Welcome to PatsFans.com

Idiots: When you buy a car, do you make payments?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Jul 6, 2011.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Debt is what you already owe on things you've already spent.

    The Mrs. & I traded in our crappy car for a less crappy car. The bank says I should give them $350 a month for that car I am now driving around.

    Now: I use to have a bigger paycheck, but I decided I didn't need the revenue when I bought the new car. So now I work 30 hours a week voluntarily, chanting my new slogan "read my lips: No new income!"

    So, I reduced my income, and piled up debt, simultaneously.

    I have had to regretfully inform the Mrs. that on our weekly shopping trip, we can only buy Ramen noodles, because buying hamburger is the purest profligacy.

    "We don't have a revenue problem," I tell her, "we have a spending problem."

    We can't un-buy the car, but we could default on the loan, and make everything more expensive in the future.

    So I see the only solution as ramen noodles.

    Or is there another variable? Huh.

    PFnV
  2. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Pay cash for cars. Work two jobs. Have a written budget before the start of each month. Check out Dave Ramsey.
  3. tehmackdaddy

    tehmackdaddy Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    There is: don't spend money you don't have and don't make promises you can't keep.
  4. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    Great analogy to the current budget debate in DC.

    Government spending is really taxation -

    If we have 2 farmers paying taxes we have more employemnt and more revenue.
    If farmer A pays taxes and farmer B receives subsidies farmer A pays more taxes and employs less people to pay the subsidy for farmer B.

    Mr. PF could work more to bring in more revenue but if Uncle Sam raises his taxes he pays more to Uncle Sam and less to Joe auto maker or parts seller.

    The variable is 'Z' an economic incentive for Mr. PF to work more but the ability to save on taxes if he spends the money on goods produced in America. If Americans could deduct the cost of durable goods produced in America on their income taxes people would work more - spend more - and employ more. It's a different kind of tax break the government and Mr & Mrs. PF need to think about.
  5. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The generational aspect of the current situation tends to get lost. So the people who made promises were Boomers and their parents. Were they unaware that their government was doing so? Us Gen-X and Gen-Y folks get the tab for spending others did.

    So in this case, someone else bought the car and is enjoying the car. We just get the privilege of making the payments.
  6. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Then again, this could just be MrP's way of telling me it's time for me to get a real job again.

    In other words, because we voluntarily gave up my income about 18 months ago, we don't have a spending problem - we have a revenue problem.

    When times get tough, the tough find a way to make more money.

    :)
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2011
  7. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey

    It's the American way ... I hope that car is not an import or a Vanagon.
  8. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Oh the horror, the horror!!!

    Of course it is not.

    It's a a beautiful shiny American Jeep Patriot made in my childhood home in Illinois complete with gadgets and things I've never had in a car before.

    I loves it.

    Siriusly.
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Just to clarify: although we did buy a new car, I didn't actually "voluntarily cut my own hours." So you, my darling wife, can continue to lie around and eat bon bons or whatever the hell you do all day.

    Now, let's review, still using the analogy:

    If I bought a car I have to pay the bills on every month, can I go backwards in time and unbuy that car?

    Let's disregard whether I am going to go to dinner out this week (or buy the hamburger instead of the Ramen.) That will make it easier.

    I have bought the car. I have reduced my income.

    Can I stop spending in the past?

    If not, how should I pay for the spending I already did -- you know, my debt?

    I think it would be wise to bring in revenue to pay for things I buy.

    Does paying one's bills qualify as "fiscal responsibility"?

    Nahhhh. Couldn't be.

    PFnV
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Lets clarify. Someone leases a car (MBenz S class) and signs a contract to get a new car when the new model in introduced (a more expensive car usually) get the car at half the lease price cause his kids are gonna make the payments in the future for the money he is borrowing.


    Not sustainable. He shouldn't whine when his kids no longer want to spend all they money getting daddy and mommy a new benz while they drive used yugo's
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:

    The OP's analogy isn't comparable to the US gov't budget situation.

    Mr & MrsPFiVA would have had to already had budget problems before they bought their car to be like our gov't. On top of that, other people would have to pay their bills to make the analogy complete.

    If a couple is ALREADY in debt (like the US gov't) and are having trouble financing their lifestyle, do they

    A. Cut expenses to pay down their debt
    B. Get another job to pay down their debt without cutting expenses
    C. Cut expenses and get another job

    I guess PFiVA feels we should increase spending AND raise taxes...

    Am I wrong PFiVA?
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    "The OP" thinks we should raise revenues, which are at an historic low, and identify and eliminate wasteful spending.

    The present 2011 spending deal (a CR standing in for the 2011 budget) funds the government at $3.7 trillion in outlays. The 2012 Obama budget request was for -- surprise -- $3.7 trillion.

    The spending remaining constant while the revenue increases would be fine by me, but the president's already moved the spending number south by hundreds of billions of dollars.

    I don't "feel" anything about the budget, PR. I recognize realities. One reality is that the level of spending needed on the Jobs front is not happening and is not going to happen. We are substituting a phony debt debate predicated on canards to the effect of government bankrupting us by doing things like providing a social safety net. It makes the right wing "feel" good, and there are plenty of rubes out there that buy it. The difficulty is that it's not a pressing crisis, whereas stimulating the demand side is. By the way, we're not Greece, just as we weren't Zimbabwe the last time a tanked foreign nation was in the news. But we're on the verge of making ourselves Greece, to make some idiotic purist point about never raising taxes.

    As to debt, that money is effectively spent. You can't cut that spending.

    You can make payments against your debt faster by not buying the next new car, getting another job, and otherwise changing your behavior.

    "The OP" thinks we need to do that. We need to align our spending to the actual task at hand. That means foregoing "feel good" wars and occupations against "enemies" that don't pose threats. That means dumping ag and oil subsidies. That means all sorts of cuttable areas. That means aligning fiscal policy with economic need, as we have done the last 3 years, and that means not spending just to get reelected, as our last regime so famously pursued for 8 years.

    To observe and report reality: The original Obama budget was for flat spending in 2012. The present Obama position is hundreds of billions below that in spending. I agree with that move, based on political realities.

    Would I spend beyond 2011 levels, were that even one of the options on the table, with the unemployment rate still around 9? Don't think so. But I sure as hell wouldn't do it with the unemployment rate at 4 or 5.

    To extend our analogy: We bought the car. We can afford the car. You buy stuff on time in this world.

    We also bought a house. We make our payments on that too.

    We can't un-buy either, so we can be phrased as being in unsustainable debt, so long as I insist on working 30 hours a week, or come up with a reason that I should only work 20.

    Now let's say that it becomes attractive and a good financial move in the long run to buy a house better for our needs. Let's say I can swing that easily if I but trouble myself to work 40 hours a week.

    Is it "tough times" and an "unsustainable" spending problem... or am I making rational choices based on needs and revenue?

    Of course, the Republican option is to buy the bigger house then make this big stand on principal about not making payments when someone else has the checkbook.

    I'm so tired of the something-for-nothing crowd. We already bought stuff. So that means we have to pay the bills.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,496
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +28 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    If I told you people how I got through life nobody would believe it.
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Government revenues are down due to current economic problems. The revenue as a % of GDP is down even though the tax rates are the same as during the Bush Presidency. So the rates aren't the issue the economy is the issue. That and government spending and regulation, we don't want to forget the defensive measures being taken due to fears of the impact of Obamacare. Another issue, in the attempt to pander to voters 47% pay no Federal taxes, the pool of taxpayers is too small and of course those who pay no taxes have no incentive to worry about government spending.
  15. tehmackdaddy

    tehmackdaddy Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Or you could just sell the car.
  16. tehmackdaddy

    tehmackdaddy Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Relative to what?

    You could also not make the payments and have the car repo'd.
  17. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The Obvious solution is to ask your government to pass a new social program which will give 425.00 a month to people who bought a car which they can no longer afford, no matter how much they owe they will get 425.00 a month. There is also 140 rules for application to the law, which sadly prohibits you from actually receiving this benefit.

    Really, only car dealerships qualify in which they receive 425.00 a month for every used car on their lot which has lost value. Also, the entire Car Manufacturing sector also qualifies for this via some lobby added fine print which also makes cars which are unsold from last years new models which now can not be sold for what they were once worth.

    In order to ensure people who are in need such as yourself get the assistance from government for their debt, they add another tax, which further reduces your income, or, they will print more money and reduce your purchasing power, so 1.00 now only buys 4 packs of Ramen instead of 5.

    That's how we solve issues in this country.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  18. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Why do you need a car? Get a bike.
  19. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You two are MARRIED? Why wasn't I told?
  20. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    My God!! What gave us away?

    Could it have been the Mr and Mrs in front of the same name?????
  21. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:

    Pray for MrP!!!:eek:
  22. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Two things; the Bush rates were aberrantly low, and were phrased as "temporary" for this very reason. But everybody likes giving candy to the children, so badda bing badda boom, they're now considered the "norm."

    Second thing: this administration passed the biggest tax cut in history, ya hear about that? Have a look at what they're taking out for FICA lately.

    By the way, nobody seems concerned about letting that one expire, since it helps wage-earners. But God help us if we let hedge-fund managers pay their share, right?

    Wrong and incorrect. The current rates, good economy or bad, are unsustainably low. You can't pay your bills with these rates.

    :rolleyes:

    The Affordable Care Act, as we in the cogniscenti call it, is a net win. Thus spake CBO.

    Syntax, look into it. If you mean "the 47% of voters who pay no federal taxes," say so. By the way, how do those high-livin', tax-evadin' walkin' sponges get away with not paying their FICA? Oh that's right, they don't. How about Medicare? Oh that's right they pay those too.

    Right wing gospel: when talking about tax burdens on the poor, you use the narrow "income tax" definition. When talking about tax burdens on the rich, convince everybody they're really the tax burden of the middle class, and cannot possibly be increased -- even if they're at zero. When talking about the middle class' taxes, include everything, and include it twice, so every middle-class citizen can be characterized as paying approaching -- or even more than -- 100% of his income in taxes.

    You guys bore me.

    I assume you left out the phrase where you say that the part where you're "pandering" to the 47%, you "soak the rich." There, that was helpful, yeah?

    So back to another shell game:

    - If you tax very very very wealthy people more, the pool is too small so nothing will happen.

    - The moment you tax people at 250K (single earner,) the tears-for-small-business soundtrack kicks in. The laughable premise: Nobody in business would file in such a way that the business' earnings are not counted as personal income.

    - Only by taxing people without a pot to piss in can we solve our revenue problem.

    This is retarded.

    PFnV
  23. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    I really did just buy a new car. I decided to finance it because of the "low' interest rates.

    I wonder what my daughter would say, if I told her that she had to pay for my car and the one she just bought. :confused: Maybe she would tell me that I was irresponsible and shouldn't have bought a car that I could if I could not pay for it.

    Maybe she would tell me that I better cut my spending and make my car payment. I don't think that she would tell me to ask my neighbor to help pay for it because he works harder and took more risks than I did.
  24. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    About your neighbor who "worked hard and took more risks than you," how about if you lost your job because your neighbor -- who is doing just fine -- took risks with your livelihood, not his... and you had to bail him out? If your neighbor goes to the casino every weekend that does not make him "fiscally responsible."

    Now then: your daughter can stay out of it. You have bought the car. You can get more income and pay for the car. Do you think it is fiscally responsible to just stop making payments?

    PFnV
  25. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Based on assumptions. One of those assumptions was that the "doctor fix" was not included. Time will tell.


    What's the phrase?...wrong and incorrect.

    That's because those are premiums. Not to worry, they get some of that money back as well.

    Google "Earned Income Credit".

    I have no idea what any of this means.

    There must be a new "individual mandate" forcing you to post here!


    I assume you left out the phrase where you say that the part where you're "pandering" to the 47%, you "soak the rich." There, that was helpful, yeah?

    So back to another shell game:

    - If you tax very very very wealthy people more, the pool is too small so nothing will happen.

    - The moment you tax people at 250K (single earner,) the tears-for-small-business soundtrack kicks in. The laughable premise: Nobody in business would file in such a way that the business' earnings are not counted as personal income.

    - Only by taxing people without a pot to piss in can we solve our revenue problem.

    This is retarded.

    PFnV[/QUOTE]
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011
  26. tehmackdaddy

    tehmackdaddy Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I can't figure out what this means. :idontgetit:

Share This Page