Beatuiful 89 TII ...Crushed!
I can't seem to share the same thoughts. Personally I dont know what the big deal is about S4 & S5 RX-7's. Besides, you never know what kind of situation the owner was in or the condition of the car
I mean the guy claims he had the car for sale for 6 months without a single buyer??
Doesn't sound like it was a real keeper in my book.
I mean the guy claims he had the car for sale for 6 months without a single buyer??
Doesn't sound like it was a real keeper in my book.
OK, fine.
It's hard to decide where to start...
Clearly, the car referred to by the OP had zero value, evidenced by the fact that he was unable to sell it.
He was asking $4800 and the best- indeed, only- offer he received was a $4500 credit from the government, so what do think he should have done?
It's hard to decide where to start...
Clearly, the car referred to by the OP had zero value, evidenced by the fact that he was unable to sell it.
He was asking $4800 and the best- indeed, only- offer he received was a $4500 credit from the government, so what do think he should have done?
One of the basic tenets of the C4C program was to remove inefficient, high polluting cars from the road.
Given this goal, what sense would it make to reward an owner for terminating a car and then turn around and sell it to someone else so they could continue polluting?
Given this goal, what sense would it make to reward an owner for terminating a car and then turn around and sell it to someone else so they could continue polluting?
You, being the economics expert, should understand that the government buying all these cars for C4C then destroying them, is a roundabout way of giving our tax dollars to citizens who want to buy a new car, but have to resort to giving their "clunker" to the dealer for a $4500 credit. To answer your question, it would make sense because in many cases, the cars could have been sold by the dealer to make a nice profit and thereby boost their sales and we all know that puts the money back into the taxpayers hands. 
Who exactly was going to buy and resell all these used cars?
Who got to keep the profit?
Who got to keep the profit?
And this...this is just intellectual mush- pretty much the same rabblerousing, completely nonsensical ranting that Fox News specializes in.
I assume that "liberal" is meant as a derogatory term and liberals are to be held accountable for this poor RX7 being destroyed.
Fact is, the economists who came up with the C4C program are the very same people that the previous Republican administration relied on.
Why then isn't this a "genius conservative idea"?
Why weren't the heads of Detroit's Big Three- Republicans all- screaming in protest?
Fact is, the economists who came up with the C4C program are the very same people that the previous Republican administration relied on.
Why then isn't this a "genius conservative idea"?
Why weren't the heads of Detroit's Big Three- Republicans all- screaming in protest?
Oh the ever present mention of the "previous administration". Why is it that anytime someone doesn't agree with one of these Marxist policies, we get thrown in the G.W. Bush bandwagon? When does Obama become accountable for something? Tell me that.
It's not a "genius conservative idea" because liberals drafted, voted on and signed the C4C program into effect. Why is that hard to understand? At least admit it was this administration who put it into effect.
Detroit's big three? You mean Washington's big two? If you forgot, GM and Chrysler were bought by the government shortly after this program failed. The big three is ran by unions. Please enlighten me as to which side of the fence they fall on?
No.
You, being the economics expert, should understand that the government buying all these cars for C4C then destroying them, is a roundabout way of giving our tax dollars to citizens who want to buy a new car, but have to resort to giving their "clunker" to the dealer for a $4500 credit.
Can you ignore this little detail again?
Besides, I fail to see how boosting car dealers profit margins puts any more money in my pocket.
Should I run over to Burt Chevrolet and get my share?
If the program made sense, which it doesn't, the dealers would resell the cars they received credit from the government for and actually make money off the whole deal. Unfortunately, for them, the government has failed in most cases to pay back the credit that was given.
Yes, there were problems and delays with dealer payment in the immediate aftermath of the program's inception but as far as I can tell, pretty much everybody got their money in the end.
Fox News is the Paris Hilton of journalism, notorious for simply existing not for any intrinsic worth.
A nuance I don't grasp, sorry.
Oh the ever present mention of the "previous administration". Why is it that anytime someone doesn't agree with one of these Marxist policies, we get thrown in the G.W. Bush bandwagon? When does Obama become accountable for something? Tell me that.
It's not a "genius conservative idea" because liberals drafted, voted on and signed the C4C program into effect. Why is that hard to understand? At least admit it was this administration who put it into effect.
Detroit's big three? You mean Washington's big two? If you forgot, GM and Chrysler were bought by the government shortly after this program failed. The big three is ran by unions. Please enlighten me as to which side of the fence they fall on?
It's not a "genius conservative idea" because liberals drafted, voted on and signed the C4C program into effect. Why is that hard to understand? At least admit it was this administration who put it into effect.
Detroit's big three? You mean Washington's big two? If you forgot, GM and Chrysler were bought by the government shortly after this program failed. The big three is ran by unions. Please enlighten me as to which side of the fence they fall on?
It's interesting that Marxism apparently scares you to death despite the fact that you clearly have no idea what Marxism even is.
Score one for Glen Beck, I guess.
I guess you didn't say that directly but you continue to imply that the program even put a dent in the pollution. It did not.
Failure number one of the program.
You are wrong again. The goal of the program, as you keep insinuating and claiming that I don't acknowledge, is to remove older vehicles that pollute the atmosphere more than newer ones. The air pollution was not affected, at all, by the program.
Failure number two.
The secondary goal was to boost the economy by allowing people who wouldn't normally buy a car to purchase one with help from the trade in. I'm at a loss as to how using tax dollars to offset a small percentage of a car loan is supposed to help the economy. It's the liberal way to fix everything. Throw money at it that doesn't belong to you.
Failure number three.
Like I said, if the traded in vehicles were not destroyed, the program would make more sense. What makes the entire thing roundabout is that it would serve everyone better to give everyone a $4500 tax refund, instead of having them trade in a car, which in some cases was still usable, destroying that one, and giving them a small discount on a new car. Instead of giving tax payers their money to go spend and boost the economy, let's let anyone with a car that gets less than x mpg trade it in for a new one.
Again, I'm not ignoring that detail. I have addressed it several times. Try reading it.
The dealer has more money. The employees have more money. The employees spend the money at other places in the market. This is called free market capitalism, and it gets messed up when the government gets involved by giving people bailouts who would be collapsed and gone by now.
They did get their money in the end because the government bought two of the three American automakers. Everyone got their money except the few million tax payers that didn't feel like going into debt for a new car. That's alright though, I'm sure there were plenty of non tax paying Americans there to get their handouts like always.
You love bashing Fox News, I'm assuming that is supposed to be directed towards me. Out of curiosity, who do you watch/listen to?
Read carefully next time. I don't blame the liberals for the Rx7 being destroyed like you assumed. For that I blame one or both of the owners mentioned. I really could care less. I said I blame the liberal programs for the thousands of other cars that were destroyed. I highly doubt all of those owners had tried to sell the vehicle and no one knew what was going to be done to the cars after they were given to the government.
If you can't see how this policy and the other economic policies of this administration have strong ties to Marxism, the you are the one who is ignorant. This program was clearly an attack on free market capitalism with a Marxist strategy behind it. They removed the assets of thousands of Americans by paying billions of dollars to automakers only to have to then buy 2 out of three of the automakers shortly there after, destroy the cars (meaning no financial return whatsoever), all with no post c4c strategy to get those tax dollars back. That, friend, is clear Marxism.
Really though, who do you listen to?
Failure number one of the program.
Nothing "roundabout" there, that was a clearly stated goal of the program.
Failure number two.
The secondary goal was to boost the economy by allowing people who wouldn't normally buy a car to purchase one with help from the trade in. I'm at a loss as to how using tax dollars to offset a small percentage of a car loan is supposed to help the economy. It's the liberal way to fix everything. Throw money at it that doesn't belong to you.
Failure number three.
Like I said, if the traded in vehicles were not destroyed, the program would make more sense. What makes the entire thing roundabout is that it would serve everyone better to give everyone a $4500 tax refund, instead of having them trade in a car, which in some cases was still usable, destroying that one, and giving them a small discount on a new car. Instead of giving tax payers their money to go spend and boost the economy, let's let anyone with a car that gets less than x mpg trade it in for a new one.
And puts the inefficient car back into circulation so it can pollute some more.
Can you ignore this little detail again?
Besides, I fail to see how boosting car dealers profit margins puts any more money in my pocket.
Should I run over to Burt Chevrolet and get my share?
Can you ignore this little detail again?
Besides, I fail to see how boosting car dealers profit margins puts any more money in my pocket.
Should I run over to Burt Chevrolet and get my share?
The dealer has more money. The employees have more money. The employees spend the money at other places in the market. This is called free market capitalism, and it gets messed up when the government gets involved by giving people bailouts who would be collapsed and gone by now.
That is patently untrue and I'd like to see you back it up with fact.
Yes, there were problems and delays with dealer payment in the immediate aftermath of the program's inception but as far as I can tell, pretty much everybody got their money in the end.
Yes, there were problems and delays with dealer payment in the immediate aftermath of the program's inception but as far as I can tell, pretty much everybody got their money in the end.
No, it's because I enjoy taking cheap shots at easy targets.
Fox News is the Paris Hilton of journalism, notorious for simply existing not for any intrinsic worth.
Fox News is the Paris Hilton of journalism, notorious for simply existing not for any intrinsic worth.
You don't blame liberals but DO blame failed liberal programs?
A nuance I don't grasp, sorry.
A nuance I don't grasp, sorry.
And now we've careened off the rails with this "Marxist" nonsense again.
It's interesting that Marxism apparently scares you to death despite the fact that you clearly have no idea what Marxism even is.
Score one for Glen Beck, I guess.
It's interesting that Marxism apparently scares you to death despite the fact that you clearly have no idea what Marxism even is.
Score one for Glen Beck, I guess.
Really though, who do you listen to?
I guess you didn't say that directly but you continue to imply that the program even put a dent in the pollution. It did not.
Failure number one of the program.
You are wrong again. The goal of the program, as you keep insinuating and claiming that I don't acknowledge, is to remove older vehicles that pollute the atmosphere more than newer ones. The air pollution was not affected, at all, by the program.
Failure number two.
The secondary goal was to boost the economy by allowing people who wouldn't normally buy a car to purchase one with help from the trade in. I'm at a loss as to how using tax dollars to offset a small percentage of a car loan is supposed to help the economy. It's the liberal way to fix everything. Throw money at it that doesn't belong to you.
Failure number three.
Like I said, if the traded in vehicles were not destroyed, the program would make more sense. What makes the entire thing roundabout is that it would serve everyone better to give everyone a $4500 tax refund, instead of having them trade in a car, which in some cases was still usable, destroying that one, and giving them a small discount on a new car. Instead of giving tax payers their money to go spend and boost the economy, let's let anyone with a car that gets less than x mpg trade it in for a new one.
Again, I'm not ignoring that detail. I have addressed it several times. Try reading it.
The dealer has more money. The employees have more money. The employees spend the money at other places in the market. This is called free market capitalism, and it gets messed up when the government gets involved by giving people bailouts who would be collapsed and gone by now.
They did get their money in the end because the government bought two of the three American automakers. Everyone got their money except the few million tax payers that didn't feel like going into debt for a new car. That's alright though, I'm sure there were plenty of non tax paying Americans there to get their handouts like always.
You love bashing Fox News, I'm assuming that is supposed to be directed towards me. Out of curiosity, who do you watch/listen to?
Read carefully next time. I don't blame the liberals for the Rx7 being destroyed like you assumed. For that I blame one or both of the owners mentioned. I really could care less. I said I blame the liberal programs for the thousands of other cars that were destroyed. I highly doubt all of those owners had tried to sell the vehicle and no one knew what was going to be done to the cars after they were given to the government.
If you can't see how this policy and the other economic policies of this administration have strong ties to Marxism, the you are the one who is ignorant. This program was clearly an attack on free market capitalism with a Marxist strategy behind it. They removed the assets of thousands of Americans by paying billions of dollars to automakers only to have to then buy 2 out of three of the automakers shortly there after, destroy the cars (meaning no financial return whatsoever), all with no post c4c strategy to get those tax dollars back. That, friend, is clear Marxism.
Really though, who do you listen to?
Failure number one of the program.
You are wrong again. The goal of the program, as you keep insinuating and claiming that I don't acknowledge, is to remove older vehicles that pollute the atmosphere more than newer ones. The air pollution was not affected, at all, by the program.
Failure number two.
The secondary goal was to boost the economy by allowing people who wouldn't normally buy a car to purchase one with help from the trade in. I'm at a loss as to how using tax dollars to offset a small percentage of a car loan is supposed to help the economy. It's the liberal way to fix everything. Throw money at it that doesn't belong to you.
Failure number three.
Like I said, if the traded in vehicles were not destroyed, the program would make more sense. What makes the entire thing roundabout is that it would serve everyone better to give everyone a $4500 tax refund, instead of having them trade in a car, which in some cases was still usable, destroying that one, and giving them a small discount on a new car. Instead of giving tax payers their money to go spend and boost the economy, let's let anyone with a car that gets less than x mpg trade it in for a new one.
Again, I'm not ignoring that detail. I have addressed it several times. Try reading it.
The dealer has more money. The employees have more money. The employees spend the money at other places in the market. This is called free market capitalism, and it gets messed up when the government gets involved by giving people bailouts who would be collapsed and gone by now.
They did get their money in the end because the government bought two of the three American automakers. Everyone got their money except the few million tax payers that didn't feel like going into debt for a new car. That's alright though, I'm sure there were plenty of non tax paying Americans there to get their handouts like always.
You love bashing Fox News, I'm assuming that is supposed to be directed towards me. Out of curiosity, who do you watch/listen to?
Read carefully next time. I don't blame the liberals for the Rx7 being destroyed like you assumed. For that I blame one or both of the owners mentioned. I really could care less. I said I blame the liberal programs for the thousands of other cars that were destroyed. I highly doubt all of those owners had tried to sell the vehicle and no one knew what was going to be done to the cars after they were given to the government.
If you can't see how this policy and the other economic policies of this administration have strong ties to Marxism, the you are the one who is ignorant. This program was clearly an attack on free market capitalism with a Marxist strategy behind it. They removed the assets of thousands of Americans by paying billions of dollars to automakers only to have to then buy 2 out of three of the automakers shortly there after, destroy the cars (meaning no financial return whatsoever), all with no post c4c strategy to get those tax dollars back. That, friend, is clear Marxism.
Really though, who do you listen to?
Im not even gonna argue your point.
I would never ever rather see my t2 crushed, if no one wants to buy it...storage isn't a problem it's just the fact I don't want to see it sitting somewhere collecting dust
just yesterday at my new job next to cal trans....I saw a gem just sitting there (it wasn't a FC but it something in the same category to me...it was an unmolested Datsun 240z)
to me car's like these are meant to be driven and enjoyed not stock piled and put away somewhere for keeping value (I don't think these car's will worth 100k any time soon)
but yea I remember seeing your car for sale awhile back on auto trader.....by the previous owner
just yesterday at my new job next to cal trans....I saw a gem just sitting there (it wasn't a FC but it something in the same category to me...it was an unmolested Datsun 240z)
to me car's like these are meant to be driven and enjoyed not stock piled and put away somewhere for keeping value (I don't think these car's will worth 100k any time soon)
but yea I remember seeing your car for sale awhile back on auto trader.....by the previous owner
Hmm, it's like the opposite of my old car. I sold the chassis 2 years ago, and it just keeps coming back to my town. I think 3-4 people I know have purchased it since then. It just WON'T die. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MidnightOwl
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
1
Sep 25, 2015 10:24 PM