Why are liberals for CARS and conservatives against it?
Based on P&N discussions, in general, liberals like the CARS program. In general, conservatives don't like it.
Okay, I admit up front that my understanding is imperfect (hence the question).
Based on the discussion here, it seems that the primary reason government enacted this program is to encourage people to buy more new cars, which provides money to the car dealers and the auto companies, thereby stimulating the economy, which in turn creates new jobs for middle and lower class people. There are side benefits (e.g. better mileage, people with new cars), but that seems to be the main reason.
Dealership owners and auto companies are the primary beneficiaries of CARS. These are not poor or middle class people.
My understanding of trickle down theory is that you give tax breaks or other economic benefits to rich people, and they will take that money and invest more in business (stimulate the economy) which in turn creates new jobs for middle and lower class people. I thought that liberals disliked trickle down theory, and conservatives liked it.
Now, of course, CARS does not just benefit rich people. It provides money for anyone who has a qualifiying clunker, and can afford a new car. Not for people like me ("middle" middle class) who don't have enough saved up to outright buy a new car, are still in fear for their jobs, and therefore don't want to take on new debt. Not for poor people who can't afford a new car at all, and wouldn't qualify for financing.
In general, I'd expect that the people who qualify are the upper middle class and the upper class, who are most likely to have enough liquid assets to buy a new car, or are most secure in their jobs.
As pointed out by others, reducing the used car market actually hurts the poor and lower middle class.
Given the above, why are liberals for CARS and conservatives against it? It seems like it should be the opposite, since it seems that CARS is basically just trickle down economics, although much more targeted.
So what am I missing here? This question popped into my head this morning while I was still sleep-groggy, so please forgive me if it seems silly.
EDIT:
Please stay on topic. I don't really want to debate the merits of CARS. That's been done in other threads.
Here's what I'm asking.
1. Are my assumptions correct?
A. Liberals like CARS, conservative don't like CARS.
B. Liberals don't like trickle down economics, conservatives do like trickle down economics.
2. Is CARS essentially a narrow form of trickle down economics?
If not, then end of discussion. Please explain why?
3. If #2 is true, then why don't conservatives like CARS, and Liberals dislike it?
Based on P&N discussions, in general, liberals like the CARS program. In general, conservatives don't like it.
Okay, I admit up front that my understanding is imperfect (hence the question).
Based on the discussion here, it seems that the primary reason government enacted this program is to encourage people to buy more new cars, which provides money to the car dealers and the auto companies, thereby stimulating the economy, which in turn creates new jobs for middle and lower class people. There are side benefits (e.g. better mileage, people with new cars), but that seems to be the main reason.
Dealership owners and auto companies are the primary beneficiaries of CARS. These are not poor or middle class people.
My understanding of trickle down theory is that you give tax breaks or other economic benefits to rich people, and they will take that money and invest more in business (stimulate the economy) which in turn creates new jobs for middle and lower class people. I thought that liberals disliked trickle down theory, and conservatives liked it.
Now, of course, CARS does not just benefit rich people. It provides money for anyone who has a qualifiying clunker, and can afford a new car. Not for people like me ("middle" middle class) who don't have enough saved up to outright buy a new car, are still in fear for their jobs, and therefore don't want to take on new debt. Not for poor people who can't afford a new car at all, and wouldn't qualify for financing.
In general, I'd expect that the people who qualify are the upper middle class and the upper class, who are most likely to have enough liquid assets to buy a new car, or are most secure in their jobs.
As pointed out by others, reducing the used car market actually hurts the poor and lower middle class.
Given the above, why are liberals for CARS and conservatives against it? It seems like it should be the opposite, since it seems that CARS is basically just trickle down economics, although much more targeted.
So what am I missing here? This question popped into my head this morning while I was still sleep-groggy, so please forgive me if it seems silly.
EDIT:
Please stay on topic. I don't really want to debate the merits of CARS. That's been done in other threads.
Here's what I'm asking.
1. Are my assumptions correct?
A. Liberals like CARS, conservative don't like CARS.
B. Liberals don't like trickle down economics, conservatives do like trickle down economics.
2. Is CARS essentially a narrow form of trickle down economics?
If not, then end of discussion. Please explain why?
3. If #2 is true, then why don't conservatives like CARS, and Liberals dislike it?
Facebook
Twitter