You object to increasing outgo, but you don't object to decreasing income. Don't they produce the same effect? Same income with more spending = same spending with less income.
I don't see the difference.People insist on seeing the cash for clunkers program as merely another stimulus effort while ignoring its other objective, which was to reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce vehicle carbon emissions by getting less fuel-efficient vehicles off the road. Turning around and putting the gas-guzzlers back on the road would have been self-defeating. The stimulus component was just the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine more palatable.Instead of cash for clunkers, they could have offered $4500 tax credits to anybody purchasing an American car leaving the "clunkers" for low income charities that provide cars for people that need to get to a starter job. Instead, we destroyed existing value of used cars and provided the majority of the funds to Kia, Hyndai and Toyota.
I do note, however, that you object to stimulus spending in one breath and then castigate a program because it didn't concentrate on stimulus. How consistent of you.
Bookmarks