Cash for Clunkers yielded 700K new car sales

[dinojen]

Senate Democrats defeated a Republican effort to kill a $1 billion "cash for clunkers" program that provides government incentives of $3,500 to $4,500 to car buyers who trade in old gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

But in passing the bill on June 18 as an add-on to funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats also defeated the "green" wing of their own party, who wanted to do much more to favor the purchase of passenger cars over pickup trucks and SUVs. The bill, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign, will enable many consumers who take advantage of the program to buy trucks that are barely more fuel-efficient than their old guzzlers.

"This is an emergency for families and small businesses—for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation," said Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who sponsored the Senate bill.

Here's how the program will work: Car owners can get a voucher worth $3,500 if they trade in a vehicle whose original gas mileage was 18 miles per gallon or less for a vehicle that gets at least 22 mpg. The value of the voucher would grow to $4,500 if the mileage of the new car is 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The miles-per-gallon figures are listed on the new car's window sticker. The fuel economy of a consumer's existing vehicle and the one he or she wants to buy can be researched at the U.S. Energy Dept.'s site www.fueleconomy.gov.


Okay got a couple questions.. first, your going to pay these people ... oh wait... give them vouchers to go PURCHASE NEW CARS to give the auto industry a boost.. now if someone has a vehicle that old there has to be a reason they haven't purchased a new one sooner... then... just say they liked their car.. and just didn't want to get rid of it.. please tell me who is going to finance these vehicles.. credit is so tight .. I can't imagine anyone with say FAIR credit getting a good interest rate for the purchase of a new vehicle..toss in the increase of INSURANCE.. how is this helping the taxpayer...am I missing somthing..

The other question is why is this tucked away in a bill funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...just asking

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db20090618_131460.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index +-+temp_top+story

[Carol25]

If they want to sell me a car, they wouldn't get away without paying every penny of the blue book price for my car! I've been a great negotiator on cars. I write down my price, my phone number and say, call me if you accept. They never let me get to the door.

Except once. He told me I couldn't afford the car and wouldn't let me test drive it! I went to the bordering state, bought it, and came back, walked in and asked him if he'd like a ride in my new car. I MADE him come out and see my temporary tags!

[Lady_Jean_La]

I always donate my old car to charity. I wonder if this will hurt charities as people won't donate. Or will it help as people buy the old cars from charity to trade in? Time will tell.

[rowstreeter]

(snip)

There seems to be a lot of that kind of thing with the BO regime, Jen. I'm still reading about things "tucked away" within the porkulus bill so as to slip through easily with no one noticing. Transparency? Change? Hardly.

Care to clue us in as to what you have found? Or are you going to keep it all a secret? Love to know.

[Brat2002]

And what are these poor dealers going to do with all these gas guzzling vehicles that they will be flooded with? I would think they'll have trouble re-selling them, so I guess they are stuck with them.

[dinojen]

And what are these poor dealers going to do with all these gas guzzling vehicles that they will be flooded with? I would think they'll have trouble re-selling them, so I guess they are stuck with them.

Nope not for resale...they are going to be SCRAPPED....lol...

<snippet from same link>

Perhaps the biggest source of misunderstanding, say industry analysts, will be when consumers realize that they get zero dollars for the trade-in value of their old car or truck, and that the only money they get toward the purchase of a new vehicle is the government money. Since the old cars will be scrapped, they have no resale value to the dealer.

[Brat2002]

Nope not for resale...they are going to be SCRAPPED....lol...

<snippet from same link>

Perhaps the biggest source of misunderstanding, say industry analysts, will be when consumers realize that they get zero dollars for the trade-in value of their old car or truck, and that the only money they get toward the purchase of a new vehicle is the government money. Since the old cars will be scrapped, they have no resale value to the dealer.

TIA, I hurried through and missed that and guessing they won't be allowed to sell them?? I still don't think this is a great deal. The cars might have been worth more than the money the government offers and the dealers still have the expense of transporting the vehicles to have them destroyed, unless the government will pay for that, too. I wonder if a lot of people will take them up on this. New car payments aren't cheap, if they can get a loan and a few thousand dollars won't bring the price down that much. Of course, with gas prices steadily rising and predicted to be $3.00 by July 4th and many are thinking $4.00 or above in the near future, people might grow desperate eventually. I remember when BO said he didn't mind the high gas prices the last time, but thought they should have risen slower. Well, slow, but sure, it's happening again. Is it still Bush's fault?



Clever way to destroy all the cars they don't want around anymore. I have a Dodge Ram pickup truck and will drive it until it literally falls apart.

[Details]

Am I not reading the same thing as everyone else?

No - this is not about the gov't buying your car for blue book or more or less. This isn't about you getting money then still being able to sell your old car. The idea is that they are offering a set amount of money for any car -whether you turn in a Ferrari Testarosa, or an ancient beater worth under $500 does not matter - the amount of money they offer to take your old car, so you will buy a new one with better gas mileage (and pollution control) stays the same. If it's not a good deal, not above bluebook - obviously, you don't do it. How is this not totally obvious? Seems weird some people are acting like the gov't is going to force them to sell their nice car worth tons of money to this program.


It's a nice program. Someone who is today driving an old beater, throwing pollution into the air, wasting gas, but can't quite afford to replace it because it's worth so little as a trade, can go for this program, pick a decent fuel efficient and clean car, and there we go! Less pollution, less fuel wastage. And credit is not THAT tight. It's really just getting to be about right.

[Lady_Jean_La]

California has had a similar program for many years. If an old car fails to pass a smog check the state will buy it for $600. The car is destroyed. imo

[daniel green]

Am I not reading the same thing as everyone else?
snipped

I believe it might be that you are actually reading...:wink:

[Details]

California has had a similar program for many years. If an old car fails to pass a smog check the state will buy it for $600. The car is destroyed. imoYeah. It's a great help if you've got some total clunker that has finally failed to the point it cannot be made to pass smog. Some of the cars I drove in my college years were probably very close to candidates for that program.

[Brat2002]

California has had a similar program for many years. If an old car fails to pass a smog check the state will buy it for $600. The car is destroyed. imo

All these great ideas and yet the state is still going bankrupt. I can't figure out why.

600.00 for an old car was a good deal. But now they will get thousands for the same car. I wonder how many people are already out looking for cheap clunkers just so they can get some money when they want to buy a new car. For every give-away the government offers, the scammers will be first in line to get their share.

[theal3]

Am I not reading the same thing as everyone else?

No - this is not about the gov't buying your car for blue book or more or less. This isn't about you getting money then still being able to sell your old car. The idea is that they are offering a set amount of money for any car -whether you turn in a Ferrari Testarosa, or an ancient beater worth under $500 does not matter - the amount of money they offer to take your old car, so you will buy a new one with better gas mileage (and pollution control) stays the same. If it's not a good deal, not above bluebook - obviously, you don't do it. How is this not totally obvious? Seems weird some people are acting like the gov't is going to force them to sell their nice car worth tons of money to this program.


It's a nice program. Someone who is today driving an old beater, throwing pollution into the air, wasting gas, but can't quite afford to replace it because it's worth so little as a trade, can go for this program, pick a decent fuel efficient and clean car, and there we go! Less pollution, less fuel wastage. And credit is not THAT tight. It's really just getting to be about right.

That's it. And makes sense to me and will help some, and it's voluntary. Plus if there are car parts that are valuable they will be salvaged. Like the way the Ins. Co worked with sister who was in a accident not long ago with a 91 Toyota Pickup which was considered totaled, and not her fault. They gave her blue blue value, and salvage the parts for sale, to off set their costs. Plus those that turn in their guzzlers will save on gas and int. loans on cars, now are cheap. It helps save energy, and lower cost to run newer cars. I've got an '88 Chevy Sprint that get 35 around town 55 Hwy.... and just use for "darting" around town for errands. My 2003 Taurus get 25-30 and is just dandy. Then the 88's Chevy Pickup is for heavy chores as we live rural, it doesn't get great milage, but we only use once or twice a month to take garbage to dump or recyle.

I don't need a car, yet. But some may like to trade in a gas guzzler and get that amt. to help offset the newer cars with better milage.

[flareon]

This just sounds like another half-brainy idea that they can push on the people. This one might need 2 czars.
IMO

At least two...it is too much nonsense for one.

[beattherap]

Am I not reading the same thing as everyone else?

No - this is not about the gov't buying your car for blue book or more or less. This isn't about you getting money then still being able to sell your old car. The idea is that they are offering a set amount of money for any car -whether you turn in a Ferrari Testarosa, or an ancient beater worth under $500 does not matter - the amount of money they offer to take your old car, so you will buy a new one with better gas mileage (and pollution control) stays the same. If it's not a good deal, not above bluebook - obviously, you don't do it. How is this not totally obvious? Seems weird some people are acting like the gov't is going to force them to sell their nice car worth tons of money to this program.


It's a nice program. Someone who is today driving an old beater, throwing pollution into the air, wasting gas, but can't quite afford to replace it because it's worth so little as a trade, can go for this program, pick a decent fuel efficient and clean car, and there we go! Less pollution, less fuel wastage. And credit is not THAT tight. It's really just getting to be about right.
does it make sense to you to federally subsidize trading in an suv that gets 14, 15 mpg for one getting 16, 17 mpg.

[Brat2002]

That was one of my first questions - the answer is you have to have owned the car for at least a year (iirc). That way you can't just go out and buy up the clunkers to take advantage now.

I am bothered by the scrapping of the older vehicles. Not only will it make replacement parts more difficult to find for those who do not use this program, but it eventually forces them to get rid of their old cars too when they can't repair or replace parts. It gets rid of all old cars eventually and forces people into whatever the government deems an appropriate car for them to drive.

I could drive around here right now and buy at least two old clunkers for about 500.00 a piece. I just got rid of one not long ago, by that I mean my '84 Buick LeSabre was stolen in Dubuque, Iowa. I bought it for my son 5 years ago for 500.00 and it ran great. (someone knows it was worth taking). If I found more old cars cheap, all I would have to do is add the cars to my insurance for liability and it would be fairly cheap. Tags aren't bad for older cars. Then, in one year, I could go car shopping and those clunkers would be worth big bucks. I am guessing this program will be around a while. I don't doubt that some are already thinking about this. But, personally, I don't think it would be worthwhile and would rather hang on to the cars.

I am also concerned about parts being difficult to find. Some people prefer their safer vehicles and would like to keep them. And considering the types of cars that BO wants made, I fear we won't have much choice in what we buy. I don't want to be forced eventually into buying one of those little cars that are no safer than a lawnmower with two seats. As posted elsewhere here in these boards, more deaths are attributed each year to deaths because of small, less safe cars than in the war.

There are things you can do that might increase the gas mileage on an older vehicle, but if you can't find parts, you'll end up with a real clunker because you can't maintain it. Is it really necessary to destroy all of them? If people are smart, they will start buying these old parts because they might just be worth their weight in gold in a few years.

The people taking advantage of this program will be the ones who can get credit and afford the monthly payments. Most of the poor cannot do this and aren't they the ones this should be aimed at? But we know it isn't about that, it's about wiping out the vehicles we have now and eventually switching everyone to the newer cars. You know, the ones that haven't been selling well because no one wants them. I guess the unions think that if they build them, we will come and get them. Nope, not unless we are forced.

[LisaM22]

so ya go to the paper and by a old gas guzerler for $100 bucks and get 4500 off on a new car - is there a rule on how long you have to have owned the car? and maybe the dealer will also take your current car as well

[LisaM22]

maybe the dealer will even sell you a clunker on the lot to use for the transaction, the dealer gets rid of the clunker, you get a great deal...

[shiloh2000]

Personally I'm waiting for the introduction of the new GM "People's Car'!

I owned a descendant of the original German version many years ago and I just can't wait.

Who cares if the heater works in Winter or not?

:smile:

I won't buy one. They've failed every single safety test. Someone going as little as six miles an hour hits one of these cars will total the car and have to be towed away. Where our normal cars can be hit at 40 miles an hour and be driven away.

Before I'm called a liar let me tell you husband works for GM.

[Brat2002]

I won't buy one. They've failed every single safety test. Someone going as little as six miles an hour hits one of these cars will total the car and have to be towed away. Where our normal cars can be hit at 40 miles an hour and be driven away.

Before I'm called a liar let me tell you husband works for GM.

I believe you 100%! No way will I be driving one. I hate the thought of destroying the older, safer cars and eventually wiping them out.

[Brat2002]

I'm envisioning a cross between a Yugo and a Moped that only comes in green.

:smile:

Really, you think they'll be that nice!! LOL

[shiloh2000]

I believe you 100%! No way will I be driving one. I hate the thought of destroying the older, safer cars and eventually wiping them out.

He runs the body shop for one of the GM dealerships. Manager and the horror stories! Thank goodness I have husband to rely on cuz the government isn't telling the truth, nor will the new board over GM. 13 out of the 15 people on that board were appointed by BO.

People are trying to buy automobiles but their credit isn't going through that's the biggest problem today.

[shiloh2000]

I'm envisioning a cross between a Yugo and a Moped that only comes in green.

:smile:

Please don't put any family members in it.

[shiloh2000]

I will never buy a GM (sorry, shiloh). :wub:

We are fans of Lexus and Toyota.

We usually resell our cars to college students. I don't want the $4500.

JMHO

That's ok by me......husband works there and I don't have one....LOL

Both auto's paid for, we're going to wait until the wheels fall off before we get another or the economy picks back up at least.

Now is not the time to go into debt IMO.

[Details]

No one is trying to steal your cars from people - if you missed it - this is a voluntary program - it's for anyone who WANTS it. Not really for cars with good resale value.


Simple concept - we improve fuel economy of the cars on our roads, by offering an incentive for some people to upgrade their car to something more efficient.


That's all it is. It's aimed at people who have old cars worth far less than the incentive that we want taken off the road permanently. It'll reduce air pollution, since more efficient and newer cars are far cleaner.


And my nice Honda Civic is no moped with two seats strapped to it, and is quite safe - check Consumer Reports. Old cars without airbags - now that's a death trap. Gets great mileage, does not pollute. I could be safer driving around in a tank, of course - so should we endorse those instead?

[flareon]

I always loved the Olds, they were great cars. I hope we don't end up seeing the highways full of those Bumblebee death-traps.
IMO

I hope so too. Can you imagine what that will do to the health care/insurance costs in this country?

[LisaM22]

I will never buy a GM (sorry, shiloh). :wub:

We are fans of Lexus and Toyota.

We usually resell our cars to college students. I don't want the $4500.

JMHO

here is a car for ya happy-mom ;)

http://www.hammacher.com/publish/11464.asp?promo=homepage_hero#

[Details]

I hope so too. Can you imagine what that will do to the health care/insurance costs in this country?Improve them.

New cars are safer - crumple zones, air bags, not to mention maneuverability to avoid the whole accident. Driving a tank that will be OK in a small accident (but kill you in a big one where size no longer can protect you) doesn't make you safe.

However, more importantly (to health care costs) - air pollution is a killer, and costs us a ton of money - sick days and hospitalizations, to deaths. Just for California, this study shows air pollution causes more deaths than car accidents - and then you have the illnesses, hospitalizations, sick days, etc. that fall short of death:Researchers at California State University-Fullerton sought to assess the potential economic benefits that could be achieved by reducing air pollution to levels within federal standards....To illustrate its point, the study noted that the California Highway Patrol recorded 2,521 vehicular deaths in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin in 2006, compared to 3,812 deaths attributed to respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/california-air-pollution-_n_143521.html
http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/{7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256}/key_air.pdf
http://www.airqualitypartnership.org/pdf/2007-11_newsletter.pdf
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/21/2655
and so on and so forth - there's a ton of links to a huge number of studies on this issue.

Not to mention global warming issues, the fact we WILL run out of fuel and the money for our gasoline heads into the pockets of some very primitive people who fund terrorist, religious suppression, etc.


Yeah, fuel conservation is a GOOOD thing. Me - I bought two very fuel efficient cars (one for hubby, one for me), because I couldn't stand the thought that those Saudi's and others like them were getting one extra penny from me to send over to Al Queda, use to open more intolerance teaching madrassas, discriminate against women, enforce laws against tolerance, etc. I can't stop driving - but I can be sure they get the least possible money from me.

[TBIBeg]

What happens to all of these old gas guzzlers? Will they be sold at slashed prices so that only the poor will be buying vehicles that get 10 MPG?

Who is going to afford the new cars? Those that can afford to pay gas for a vehicle that gets 10 MPG?

Is the rebate coming from my tax dollars?

[TBIBeg]

Please do not focus on the details.

Focus instead on the bigger picture.

And be happy that we have a government now that is willing to save us from ourselves and encourage us to quit being so dumb.

Which, I believe, is plainly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Somewhere....

On the back, maybe?

:confused:


:lol:


Must be the back! Why didn't I think of that?

[TBIBeg]

<snip> I could be safer driving around in a tank, of course - so should we endorse those instead?

That's the crux of the matter.....I don't need the govt to endorse any particular car or mandate them for that matter. is that is what is next?

[Brat2002]

Because of the left wing agenda to destroy the oil companies and control the vehicles Americans can drive by implementing cafe standards, cars have gotten less and less safe and have directly resulted in 27% more deaths. That means that 27% of the population who were killed in vehicle crashes, would still be alive but for CAFE standards....and they are about to get more stringent.....not hard to figure out more people are going to die.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s51.htm

I don't think there's any doubt that this administration wants to make us part with our old cars. They are doing it a variety of ways. This program of giving cash for clunkers is just a start. While it's voluntary, people are being shamed into trading in their SUVs and other vehicles that don't get high gas mileage. And because they are destroying the cars, and already limited the number of dealers, it will be harder and harder to find parts to maintain the older vehicles. And with the price of gas going up, up and away, some are going to be in dire straits if they can't afford a new car.

Some newer cars are safer. I think someone mentioned Honda, which still puts out some quality cars. But the fact is that some of these smaller vehicles simply do not protect people in accidents, airbags or not. The statistics prove this and you are correct about the CAFE standards making cars less safe. Heck of a trade off- your life for decreased gas consumption.

[TBIBeg]

I don't think there's any doubt that this administration wants to make us part with our old cars. They are doing it a variety of ways. This program of giving cash for clunkers is just a start. While it's voluntary, people are being shamed into trading in their SUVs and other vehicles that don't get high gas mileage. And because they are destroying the cars, and already limited the number of dealers, it will be harder and harder to find parts to maintain the older vehicles. And with the price of gas going up, up and away, some are going to be in dire straits if they can't afford a new car.

Some newer cars are safer. I think someone mentioned Honda, which still puts out some quality cars. But the fact is that some of these smaller vehicles simply do not protect people in accidents, airbags or not. The statistics prove this and you are correct about the CAFE standards making cars less safe. Heck of a trade off- your life for decreased gas consumption.

A local radio host here did the math on his trip to hi daughters graduation last weekend. It was a 80 mile round trip. He fit 6 adults in his SUV. He gets 13 MPG.

It would take 3 smart cars at 33 MPG to carry the same # of people.

Is that conservation?

[Details]

I'm smiling here because you said "we want taken off the road permanently" Who is "we"? Maybe the car czar is already recruiting his minions. Next I expect to see polls about this.
IMOWe is the elected government of the United States of America, a huge number of politicians chosen by the citizens of America in elections. And not everything that "we" want, will "you" want - but this is a Democracy, and laws are made for what overall, "we" want.

It would be nice were those clunkers off the road for good - old beaters that fill our air with pollution, fill our hospitals with suffering asthma patients, use up gasoline that makes the prices higher (and it's a high price - our soldiers in Iraq are part of the payment). But no one is forcing that - it's merely a desire. Owners of such cars may choose to keep them, sell them to other people, or give them to the government - that's a free choice. Amazing how the mere offering of a choice is seen to so many as a frightening move.

[Brat2002]

A local radio host here did the math on his trip to hi daughters graduation last weekend. It was a 80 mile round trip. He fit 6 adults in his SUV. He gets 13 MPG.

It would take 3 smart cars at 33 MPG to carry the same # of people.

Is that conservation?

Someone in these threads had a woman give her a hard time about driving her SUV and suggested she drive two smaller cars instead. Of course, that wouldn't be practical because you can't drive two cars at once to haul your kids around and the amount of gas would be greater. But I think some just want us all to appear to be politically correct, even if it actually does more harm. It's what I think of as the dreamy world of extreme liberals. It's not practical or even based in reality, but it sounds good to them.

[Details]

That's the crux of the matter.....I don't need the govt to endorse any particular car or mandate them for that matter. is that is what is next?Next? This is old. Ancient in fact. The government endorses many things, and has for centuries. That's how we have a free nation where you can do what you like, while the government keeps up with it's task of trying to 'encourage' everything to fit together. Tax credits for marriage, babies, research and development, support for education, colleges, purchasing a home has been 'endorsed' as far back as I can recall.

Yes - the government endorses things that will help society - by reducing fuel consumption, having safer cars, less air pollution, improving the economy - whatever the goal is for the particular endorsement. That means you have a choice - to go along or not - but they can encourage the choice that will help America the most. And "they" are the people Americans have voted in to run our government for us - it's not some dark shadowy evil alien interloper - this is our freely elected representatives discussing, compromising, and deciding which path appears best.

In this case - it's an endorsement of improving the fuel economy of cars on American streets by offering a choice to owners of cars that do damage our air and our fuel consumption rate. It's a choice - we all do as we like.

[TBIBeg]

Next? This is old. Ancient in fact. The government endorses many things, and has for centuries. That's how we have a free nation where you can do what you like, while the government keeps up with it's task of trying to 'encourage' everything to fit together. Tax credits for marriage, babies, research and development, support for education, colleges, purchasing a home has been 'endorsed' as far back as I can recall.

Yes - the government endorses things that will help society - by reducing fuel consumption, having safer cars, less air pollution, improving the economy - whatever the goal is for the particular endorsement. That means you have a choice - to go along or not - but they can encourage the choice that will help America the most. And "they" are the people Americans have voted in to run our government for us - it's not some dark shadowy evil alien interloper - this is our freely elected representatives discussing, compromising, and deciding which path appears best.

In this case - it's an endorsement of improving the fuel economy of cars on American streets by offering a choice to owners of cars that do damage our air and our fuel consumption rate. It's a choice - we all do as we like.

This is an 'endorsement' to the tune of $4500 of our tax dollars!

[LisaM22]

I always loved the Olds, they were great cars. I hope we don't end up seeing the highways full of those Bumblebee death-traps.
IMO

I loved my old olds too, but the 8-9 mpg it I did not love

[LisaM22]

e85 gas is 1.74 here....

[Details]

A local radio host here did the math on his trip to hi daughters graduation last weekend. It was a 80 mile round trip. He fit 6 adults in his SUV. He gets 13 MPG.

It would take 3 smart cars at 33 MPG to carry the same # of people.

Is that conservation?Yeah - one trip in the rare case where he's got a full car. Of course, every day he rides alone, and all that goes away.

And nice - picking a SmartCar - my car gets 35 MPG and would seat 5. Two of mine is still more fuel efficient than his SUV.

The usual for a radio host. Pick something that fits biases, take an example that is the rare case that works, pick your opponent to be a strawman (SmartCars?), and leave the implication that it's the norm.

[Details]

This is an 'endorsement' to the tune of $4500 of our tax dollars!You want to look up how much the home buying 'endorsement' cost us? The marriage endorsement? Business research and development 'endorsement'? And the costs of air pollution alone - even if we forget the immense costs of our fuel usage - make this a good bargain.

[TBIBeg]

Not being argumentative -- why would it take 3 smart cars to carry 6 people?

Toyota has also come out with a Hybrid SUV -- the Toyota Highlander that gets 20/27 mpg and carries 6 people.

Because smar cars only have 2 seats.

[TBIBeg]

You want to look up how much the home buying 'endorsement' cost us? The marriage endorsement? Business research and development 'endorsement'? And the costs of air pollution alone - even if we forget the immense costs of our fuel usage - make this a good bargain.


Our fuel usage makes our government millions if not billions of dollars a year.

[Details]

Not being argumentative -- why would it take 3 smart cars to carry 6 people?

Toyota has also come out with a Hybrid SUV -- the Toyota Highlander that gets 20/27 mpg and carries 6 people.Radio host was goofing around.

SmartCar does not get 33 MPG - it gets 33/41MPG. Since an 80 mile trip no doubt was mostly highway - even going with the worst possible case he could find (a fuel efficient car that only seats two - you can get cars just as fuel efficient that seat 5) - the 3 SmartCars got better gas mileage of his one SUV.

[Details]

Our fuel usage makes our government millions if not billions of dollars a year.Costs us money - doesn't make us money. Especially when you factor in the occasional war, health care costs, and lives.

[Brat2002]

Radio host was goofing around.

SmartCar does not get 33 MPG - it gets 33/41MPG. Since an 80 mile trip no doubt was mostly highway - even going with the worst possible case he could find (a fuel efficient car that only seats two - you can get cars just as fuel efficient that seat 5) - the 3 SmartCars got better gas mileage of his one SUV.

And how practical is that for larger families? It's not. And, heaven forbid, if they are in an accident, they will not fare as well in those little cars.

[Brat2002]

I don't have a "clunker" any more, but I do have a new big 4X4 deisel truck. Love it - on a good day with a tail wind I might get 20mpg, but the power is worth it!

I hear ya. I love my Dodge Ram and won't part with it.

[dinojen]

Not being argumentative -- why would it take 3 smart cars to carry 6 people?

Toyota has also come out with a Hybrid SUV -- the Toyota Highlander that gets 20/27 mpg and carries 6 people.

While I totally understand where you are coming from... I have a feeling some people that are driving these old clunkers as the govt. likes to call them would have a hard time in these economic times purchasing the Highlander.. and some might not even qualify financially for a loan.. it's quite possible.. I'm sure there are some that could also.. but I am not totally thinking this cash for clunkers is the right way to go.

Might help the air quality.. but if people can afford with this "cash" the govt is giving them to go out an buy a new car.. that also means a increase in insurance for them.. being they would have to have full coverage.. plus more than likely a nice size car payment they didn't have before..

Highlanders start.. START at $25K...

http://www.toyota.com/highlander/

[Details]

And how practical is that for larger families? It's not. And, heaven forbid, if they are in an accident, they will not fare as well in those little cars.The facts are not so clear on that - depends on the type of accident. And the more modern cars are safer than the older ones (remember - we're talking 'clunkers' here). I drive my family in my Honda Civic - it's quite safe. So is the SmartCar - although it's obviously not designed for families. Smaller cars are still very safe - air bags, crumple zones - there's no safety issue here.

When someone needs a large car - obviously they simply get one. No big deal. Although - as someone who was one of 4 sisters, and my mom simply had a car the whole time - I can't say I entirely buy the "I've got a family, I must have a huge SUV" type of argument some make. A car works for up to 3 kids - if your timing is right. If the kids are too close together (back seats will hold 3 kids, but not 3 carseats if they are closely spaced) - then you need something with 3 rows of seats. Lots of good options there for someone who wants good gas mileage - a van is generally safer than a SUV and gets better fuel economy. Or a hybrid SUV. Or a standard SUV - they can at least say they really need it.


I don't quite get your point - is it that one brand of car is not the perfect car for EVERYONE on earth? Of course it isn't. I could post all about how impractical a van is for me. What difference does that make? A SmartCar is designed for commuters, for one person who occasionally has a passenger - not for families. The standard passenger car will hold 4-5 people - good for most families, most situations. A 3rd row vehicle will hold a few more. And a bus will hold even more! The point is????

[Details]

While I totally understand where you are coming from... I have a feeling some people that are driving these old clunkers as the govt. likes to call them would have a hard time in these economic times purchasing the Highlander.. and some might not even qualify financially for a loan.. it's quite possible.. I'm sure there are some that could also.. but I am not totally thinking this cash for clunkers is the right way to go.

Might help the air quality.. but if people can afford with this "cash" the govt is giving them to go out an buy a new car.. that also means a increase in insurance for them.. being they would have to have full coverage.. plus more than likely a nice size car payment they didn't have before..

Highlanders start.. START at $25K...

http://www.toyota.com/highlander/Not every program can satisfy every need - if someone is driving a clunker, and wants a Highlander - yeah, they'll need some money. Although I don't think anyone "needs" a Highlander - nor any expensive car - there are plenty of less expensive ones that get great gas mileage, and still seat a full family, even a large one.

The "cash" isn't to buy a new car - it's to help. If you've got the clunker worth $500, so you keep driving it wasting fuel and polluting the air more than a newer car would - and if having $4500 to put down would make a new car affordable - then you're helped. If not - too bad. Not every program can be the perfect solution to everyone's problems. No program makes everything perfect.


Ah yes, that was the cliche:

Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.




In other words - trying to make the perfect solution - instead of starting by solving the problems we can right now - means we waste time looking for a perfection that may not exist. Make a program - like this one - that solves some part of the problem - and expand from there - learn from any failings.

[Details]

What people fail to grasp is this--these 'green' cars are NOT selling. You cannot tell people what cars they should buy.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/mar/18/business/chi-tc-biz-wed-hybrids-0318mar18

AND...

http://reason.org/news/show/122517.htmlPrecisely the point. People get to choose - so what's the big deal?

[dinojen]

I agree with you. Again was just responding to a specific post.

Personally I like small to mid-size cars anyway but I know my hubby doesn't. He was looking at a Land Rover which I know is a gas guzzler and that is what prompted me to talk about the $4500 replacing trade-in value that car dealers are misrepresenting. He has a 2002 Cadillac Escalade in excellent condition and was told the max he could get on a trade-in would be $4,500. Kelly Blue Book puts the value at 12K+ or even in fair condition at $10K +. LOL


Me I love my Hyundai Sante Fe.. heated seats for the winter.. leather.. that puppy is MINE.. V6.. 4 wheel drive... love it love it love it.. and I'll drive it till the wheels fall off.. Actually got it for hubby... but the gas mileage was killing him because he's on the road alot with work.. so we traded in the Civic for a Hyundai Tucson and he loves it.. little 4 banger and it gets great great great gas mileage.. got 1 year left on payments on both of them.. and we in the clear.. He can get a new one if he wants.. but I'm not giving up the Sante Fe.. no way no how..



Knock on wood.. haven't had a thing go wrong with either of them and being I just drive in town usually it's great gas mileage.. and the Tuscon's is even better..


Personally.. something just smells fishy about the cash for clunker.. to me.. but hey that's just me. All it really is doing is getting the junkers off the highway and helping out the auto industry.. and putting more debt and monthly costs to the purchaser.. IMHO.

[Brat2002]

The facts are not so clear on that - depends on the type of accident. And the more modern cars are safer than the older ones (remember - we're talking 'clunkers' here). I drive my family in my Honda Civic - it's quite safe. So is the SmartCar - although it's obviously not designed for families. Smaller cars are still very safe - air bags, crumple zones - there's no safety issue here.

When someone needs a large car - obviously they simply get one. No big deal. Although - as someone who was one of 4 sisters, and my mom simply had a car the whole time - I can't say I entirely buy the "I've got a family, I must have a huge SUV" type of argument some make. A car works for up to 3 kids - if your timing is right. If the kids are too close together (back seats will hold 3 kids, but not 3 carseats if they are closely spaced) - then you need something with 3 rows of seats. Lots of good options there for someone who wants good gas mileage - a van is generally safer than a SUV and gets better fuel economy. Or a hybrid SUV. Or a standard SUV - they can at least say they really need it.


I don't quite get your point - is it that one brand of car is not the perfect car for EVERYONE on earth? Of course it isn't. I could post all about how impractical a van is for me. What difference does that make? A SmartCar is designed for commuters, for one person who occasionally has a passenger - not for families. The standard passenger car will hold 4-5 people - good for most families, most situations. A 3rd row vehicle will hold a few more. And a bus will hold even more! The point is????

I was commenting on some of the other posts above. I was referring to a woman was chastised and someone told her to get two small cars rather than the large vehicle she was driving. Made no sense for someone to suggest that to her because she was hauling around children. But these days, it is likely that people will point fingers at you for driving a larger vehicle and those who do are pegged as politically incorrect. And with this latest program, it's obvious that there is an effort to get the larger cars off the roads. No one is clearly defining clunker other than referring to the bad gas mileage. Even newer vehicles that run great can take a lot of gas, but I think the left sees all of them as clunkers.

Good point on the carseats as well. Many cars just aren't practical for the family with 3 small children. People need to consider the room needed for carseats and if they plan on having another child soon, definitely need to think about that when buying a car.

Another huge consideration for many in the midwest is winter road conditions as well as the number of people who live in the country on gravel roads. We have many around here and the weather tears up the roads and can make them really difficult to navigate in a small car. And personally, I don't think smaller cars handle as well on snowy roads, at least not compared to my truck with it's nice big tires. Of course, I have a topper and use sand bags for additional weight, which takes even more gas.

While many are going to disagree on the safety issue, I've read too much and seen too much to believe that the really small cars are safe. Yes, it depends on the accident, but did you read about the crash tests above? Unfortunately, it doesn't have to take a major accident to die in a small car. Statistics bear this out. Sure SUVs can be dangerous, as can any vehicle. A lot of accidents have been caused by anti-lock brakes because people don't understand how they work. Most accidents are driver error, often due to overcorrecting if they skid or drift off the road, but that's a whole other thread.

My biggest issue is with the really small cars. I don't think the savings in gas is worth the risk should you be in an accident. We can debate all day, or rely on our own research and each make up our minds. If someone wants to drive around in one, it's their business. I think most just want to retain their freedom of choice and not be pushed one way or the other. However, I think many are starting to feel pressured and made to feel ashamed about their SUVs and larger vehicles.

[Brat2002]

There is so much info out there that I cannot begin to link to it here, but wanted to share a sampling to reiterate the point that small cars are more dangerous in an accident, even single-vehicle accidents. I bring that up because I have heard some argue that the risk would lessen if there were less large vehicles in which to crash into.

So, today's small cars are better than yesterday's small cars, but people are still dying in them when they likely would not have died had they been in a bigger vehicle. I might guess that the reason the death rate for accidents in small cars has risen is because there are more on the road than ever before.

This conclusion came after years of studying.

It states that occupants of small cars are more likely to die in crashes than those in bigger, heavier vehicles. True that newer cars meet strict safety standards, like air bags, and are safer compared to the small cars without these things, BUT even the cars with lots of safety features are still governed by the laws of physics and that means they are not as safe as the bigger cars. Whether they crash into a midsize or larger vehicle or whether it's a single car accident, they are not as safe and you or your passengers are more likely to be killed. I don't need to get hit over the head with a Yugo to understand the real dangers.

This is according to data from the government, the insurance industry and the National Academy of Sciences.

People buy small cars even though they can be deadly
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm

more drivers die in small cars
They may save on gas mileage, but they don't save lives
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20070820/smallcars.art.htm

[shiloh2000]

That's the crux of the matter.....I don't need the govt to endorse any particular car or mandate them for that matter. is that is what is next?

Socialism is the government making all our decisions for us because we can't think for ourselves. That's what's coming next.

[Brat2002]

I meant to preface the excerpts about SUVs with my own statement and forgot. I do agree that smaller cars are unsafe but the fatalities in smaller cars are usually caused by the larger SUVs. Personally I think all SUVs should be banned in the US. Nothing wrong with the station wagons we had years ago to drive our families around. There is absolutely NO NEED for SUVs (That's all hubby drives and we've debated this since day 1 LOL) Of course if they are never banned I do feel safer in an SUV. JMHO

I haven't found any statistics showing that SUV drivers are the main causes of crashes and deaths of those in smaller vehicles. Of course, if one of those small cars hits any larger vehicle, even a mid-size, they won't fare nearly as well. Even two small cars hitting head-on would be a disaster. But many are also dying in single-vehicle accidents.

While there have been many SUV accidents, I don't know that they make up the majority by any means. It seems that they really started getting picked on, though there have always been large vehicles on the road. One of the biggest problems that I was aware of was the fact that some SUVs were top heavy and had a tendency to roll when the driver lost control. Many times, the anti-lock brakes played a role because people don't understand that when the brakes kick in, you don't need to turn the wheel as much to come out of a skid. They overcorrected, and rolled. This happens a lot with smaller vehicles with or without antilocks, too, but perhaps some of the top heavy SUVs were more likely to roll.

I'm just not convinced that SUVs are the huge threat that some make them out to be. I do think there are cases where people resent the people in larger vehicles faring better than the little cars during an accident. I do not believe that SUV drivers are more apt to cause an accident than any other driver on the road. And I don't like seeing them blamed because they survived an accident caused by the driver of another vehicle.

Of course, it's the drivers out there that cause the most danger, but weather (unexpected icy patches, etc.) and animals have also contibuted to a great many accidents and I like to be prepared for whatever is coming at me.

[Details]

I don't agree about SUVs being safer. First, of course - you could ride in a tank - that's far safer - no fender bender will hurt you. Or a Semi - put a semi against a SUV, and the SUV will be shredded. So this whole arms race of getting in a bigger car - I really don't like that type of message.

But all that aside - SUVs are not all that safe - they've got rollover issues that are huge, they don't handle well, which means accident avoidance is really poor, visibility is not where it should be which can cause more accidents - there's a reason insurance companies charge their drivers more.

And while I'd not suggest they be banned, they have one design defect that I think should be legally required to be corrected - their bumpers are too high, and thus miss the other car's bumper. That shouldn't be allowed - there's a reason those are standard - and by placing them higher, they defeat the other vehicle's crumple zones. They need to address that on semi trailers too - they have to some degree, but the bars aren't quite strong enough. It's about like if I decide to put a huge long lance on the top of my car - I'm making it so if I crash with a car taller than mine, I'll hurt them more. That's wrong - and it's wrong when they do that with SUVs with bumpers set where they'll ride over the hood of a car and into the passenger compatment.

[flareon]

I haven't found any statistics showing that SUV drivers are the main causes of crashes and deaths of those in smaller vehicles. Of course, if one of those small cars hits any larger vehicle, even a mid-size, they won't fare nearly as well. Even two small cars hitting head-on would be a disaster. But many are also dying in single-vehicle accidents.

While there have been many SUV accidents, I don't know that they make up the majority by any means. It seems that they really started getting picked on, though there have always been large vehicles on the road. One of the biggest problems that I was aware of was the fact that some SUVs were top heavy and had a tendency to roll when the driver lost control. Many times, the anti-lock brakes played a role because people don't understand that when the brakes kick in, you don't need to turn the wheel as much to come out of a skid. They overcorrected, and rolled. This happens a lot with smaller vehicles with or without antilocks, too, but perhaps some of the top heavy SUVs were more likely to roll.

I'm just not convinced that SUVs are the huge threat that some make them out to be. I do think there are cases where people resent the people in larger vehicles faring better than the little cars during an accident. I do not believe that SUV drivers are more apt to cause an accident than any other driver on the road. And I don't like seeing them blamed because they survived an accident caused by the driver of another vehicle.

Of course, it's the drivers out there that cause the most danger, but weather (unexpected icy patches, etc.) and animals have also contibuted to a great many accidents and I like to be prepared for whatever is coming at me.

I don't like SUV's but besides small cars being death traps they also result in more injuries. They also seem to be a problem because the drivers seem to dart in and out of traffic. The smaller cars would also be a problem if hit by a mid sized car.

My major problem with SUV's is that you can't see around them. This is dangerous in parking lots and at lights when you have to make a turn. It really creates a blind spot.

[Brat2002]

I don't like SUV's but besides small cars being death traps they also result in more injuries. They also seem to be a problem because the drivers seem to dart in and out of traffic. The smaller cars would also be a problem if hit by a mid sized car.

My major problem with SUV's is that you can't see around them. This is dangerous in parking lots and at lights when you have to make a turn. It really creates a blind spot.

Of course, there are different sizes of SUVs. One guy always parks this huge one on the street at the end of my driveway, and I have a hard time seeing the street even when I'm in the truck. I do agree on that, but many are smaller SUVs and regardless of their size, I just don't buy the fact that they cause the majority of accidents. I agree that some drivers in smaller cars have a bad habit of weaving in and out of traffic and pose a danger, just like some on motorcycles. As far as parking lots, I notice that the larger spots are usually at the farthest end.

I recall an article about an accident several years ago and the headline stated that an SUV caused another death. I won't get into what's wrong with the title, but when I read it, it was clear that the SUV driver was not even at fault. Two vehicles, one an SUV, were at a stop light with the SUV behind the first car stopped at the light. A third car approaching the intersection did not stop and rammed into the back of the SUV, pushing it into the car in front of it. The first car was forced into the middle of the intersection where it was hit by a fourth car that was going through the intersection. It was the third car's fault for not stopping but because an SUV was involved, it was made out to be the bandit.

Stories like that made me realize that SUV drivers were being targeted and it hasn't let up since.

If I were to make anyone out to be villians, it would be the hostile driver, the thoughtless driver or the drunk driver. They are dangerous no matter what they drive.

[Brat2002]

I don't agree about SUVs being safer. First, of course - you could ride in a tank - that's far safer - no fender bender will hurt you. Or a Semi - put a semi against a SUV, and the SUV will be shredded. So this whole arms race of getting in a bigger car - I really don't like that type of message.

But all that aside - SUVs are not all that safe - they've got rollover issues that are huge, they don't handle well, which means accident avoidance is really poor, visibility is not where it should be which can cause more accidents - there's a reason insurance companies charge their drivers more.

And while I'd not suggest they be banned, they have one design defect that I think should be legally required to be corrected - their bumpers are too high, and thus miss the other car's bumper. That shouldn't be allowed - there's a reason those are standard - and by placing them higher, they defeat the other vehicle's crumple zones. They need to address that on semi trailers too - they have to some degree, but the bars aren't quite strong enough. It's about like if I decide to put a huge long lance on the top of my car - I'm making it so if I crash with a car taller than mine, I'll hurt them more. That's wrong - and it's wrong when they do that with SUVs with bumpers set where they'll ride over the hood of a car and into the passenger compatment.

Have the standards changed now that cars are being made smaller? I notice some of the little cars sit really low, way lower than many cars already on the road.

[Details]

Have the standards changed now that cars are being made smaller? I notice some of the little cars sit really low, way lower than many cars already on the road.Cars are larger - far larger than when I grew up anyway.

I haven't noticed any standards change. I'd apply the same rule though to any little car - the bumpers for all vehicles should be at the same height - they exist to protect all of us, should be at the same point.

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1009/cash-for-clunkers-car-buying-stimulus-bill

Though final details of the program have yet to be established, below are broad aspects of the Cash for Clunkers program as we know them today. The program would offer vouchers that allow consumers to save from $3,500 to $4,500 on a new-car purchase, and there are also various credits for trucks and work trucks.

[Brat2002]

Cars are larger - far larger than when I grew up anyway.

I haven't noticed any standards change. I'd apply the same rule though to any little car - the bumpers for all vehicles should be at the same height - they exist to protect all of us, should be at the same point.

My family vehicle growing up was a Nomad, talk about a boat. I also remember some small cars, like the Vega. To me, it seems like the small cars got smaller and the big ones bigger. Went both ways, but it would make sense for them to be at the same height at least.

[Details]

Just due to the height of the vehicle, I think the bumper of my Kia Reo would have to be above the headlights to line up with that of a Chevy Suburban.

:confused:They're not that far off - and it's a design decision where the bumper is placed. While it's totally separate from this (aside from issues of safety when you've got one car designed to prevent the safety features of another car from functioning) - I really think that's something they should address sometime.

[Details]

It really should be a higher priority - doesn't public safety mean anything? All these crumple zones designed for a hit don't work when they don't get hit.

There were laws to fix this on semis - so many people decapitated by sliding under one they finally started requiring the bars to stop you. This is just as bad or worse (more SUVs than semis).

I think too many people like the SUVs for the politicians to want to take the issue on - but they really need to.

[Details]

Oh yeah - it's Nanny state to ensure that your car is not designed to kill me when I collide with your car. Yep - that's just what it is. And that's why I got myself a nice lance to put on the roof of my car - just about SUV driver eye-level. Perfectly safe - unless there's an accident with a SUV - it's just for areodynamics, of course. Sounds about right, right? Can't tell me not to, not to create an entire line of car accessories built around the idea of taking out the other car in an accident - that'd be Nanny state! Heck, laws against killing someone are so very Nanny state - they should let us protect ourselves!

Such silliness - of course the government, laws, all of it is designed to create society - make a set of laws that allows everyone to get along best as possible. Whether it's laws against stealing from another, or something saying that a product advertised as a food should not contain poison, or that kids toys should not kill the child when played with or that cars have basic safety standards - that is exactly what government is for.

[flareon]

It all depends on your comfort level with the Nanny State Mentality, IMO.

An extreme example: the Government could mandate that we all be enclosed in germ free plastic bubbles - for our own safety and to keep health care costs down, of course.

Or that we all wear helmets while driving cars, or even walking.

It's easy to make a theoretical case about almost anything.

But is what we may gain in reduced "casualties" really worth the loss of that much Personal Freedom?

:confused:

You are exactly right. It not only infringes on people's freedoms, but it is also a false sense of security.

There isn't anything wrong with having standards, but when you have political parties using those standards to push an questionable agenda it is just a waste of time and money.

We have all seen example after example of the government trying to regulate everything in order to appease and pander to their constituents. The sad thing is they never have the courage to do the things that will actually make a difference. Instead they come up with these "feel good" band-aids that accomplish very little.

[flareon]

IMO - NO. And you are so right on what it depends on. Some people look to the government for their salvation and believe it is the government's job to take care of them from cradle to grave and have enabled the government to get so big as to attempt to do that and succeed in some areas. I'm not in that category myself and will never understand it, but that's just me.

Absolutely. By doing this they completely wash their hands of any personal responsibility and are constantly looking outward for every answer they need.

[flareon]

Have the standards changed now that cars are being made smaller? I notice some of the little cars sit really low, way lower than many cars already on the road.

I used to drive a Corvette. Thankfully I was never hit broadside because that car was so low to the ground it was apparent that the car that would hit me would almost be across the whole car before it would hit something to make it stop.

[flareon]

Driving a Corvette was probably worth the risk!

Life has breadth as well as length, afterall!!

:smile:

Well, it was a trade off. The thing was I always knew it wasn't the safest car on the road, but I made a choice.

God, that car was so low to the ground it would get stuck if it snowed too much.

[flareon]

Sounds to me that, on a theoretical level, you would be OK if your Government mandated that you wear a helmet while walking to the Post Office.

I mean, it's all just a matter of degree, isn't it?

Evidently, none of us are capable of discerning between a Government Action that makes sense and promotes the Common Welfare and is not too intrusive and the Plastic Bubble (or Cap and Trade, for that matter).

And, referring back to your post, I would argue that in no way does Government create Society.

Society creates Government.

Often with disastrous results!

:smile:

You are so right. I've seen some people act like regulation can prevent every faulty food product, every bad event in banking/stock, every crime, every accident, etc. It will never happen and will only tend to tack extra money on products/goods/services with very little benefit.

[Details]

Sounds to me that, on a theoretical level, you would be OK if your Government mandated that you wear a helmet while walking to the Post Office.

I mean, it's all just a matter of degree, isn't it?...Yes, it is all a matter of degree. I could say, were I silly, that on a theoretical level, you would be OK if your government didn't bother punishing murder or theft. Because that is the opposite extreme to what you are suggesting.

It's all a matter of degree - there's the black, and the white, and the millions of shades of gray inbetween. Real life is never about the black and the white - it's all shades of gray.

So, yes, our government does protect us. And there points, degrees, to use your term, where you get the correct mix of reasonable protections any civilized society should expect (when someone sells you a pizza, it's reasonable to expect they'd be in trouble if they were using plague rats for the sausage; that a car company is not allowed to create a car that will kill the inhabitants of the other car in an accident).

And there are unreasonable protections or lack of protections (a helmet while walking; ignoring murder and mayhem) that lie on the black and white extremes of the scale - mostly useful if you want to create a false strawman to claim someone is embracing, if the real gray views are too complex to address.

[watcher2005]

Yes, it is all a matter of degree. I could say, were I silly, that on a theoretical level, you would be OK if your government didn't bother punishing murder or theft. Because that is the opposite extreme to what you are suggesting.

....

Not at all. Murder is the result of unlawful force applied by a criminal against another human being against their will. Should any unfortunate results happen to you from not wearing a helmet, it comes from your own choice.

The first comes from the common law, the second is some mutation of Napoleonic nannyism.

[Details]

Not at all. Murder is the result of unlawful force applied by a criminal against another human being against their will. Should any unfortunate results happen to you from not wearing a helmet, it comes from your own choice.

The first comes from the common law, the second is some mutation of Napoleonic nannyism.Not true - "unlawful" would describe both actions - murder and the lack of a helmet in the "Nanny" extreme. Lawful would describe both actions in the "Non-Nanny" extreme. Just because there's a legal issue now, does not change the reality of the two extremes.

You could just as well say, "should any unfortunate results happen to you from not wearing your body armor and being quick enough with your gun - it comes from your own choice" - in the extreme where murder is not something the nonnanny gov't gets involved in.

[Details]

Well, I'm glad to see that you're finally comin' around to my side, Details!

:smile:If you are agreeing with my middle ground - that would be my side - that not every protection of citizens is an evil Nanny state thing, and that there are degrees, shades of gray to work with - not just a black or white Nanny or no Nanny state choice.

It's simple - the solution isn't ideology or what fits on a bumper sticker or a fun cliche (Nanny state) - it's to look at each issue, and find the best resolution that works to preserve freedom and society BOTH.

One solution to bumper heights is to just say, "hey, buy the wrong car and die - what's the problem." Another is to say, "SUVs are outlawed, all cars must be of the same size and weight." Or you can say that however different the cars are, if they want to drive on the public roads, they must have a bumper that will meet the other vehicle's bumper in a crash, to enable both of your vehicle's safety systems and crash zones to work.

Black and white are easy, clean, clear - and just plain wrong and foolish. The real world is just not that simple.

[watcher2005]

Not true - "unlawful" would describe both actions - murder and the lack of a helmet in the "Nanny" extreme. Lawful would describe both actions in the "Non-Nanny" extreme. Just because there's a legal issue now, does not change the reality of the two extremes.

You could just as well say, "should any unfortunate results happen to you from not wearing your body armor and being quick enough with your gun - it comes from your own choice" - in the extreme where murder is not something the nonnanny gov't gets involved in.


No, the non-nanny government is responsible for policing the initiation of unjustified, violent force against another. What you described is anarchy.

[Brat2002]

I wonder what they will do about all of the semi trucks on the road, the ones that haul almost everything we use or eat?

They've done things to try and make it safer when a car collides with a truck. On the back, there is a guard that is supposed to prevent cars from going underneath the truck if the car hits it from behind.

We'll never have equal sized vehicles on the road and we can't very well make separate lanes for each type. Virtually all cars will always fare better than the person on a motorcycle. No way can we level things out to make safety equal there.

I also highly doubt that any manufacturer ever designed a car specifically to take out another car in an accident. I can see where it would seem reasonable to have a standard height for bumpers on cars, but it gets impossible when you look at all types of automobiles. Around here, we have a lot of farm vehicles as well.

I think the best thing is to look at why we have so many accidents and work on that. I think there should be longer driver's ed classes for teens. While they teach them some basics, there is not enough emphasis on handling emergencies. It's amazing how many accidents are caused by simple mistakes due to inexperience. Then there are those drivers who, IMO, shouldn't be on the road because they don't take driving seriously enough, like people who are always talking on cell phones, people who drink, people who are multi-tasking while they drive or people who drive too fast all the time. We all know at least one person whose driving scares us. We all see idiots on the road every day. The way some people drive, they are an accident waiting to happen and it doesn't matter what they're in.

My way of dealing is to be the safest possible vehicle and be defensive. No guarantees, but take all the precautions you can.

[theal3]

There's a trend in the country to move BACK to the cities, where you don't need a car... or moving to "communities" with all within walking distance, or short drives.... and working at home or closer to home. Places with public transportation will be good. I'm not saying it's ALL going to be that way, but there are place in Portland, Chicago, Seattle etc..... Communites within the city.... maybe, heck the corner mom and pop stores will come back.

[LisaM22]

So, if I understand you correctly, neither one of us have the vaguest idea of what the correct bumper height is or much of anything else outside our areas of expertise.

Where we part ways is that, evidently, you trust the Government to supply answers for us and I would severely rein in the Government's ability to do that because I know at certain times in our History - and I think this is one of those times - the Government has taken on a wholly Political persona and I don't trust at all the mandates that it seems enthused about handing down.

It ain't about cars or fuel efficiency or bumper height, IMO - it's about Power.

As always, I appreciate the fact that you may have a different opinion.

:smile:
I think if a car wants to be "street legal" it needs to follow some basic rules... I do not see that as a nanny state mentality

[Brat2002]

There's a trend in the country to move BACK to the cities, where you don't need a car... or moving to "communities" with all within walking distance, or short drives.... and working at home or closer to home. Places with public transportation will be good. I'm not saying it's ALL going to be that way, but there are place in Portland, Chicago, Seattle etc..... Communites within the city.... maybe, heck the corner mom and pop stores will come back.

It would be a dream for many to work close to home, but in rural areas, it's commute or starve, unless you farm for a living. Some days, I'm ready to go join the Amish community a few miles away and say to heck with everything. I wonder what life would be like with no more modern issues and no more computers. Sometimes, it doesn't sound so bad. And I'm sure a few here wish I would toss my computer out the window. :biggrin:

[theal3]

It would be a dream for many to work close to home, but in rural areas, it's commute or starve, unless you farm for a living. Some days, I'm ready to go join the Amish community a few miles away and say to heck with everything. I wonder what life would be like with no more modern issues and no more computers. Sometimes, it doesn't sound so bad. And I'm sure a few here wish I would toss my computer out the window. :biggrin:

I hear ya'! LOL. But we're retired and notice what is going on with our kids in their 30 and 40s. I do live rural, so know what you mean. But I also see a new market opening for classic car parts, salvaged from trade ins, and the salvaged/melting of steel for those new plants 60 minutes featured, great booming business in salvaged steel and it's all American! It's a step. It's employes people. There is so much in the US we can do with recycling "matter." We are behind the times.

New fridges and dryers are more efficient, than the old ones hobbling along, use less engery etc. and the steel can be resused in many ways. and other precious metals.

[watcher2005]

There's a trend in the country to move BACK to the cities, where you don't need a car... or moving to "communities" with all within walking distance, or short drives.... and working at home or closer to home. Places with public transportation will be good. I'm not saying it's ALL going to be that way, but there are place in Portland, Chicago, Seattle etc..... Communites within the city.... maybe, heck the corner mom and pop stores will come back.


Serfs were bound to their community, too.

[FurthurBB]

While I totally understand where you are coming from... I have a feeling some people that are driving these old clunkers as the govt. likes to call them would have a hard time in these economic times purchasing the Highlander.. and some might not even qualify financially for a loan.. it's quite possible.. I'm sure there are some that could also.. but I am not totally thinking this cash for clunkers is the right way to go.

Might help the air quality.. but if people can afford with this "cash" the govt is giving them to go out an buy a new car.. that also means a increase in insurance for them.. being they would have to have full coverage.. plus more than likely a nice size car payment they didn't have before..

Highlanders start.. START at $25K...

http://www.toyota.com/highlander/

Yeah, but, if you really have a clunker you can pick up an old Honda Odyssey that should fit the bill with 16/25 that can easily fit a large family for $6,000-$8,000. With that incentive, why not. IMO

[FurthurBB]

Socialism is the government making all our decisions for us because we can't think for ourselves. That's what's coming next.

Show me the definition of socialism as the government making all our decisions for us because we cannot think for ourselves. You are hiding under the bed and do not even know what it is you are scared of. IMO

[watcher2005]

Yeah, but, if you really have a clunker you can pick up an old Honda Odyssey that should fit the bill with 16/25 that can easily fit a large family for $6,000-$8,000. With that incentive, why not. IMO

I don't think the "incentive" applies to the purchase of used vehicles.

[LisaM22]

anyone find how long you have to own the old vehicle to get the $4500, can you go buy a $100 car and use that plus your trade in? can the dealer sell you a $100 clunker from the lot to use?

[watcher2005]

Oh yeah - it's Nanny state to ensure that your car is not designed to kill me when I collide with your car. ...

What was the result when the Nanny State turned it's attention to the Tucker? Answer, we didn't see many Tuckers on the road.

[Rangerx1]

anyone find how long you have to own the old vehicle to get the $4500, can you go buy a $100 car and use that plus your trade in? can the dealer sell you a $100 clunker from the lot to use?

Believe I read that you had to have owned the car for 1 year to qualify.

[theal3]

I believe too, it has to be used to buy a new car, and some may find it a good deal, and take out a loan, and that will stimulate the economy and that industry.

BTW, my '88 Chevy Sprint still runs like a top! and I get 35 mpgs city, 50 hwy. A ten gallon tank. LOL. My dart around town car. Why it a classic by now, I think.

[RedSocksFan]

Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game Because of distorted sales figures, Ford's Escape cross-over SUV, not the Focus small car, tops the list for most popular 'clunker' buy.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009080704


I don't think this is what the liberals had in mind. :laugh:

[flareon]

I would tend to believe the Edmund's figures rather than the government. It figures that the government would use a twisted method in order to make it appear to be more energy conscious.

One good thing is that American cars are the top sellers on the Edmund's list.

[Truberry]

I've heard nothing but complaints about the cash-for-clunkers scam...it's a ploy to get customers into the showroom and sell them a car..this is what happens when the Goverment gets involved in the auto industry..IMO

[Truberry]

Believe I read that you had to have owned the car for 1 year to qualify.
Yes, that is true..you have to own the car for a year which is a stupid rule.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I would tend to believe the Edmund's figures rather than the government. It figures that the government would use a twisted method in order to make it appear to be more energy conscious.

One good thing is that American cars are the top sellers on the Edmund's list.

Spinning data? Our government? Oh no. :scared:

[Details]

Yes, that is true..you have to own the car for a year which is a stupid rule.It's a smart rule. They don't want people to go out and buy a junker just to get the money. The goal is to take a car someone is really driving (it also must have been registered for a year - and not as undrivable or parked), and give them an incentive to replace it with something more fuel efficient.

Letting people just go out and buy a car to trade in is an invitation to scammers. When the program first started, all the people who thought they were smarter than the government and only cared what they could do to get money, were talking all about doing that - getting some barely running clunker to get the cash from the program.

[Details]

Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game Because of distorted sales figures, Ford's Escape cross-over SUV, not the Focus small car, tops the list for most popular 'clunker' buy.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009080704


I don't think this is what the liberals had in mind. :laugh:If they didn't want SUV's included, they wouldn't have made them eligible.

Me - what I had in mind was replacing gas guzzlers with something more fuel efficient - and it did just that! I don't care what they buy, so long as it is more efficient.

[Details]

I've heard nothing but complaints about the cash-for-clunkers scam...it's a ploy to get customers into the showroom and sell them a car..this is what happens when the Goverment gets involved in the auto industry..IMOUh, yeah - horrible program no one actually uses ...


which is why it's so overloaded with people USING it, that they had to suspend it, approve more money, etc.

I can see making many points about it - but that it's something no one likes - the data does not support that even remotely.

[watcher2005]

I believe too, it has to be used to buy a new car, and some may find it a good deal, and take out a loan, and that will stimulate the economy and that industry.

BTW, my '88 Chevy Sprint still runs like a top! and I get 35 mpgs city, 50 hwy. A ten gallon tank. LOL. My dart around town car. Why it a classic by now, I think.

Those were good little cars.

[Veritas]

We have a neighbor that turned in their "clunker" and recieved $4500 towards a new Honda.

Problem is, he was approved but the dealer will not give him the car until they recive the money from the government.

They did tell him that he could write a check for what the government owes and they'll reimburse him once they recieve payment.

So, the government can't even run a car rebate program without snafus and people want to turn their healthcare over to them????:scared:

[theal3]

My son's friend took his college guzzler '92 truck in last Wednesday and got a Honda Element (neat vehicle) by Friday. Maybe it depends on one's credit record. He had no problem and he is 29. It may also depend on how the dealer handles paperwork, or computers etc. It's a successful program. Terrific.

[Veritas]

My son's friend took his college guzzler '92 truck in last Wednesday and got a Honda Element (neat vehicle) by Friday. Maybe it depends on one's credit record. He had no problem and he is 29. It may also depend on how the dealer handles paperwork, or computers etc. It's a successful program. Terrific.

Why would the dealer offer to take his personal check if HIS credit was less than spectacular?

Are you saying that it is the fault of the customer (Our friend) or the dealer? It seems that you have pretty much asserted that the government bears no fault. Meanwhile, my friend sits without his new car and his old clunker.

:rolleyes:

[theal3]

Why would the dealer offer to take his personal check if HIS credit was less than spectacular?

Are you saying that it is the fault of the customer (Our friend) or the dealer? It seems that you have pretty much asserted that the government bears no fault. Meanwhile, my friend sits without his new car and his old clunker.

:rolleyes:

I suspect the dealer, IMHO. Very high demand, and more and expected and may not be on top of things, or for his own reasons delays it. There are too many success stories, like the one i mentioned.

[Details]

Why would the dealer offer to take his personal check if HIS credit was less than spectacular?

Are you saying that it is the fault of the customer (Our friend) or the dealer? It seems that you have pretty much asserted that the government bears no fault. Meanwhile, my friend sits without his new car and his old clunker.

:rolleyes:If it works at one dealer, and doesn't work at another - that suggests the dealer is the problem.

[Veritas]

Dealers are not getting paid. Therein lies the problem. JMO

LINK (http://holgerawakens.blogspot.com/2009/07/cash-for-clunkers-flunks-no-money.html)


LINK (http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/05/dealerships-red-light-cash-for-clunkers/)

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Great post Goo!


From your article:

[QUOTE Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the nation's top car salesman in recent weeks, has cited the Obama administration's best-seller list of mostly smaller, fuel-saving cars like the Ford Focus to describe the success of the Cash for Clunkers rebate program.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to know the demographics of these buyers. The Focus costs between 12-15 grand. Is the focus being bought because it is a cheaper car? or is it being bought because it is energy efficiant?


This aticle which outlies that Camaros and Hummers are allowed to qualify!! WTH????:cursing:

) Chevy Camaro (V-6, automatic)

Horsepower/torque(ft-lbs): 304/273

0-60: 6.1 seconds

MPG: 22

Hummer;


PG(1) City: 13-14
Hwy: 16-18
Seating(2): Up to 5





http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/08/cash-for-cookers.html

[watcher2005]

Didn't GM even sell off the Hummer business to China?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Didn't GM even sell off the Hummer business to China?

They sure did!!!

GM strikes Hummer deal with China's Tengzhong

DETROIT/NEW YORK (Reuters) - General Motors Corp said on Tuesday it reached a tentative deal to sell its Hummer brand to a privately held Chinese company, part of an effort to drop four unprofitable vehicle lines and leave bankruptcy as a leaner company.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5512F220090602

[Details]

The bill wasn't about green vehicles - it was about greener vehicles. Every vehicle bought with this program had better fuel economy - and also less emissions (because standards are higher, and because it burns less fuel), than the vehicle it replaced. The net result is a positive, no matter what vehicle is purchased, no matter if it is a great little car, or a truck or a SUV. It's better than what they were driving.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

The bill wasn't about green vehicles - it was about greener vehicles. Every vehicle bought with this program had better fuel economy - and also less emissions (because standards are higher, and because it burns less fuel), than the vehicle it replaced. The net result is a positive, no matter what vehicle is purchased, no matter if it is a great little car, or a truck or a SUV. It's better than what they were driving.

Well then you need to Get onto the CARS website and see that vehicals having a MPG of 15 YES MPG qualified.


The new vehicle must have a manufacturer's suggested retail price of not more than $45,000. That price appears on the window sticker on new vehicles. The new vehicle must also achieve minimum combined fuel economy levels. For passenger automobiles, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon. For category 2 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles per gallon. Category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement; however, there are special requirements that apply to the purchase of category 3 vehicles.

http://www.cars.gov/faq


15 MPG is not GREENER it could be the same and LESS than the trades that were and ARE allowed!!!!

For instance my Toyota qualifies for the clunkers trade in program-- my car GETS a heck of a lot better gas milage than 15 MPG. A lot of those that qualify do!

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how 15 MPG Is "greener" when I have a car that gets much more and is elegible for the program.

[watcher2005]

Maybe it should be called Cash for China, more debt for Americans.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Hooboy! :scared:

[Veritas]

And this same administration wanted to reform healthcare? :scared:


JMHO

[flareon]

You would just once like to see one program they have put in that isn't having a problem. I don't know whether it is the rushing through or they just don't have the competence to do things right. Just more examples of someone who has never done anything productive in their working life.

[MiamiNice1]

What a MESS! :ohmy:

[theal3]

but my local paper said, the domino effect of the sales is creating business and jobs due to scrap yard markets, metals made into steel, some folks bought even more expensive cars, inventories got used and new orders placed and combined with the ebb of the recession it's adding good news to the economy.

[watcher2005]

Sorry, but turning drivable cars into scrap is not a good thing in my opinion. Why not give them to some needy people who cannot buy a new car, or who have cars older than the arbitrary cut off date. I really dislike waste.

[theal3]

We have new steel mills in America that turn all the "junk/scrap" into American made steel with a new modern cleaner safer, faster method. That's a good thing.

[ABC]

And this same administration wanted to reform healthcare? :scared:


JMHO

As Trump said "Can anyone imagine the Goverment tracking millions of peices of paper"?

[ABC]

We have new steel mills in America that turn all the "junk/scrap" into American made steel with a new modern cleaner safer, faster method. That's a good thing.
That is a great thing.

[February]

We have new steel mills in America that turn all the "junk/scrap" into American made steel with a new modern cleaner safer, faster method. That's a good thing.


A very good thing. The program is a good thing.
Some don't understand it, or choose not to.
For the sake of our country, our children and our economy in general, I hope any and every plan to jump start us is successful.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

but my local paper said, the domino effect of the sales is creating business and jobs due to scrap yard markets, metals made into steel, some folks bought even more expensive cars, inventories got used and new orders placed and combined with the ebb of the recession it's adding good news to the economy.

But if the dealer is gining a consumer 3500-4500 dollars and not getting that money back, how are they to get new cars if they can pay for the ones they already got form their suppliers. Banks only wait so long to be paid.

If one dealer had just 30 car sales then he is out over one hundred thousand dollars, 100,000 just for a few weeks business. Now add to that they are still required to continue such and could be out another 100 grand next week. :w00t:

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

:rolleyes: #1 the dealer is neither gining or giving the consumer anything. #2 the dealership may or may not have a relationship with a bank for their property and building #3 outside of that, the car financing is of two avenues; generally the dealer receives inventory from the supplier/auto manufacturer(s) (trust me, the dealer is not cutting any deals for the consumer) .. then there are the financing options the dealer can pass on to the consumers, some bank options and several manufacturer options. From, form or farm ... :biggrin: .... but you cannot avoid the facts.

Hint: Detroit should like the stim; think they'll sabotage it?


Let’s start with # 1 on your list shall we?

You say:

"#1 the dealer is neither gining or giving the consumer anything."


Dealer then GIVES the consumer a price cut AKA CREDIT of 4,500 on the car. If the car was 10,000 consumer only has paid 5,500 given a 4,500 clunker trade in. So therefore the dealer now owes 10,000 for a car which he paid 10,000 or received a loan for 10,000. That FACT does not change no matter what you try to say-- the dealer gave the consumer 'credit' on behalf of the government and is waiting to be paid back so he can pay his creditor and or overhead costs.

You say

#2 the dealership may or may not have a relationship with a bank for their property and building

Correct, he may or may not have a loan for the car he may have purchased it outright-- therefore he has not lost 4,500 dollars on his purchase and potentially has no profit to pay employees or overhead costs.

Do you think that dealer just walk around with a couple of hundred thousand extra he can just say—okay I can wait forever for the Feds to give me back the credits I passed onto the consumer?

Those are the facts-- no matter how you try to spin them and they are pretty SIMPLE to work out :wink:

[theal3]

:rolleyes: #1 the dealer is neither gining or giving the consumer anything. #2 the dealership may or may not have a relationship with a bank for their property and building #3 outside of that, the car financing is of two avenues; generally the dealer receives inventory from the supplier/auto manufacturer(s) (trust me, the dealer is not cutting any deals for the consumer) .. then there are the financing options the dealer can pass on to the consumers, some bank options and several manufacturer options. From, form or farm ... :biggrin: .... but you cannot avoid the facts.

Hint: Detroit should like the stim; think they'll sabotage it?

Well explained. It's simple economics from the ground up DEMAND and therefore supply will come, and the big boys have that all figured out on paper, the pipe line as been unplugged, and slowly: cash flow, credit, etc etal.....

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Not to mention the program is putting Mom and Pop used car dealers out of business.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/249802/


And please do not tell me it is making anything "greener" when Hummers and Camaros are elegible to be bought under the program AND cars that get only 15 MPH under the program.


The new vehicle must have a manufacturer's suggested retail price of not more than $45,000. That price appears on the window sticker on new vehicles. The new vehicle must also achieve minimum combined fuel economy levels. For passenger automobiles, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon. For category 2 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles per gallon. Category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement; however, there are special requirements that apply to the purchase of category 3 vehicles.

http://www.cars.gov/faq

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

My post stands. Your problem(s) understanding it are what they are. FWIW Next time you buy a car, take a friend. :seeya:

It might still "stand" but it does not mean it is correct. :wink:

The dealer must reduce the price of the new vehicle by the credit amount. If a dealer has a check or credit card authorization given by you at the time of the sale, the dealer has not actually reduced the price as required by the CARS program. Take your trade-in to another dealer if a dealer makes this demand.

http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-03

[theal3]

The program worked and is working: is was not for ALL Green, it was to stimulate economic activity. For those that did a Hummer, fine: out of inventory: for those did that green for milege fine. Lots of folks: and we don't know who ALL they were and in what states, or what economic level, but the STIMULUS, did what is was suppose to do... restore confidence in the car industry.

IMHO, forget the Mom and Pop talk... that's so 50s, Walmart did an end to that in the last 30 years...... now it's at car dealer level. Don't need one on every corner, just like banks, and gas stations, don't need one on every block etc etal.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

The program worked and is working: is was not for ALL Green, it was to stimulate economic activity. For those that did a Hummer, fine: out of inventory: for those did that green for milege fine. Lots of folks: and we don't know who ALL they were and in what states, or what economic level, but the STIMULUS, did what is was suppose to do... restore confidence in the car industry.

IMHO, forget the Mom and Pop talk... that's so 50s, Walmart did an end to that in the last 30 years...... now it's at car dealer level. Don't need one on every corner, just like banks, and gas stations, don't need one on every block etc etal.

What do you mean forget the Mom and Pop talk? Did you even bother to read the article? Not to mention I am happy it is not your parents and or children who made thier living selling used cars. "Forget 'em" according to you. :cursing:

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Here it is from a site you might actually read, Huff Po:


Cash For Clunkers Hurting Mom and Pop Used-car Dealers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/cash-for-clunkers-hurting_n_259099.html

[theal3]

The program worked and is working: is was not for ALL Green, it was to stimulate economic activity. For those that did a Hummer, fine: out of inventory: for those did that green for milege fine. Lots of folks: and we don't know who ALL they were and in what states, or what economic level, but the STIMULUS, did what is was suppose to do... restore confidence in the car industry.

IMHO, forget the Mom and Pop talk... that's so 50s, Walmart did an end to that in the last 30 years...... now it's at car dealer level. Don't need one on every corner, just like banks, and gas stations, don't need one on every block etc etal.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

The program worked and is working: is was not for ALL Green, it was to stimulate economic activity. For those that did a Hummer, fine: out of inventory: for those did that green for milege fine. Lots of folks: and we don't know who ALL they were and in what states, or what economic level, but the STIMULUS, did what is was suppose to do... restore confidence in the car industry.

IMHO, forget the Mom and Pop talk... that's so 50s, Walmart did an end to that in the last 30 years...... now it's at car dealer level. Don't need one on every corner, just like banks, and gas stations, don't need one on every block etc etal.

And to address your first paragraph, my point was about the used car dealers selling cars that may have lower MPG. It matters not because the CARS program allows you to buy cars with MPG lower that 15 MPG.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

No, you would be incorrect. Wherever are you getting the notion the dealer is reducing the price?

Your link is an entirely different matter. Apples/oranges. What the link is telling the consumer is that if the price they pay does not reflect the govt stim, then they should choose another dealer.

LOL


I am getting the NOTION from the GOVERNMENT web site CARS.gov.

From CARS .gov the government web site delineating the Clunker program says:

The dealer must reduce the price of the new vehicle by the credit amount. If a dealer has a check or credit card authorization given by you at the time of the sale, the dealer has not actually reduced the price as required by the CARS program. Take your trade-in to another dealer if a dealer makes this demand.

http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-03

How did you think this program worked?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

To participate in the CARS program, you do not have to sign an agreement to pay back the dealer the CARS credit amount if the deal is rejected.

You are required to leave your trade-in vehicle at the dealership and sign over the title to the trade-in vehicle at the time of the deal.
The dealer must give you the new vehicle at the time of the deal.
Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify.

Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements).
Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in.

You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase.
Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.

The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, minus $50 the dealer keeps for administrative fees, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

http://www.cars.gov/

No the dealer is lowering the price of the car e.g, CREDIT to consumer and then waiting on the governemnt to refund them the credit passed onto the consumer.

Simple really, they lower the price of the car by 4500 or 3500. That is why the dealers are UPSET the FEDS have not given them their money yet.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

More:


Car Dealers Waiting for Clunkers Money



But it's been a complicated process. Luzio's Flemington, N.J. dealership has only gotten a federal refund for just one of 103 he's sold.



"It amounts to about a half a million dollars outstanding right now," Luzio said.

While consumers get a discount when they trade in their clunkers, the cash from the rebates goes to the dealer - as much as $4,500 dollars for each car. And if the government rejects the application, it's the dealer who is on the hook. So Luzio is holding on to the clunkers in case he needs to sell them like he would any trade-in, reports CBS News correspondent Terrell Brown.


( 103 X 4500 = 463,500. a lot of money)

Please note the words "rebate and discount" TIA!


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/15/eveningnews/main5244394.shtml

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Evidently, the Cash for Clunkers program is in disarray - auto dealers have only been reimbursed to the tune of 2%!

Democrat Sestak also said that 4 out of 5 applications have been rejected and Sestak's statistics show it is not an isolated problem.

According to Sestak, 1,000 processers are needed to staff appropriately. Right now, the government has 225 to handle the apps. (Oops) Someone miscalculated. :blushing:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/?test=latestnews


4 out of 5 have been rejected by the feds! WOW I missed that the first go round. SO that means that the dealer is in the red for any money or credit AKA reducing the cost of the car to the consumer. The dealer is on the hook for the cash. WOW , just wow.

I was reading the cars website here:

http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/rule.pdf


And they speak of rejecting the applications in several different areas. I really hope them rejecting the applications do not cost more people their job... :ohmy:

[desmom]

I agree. I know I'm dreaming but wouldn't it be wonderful for the country if both parties got on board to make programs successful. Instead of fighting tooth & nail against EVERY SINGLE thing the new administration is trying to accomplish for the American people. We could get this country rolling again if there wasn't a fight with the opposition on EVERY SINGLE issue over and over again.

I agree Sunshine! They are too busy wanting to put notches in their belt so they can brag to the public "we, the repubs, did this" or the "we, the democrats, did that".

I do not care if they are republicans, democrats, independents, black, white, yellow, green or purple! We elected you, we sent you to Washington, now do your job and get over the ego trips! :cursing:

[watcher2005]

What do you mean forget the Mom and Pop talk? Did you even bother to read the article? Not to mention I am happy it is not your parents and or children who made thier living selling used cars. "Forget 'em" according to you. :cursing:

Wealth is being concentrated into the hands of a few just like in any banana republic.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

A good program?

http://super-gas-saver.com/Save-Gas-Blog/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-what-it-is-and-how-it-hurts-the-poor/

A program that hurts the poor and does nothing to help the environment or conserve energy (it's ostensible purpose)? As a government program it's perfect, but other than that it does nothing but confirm once again that Reagan was insightful when he said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."


Adding to that:

Cash For Clunkers Hurting Mom and Pop Used-car Dealers


Mom and Pop used-car dealers are feeling the crunch as the old Caravans and Cherokees that provide their livelihood get traded in and banished to junkyards under Cash for Clunkers. By some estimates, three of every five of the used cars turned in for government rebates would have ended up on used car lots or resold for parts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/cash-for-clunkers-hurting_n_259099.html

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

A good program?

http://super-gas-saver.com/Save-Gas-Blog/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-what-it-is-and-how-it-hurts-the-poor/

A program that hurts the poor and does nothing to help the environment or conserve energy (it's ostensible purpose)? As a government program it's perfect, but other than that it does nothing but confirm once again that Reagan was insightful when he said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Hey Go!


Did you see this:

You’ll notice that vehicles submitted under the cash for clunkers program are required to be destroyed. They must have the engine disabled. Initially congress called the number associated with the vehicle’s destruction, and I’m not making this up, the “End of Life Vehicle Solution” number.

End of life--- seems to be a reoccurring theme. :ohmy:

The whole final solution thing with Hitler is eerie.

[watcher2005]

Waste not, want not.

[dinojen]

Surprise surprise.. as Gome Pyle would say...

Yeppers it's history as of Monday... done deal.. gone to the scrap pile.. heading for the crushing machine... Wonder if the dealerships will ever get their monies...:huh:


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will end the popular $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program on Monday, giving car shoppers a few more days to take advantage of big government incentives.

The Transportation Department said Thursday that the government will wind down the program on Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. Car buyers can receive rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 for trading in older vehicles for new, more fuel-efficient models.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the program has been "a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work." He said the department was "working toward an orderly wind down of this very popular program."

http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090819/US.Cash.for.Clunkers/




Lifeline for the auto industry that is the back pocket of the current administration... lol... but did you all know only 2% of the monies owed to dealers that did these deals with consumers has been paid to the dealerships.. they are still waiting on authorizations.. and god knows what else..

[Patriot]

(snip) Wonder if the dealerships will ever get their monies...:huh:




I was wondering the same thing, Jen. Why aren't they getting paid?

[Patriot]

One report said only hired 250 people were hired to process the paperwork, and they realize now that appx. 1000 are needed.

ROTFL. That's the government for ya........inept and incompetent. And they want to have total control over our lives with their "health care reform". ROTFL.

[dinojen]

(snip)


I was wondering the same thing, Jen. Why aren't they getting paid?

The federal government has only reimbursed auto dealers for 2 percent of the claims they've submitted through the popular "cash for clunkers" program, a Pennsylvania congressman said, calling on the Obama administration to help speed up the process.

Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., called for "immediate action" to address the problem in a statement Sunday, after writing a letter to President Obama Saturday expressing his concerns.

In the letter, Sestak said only 2 percent of claims have been paid and that four of every five applications have been "rejected for minor oversight."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/



AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN OUR HEALTHCARE... I THINK NOT...:rolleyes:

Glad I don't drink Kool-aid... I'll stick with my Diet Pepsi.... I cannot believe what we have gotten ourselves into.. Hope, Change and alot of B.S. IMO...:wink:

[flareon]

The federal government has only reimbursed auto dealers for 2 percent of the claims they've submitted through the popular "cash for clunkers" program, a Pennsylvania congressman said, calling on the Obama administration to help speed up the process.

Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., called for "immediate action" to address the problem in a statement Sunday, after writing a letter to President Obama Saturday expressing his concerns.

In the letter, Sestak said only 2 percent of claims have been paid and that four of every five applications have been "rejected for minor oversight."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/



AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN OUR HEALTHCARE... I THINK NOT...:rolleyes:

Glad I don't drink Kool-aid... I'll stick with my Diet Pepsi.... I cannot believe what we have gotten ourselves into.. Hope, Change and alot of B.S. IMO...:wink:

It is amazing. There isn't one thing this group has done that hasn't had problems once it has to be carried out. It reminds you just how inexperienced he is and how he lacked any real world credentials.

Anyone can come up with some pie-in-the-sky idea. Competence and experience help you to understand what ideas are viable.

[shiloh2000]

YES!!

As soon as the right wing lunatic fringe stops telling falsehoods, and drops that partisan baloney of theirs, the better off they'll be. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't like the way this country is being run can move; same as we had that choice during the GWB 8 years of destruction. BTW, I was gone a great deal the last 4 years of his term. It's another one of our great freedoms that I wish some would use.

moo

Really? Husband works for GM and since this administration couldn’t make up their minds about this Cash for Clunkers deal the dealerships are getting the shaft as well as the customers. The customers had to sign a contract stating if the government doesn’t approve of the trade then the customer has to come up with the $3500-4500 to pay the dealership back or return their new vehicle. How does that grab you? Can’t blame Bush for this one can you? This administration changed the ‘rules’ for this fiasco so many times the dealerships can’t keep up. And it’s the poor people that will get the shaft once again.

Oh and BTW the clunkers aren’t being crushed; salvage yards buy them for $200 and sell all the body parts, batteries, alternators, starters and whatever else is still usable. All the salvage yards are required to do [according to this administration] is to release the titles back to the government.

So tell me what was their point again? What was the reason for all this? How has this helped the economy? [well the salvage yards are making money but they’re the only ones] What did all this accomplish? I tell you what it accomplished. This administration got their way again like the spoiled children they are. “I don’t care if it works or not I want my way Na na a boo boo………….”

[shiloh2000]

The federal government has only reimbursed auto dealers for 2 percent of the claims they've submitted through the popular "cash for clunkers" program, a Pennsylvania congressman said, calling on the Obama administration to help speed up the process.

Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., called for "immediate action" to address the problem in a statement Sunday, after writing a letter to President Obama Saturday expressing his concerns.

In the letter, Sestak said only 2 percent of claims have been paid and that four of every five applications have been "rejected for minor oversight."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/



AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN OUR HEALTHCARE... I THINK NOT...:rolleyes:

Glad I don't drink Kool-aid... I'll stick with my Diet Pepsi.... I cannot believe what we have gotten ourselves into.. Hope, Change and alot of B.S. IMO...:wink:

That's because the 'clunkers' have to meet approval by this administration before any monies will be released back to the dealerships and the rules change on a daily basis.

[flareon]

You're right, GooBeeGone, as is proven by the fact that Obama has called on our Federal Aviation employees to help straighten out the backlog mess with Cash for Clunkers!

all bolding is mine

Hmmmm. Makes you wonder if the Federal Aviation Administration will be called on for those 'death panels'. :wink:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/22/us-adds-clerks-to-clear-clunkers/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature

No, they probably have the postal employees set up for that since they are planning on cutting postal services. :biggrin:

[snookums1]

"It's been crazy. We've had lines" of customers, said Scott Gruwell, the sales director at Courtesy Chevrolet in central Phoenix, which has sold 58 new vehicles since Friday.

"We've had the best weekend in literally a year-and-a-half to two years," he added.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57N4HF20090825

I know 4 people that worked for the auto related industry. They had been laid off for months. All have been called back to work.

[theal3]

It's wonderful. General Motors had re-hired 1,000's of laid-off workers. It's been a win-win for the country as a whole.

I'm a little disenchanted with some of the dealers whining they haven't received checks yet. What hypocrites. It takes a little time to process the paper-work. They didn't mind selling those cars, but they're quick to put a knife in Pres. Obama's back aren't they??

Mind you, only a handful have done that, but you can be sure the ones in my City got an e-mail from me and my assurance I will tell everyone I know NOT to buy from them, ever. Very stupid thing for them to do.

moo

I live in a town of 16,000 and next/twin city is 6 miles away for 24,000 and lived here 42 years, and know just about everyone.... business and socially: cash for clunkers is a huge hit in my area on the south coast of Oregon; and ads on TV from dealers in the valley 200 miles away and news reports all positive. The cash flow is recylcing in the community. Even though we have high unemployment rate.... but it's seasonal.....

[theal3]

The program has been a huge boost to many areas of our economy. Another wonderful idea by Pres. Obama and his administration.

:thumbsup:

Yes, and other countries are now doing it, as I heard on one radio report. We America set an example, but other countries, small started on it, and we borrowed the idea, and now the whole world is paying attention. It was a "stimulus" and it now stimulating. It wasn't an end all, as some want. Any good idea, that makes sense, is what he'll do. Love it. One of our friends owns a Honda dealership. She's a woman and delighted; so is a friend, a Chevy dealer; and another a Ford dealer..... (guess that shows I play golf, lol)

[orangetaffy]

"The popular government rebates, which ended Monday evening, gave auto sales a jolt, but now car makers and dealerships again are forced to confront the worst market in a quarter-century."

http://www.startribune.com/business/54638702.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUUJ

"" 'Cash for Clunkers' created a nice little blip," he said. "We'll look back and say, 'Nice party, but the hangover is awful.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/08/24/ST2009082402379.html

Dealers better make that money last a long time, because chances are, it's all they will be seeing for a while.

[daniel green]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32567404/ns/business-autos/

[theal3]

From all accounts the programs was successful beyond expectations. And as a "stimulus" it DID stimulate many local economies and move inventory for the big manufacturers, and will continue as the new cars get serviced; save gas etc.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Japanese automakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan accounted for 41 percent of the new vehicle sales, outpacing Detroit automakers General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which had a share of nearly 39 percent. Toyota Motor Corp. led the industry with 19.4 percent of new sales, followed by General Motors Co. with 17.6 percent and Ford Motor Co. with 14.4 percent.

I still believe that this program should have been kept to American made cars--- stimulate home sales --not overseas industry. JMNSHO

[orangetaffy]

I see it more as treating a symptom, not a disease. I think the auto industry better make those profits last a long time, because IMO, sales are going to be way down for many months. What they more or less did, was take sales that would have happened in the coming 5 or 6 months, and crammed them into a handful of weeks. So, much like the ant and the grasshopper...they have had their feast, and will now face their famine.

[theal3]

I still believe that this program should have been kept to American made cars--- stimulate home sales --not overseas industry. JMNSHO


Many so called "foreign" made cars like Honda, Toyota ARE made in the US by American workers in the south. Part of the stimulus & bailout insisted on by the GOP in the south was that it DIDN'T exclude these cars made in the south.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Many so called "foreign" made cars like Honda, Toyota ARE made in the US by American workers in the south. Part of the stimulus & bailout insisted on by the GOP in the south was that it DIDN'T exclude these cars made in the south.


Shall I repeat myself?

I still believe that this program should have been kept to American made cars--- stimulate home sales --not overseas industry. JMNSHO

(emphasis added)

[crocdog1]

[QUOTE=IaNsSyAlNuE;13405310]Shall I repeat myself?

Quote:
I still believe that this program should have been kept to American made cars--- stimulate home sales --not overseas industry. JMNSHO

(emphasis added)
__________________


I have a question regards "American Cars."

Is a car made in America if it has an American name such as FORD that is assembled in Canada by Canadian workers, and therefore stimulates the Canadian economy?

Alas, it is to say, this is true in most cases of cars with American names.

Conversely, is a car foreign if it has a foreign name such as Toyota, VW, Nissan, etc, if it is assembled in America by American workers and stimulates the American worker?

This is, indeed the case, most of the time.

You can check out where a car is assembled by checking the first number of the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number):

If first number is 1--car is assembled in USA.

If first number is 2--car is assembled in Canada.

If first number is 3 or more, car is assembled in some country other than the USA or Canada.

[Details]

There's a lot more than just the assembly too. Where is the engine made? Where are all the parts made? Where is it assembled? Who does the design work for new cars? Which country gets to tax those who get the profits in the end?

Where a carmaker is based is only one part, where a car is assembled is also only a small part. Reality is - this is a global economy, you can't so easily buy local.

[Patriot]

Of these 700K cars that were sold how many will be repo-ed?


That, as well as if the dealers ever get all their money, will be interesting to see, won't it?

[orangetaffy]

Of these 700K cars that were sold how many will be repo-ed?

How many will be recalled?

Toyota Motor Corp. plans to recall about 95,700 vehicles sold in the cold-weather areas of the U.S. because of possible brake problems.

The recall affects 2009 and 2010 Toyota Corollas and Corolla Matrixes and 2008 and 2009 Scion xDs, all equipped with 1.8-liter engines.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125131500852561373.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[PoppySeeds]

I foresee one industry that will see a surge in business....Repo men will be swamped in a few months.

[Patriot]

What have they done to eliminate the shortage of people to handle the claims? Anything?

Silly! It's the government we're talking about! They probably hired 300 people, stuck red pens in their hands and those new employees, undereducated and highly paid, high on their new power trip, are red penning the paperwork left and right in between their 30 vacation days and multiple smoke breaks. :laugh:

[snookums1]

Senate Democrats defeated a Republican effort to kill a $1 billion "cash for clunkers" program that provides government incentives of $3,500 to $4,500 to car buyers who trade in old gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

But in passing the bill on June 18 as an add-on to funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats also defeated the "green" wing of their own party, who wanted to do much more to favor the purchase of passenger cars over pickup trucks and SUVs. The bill, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign, will enable many consumers who take advantage of the program to buy trucks that are barely more fuel-efficient than their old guzzlers.

"This is an emergency for families and small businesses—for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation," said Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who sponsored the Senate bill.

Here's how the program will work: Car owners can get a voucher worth $3,500 if they trade in a vehicle whose original gas mileage was 18 miles per gallon or less for a vehicle that gets at least 22 mpg. The value of the voucher would grow to $4,500 if the mileage of the new car is 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The miles-per-gallon figures are listed on the new car's window sticker. The fuel economy of a consumer's existing vehicle and the one he or she wants to buy can be researched at the U.S. Energy Dept.'s site www.fueleconomy.gov.


Okay got a couple questions.. first, your going to pay these people ... oh wait... give them vouchers to go PURCHASE NEW CARS to give the auto industry a boost.. now if someone has a vehicle that old there has to be a reason they haven't purchased a new one sooner... then... just say they liked their car.. and just didn't want to get rid of it.. please tell me who is going to finance these vehicles.. credit is so tight .. I can't imagine anyone with say FAIR credit getting a good interest rate for the purchase of a new vehicle..toss in the increase of INSURANCE.. how is this helping the taxpayer...am I missing somthing..

The other question is why is this tucked away in a bill funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...just asking

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db20090618_131460.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index +-+temp_top+story

There are other advantages besides the fact that people in the car industry are being called back to work. For instance

The initiative will boost U.S. third-quarter gross domestic product by 0.3 to 0.4 percentage point and create 42,000 jobs by the end of 2009, according to the CEA’s estimate.

And perhaps even more important


The program will save 9 million to 10 million barrels of crude oil over the next five years, with consumers saving $700 to $1,000 annually at the gasoline pump, Ford’s Pipas said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHUHBGd0daws

[Doc Holliday]

Yep, 3rd qrt GDP should get a boost from this.

CR said last night that August car sales should be about 16 million thanks to this. As you can see from this chart: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SndB5ov00MI/AAAAAAAAF_I/PXSdToqgj9w/s1600-h/VehicleSalesJuly.jpg

16 million is a rough estimate of the average before the recession hit in Dec. 2007.

Some people say that programs like this are futile because all you do is pull demand forward. If they are right, then September's number should be very very low, because you've pulled September's demand into August.

If they are wrong, then even though September's number will be lower than August's, it shouldn't be much lower than what it was before the program started - which looks to me like about 9 or 10 million, give or take.

So keep your eye on the September number.....

[Freedom1]

Yep, 3rd qrt GDP should get a boost from this.

CR said last night that August car sales should be about 16 million thanks to this. As you can see from this chart: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SndB5ov00MI/AAAAAAAAF_I/PXSdToqgj9w/s1600-h/VehicleSalesJuly.jpg

16 million is a rough estimate of the average before the recession hit in Dec. 2007.

Some people say that programs like this are futile because all you do is pull demand forward. If they are right, then September's number should be very very low, because you've pulled September's demand into August.

If they are wrong, then even though September's number will be lower than August's, it shouldn't be much lower than what it was before the program started - which looks to me like about 9 or 10 million, give or take.

So keep your eye on the September number.....

IMO it was a temporary shot in the arm. People just aren't spending or just don't have the money to spend. 16% unemployment is hard to get your arms around and I just don't think people have the money. So I think it will drop in September.

[Freedom1]

Yep, 3rd qrt GDP should get a boost from this.

CR said last night that August car sales should be about 16 million thanks to this. As you can see from this chart: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SndB5ov00MI/AAAAAAAAF_I/PXSdToqgj9w/s1600-h/VehicleSalesJuly.jpg

16 million is a rough estimate of the average before the recession hit in Dec. 2007.

Some people say that programs like this are futile because all you do is pull demand forward. If they are right, then September's number should be very very low, because you've pulled September's demand into August.

If they are wrong, then even though September's number will be lower than August's, it shouldn't be much lower than what it was before the program started - which looks to me like about 9 or 10 million, give or take.

So keep your eye on the September number.....

One thing I wanted to mention regarding this:

According to Reuters, foreign car manufacturers gained market share, while the two bailed-out American automakers lost significant portions of theirs in the big summer sale. Only Ford managed to hold its own.

[Barbara2]

They would have stimulated more and still put more gas friendly cars on the road if they had given a $2000.00 rebate check to anyone who wanted to buy a new car but they would have to buy a car that got at least 28 mpg. They could have still traded in an old car and it could have been re-sold. There would have been more cars purchased and more gas savers on the road. IMO

[Veritas]

CEO Jeremy Anwyl Tells Cavuto "Cash for Clunkers" Program Resulting in Higher Car Prices-



Anwyl said sales of cars are already dropping dramatically after the artificially created spike last month. He also said prices have already gone up on cars. He says the program actually created an "artificial bubble" and in no way means the economy is improving in reality.



LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=8747188&referralPlaylistId=dfd2bac5179f24504506103ae9a4da9 8b0a23044)


:thumbdown:

[watcher2005]

"Japanese, Koreans gain most from cash for clunkers"

By John Crawley

(c) 2009 WASHINGTON (Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Autos/idUSTRE57P5C220090826

[orangetaffy]

LOL Wonder how many people knew the $4500 the govt "gave" them in cash for clunkers is now considered income, and they will have to claim it on their taxes??

"Well, what team Obama forgot to mention was that those $4,500 dolled out by Uncle Sam will also be taxed by Uncle Sam as regular income!

So just as quickly as the government gives you money, it will be there taking it away. Isn't that funny how it works?

South Dakota's county treasurer said, "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they found that out."

I think that's generally how people react when they learn about taxes under President Obama."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543981,00.html

[Freedom1]

LOL Wonder how many people knew the $4500 the govt "gave" them in cash for clunkers is now considered income, and they will have to claim it on their taxes??

"Well, what team Obama forgot to mention was that those $4,500 dolled out by Uncle Sam will also be taxed by Uncle Sam as regular income!

So just as quickly as the government gives you money, it will be there taking it away. Isn't that funny how it works?

South Dakota's county treasurer said, "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they found that out."

I think that's generally how people react when they learn about taxes under President Obama."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543981,00.html

Wow. that never occurred to me.

[flareon]

"Japanese, Koreans gain most from cash for clunkers"

By John Crawley

(c) 2009 WASHINGTON (Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Autos/idUSTRE57P5C220090826

And I'm sure they are very grateful to the taxpayers. LOL

[flareon]

CEO Jeremy Anwyl Tells Cavuto "Cash for Clunkers" Program Resulting in Higher Car Prices-







LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=8747188&referralPlaylistId=dfd2bac5179f24504506103ae9a4da9 8b0a23044)



:thumbdown:

You know I always thought that would happen, but I remember there was a poster on here who said they had been looking for cars prior to the clunker bill and that the prices didn't change where she lived.

It would stand to reason that it would because that was always a tactic of car dealers. They would act like they were giving a high trade in or rebate, only to bring the deal price down to the level they always were going to sell the car at.

The only difference with this would be that they would still make their targeted price and the taxpayers would be paying the difference.

[watcher2005]

And I'm sure they are very grateful to the taxpayers. LOL

Too bad it's not their taxpayers and instead of ours.

[orangetaffy]

IMO, the sales are a "false hope". Yes, they made the "numbers" look real good. But have they REALLY provided any relief? I think they probably took sales that would have happened in Sept, Oct, Nov, and moved them all into the short time period alloted for the CARS program. Now that the program has ended, sales can, and most likely will, drop down to disasterous levels. Why? Read the job reports. Between unemployment and wage stagnation, people will not be spending on anything other than necessities. Sure, people snatched up a bargain (most did not realize they will pay for that bargain come tax time), but was it a REAL positive indicater as to the state of the economy? IMO, no, it is not.

The same holds true in the housing market. Once the govt rewards run out, housing sales will again fall flat...and foreclosures will most likely increase, as people rushed in to get their "share" of the govt programs without taking time to ask...what if things dont pick up? What if my company cuts my hours? What if I lose my job?

The govt will hold responsibility for causing an even greater lapse in the economy, because it PAID its citizens to make purchases they could not afford, and in many cases, did not need.

[orangetaffy]

Ford August Sales Up 17%; Chrysler Posts 15% Decline

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200909011307DOWJONESDJONLINE000333_FORTUNE5.htm