posted
yeah, seems like it's gone really well. After years of government stupidity and inaction, it's nice to see a program that makes sense and get executed.
Dave Ramsey's advice: It turns my stomach. It will get people involved in car deals that they don't need to be in, all in the name of government help. Any time you hear the cavalry coming, keep in mind that they work for the government. With the government, there is always a hook and a twist, and if you have to go into debt to get a "deal", that's a stupid idea. You are much better off to drive your clunker.Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Dave Ramsey's advice: It turns my stomach. It will get people involved in car deals that they don't need to be in, all in the name of government help. Any time you hear the cavalry coming, keep in mind that they work for the government. With the government, there is always a hook and a twist, and if you have to go into debt to get a "deal", that's a stupid idea. You are much better off to drive your clunker.
Such stupidity. People buying cars still need to qualify for the loans if they are financing the vehicle. The Government isn't backing the financing. Credit is still not easy to get and that is why a great majority of the buyers are Prime borrowers. Believe it or not, some people still pay cash for their cars.
Better off driving your clunker? Sure, clunkers are mostly cars that are either in need of repair or will be needing repair in the near future. $500 here, $2500 there another $500 over there. The maximum advantage to an individual is $4,400 and much less in the majority of cases. I doubt that very many people ran out to incur debt they couldn't afford.
The program has worked and helped the economy in the short run which was necessary.
Some people want to find fault with anything they didn't come up with or utilize.
As far as the cars traded in, if any of them is close to being worth what the Government money, a dealer will just take the car in trade instead and resell it. That's what they do. There is more money(Profit)to be made on a used car than a new car. They aren't letting any prime vehicles go by.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little fuzzy on how more debt is helping the economy? Also not sure how this is a greatly run program when all reports are that the dealerships are not getting anything from the government in the way of the promised refunds. I suppose its just me and my idiotic clinging to reality that is keeping me from sharing in the frivolity... all I see is another multi billion dollar loan that will be paid with interest by the tax payers... I guess were I to subject myself to years of brain damage I could be just barely witless enough to see this program as either good or well run...
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Edmunds.com (major name in auto) the 'boost' is nothing more than a consolidation of sales that should have already happened (those that waited to buy to get gov. money) and those that would have happened soon anyway (bought earlier than planned to get gov money).
"The incremental sales will be limited and at a considerable cost. In effect, we are paying consumers to do something most would do anyway," said Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of Edmunds.com. "So as a stimulus, the program fails. One could make a slightly stronger argument about the environmental benefits, but even there, the program could have been better designed."
Others also predict a major slump coming now that the gov money is gone and such purchases have already been made.
Also worth noting, imo, is that all that money now being spent each month on car payments will not be spent in other areas of the economy like consumer goods and services.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
A friend who really needed a better vehicle for her family situation was able to upgrade, give her son her old car and get his hoopty off the road. Wouldn't have happened, otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: According to Edmunds.com (major name in auto) the 'boost' is nothing more than a consolidation of sales that should have already happened (those that waited to buy to get gov. money) and those that would have happened soon anyway (bought earlier than planned to get gov money).
"The incremental sales will be limited and at a considerable cost. In effect, we are paying consumers to do something most would do anyway," said Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of Edmunds.com. "So as a stimulus, the program fails. One could make a slightly stronger argument about the environmental benefits, but even there, the program could have been better designed."
Others also predict a major slump coming now that the gov money is gone and such purchases have already been made.
Also worth noting, imo, is that all that money now being spent each month on car payments will not be spent in other areas of the economy like consumer goods and services.
A lot of speculation there. So they now predict a major slump. I wonder what they called it before when dealers were closing left and right across this country. Not just taking away the job of the people that worked at the dealership but quite a bit of local business as well.
Now Manufacturers have to produce more vehicles to replace the vehicles that were sold. Parts suppliers will supply the manufacturers. Other businesses, even the consumer goods and services benefited as well.
It was a shot in the arm for the economy.
Yes, Edmunds is a well known name but not really an authority on the economy or even what affect this has on New Car dealers.
The whole idea that this program just brought sales forward that would have been made anyway maybe be right in some ways but that's the whole idea. What good would sales do a year or 2 from now if the recession deepened? What good what it do for the dealers that would have closed?
It also helped state and local governments that were hurting. Taxes were collected at a time when those entities really needed it.
I don't like increasing the national debt anymore than most people. I don't like that bailouts had to happen but given the state of affairs, they were necessary.
Sticking one's head in the sand and hoping that it all will just correct itself is ridiculous. Once the economy is back on track, there will be some difficult decisions to be made in order to get the national debt reigned in.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sticking one's head in the sand and hoping that it all will just correct itself is ridiculous. Once the economy is back on track, there will be some difficult decisions to be made in order to get the national debt reigned in.
wally, if they brought Osambinalivtoolong in alive tomorrow? fox and friends would complain that we didn't kill him on sight, and if they brought in his dead body? they'd complain about not getting to torture er, uh i mean question him
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Sticking one's head in the sand and hoping that it all will just correct itself is ridiculous. Once the economy is back on track, there will be some difficult decisions to be made in order to get the national debt reigned in.
wally, if they brought Osambinalivtoolong in alive tomorrow? fox and friends would complain that we didn't kill him on sight, and if they brought in his dead body? they'd complain about not getting to torture er, uh i mean question him
True Dat.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dollars for Dishwashers? Appliance Rebates on the Way Published: Thursday, 20 Aug 2009 | 3:12 PM ET Text Size By: Christina Cheddar Berk News Editor
Rebates for Refrigerators? Dollars for Dishwashers? Funds for Furnaces?
The government's so-called "Cash for Clunkers" program has been grabbing headlines, but it's not the only federal program putting money back into consumers' pockets. A new government program is poised to help appliance manufacturers the same way "Clunkers" gave a jump start to auto manufacturers.
Washing Machine A new washing machine can save consumers about $78 a year in energy and water costs.
As part of the Obama Administration's economic stimulus bill, nearly $300 million was set aside to fund a state-run rebate program for consumers purchases of Energy Star-qualified home appliances.
Like the "Clunkers" program, the plan takes aim at energy guzzlers. However, unlike in the popular auto program, consumers will not have to turn in their old appliances in order to buy a more efficient one and qualify for the rebate. However, the exact criteria remain unclear because states are still drafting their individual plans, with the hope of having the programs up and running by the end of this year.
It's expected that the rebates will range from $50 to as much as $200 per appliance. The Energy Department has given states the flexibility to determine which Energy Star appliances should be included in the program, but the Energy Department hopes states will focus on products that are used for heating and cooling such as air conditioners, water heaters and furnaces.
* 'Cash for Clunkers' Program Expected to End on Monday
States had until Aug. 15 to express their interest in participating in the program, and all 50 states are on board, according to an Energy Department spokeswoman. Now, the states will receive federal money to develop their program and draft the details by Oct. 15.
It could be good news for companies such as Whirlpool [WHR 61.14 3.57 (+6.2%) ], Electrolux [ELUXY 41.33 2.49 (+6.41%) ] and General Electric [GE 13.81 0.28 (+2.07%) ], the parent of CNBC and CNBC.com. Retailers like Sears [SHLD 65.00 -8.76 (-11.88%) ], who rely on consumers to buy appliances, could benefit as well.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, an industry trade group, is hopeful the program will spur sales, which are down about 15 percent from last year, according to spokeswoman Jill Notini.
The organization is not only touting the program, but also the savings that can come from using more efficient appliances. Notini said that if a consumer replaces an 8-year-old washing machine with an Energy Star appliance, he or she can typically save 5,000 gallons of water and 600 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That comes out to about $78 in annual savings, Notini said.
CNBC Poll: Tell Us What You Think Would you take advantage of an appliance rebate program? Yes No Not sure
Vote to see results CNBC Poll: Tell Us What You Think Would you take advantage of an appliance rebate program? * 2415 responses Yes 67% No 22% Not sure 11% Not a Scientific Survey. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.
It's been a great year for consumers to cash in on government programs. However, many have come in the form of tax credits, but the appliance program will be a rebate-style program, which will have a quicker return for consumers.
Like the "Clunker" program, it won't last forever. Once the funds allocated for the program run out, the program will end.
The best part is consumers can pile on the savings.
If you were able to trade in a gas guzzler for a new car, you may also be able to deduct what's paid in state sales tax from your federal income tax. Buying a hybrid car? You may qualify not only for as much as $4,500 through the "Clunkers" program, but also for as much as $3,000 in additional federal tax credits.
Whether or not you qualify for "Clunkers" cash, you might also be able to snag an $8,000 federal tax credit for buying a home for the first time.
Need to update the house? No worries, there's a program for that too. Consumers installing energy-efficient windows can get as much as $1,500 in federal tax credits.
Now, you can ditch the old furnace and the dishwasher as well, if you act fast.
posted
Time will only tell if this was a good idea for the economy as a whole, but for the individual families I agree completely with Ramsey.
Let's look at who took part in the program in general...
Who would have had a 'clunker' in the driveway and been able to qualify for financing for the new vehicle purchase?
The Rich?
No. They wouldn't have needed the car loan that they could have qualified for and most likely have a better car anyway.
The Poor?
No. They have the clunker, but not the income to support the car loan.
So, we're left with the middle\lower middle class families. They have just 'purchased' (ie went into debt for) a vehicle that lost 25% to 35% of it's value the moment they signed on the dotted line. If we assume that most of them are now on the hook for $10,000 dollars+ on each or the 450,000+ cars sold under the program, that means we just added $4.5 BILLION of comsumer debt to the middle class.
$4.5 BILLION...
During a recession...
With double digit unemployment and 500,000 jobs lost each month...
Add $500 a month to their monthly expenses at a time when people are having to tighten the belt to make ends meet as it is...
What part of this makes this such a 'success'?
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
1) To improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -Successful.
2) To provide a new base of funds for an industry struggling to survive. -Short term successful. Long term results to be determined.
3) To take some pre-owned vehicles out of resale circulation via scrap yard to foster an environment of eventual growth and re-investment in the industry.
Overproduction and short term leasing agreements over-saturated the market with vehicles. Replacing each old vehicle with a new vehicle doesn't actually reduce this number but it should be a good five years before they re-enter the 'For Sale' market and the calculation is that the economy and market will have grown back to the point it can sustain itself again. -The system worked as planned but still remains to be seen if the tactic has merit. It will require a growing personal vehicle owning population and economy to succeed.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: So, we're left with the middle\lower middle class families. They have just 'purchased' (ie went into debt for) a vehicle that lost 25% to 35% of it's value the moment they signed on the dotted line. If we assume that most of them are now on the hook for $10,000 dollars+ on each or the 450,000+ cars sold under the program, that means we just added $4.5 BILLION of comsumer debt to the middle class.
SF,if everybody followed Dave's system to a "T"? our economy would collapse.
that does not make his system bad, it's more of a statement about our economy than it is about his sytem.
just as i pointed out about the bailouts? being an idealist is easy as long as you don't have to implement it.
the GOP didn't "backslide" when they had power. they attained power to do exactly what they did. there is no question about that. Dubya and a few of his neo-con buddues like Cheney et al was/were planning to get Sadam one way or another before he/they ever came into office, and he beleived the ends justify the means. they didn't care what the cost. OsamaBinalivetoolong gave them a huge gift.
everybody thinks Reagan "brought down that wall" very few understand that the wall came down because of the cost of the war in Afghanistan.
ever hear Haliburton complain about having to wait for their money?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see at all how it is within the federal government's authority to promise to subsidize the trade in value for cars.
But really more than that my issue with this is that it is nothing but a very short term bandaid at best and a sucker punch to already weak dealerships at worst. Reports are that the government has yet to dole out the money to dealers who have already taken "clunkers" in.... That's a problem for cash strapped dealers. It could very realistically be the main reason for more than a few dealerships to close their doors.
The answer to the problems in the economy have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with government doing more.... Nothing.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I do not see at all how it is within the federal government's authority to promise to subsidize the trade in value for cars.
But really more than that my issue with this is that it is nothing but a very short term bandaid at best and a sucker punch to already weak dealerships at worst. Reports are that the government has yet to dole out the money to dealers who have already taken "clunkers" in.... That's a problem for cash strapped dealers. It could very realistically be the main reason for more than a few dealerships to close their doors.
The answer to the problems in the economy have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with government doing more.... Nothing.
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I do not see at all how it is within the federal government's authority to promise to subsidize the trade in value for cars.
But really more than that my issue with this is that it is nothing but a very short term bandaid at best and a sucker punch to already weak dealerships at worst. Reports are that the government has yet to dole out the money to dealers who have already taken "clunkers" in.... That's a problem for cash strapped dealers. It could very realistically be the main reason for more than a few dealerships to close their doors.
The answer to the problems in the economy have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with government doing more.... Nothing.
posted
My fix would be to reduce the Federal government's actions to those specifically allowed in the constitution. I would do as Ron Paul wants and audit the fed, then use that evidence to then abolish it... reinstate the gold standard.. silver standard.. whatever.. but base the dollar on something other than dreams and wishes. Reduce federal income tax rates to a flat 5% with a constitutional amendment that those rates never at any time for any reason exceed 7%. Pull troops back from the four corners and close bases the world over. Do we really need a presence around the globe?.. we have nukes.. that's deterrent enough. Abolish the federal funding for the propaganda machine which includes major media 24/7 news, talk radio, movies, schools... both lower and higher. Return the federal government to the governance of states and defensing the borders... and NOTHING MORE.... Poof 5% income tax now covers it.
Were that to be done you would see within a year the economy skyrocket and individual freedom return. This would again be the UNITED States of America.
Pointless to even ponder it really...
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I do not see at all how it is within the federal government's authority to promise to subsidize the trade in value for cars.
But really more than that my issue with this is that it is nothing but a very short term bandaid at best and a sucker punch to already weak dealerships at worst. Reports are that the government has yet to dole out the money to dealers who have already taken "clunkers" in.... That's a problem for cash strapped dealers. It could very realistically be the main reason for more than a few dealerships to close their doors.
The answer to the problems in the economy have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with government doing more.... Nothing.
basher
what's yur fix?
btw? kidz?
don't try this at home
Living dangerously aren't we? LMAO...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were that to be done you would see within a year the economy skyrocket and individual freedom return. This would again be the UNITED States of America.
it sounds good, but the reality is that our roads would decay very quickly. don't forget the several million govt employees that would suddenly be job hunting...
the crime rates would soar. and individual freedom would be less protected, so thugs would basically have more freedom and the people thay choose to be their biotches would have even less freedom...
remeber that the Mafia and other organised crime syndicates most all got their start in the insurance business...
of course, for a fee, i would be willing to protect MY neighborhood from "the syndicate" , and i'm basically honest, so we should call that fee uh, well aahh anything but a tax right?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Local police is funded and should be funded through local governments.. this is a republic.. Try to focus.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know Glass...I gotta go with Relentless on this one...
Our roads are already decayed, several million peeps are already out of a job, crime rates are already soaring, and we have already been stripped of far too many individual freedoms...
Oh and the syndicate...well, they are still quite active...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: My fix would be to reduce the Federal government's actions to those specifically allowed in the constitution. I would do as Ron Paul wants and audit the fed, then use that evidence to then abolish it... reinstate the gold standard.. silver standard.. whatever.. but base the dollar on something other than dreams and wishes. Reduce federal income tax rates to a flat 5% with a constitutional amendment that those rates never at any time for any reason exceed 7%. Pull troops back from the four corners and close bases the world over. Do we really need a presence around the globe?.. we have nukes.. that's deterrent enough. Abolish the federal funding for the propaganda machine which includes major media 24/7 news, talk radio, movies, schools... both lower and higher. Return the federal government to the governance of states and defensing the borders... and NOTHING MORE.... Poof 5% income tax now covers it.
Were that to be done you would see within a year the economy skyrocket and individual freedom return. This would again be the UNITED States of America.
Pointless to even ponder it really...
In other words: Not only stick our heads in the ground but pick up our toys and stop playing with the other kids.
In reality we can't do that. We no longer manufacture our own goods and are dependant on other countries. It's a global economy now and we need to be able to compete on a global level.
The Constitution is a wonderful document. It's basic tenets have served and will continue to serve this Nation for many years to come but it was also a very different world when it was written. Not only individuals need to adapt to circumstances but governments do as well if they want to survive. Just look at China, though they are still a communist regime they have adapted to capitalism and are flourishing. I'm sure some in that country wanted to strictly adhere to Mao Tse Tung's ideas and philosophy but in order to compete on a global level they had to adapt.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by buck*******: I don't know Glass...I gotta go with Relentless on this one...
Our roads are already decayed, several million peeps are already out of a job, crime rates are already soaring, and we have already been stripped of far too many individual freedoms...
Oh and the syndicate...well, they are still quite active...
Problem is that if we did what Relentless posted it would get much worse much faster. There is no simple fix to our problems. It's complex. Sometimes I think that people really believe that commericial about the EASY button. Unfortunately there is no such thing as an EASY Button.
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What we are doing now and have been doing is complex... What I propose is EXACTLY what the country was founded on... and simple. The guys who founded this country were smart... They founded it because they came from where we are going.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Ron Paul supporter (or other gold standard advocate) has managed to articulate to me what problem the gold standard solves. Inflation is low, and even better, relatively predictable, so the expectation is built into asset prices. Moreover, most people on fixed incomes are retirees, and most retirees get almost half their income from Social Security, which is indexed for inflation.
This Ron Paul speech lists a number of reasons, all of them wrong:
1. The Federal Reserve destabilizes the economy with its "boom and bust" monetary policy. This is hard to square with the fact that the longer the Federal Reserve has been in existance, the more stable the economy has been. Dr. Paul's words strongly imply that he believes that there was no business cycle in the 19th century, which is untrue; as best we can tell, recessions were much longer and deeper before America had a central bank.
2. Americans don't save because they're afraid inflation will erode their savings. This is daft. Moderate inflationary expectations are built into the interest rates that banks offer. After thirty years of stable monetary policy, a good portion of the population doesn't even remember high inflation, and the ones that do are mostly retired and spending down their savings. Americans don't save because . . . well, have you tried the Wii? It's awesome.
3. American exporters are whipsawed by our fluctuating currency. Unless Dr. Paul has plans to put the entire world back on the gold standard--which I mote would require the kind of powerful international organization he's so suspicious of, or invasion--our currency will still fluctuate relative to others if we're on the gold standard. Every time the price of gold changes in another country, American exporters will either be helped or hurt by a change in the relative prices of their goods. The gold standard will shelter exporters from currency fluctuations only in their trade with other countries on the gold standard. There are no other countries on the gold standard.
4. Fiat money inflation benefits those shadowy figures who receive access to artificially inflated money before the inflationary effects kick in. Those shadowy figures being the bankers who loaned it to you so that you could buy your house. At any rate, this would only be true if we were talking about unexpected inflation. Expected inflation is already built into asset prices. The US economy does not have significant unexpected inflation.
5. Fiat money inflation "also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state". This is an extraordinarily primitive view of the money supply. The Federal government is not Caesar cutting his denarii with lead. The revenues from seignorage on 2% inflation are trivial. The Federal government gets the money for the "welfare-warfare" state just where it says it does: by taxing the bejeesus out of your wages.
6. Congress does not have constitutional authority to delegate its power "the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency". Hmm. Okay, but I'm pretty sure none of our legislators are qualified to operate a printing press, much less the annealing ovens and upsetting mills needed to mint coins.
7. Congress "should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold". Commodities, almost by definition, are not stable. The price of gold looks as if it used to be stable, because the dollar was fixed relative to an ounce of gold. This does not mean that its value relative to other economic goods was unchanged. You could fix your currency to the price of a bushel of wheat, and suddenly "wheat bugs" would be claiming that wheat is the only reliable, stable commodity in the world whose price never changes. That wouldn't stop fluctuating wheat supplies from whipsawing your economy back and forth. To be sure, the supply of gold changes more slowly than the supply of wheat. But demand for it is not so fixed.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So gold is unstable because it's value might fluctuate ten percent in a hundred years? All while the dollar's value has dropped ninety percent since 1913...
Oh ok.
Basing the dollar's value on something other than wishes and puppy tails is not a radical idea... The system we have now is the radical idea...
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gold standard can't work anymore if it could we would be using it and all the economist would be in agreement.
Ron Paul is a very small minority giving very simple answers that people want to hear to a very complex world. We just had eight years of that with Bush but for other reasons than the gold standard and look where it has taken us
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you had with Bush was the exact same thing you have now with Obama... There is no two party system any more than is necessary to maintain its illusion.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter... I don't support any politician.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Local police is funded and should be funded through local governments.. this is a republic.. Try to focus.
uh, i could run a list of names off that you should know seein' as how you lived in MS, Emmit Till? need i go further?
i'd rather focus on NYC, when has any local law enforcement agency ever brought down the biggest criminals in society? the people who sell "health insurance" to shop keepers and other small and even not-so small business men?
how much would they take if we didn't have somebody to protects us from them? and if you or offer to do it? how much should you or i charge? it's simply human nature.
it's great to hypthoseize about how overbearing our govt is and how wasteful it is,(i'm not saying it ain't) but all i have to do is point out how NYC got it's handgun laws implemented to make my point
Sullivan Act
The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.
Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile [1]. Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements. Sponsor "Big Tim" Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns.
the Feds get corrupted too, don't think i'm being naive, it's just that the Feds tend to have more political turnover than local politicians do...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
