IAP Political Forum

The average American family has two working parents; therefore the average American family owns two vehicles. At an average monthly payment of $300.00 per vehicle, that is $600.00 a month in car payments.

And if you live in a major metropolitian area where the cost of living is double the figures above, there is no possible way a family earning only $83k a year could afford private insurance.

That's a ridiculously broad generalization. $83k combined gross household income for a family of four is poverty level in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, San Fransisco, Chicago, San Diego, etc.

Remember, this assumes averages of everything. I don't know about you but I spend a heck of a lot more than $132 a month on gas and a lot of these other numbers.

To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn't met a tax cut he doesn't like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: "Whatever."

So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn't left many Republicans laughing.
 
Bush's veto Wednesday of a bipartisan bill reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was infuriatingly bad policy. An estimated 9 million children in this country are not covered by health insurance -- a circumstance that should shock the consciences of every American. Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft an expansion of an existing state-run program that would have provided coverage for about 4 million children who currently don't have it.

It was one of those art-of-the-possible compromises designed to advance the ball toward what has become a national goal. Health care is arguably the biggest domestic issue in the presidential contest and, while the candidates and the country may be all over the map in terms of comprehensive solutions, there's a pretty broad consensus that some way has to be found to ensure that children, at least, are covered.

Make that an extremely broad consensus: According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week, 72 percent of Americans supported the bill Bush vetoed.

The program Congress voted to expand provides health insurance for children who fall into a perilous gap: Their families make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but don't make enough to afford health insurance. The cost of covering an additional 4 million children was estimated at around $35 billion over five years. That's a lot of money. But in the context of a $13 trillion economy -- and set against Bush's history of devil-may-care, "buy the house another round" spending -- it's chump change.

Bush's stated reasons for vetoing the SCHIP bill left even reliable congressional allies -- such as Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Charles Grassley of Iowa, both of whom supported the legislation -- sputtering in incomprehension. As for me, I don't know what to call the president's rationale but a pack of flat-out lies.

The president said Congress was trying to "federalize health care," even though the program in question is run by the states. The president said that "I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers," even though the vetoed bill authorizes no such decisions -- the program enrolls children in private, I repeat, private, health insurance plans.

And here's my favorite: "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me." But the bill he vetoed prohibits states from using the program to aid families who make more than three times the federal poverty limit, or about $60,000 a year for a family of four. Most of the aid would go to families earning substantially less.

Bush's spurious $83,000 figure comes from a request by New York state to use the program for some families earning four times the poverty limit. That request was denied by the Bush administration last month -- and that upper limit is not in the bill Bush vetoed. End of story. If New York or any other state were to ask again to be able to raise the income limits, the administration could simply say no.

Bush seems to be upset that Congress didn't adopt his pet idea to tackle the health insurance issue through -- guess what? -- tax breaks. None of the major players on Capitol Hill thought this would work. When the White House persisted, Congress moved ahead on its own.

Hatch said he believed Bush had been given bad advice by his staff. He didn't take the next step and draw what seems to me the obvious conclusion: Either Bush didn't understand the bill he vetoed or he's just being petulant -- with the health of 4 million children at stake.

"I hope the folks at home raise Cain," Hatch said. Oh, I think they will.

This is classic repiglicon smoke and mirrors. Bush's advisers looked at the whole picture and pulled the highest figure they could possibly find, as unlikely, unrepresentative, misleading, disingenuous and requiring much explanation to know what it represents, that it may be. Just get the highest number out there in you speech and that's all they will hear.
  In this forum, people do the homework and figure this stuff out but in the talk radio world of America its "free insurance for the well to do".
 Disgusting, lying, repiglicon money game, politics again, this time with the health of our poorest children as their football. How the hell do these pigs sleep at night?

I kinda find this thread funny...

If ya try to CUT taxes for peopl;e making 80k + a years Then

 "ITS A TAX CUT FOR THE RICH"

kinda funny how libs change who the rich is depending on what they want....

I kinda find this thread funny...

If ya try to CUT taxes for peopl;e making 80k + a years Then

 "ITS A TAX CUT FOR THE RICH"

kinda funny how libs change who the rich is depending on what they want....

I kinda find this thread funny...

If ya try to CUT taxes for peopl;e making 80k + a years Then

 "ITS A TAX CUT FOR THE RICH"

kinda funny how libs change who the rich is depending on what they want....

My point is, people think they need money for things, but you really need money for rent and utilities and that's about it. You don't need a new car, you don't need entertainment, you don't need daycare if you have multiple children and one parent stays home because they don't make enough to afford daycare for more than one child. People live on very small amounts, and the scenario you present is for someone who has many of the luxuries offered in America.

See this is exactly what Iwas talking about, Pathetic (sorry Hillery 08) will hear the figure Bush says and never, investigate or listen to or want to understand what it really is.  He lives in the talk radio world of America.

This is classic repiglicon smoke and mirrors. Bush's advisers looked at the whole picture and pulled the highest figure they could possibly find, as unlikely, unrepresentative, misleading, disingenuous and requiring much explanation to know what it represents, that it may be. Just get the highest number out there in you speech and that's all they will hear.
  In this forum, people do the homework and figure this stuff out but in the talk radio world of America its "free insurance for the well to do".
 Disgusting, lying, repiglicon money game, politics again, this time with the health of our poorest children as their football. How the hell do these pigs sleep at night?

The biggest problem I see is that if smokers start smoking less, SCIP will not revert...It'll be the rest of us to the rescue. Sometimes, they just want to get their foot in the door.

Smokers didn't wince when they found out it leads to premature death.

You really think 61 cents is going to change anything?

I have a couple of places where you're wrong, though. $300 per month per car is a bit high. That's only if you go to a car dealer and buy new...

you can buy a slightly older car that isn't an SUV and get payments around $150-200 per month. Also, not every family has two cars, and if they do, one is much older and paid off. Not always, but in many cases.

I also think the $100 per month on clothing is a bit off. Maybe for some families, but that's a lot of clothes after an adult has established a wardrobe. I spend about $100-$200 on two kids and that's once every six months. That establishes a wardrobe for a whole season before they grow out of it.

So you're saying that the leftover $1000 isn't enough to purchase insurance? Average per household debt in the U.S., not counting mortgage debt, is about $14,500. Almost everyone has debt they're paying off and $1000 a month would be good to go towards that if it didn't need spent on health insurance. But I also think that if you can't afford to live in a particular city, then you just can't live there, you should move to where your dollar pays for more.

My point is, people think they need money for things, but you really need money for rent and utilities and that's about it.

You don't need a new car, you don't need entertainment, you don't need daycare if you have multiple children and one parent stays home because they don't make enough to afford daycare for more than one child. People live on very small amounts, and the scenario you present is for someone who has many of the luxuries offered in America. So yes it is enough, though I am for universal health care for all Americans.

I don't know if this will change anything or not, but think about this.  For most people, what is more real, the possibility of maybe dying a bit younger than they other wise would have some day years in the future, or the reality of 61c right here and right now?

Note, I did not say you, I said most people.  Just think about it...

Well, we've already established its impossible to purchase your average new vehicle for anywhere close to $300 a month.

But I think the overall point here is that $83k a year for an average family is not a tremendous amount of money.    

Ryan are you serious? You need some education on cars. You can get a really nice car (Mercury Milan for instance) for 20k. That's 333 a month for 5 years. So it's quite obvious you are wrong.

Reguardless though, if you don't have alot of money why are you buying a new car? In reality smart people go to places like auction direct and pick up a used car with little mileage on it.

I'll also add that people who are in debt (excluding things like college) have no one to blame but themselves for debt (in most cases). You shouldn't be spending money you don't have.

First, more careful reading on your part would have revealed I cearly stated the "average" new car price which I supported with a link. Obviously the Milan is a vehicle priced under the national average. Secondly, I actually know quite a bit about cars. Probably a lot more than you. For instance, I know that the Mecury Milan does not qualify for the 0% for 60 months financing option. In fact, the 0% for 60 months is an extremely restrictive promotion that applies to only the most well-qualified buyers on only a handful of select models.

The best possible financing a buyer can get for a brand new Mecury Milan is 0% for 36 months which even using your stripped down model example of only $20,000 still gives you a payment of $555.56. Therefore, its quite obvious YOU are wrong and that YOU obviously are the one needing the car education.

I rest my case.


That was my point exactly. The "average family" example in my original post had an average car payment of $300 per vehicle. $300 on normal used car financing terms will buy you a vehicle worth about $9,000.


You shouldn't spend money you don't have, huh? So according to your theory on personal finance, unless you can write a check outright for a home you should continue to rent. You shouldn't start a business unless you can pay for the entire venture all at once with money you have saved in the bank. And you should walk everywhere you go if you can't pay cash for a vehicle. 

yeah, makes a lot of sense

$300.00 a month gets you a brand new car? What, a Ford Fiesta on a 20-year loan? The average price of a new vehicle is $27,958 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-11-16-car-prices-usat_x.htm). Even if you had the A+++ credit required for the most aggressive financing option currently offered - 0.0% for 60 months - you would still have a monthly payment of close to $500.00 a month for an "average" new car.



Well, we've already established its impossible to purchase your average new vehicle for anywhere close to $300 a month. So let's see what $300 will buy you. It would be financially stupid to finance a used vehicle any longer than 3 years, not to mention the fact that most banks won't even let you go longer than that on an older used car. So on a 3-year loan, at a reasonable used car loan rate of 7.0%, $300 a month will let you buy a $9,000 used car - hardly driveway candy. For the ridiculous $150 payment you suggest, you might be able to buy a $4,000 car which in most cases wouldn't even be dependable enough to be used as a daily driver for reliable transportation to and from work.  

So that's $50-$100 per kid twice a year? Obviously your kids are still very young. Let's see what that number is when they get into middle school and high school. In any case, $100 a month is only $25.00 per family member per month - or $150 per family member twice a year.  Again, that hardly seems like a lot. Particularly if you work in an office or some other job where you have to have separate "work clothes". Even at Wal-Mart, I doubt $150 would buy you a single office outfit - slacks, shirt, tie, belt, shoes, socks. Whatever the case, $100 average per month is certainly not a ridiculous amount for a family of 4.

That's precisely my point. $1,000 "leftover" assumes this average family has absolutely no other debt outside of their mortgage and car loans. As you have already indicated, the vast majority of families have other debts they pay every month aside from just their mortgage and car payments. So in the vast majority of cases there is no "leftover" at all - it goes to student loans or credit cards or other debts. Therefore, there is nothing left to purchase insurance with.



Really? You don't need food? Clothing? Transportation to and from your job?


Since when is basic food, shelter, clothing, and transportation considered "luxuries"? The senario I gave allows a family of 4 with no debt to live in an average home with a couple of old used cars to drive. That's hardly living in luxury.

But I think the overall point here is that $83k a year for an average family is not a tremendous amount of money.    

I'm shopping right now, in fact.

Totino's correct. A New Milan, Fusion, Kia Sorrento, Chrysler Minivan, VW Jetta,
Pontiac G6, Ford Escape, Chevy Impala, Nissan Sentra, Mazda3, Honda Civic, etc.
..can be had for ~$300/mo. With little down.

You may not get into a new Saleen, but you'll be getting a well equipped new car. :D

A family looking to save money at the end of the month(for other things)
can find plenty of nice new cars that cover a broad range of uses for
well under the "average" price. It need not be a used Fiesta with 200,000 miles.

You and Totino are missing the overall point of the post. Most importantly, I was using - and clearly stated I was using - "average" new car prices.

You and Totino both are pulling examples out of your respective butt's of economy boxes at the very bottom end of the automobile latter

saying "Ha! see I told ya, you can get a brand new car for $300 a month" and even then you have to use financing options that assume at the very least 4, 5, or 6 year loan terms which you would have to be a complete moron to do on a Kia or Chevy Impala since you would be guaranteeing yourself to be permanently upside down in that vehicle for life - even at 0.0% interest.

Hey now, that's hitting below the belt.

Again, getting back to the overall point of the post, I just think it is a little ridiculous for George Bush, Mr. Trust Fund Baby himself, to tell hardworking lower middle-class families they are "too rich" to deserve subsidized healthcare coverage for their children.

$83,000 dollars is not a tremendous amoutn of money for a family.  Is it a very good idea to establish that everyone without a "trmendous amount of money" should be federally subsidised?

I doubt it.

The best possible financing a buyer can get for a brand new Mecury Milan is 0% for 36 months which even using your stripped down model example of only $20,000 still gives you a payment of $555.56. Therefore, its quite obvious YOU are wrong and that YOU obviously are the one needing the car education.

I understand that. "Average price" is independent of actual sales.
A better indicator would be "best selling cars", ie the cars that represent
what people are actually buying & driving.

10 Best selling cars(Forbes Magazine) of 2006:
Ford F-series
Chevy Silverado
Toyota Camry
Toyota Corolla
Honda Accord
Dodge Ram
Honda Civic
Chevy Impala
Chevy Cobalt
Nissan Altima

Every car on this list can be had for less than the "average" price.
MUCH less, in some cases. The GM's get heavy discounts BTW.





Driving around in a $50,000 muscle car has skewed your perspective, Ryan.
(ok, that was low too. I won't do it again. promise)

I specifically chose vehicles that covered a broad spectrum of automotive needs.
Milan, Fusion, G6, Impala - Family sedans(mid size & large)
Sorrento & Escape - SUVs(mid size & small)
Jetta, Civic, Mazda3, Sentra - small sedans
Chrysler Minivan

None of those represent bottom feeding econobox's. Nissan's Versa is an econobox.
The Honda Fit is an econobox. You could argue the 3 is, but it's still a hell of a
nice car for the price.


While that may be true, your #s appear to not include possible trade in or down
payment. Not everyone buys with 0 down.

I do, however, disagree re: 4 & 5 yr loans. Those companies you listed offer
outstanding warranties that will last 5yrs, or longer. A low payment, warranty
coverage, & a reliable car make for a smart purchase.

Value at the end of your payments is irrelevent. A car is a poor investment, period.
(excluding limited production classics)



See above.

& I wanted to give this thread a bit of IAP v.1 flavor.




Calling $84,000/yr lower middle class is a bit of a stretch, but i understand.
Zuks point above still stands, however:



In any event, it appears moot, as many here aren't buying the $83,000 figure.

And my reply isn't showing up. Great.
This format sucks.

I'll C&P it.

2.Doh, I can only guess that you make fewer than $83,000 per annum, and that a black hearted GWB has vetoed your post, as any trustfundian would so clearly do.