulus plan passed. If it was too restrictive less people would have qualified thereby killing any economic benefit.

That's all good, but if you read carefully you'll see I made no mention of the environment in my post, which was focused on the national security benefits to being less reliant on foreign oil.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#26

Post by jrockway » Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 4:25 PM UTC

bmj wrote: post #15

jrockway wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a luxury, it is a conscious decision that many people make sacrifices to obtain.

True, but what about people who live in small towns or rural areas. I'm not talking about suburbia--many of those people made conscious decisions to live far away from their work and amenities. Or do we just tell those people they really need to make a sacrifice and move to the city? I appreciate this perspective, though. I've ridden my bike to work for the last eight years. My family lives in the city (I live not fa…

A car doesn't sound like a very good investment if you never use it. Better to use a car sharing service... although I guess those don't exist in the suburbs.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#27

Post by jsz0 » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 7:51 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #11

jsz0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't tax dollars spent on sidewalks and mass transit be subsidizing others choice of transportation also?

$4500 pumped into buying you a car is good for you, and slightly good for the environment; but investing $4500 into public transportation benefits hundreds of people, and is even better for the environment. Since we don't have much money, it's best to use it in a way that will have the most benefit.

I totally agree... but I can't help playing devils advocate when someone is very ardently against someone else's choices. Transportation is multi-tiered. In some places you need an automobile. They might as well be efficient.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#28

Post by mmt » Mon, Aug 17, 2009, 11:23 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #26

bmj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but what about people who live in small towns or rural areas. I'm not talking about suburbia--many of those people made conscious decisions to live far away from their work and amenities. Or do we just tell those people they really need to make a sacrifice and move to the city? I appreciate this perspective, though. I've ridden my bike to work for the last eight years. My family lives in the city (I live not fa…

A car doesn't sound like a very good investment if you never use it. Better to use a car sharing service... although I guess those don't exist in the suburbs.

There's a very good reason for that.. it would cost too much to have a car available everywhere it would need to be.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#29

Post by mmt » Mon, Aug 17, 2009, 11:25 PM UTC

jamiequint wrote: post #5

andreyf wrote: post #2

Cars? People still buy those things? I wonder how much non-drivers' taxpayer money goes to subsidizing others' choices of transportation like this...

Easy to say that if you live in a densely populated city with good public transit. Not everyone has the luxury of living close to public transportation or within walking distance of all necessary services they need.

It seems less like a luxury and more like a burden, but, then, I love the suburbs.