[toymaker]

Originally Posted by pruettfan

How did you get this car to qualify for this program? From what I have read the car cannot exceed 45k. I would make sure the dealer got this right. There are a lot of stories coming out of customers that thought they qualified, bought the car and a few days later learned that their car did not qualify.

Also as a tax payer your welcome for my subsidy of your new car.

Base MSRP $43,900

Thank you for the subsidy. :-)

[skh]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

I've owned BMWs for 20 years (I also have two American trucks). I don't have an issue with the OP buying a BMW or anyone else buying a BMW, but I do have an issue with using tax dollars (your money, my money, you kid's money) to subsidize the sale. It ultimately helps a European based auto company, not an American auto company. Even in a world economy a German car sale helps the German economy, an American car sale helps the American economy.

The comment about only pushing trucks is asinine. The market determines what auto companies build. I like rear-drive, straight-six, manual transmission cars, which is why I drive a BMW. If Ford built the same configuration and it met my requirements, I'd buy it. BMWs are no more reliable than American cars - look up the stats (I won't mention HPFPs, replaced steering columns, cracked rear subframes [E46s], exploding sunroofs). The problem is the Government wasn't able to provide the contols to allow for a stable price for gasoline so the market dried up in the 6-month period gas went out of control. Some people need trucks and SUVs. Why did Toyota and Nissan start building them? Cars don't get designed and produced in 6 months so a quickly changing market determined by gas prices is bad for everyone, even over-priced 25 MPG German economy cars (hence the advent of the 335d to the US market).

I agree with you that the volatility in gas prices is a bad thing. But the only proven way to minimize fluctuations is to heavily tax gas -- like they do in Europe. Even very large fluctuations in crude prices (due to commodity speculation, refinery bottlenecks, world demand, whatever) have a much smaller effect on gas prices as a percentage of total cost, and the government has the option to reduce taxes to mitigate fluctuations even more. But that of course means perpetually high prices, and a regressive tax on the poor. But it would lead to gas price stability. Worth it? Who knows.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by yomama69

This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Purchasing anything in the US from a seller in the US, while paying sales tax in the US, helps the US economy, regardless of where the product was manufactured. BTW, BMW of North America, LLC is a US Company, which pays taxes in the US. I hear comments like yours all the time because my in-laws live in Flint, MI and all work for or have worked for GM. They hate that I own a BMW and the only argument I ever hear is, "buying that car doesn't help the economy." Sure it does. I bought it in the US and paid 6.5% sales tax, while financing with a US bank, who will earn money off my interest rate. The US based dealer in Dallas made money off the purchase and the salesman got commission. If you want to be ignorant about how economics and capitalism work, I suggest you do it somewhere else. You've made that same dumbass comment twice in this thread already.

Obviously the dumb ass is the person who missed my point. My point is that using tax dollars to subsidize purchases of foreign sourced automobiles is not as good for the economy as using the tax dollars strictly for purchasing a US sourced automobile. I never said buying any car doesn't help the economy, but what I did say is buying a car from a US manufacturer (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) helps MORE that a foreign car.

Regardless of how we got here, if the intent of the Government is to resurrect the US auto industry by providing loans (which is what was done, not bailouts) to allow the corporations time to improve their business practices and get new, desirable products developed. And part of help comes from an attempt, in the short term, to boost (domestic sourced) car sales, then does it really make any sense to use the tax dollars to help BMW sell cars when it doesn't need the help?

The ignorant statement is to think as the US keeps loosing its manufacturing base (it's down to 9% of total employment) it will ultimately be bad for ALL sectors of the economy. True wealth is created by taking raw materials and adding value to them; it has been the basis of every economic system. Iron ore does jack shit for you until ZF makes it into a gear for your BMW's transmission. That process employs a lot of people, all who pay income, property, sales, gas, capital gains, and corporate taxes. Why not have more Americans participate in the process?

Being short-sighted is ignorant my friend. The US economy got $4,000 from your sale abd you paid 6.5% sales tax, BFD.

[toymaker]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Obviously the dumb ass is the person who missed my point. My point is that using tax dollars to subsidize purchases of foreign sourced automobiles is not as good for the economy as using the tax dollars strictly for purchasing a US sourced automobile. I never said buying any car doesn't help the economy, but what I did say is buying a car from a US manufacturer (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) helps MORE that a foreign car.

Regardless of how we got here, if the intent of the Government is to resurrect the US auto industry by providing loans (which is what was done, not bailouts) to allow the corporations time to improve their business practices and get new, desirable products developed. And part of help comes from an attempt, in the short term, to boost (domestic sourced) car sales, then does it really make any sense to use the tax dollars to help BMW sell cars when it doesn't need the help?

The ignorant statement is to think as the US keeps loosing its manufacturing base (it's down to 9% of total employment) it will ultimately be bad for ALL sectors of the economy. True wealth is created by taking raw materials and adding value to them; it has been the basis of every economic system. Iron ore does jack shit for you until ZF makes it into a gear for your BMW's transmission. That process employs a lot of people, all who pay income, property, sales, gas, capital gains, and corporate taxes. Why not have more Americans participate in the process?

Being short-sighted is ignorant my friend. The US economy got $4,000 from your sale abd you paid 6.5% sales tax, BFD.

I knew we should have bought an Escalade

[John 070]

Originally Posted by toymaker

I knew we should have bought an Escalade

Or, better yet, buy nothing, and drive what you have a little further.

No matter how we present the situation, if Americans don't increase savings and productivity, all bets are off.

In the old days, a very long time ago, say 1990 (many here weren't even born yet), when there weren't so many financial instruments available to the consumer, a person had to save up before they obtained something. As of 5 years ago, that no longer even applied to homes. People could walk in with $0 cash, and leave as the owner of their 3rd investment property, only to be bailed out of their speculative position by the Federal Government.

And when I mentioned unintended effects, how about dealerships pouring sodium silicate into the crankcases of running vehicles, thereby creating valuable clunkers? Humans will always demonstrate ingenuity, that you can rely upon.

[Technic]

Originally Posted by toymaker

I could elaborate but I have to buy some American made wax to detail my new German car.



GOD BLESS AMERICA

I spit orange juice on my keyboard while laughing at that...

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Obviously the dumb ass is the person who missed my point. My point is that using tax dollars to subsidize purchases of foreign sourced automobiles is not as good for the economy as using the tax dollars strictly for purchasing a US sourced automobile. I never said buying any car doesn't help the economy, but what I did say is buying a car from a US manufacturer (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) helps MORE that a foreign car.

Regardless of how we got here, if the intent of the Government is to resurrect the US auto industry by providing loans (which is what was done, not bailouts) to allow the corporations time to improve their business practices and get new, desirable products developed. And part of help comes from an attempt, in the short term, to boost (domestic sourced) car sales, then does it really make any sense to use the tax dollars to help BMW sell cars when it doesn't need the help?

The ignorant statement is to think as the US keeps loosing its manufacturing base (it's down to 9% of total employment) it will ultimately be bad for ALL sectors of the economy. True wealth is created by taking raw materials and adding value to them; it has been the basis of every economic system. Iron ore does jack shit for you until ZF makes it into a gear for your BMW's transmission. That process employs a lot of people, all who pay income, property, sales, gas, capital gains, and corporate taxes. Why not have more Americans participate in the process?

Being short-sighted is ignorant my friend. The US economy got $4,000 from your sale abd you paid 6.5% sales tax, BFD.

Interestingly enough, your position is to help the companies that don't give a shit about the workforce they employ. In 1987, GM shut down Flint plant #1 and moved operations to Canada, thus creating US unemployment and now Canadian employment. In 1994, when GM took spun off Delphi from AC Delco, they needed an entire plant and thousands of employees to run that plant. They closed the plant in 2006. Spark plugs are now manufactured in Mexico. When GM closed the Delta Township plant in 2005, about 5,000 more people lost their jobs. Cadillac trucks and GM truck beds are now manufactured in Mexico.

Over the last decade, BMW, Toyota, and Nissan have all created more net jobs than GM and all manufacture cars here. I still fail to realize why anyone should or would buy from GM. Not to mention that your logic on US manufactured vehicle purchase is flawed if someone purchases a GM vehicle made in Canada or Mexico.

Government shouldn't waste tax dollars bailing out companies that obviously don't want to flourish. While other auto manufactures posted record sales, GM posted losses. It wasn't an industry downturn. It was a company falling apart. In a capitalistic economy, when a company falls apart, other companies flourish. When that happens, more jobs will be created. There are other industries that could have used bailouts, and that are suffering as a result of industry downturn due to the economy. GM and Chrysler needed to go under. The government was too concerned with job loss. It's cyclical and inevitable. Prolonging it only wastes more tax dollars.

[toymaker]

Originally Posted by John 070

Or, better yet, buy nothing, and drive what you have a little further.

No matter how we present the situation, if Americans don't increase savings and productivity, all bets are off.

In the old days, a very long time ago,

In the old days people wore really funny hats and they bathed once a week..

[Joeb427]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Interestingly enough, your position is to help the companies that don't give a shit about the workforce they employ. In 1987, GM shut down Flint plant #1 and moved operations to Canada, thus creating US unemployment and now Canadian employment. In 1994, when GM took spun off Delphi from AC Delco, they needed an entire plant and thousands of employees to run that plant. They closed the plant in 2006. Spark plugs are now manufactured in Mexico. When GM closed the Delta Township plant in 2005, about 5,000 more people lost their jobs. Cadillac trucks and GM truck beds are now manufactured in Mexico.

Over the last decade, BMW, Toyota, and Nissan have all created more net jobs than GM and all manufacture cars here. I still fail to realize why anyone should or would buy from GM. Not to mention that your logic on US manufactured vehicle purchase is flawed if someone purchases a GM vehicle made in Canada or Mexico.

Government shouldn't waste tax dollars bailing out companies that obviously don't want to flourish. While other auto manufactures posted record sales, GM posted losses. It wasn't an industry downturn. It was a company falling apart. In a capitalistic economy, when a company falls apart, other companies flourish. When that happens, more jobs will be created. There are other industries that could have used bailouts, and that are suffering as a result of industry downturn due to the economy. GM and Chrysler needed to go under. The government was too concerned with job loss. It's cyclical and inevitable. Prolonging it only wastes more tax dollars.

[John 070]

Originally Posted by Joeb427

^^^ interesting!

More observations, since I DIY as much as I can on my 1998 Nissan. That car was, back then, made in Japan. It's now made in TN.

Anyway, I ordered OEM upper and lower radiator hoses--one was made in USA, the other the Philippines. The OEM oil filters used to be made in Japan (3 years ago?), but the latest batch from China.

I ordered all new rotors and pads, 4 corners, OEM. All made in USA.

Guess what? The rotors are not like what came with the car. All 4 hats are completely rusted, whereas the originals did not rust more than surface rust, over 11 years. Not only that, the rear left needs to be replaced in one year of being on the car. The exhaust system has never been replaced in 12 years of being on the road. What are the chances that an OEM replacement could last that long?

Many of the above parts were made in USA, even though the car was made in Japan. I'm sure when you lift the hood of a GM car, Mexico, Canada, Philippines, China, will appear on many parts. Lots of those parts exceed the quality of those made in USA. Nobody wants to see the USA fold like a tent when the circus has left town. What we do want is to see them get a chance to do a better job. And if they cannot, they should wind down operations.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Interestingly enough, your position is to help the companies that don't give a shit about the workforce they employ. In 1987, GM shut down Flint plant #1 and moved operations to Canada, thus creating US unemployment and now Canadian employment. In 1994, when GM took spun off Delphi from AC Delco, they needed an entire plant and thousands of employees to run that plant. They closed the plant in 2006. Spark plugs are now manufactured in Mexico. When GM closed the Delta Township plant in 2005, about 5,000 more people lost their jobs. Cadillac trucks and GM truck beds are now manufactured in Mexico.

Over the last decade, BMW, Toyota, and Nissan have all created more net jobs than GM and all manufacture cars here. I still fail to realize why anyone should or would buy from GM. Not to mention that your logic on US manufactured vehicle purchase is flawed if someone purchases a GM vehicle made in Canada or Mexico.

Government shouldn't waste tax dollars bailing out companies that obviously don't want to flourish. While other auto manufactures posted record sales, GM posted losses. It wasn't an industry downturn. It was a company falling apart. In a capitalistic economy, when a company falls apart, other companies flourish. When that happens, more jobs will be created. There are other industries that could have used bailouts, and that are suffering as a result of industry downturn due to the economy. GM and Chrysler needed to go under. The government was too concerned with job loss. It's cyclical and inevitable. Prolonging it only wastes more tax dollars.

And the Union workforce didn't give a shit about the company it worked for.

Why did GM move production off shore? Maybe the business climate in the US sucked? They had to compete with a workforce in Japan that made 1/3 the salary of a US auto worker. Maybe the 1973 oil crisis, where you couldn't actually buy gas any time you wanted (unlike last year when gas was $4.50/gal), caused an immediate change in the automotive market, where Japan had the right cars for the time since their home market cars were already prepared for the need to have better MPG. Maybe the US car companies were also at the same time designing to meet way stricter emission regulations, and having a Union workforce trying to screw the company all at the same time. All which led to today, where GM has legacy labor costs, negotiated in the 1970's that virtually make it impossible to build a car on comparative cost basis with imports. Maybe GM had to cut costs somewhere to pay for its labor costs, humm... let's cut the Engineering department, use cheaper parts, where does it end up, poorly designed cars with short-lived parts. So don't go making it sound like it was just a bunch of over-paid senior executives, chasing their secretaries around, not giving a crap how they ran the company.

Ever wonder why a 3 series BMW costs $10,000 more than any of its rivals (except Mercedes and Audi) in the economy car class? Production and engineering costs.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

And the Union workforce didn't give a shit about the company it worked for.

Why did GM move production off shore? Maybe the business climate in the US sucked? They had to compete with a workforce in Japan that made 1/3 the salary of a US auto worker. Maybe the 1973 oil crisis, where you couldn't actually buy gas any time you wanted (unlike last year when gas was $4.50/gal), caused an immediate change in the automotive market, where Japan had the right cars for the time since their home market cars were already prepared for the need to have better MPG. Maybe the US car companies were also at the same time designing to meet way stricter emission regulations, and having a Union workforce trying to screw the company all at the same time. All which led to today, where GM has legacy labor costs, negotiated in the 1970's that virtually make it impossible to build a car on comparative cost basis with imports. Maybe GM had to cut costs somewhere to pay for its labor costs, humm... let's cut the Engineering department, use cheaper parts, where does it end up, poorly designed cars with short-lived parts. So don't go making it sound like it was just a bunch of over-paid senior executives, chasing their secretaries around, not giving a crap how they ran the company.

Ever wonder why a 3 series BMW costs $10,000 more than any of its rivals (except Mercedes and Audi) in the economy car class? Production and engineering costs.

I think you further proved my point. Thank you for that.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by yomama69

I think you further proved my point. Thank you for that.

Actually I didn't. Just showed how little you know.

[mcdonaldb]

I wonder what kind of BS loans they are handing out for the cash for clunkers program, isnt the average car price like 27k, minus the maximum 4500 rebate. So how many of these people really qualify for 23k loan, sounds alot like the housing bubble to me.

[jocamryn]

...now every trailer in the park can have a bimmer in the driveway

[akhter]

Originally Posted by yomama69

This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Purchasing anything in the US from a seller in the US, while paying sales tax in the US, helps the US economy, regardless of where the product was manufactured. BTW, BMW of North America, LLC is a US Company, which pays taxes in the US. I hear comments like yours all the time because my in-laws live in Flint, MI and all work for or have worked for GM. They hate that I own a BMW and the only argument I ever hear is, "buying that car doesn't help the economy." Sure it does. I bought it in the US and paid 6.5% sales tax, while financing with a US bank, who will earn money off my interest rate. The US based dealer in Dallas made money off the purchase and the salesman got commission. If you want to be ignorant about how economics and capitalism work, I suggest you do it somewhere else. You've made that same dumbass comment twice in this thread already.

+10000000000000

i laugh at the ignorant fools who don't have a clue about economics...

I don't even know where to begin when talking about how many things are wrong with the protectionist whining:

1) BMW USA LLC is an American company.
2) The 'german' cars are built with parts all over.
3) Any US built POS car you buy will have parts from all over the world.
4) The point of the stimulus is the compounding of the secondary effects, not the single car purchase. E.g. The dealer, transportation company, finance company, insurance company, gas stations and all the industries they depend on.

Another angle:
If the buyer of the car is a tax-payer whose tax-dollars were used to start a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and bail out Wall street firms and insurance companies, the least he can do is buy the car he wants, legally within the rules laid out by his government (thank god not staffed by morons with protectionist attitudes).

I don't even know why i bothered writing this. If the whiner knew an thing or two about macro economics, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by akhter

+10000000000000

i laugh at the ignorant fools who don't have a clue about economics...

I don't even know where to begin when talking about how many things are wrong with the protectionist whining:

1) BMW USA LLC is an American company.
2) The 'german' cars are built with parts all over.
3) Any US built POS car you buy will have parts from all over the world.
4) The point of the stimulus is the compounding of the secondary effects, not the single car purchase. E.g. The dealer, transportation company, finance company, insurance company, gas stations and all the industries they depend on.

Another angle:
If the buyer of the car is a tax-payer whose tax-dollars were used to start a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and bail out Wall street firms and insurance companies, the least he can do is buy the car he wants, legally within the rules laid out by his government (thank god not staffed by morons with protectionist attitudes).

I don't even know why i bothered writing this. If the whiner knew an thing or two about macro economics, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The insurance company is already insuring the clunker traded in and will probably reduce the liability coverage price since the new car is safer than the clunker traded in.

The gas stations will actually be hurt since the new car has to get 10 MPG better than the clunker traded in, so their revenues will decrease.

Tell us what happens to the economy when the tax bill comes in to pay for the $1B to $3B cash for clunkers program?

My issue wasn't with the OP buying the 335d, it's with the stupid program. It's not protectist whining; it's about bad policy.

My Macro economics is bigger than your micro economics.

[Geonator]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

My Macro economics is bigger than your micro economics.

Well, Thats what she said..

[akhter]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

The people we elected to Congress and the White House.

They should have made it for US Auto companies only, if they were trying to help the economy by helping the US Auto companies.

Originally Posted by ENINTY

My issue wasn't with the OP buying the 335d, it's with the stupid program. It's not protectist whining; it's about bad policy.

This is a stimulus. Most of the 1bn will go directly into retail. Even if you buy a german car, the subsidy goes to the American consumer's bottom line and hence to either the consumers savings or checking account. The BMW USA gets the same amount for the car with or without stimulus (and by extension BMW Germany gets the same fraction of that). With such stimulus, there will always be some direct benefactors who will benefit more than others.

Also, generally, WSJ seems to agree:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124934426743203057.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124934376942503053.html

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by akhter

This is a stimulus. Most of the 1bn will go directly into retail. Even if you buy a german car, the subsidy goes to the American consumer's bottom line and hence to either the consumers savings or checking account. The BMW USA gets the same amount for the car with or without stimulus (and by extension BMW Germany gets the same fraction of that). With such stimulus, there will always be some direct benefactors who will benefit more than others.

Also, generally, WSJ seems to agree:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124934426743203057.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124934376942503053.html

An then there was this from another WSJ article:

"But, as many have noted, the program also leads to speeding up many sales that would’ve happened anyway in late 2009 or early 2010. After adding $50 billion to third-quarter consumption, Lee says, you can subtract about $25 billion in the third quarter. The end result under his forecast: third-quarter growth of 2.5% to 3.5%, followed by a fourth-quarter decline of 1.5% to 2%. In other words, more fodder for talk about a double-dip recession."

We can argue this forever. My point is the best outcome for use of the tax dollars (calling it stimulus money doesn't change the fact it is tax revenues) is to have it all go to either GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Boosting car production (as the quoted articles suggest) for BMW will not improve the US economy as much as it does the German economy. BMW N.A. is a subsidiary of BMW AG, hence the profit benefits BMW AG.

My Macroeconomic point of view is if we want to have US auto manufacturers building US cars in the USA (fuel efficient cars as Obama said would be built in middle America by Americans under his administration- on the campaign trail in Ohio last fall) shouldn't Government policy strive for that end? Shouldn't it start with the cash for clunkers program? Why give 50% of the CFC $3B to foreign owned companies?

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

An then there was this from another WSJ article:

"But, as many have noted, the program also leads to speeding up many sales that would’ve happened anyway in late 2009 or early 2010. After adding $50 billion to third-quarter consumption, Lee says, you can subtract about $25 billion in the third quarter. The end result under his forecast: third-quarter growth of 2.5% to 3.5%, followed by a fourth-quarter decline of 1.5% to 2%. In other words, more fodder for talk about a double-dip recession."

We can argue this forever. My point is the best outcome for use of the tax dollars (calling it stimulus money doesn't change the fact it is tax revenues) is to have it all go to either GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Boosting car production (as the quoted articles suggest) for BMW will not improve the US economy as much as it does the German economy. BMW N.A. is a subsidiary of BMW AG, hence the profit benefits BMW AG.

My Macroeconomic point of view is if we want to have US auto manufacturers building US cars in the USA (fuel efficient cars as Obama said would be built in middle America by Americans under his administration- on the campaign trail in Ohio last fall) shouldn't Government policy strive for that end? Shouldn't it start with the cash for clunkers program? Why give 50% of the CFC $3B to foreign owned companies?

Why are you hanging on to profits as your main point? Boosting the economy isn't about 3 American companies profiting. It's about 250 million Americans having the ability to shuffle dollars into commerce and doing exactly that.

[IDreamofBimmers]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Interestingly enough, your position is to help the companies that don't give a shit about the workforce they employ. In 1987, GM shut down Flint plant #1 and moved operations to Canada, thus creating US unemployment and now Canadian employment. In 1994, when GM took spun off Delphi from AC Delco, they needed an entire plant and thousands of employees to run that plant. They closed the plant in 2006. Spark plugs are now manufactured in Mexico. When GM closed the Delta Township plant in 2005, about 5,000 more people lost their jobs. Cadillac trucks and GM truck beds are now manufactured in Mexico.

Over the last decade, BMW, Toyota, and Nissan have all created more net jobs than GM and all manufacture cars here. I still fail to realize why anyone should or would buy from GM. Not to mention that your logic on US manufactured vehicle purchase is flawed if someone purchases a GM vehicle made in Canada or Mexico.

Government shouldn't waste tax dollars bailing out companies that obviously don't want to flourish. While other auto manufactures posted record sales, GM posted losses. It wasn't an industry downturn. It was a company falling apart. In a capitalistic economy, when a company falls apart, other companies flourish. When that happens, more jobs will be created. There are other industries that could have used bailouts, and that are suffering as a result of industry downturn due to the economy. GM and Chrysler needed to go under. The government was too concerned with job loss. It's cyclical and inevitable. Prolonging it only wastes more tax dollars.

+1!
Sometimes people should think things through rationally instead of being emotional and prideful!