Cash for Clunkers down the drain

Arndur

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/autos/cash_for_clunkers_suspended/?postversion=2009073021

Well that article says that they are thinking about it, but for now I know of one large auto group that will no longer be processing it after midnight eastern. Now this plan I do agree with but I feel like it should have had more money. This is obvisouly a good deal for people wishing to get cars with better mileage and gets the older more polluting cars off the road.

Cleffy

Just like any other liberal program.  Tries to help the environment, but too expensive to concievably pay for.  When I saw the add $4500 for a trade in and $4500 cash allowance.  I was thinking, hmm if I trade in my Dodge Truck for a New Dodge Truck it would only cost me a few thousand dollars.

I think this bill should have failed, it did not properly take into account all the Charities that are funded by vehicle donations.

Laserwolf

I misunderstood the title of the article on Yahoo news as well, but from what I understand the program was a little "too popular" and this resulted in a back-log. They suspended it because they think the backlog may eventually reach the cap on funding. Remember there was a 1 year or 1 billion dollar limit on the program. Even though less than 100 million has been used up so far, the back log from dealers may get close to the 1 billion dollar limit.

Personally I think the program is a great idea, and wish like hell my car would have been eligible. The popularity of the program may very well spur Congress to repeat the program with a lot less false controversy this time around.

Ekibiogami

While I admit I liked this Program. It would never have been a long term plan. The Costs would have been to great.

If they can figure out how to make it Sustainable Id support it.

Porfat

Originally posted by Ekibiogami


While I admit I liked this Program. It would never have been a long term plan. The Costs would have been to great.
If they can figure out how to make it Sustainable Id support it.

 

Since you asked:    Have a deposit on new cars say 2k or whatever amount.    When you decide to junk your car  you get your 2k back.    Like the old soda pop bottles (I feel old).

I don't think I'd back my own idea.  But it is a way to get clunkers off the street.

Sabiancym

Originally posted by Cleffy


Just like any other liberal program.  Tries to help the environment, but too expensive to concievably pay for.  When I saw the add $4500 for a trade in and $4500 cash allowance.  I was thinking, hmm if I trade in my Dodge Truck for a New Dodge Truck it would only cost me a few thousand dollars.
I think this bill should have failed, it did not properly take into account all the Charities that are funded by vehicle donations.

 

It wasn't too expensive to pay for, they had a budget, they hit that budget, they closed the program.

The end.

 

 

It was a great idea and hopefully we'll see more like it.

Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Cleffy


Just like any other liberal program.  Tries to help the environment, but too expensive to concievably pay for.  When I saw the add $4500 for a trade in and $4500 cash allowance.  I was thinking, hmm if I trade in my Dodge Truck for a New Dodge Truck it would only cost me a few thousand dollars.
I think this bill should have failed, it did not properly take into account all the Charities that are funded by vehicle donations.

 

It wasn't too expensive to pay for, they had a budget, they hit that budget, they closed the program.

The end.

 

 

It was a great idea and hopefully we'll see more like it.

Yep, lets give away people's money to other people to buy a new car.  I've got an old couch, could we get a program to help me buy a new one? 

Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Cleffy


Just like any other liberal program.  Tries to help the environment, but too expensive to concievably pay for.  When I saw the add $4500 for a trade in and $4500 cash allowance.  I was thinking, hmm if I trade in my Dodge Truck for a New Dodge Truck it would only cost me a few thousand dollars.
I think this bill should have failed, it did not properly take into account all the Charities that are funded by vehicle donations.

 

It wasn't too expensive to pay for, they had a budget, they hit that budget, they closed the program.

The end.

 

 

It was a great idea and hopefully we'll see more like it.

Yep, lets give away people's money to other people to buy a new car.  I've got an old couch, could we get a program to help me buy a new one? 

 

 A couch is a terrible example.  The auto industry is down, economy is down, people are spending a lot on gas, and we're polluting.

The way I see it they killed 4 birds with one stone.

 

Hundreds of thousands of cars were sold that wouldn't have been.  Not my problem you're stubbornly against any type of government granted incentives regardless of the situation.  If you want to rationalize it, think of the billions we saved by cutting the F22s.

Sabiancym

Oh and the original budget for this program was at least 4 billion, but republicans cried fowl and watered it down to 1 billion.  Even though the money came from the stimulus package that is going to be spent eventually anyway.  They're just trying to keep as much stimulus money unspent as possible so they can keep the economy in the shitter long enough for them to bash the dems for not fixing it.

Sabiancym

Cash for Clunkers won't be suspended.  More funds to be sought.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/07/30/us/politics/politics-us-autos-usa-clunkers-sales.html?_r=1

 

I love how people are trying to spin this into a failure.  The program was wildly successful and sold thousands of cars.

 

 

Just heard on the radio they are pushing for another 2 billion.  Let's hope it passes.

outfctrl

Washington sure is smart, are they not?

Cash for Clunkers Lesson:

How to Use the money to Buy a Gas Guzzler

My son’s station car is an old Ford Explorer AWD which, despite being a V-6, was rated at about 15 mpg. Approaching 100,000 miles, the SUV’ s resale value is very low.

The House approved a bill to give him a $3,500 voucher to buy a car that is supposed to get only 18 mpg, or $4,500 if it gets 20 mpg. Only 18-20 mpg? That’s not moving us much closer to President Obama’s pie-in-the-sky 35.5 mpg goalpost is it?

Consider how easy it would be to game this giveaway program by using that $4,500 voucher to buy a big SUV or V-8 muscle car.

First of all, with Chrysler and GM dealerships folding, it should be easy to buy a mediocre Chevy Cobalt or Dodge Caliber for about $10,000 more than the voucher.

What you do next is sell that boring econobox, even if you end up with $1,000 less than you paid — that still leaves you with $3,500 of free money, courtesy of taxpayers.

As this process unfolds, the flood of resold small cars will make it even harder for GM, Chrysler and Ford dealers to get a decent price for small cars, because of added competition from new cars being resold as used.

That’s their problem, not yours.

So, take the $9,000 net from reselling the crummy little car plus the $4,500 from Uncle Sam. Then use that $13,500 to make a big down payment on a used Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Tundra pickup or Corvette.

Josher

Originally posted by outfctrl


Washington sure is smart, are they not?
Cash for Clunkers Lesson:
How to Use the money to Buy a Gas Guzzler
My son’s station car is an old Ford Explorer AWD which, despite being a V-6, was rated at about 15 mpg. Approaching 100,000 miles, the SUV’ s resale value is very low.
The House approved a bill to give him a $3,500 voucher to buy a car that is supposed to get only 18 mpg, or $4,500 if it gets 20 mpg. Only 18-20 mpg? That’s not moving us much closer to President Obama’s pie-in-the-sky 35.5 mpg goalpost is it?
Consider how easy it would be to game this giveaway program by using that $4,500 voucher to buy a big SUV or V-8 muscle car.
First of all, with Chrysler and GM dealerships folding, it should be easy to buy a mediocre Chevy Cobalt or Dodge Caliber for about $10,000 more than the voucher.
What you do next is sell that boring econobox, even if you end up with $1,000 less than you paid — that still leaves you with $3,500 of free money, courtesy of taxpayers.
As this process unfolds, the flood of resold small cars will make it even harder for GM, Chrysler and Ford dealers to get a decent price for small cars, because of added competition from new cars being resold as used.
That’s their problem, not yours.
So, take the $9,000 net from reselling the crummy little car plus the $4,500 from Uncle Sam. Then use that $13,500 to make a big down payment on a used Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Tundra pickup or Corvette.

 

A Corvette actually isn't a gas guzzler.  Normal everyday driving, I averaged in the mid 20s, not too far off from my Camry.  Never felt safer on a highway then in the drivers seat of a Vette.  Truly phenomenal car.  Pure control no matter what speed you're going.    You feel safer at 80 than going 30=)   Would lease another in a second if it wasn't completely impractical for a family=)

outfctrl

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by outfctrl


Washington sure is smart, are they not?
Cash for Clunkers Lesson:
How to Use the money to Buy a Gas Guzzler
My son’s station car is an old Ford Explorer AWD which, despite being a V-6, was rated at about 15 mpg. Approaching 100,000 miles, the SUV’ s resale value is very low.
The House approved a bill to give him a $3,500 voucher to buy a car that is supposed to get only 18 mpg, or $4,500 if it gets 20 mpg. Only 18-20 mpg? That’s not moving us much closer to President Obama’s pie-in-the-sky 35.5 mpg goalpost is it?
Consider how easy it would be to game this giveaway program by using that $4,500 voucher to buy a big SUV or V-8 muscle car.
First of all, with Chrysler and GM dealerships folding, it should be easy to buy a mediocre Chevy Cobalt or Dodge Caliber for about $10,000 more than the voucher.
What you do next is sell that boring econobox, even if you end up with $1,000 less than you paid — that still leaves you with $3,500 of free money, courtesy of taxpayers.
As this process unfolds, the flood of resold small cars will make it even harder for GM, Chrysler and Ford dealers to get a decent price for small cars, because of added competition from new cars being resold as used.
That’s their problem, not yours.
So, take the $9,000 net from reselling the crummy little car plus the $4,500 from Uncle Sam. Then use that $13,500 to make a big down payment on a used Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Tundra pickup or Corvette.

 

A Corvette actually isn't a gas guzzler.  Normal everyday driving, I averaged in the mid 20s, not too far off from my Camry.  Never felt safer on a highway then in the drivers seat of a Vette.  Truly phenomenal car.  Pure control no matter what speed you're going.    You feel safer at 80 than going 30=)   Would lease another in a second if it wasn't completely impractical for a family=)

I drove a vet one time back in 1980.  I could not get used to that long front end.  Felt very uncomfortable driving it.

Mardy

Like most government programs that give *our money* away, they get exploited.  Since the senators are too lazy to read bills they vote for, is there even any surprise there are loopholes and wasteful spending?

 

Yes I'm bitter, because I did the right thing by spending my hard earned money to make sure I don't drive a pos.  Hey, I am somewhat of an environmentalist and care about this planet.  Those that didn't, those that have been polluting the atmosphere for years and years, get to take $4,500 off to buy a brand new spanking car.  That's not all, the credit comes from my tax dollars. 

 

When is this government going to reward people who do the right things, rather than those that have been either too lazy or just didn't give a crap?  Because of the banks, government (fannie/freddie), and dealerships giving out bad loans and causing some huge issues we have today with the economy, those that played legit are supposed to help them out?  My personal experiences with car dealerships do not make me feel sorry for them, but that's just me.  Every single time I visit them, even though I'm a twice returning customer, they've tried to pull crap to jack with me.

 

I guess I would probably feel better about this whole deal if they actually get something accomplished to help the environment, with a much more strict MPG limits, or perhaps limit people to buy hybrid cars only?  I mean if the idea is to really help the environment and reduce gas consumption, then what a chance to really do it right by offering this kind of deal to put people into hybrid cars? 

 

Bah..

frodus

For every car GM and Chrysler sale they lose 2500.00 dollars.This nothing more than welfare for cars.

Sabiancym

Originally posted by frodus


For every car GM and Chrysler sale they lose 2500.00 dollars.This nothing more than welfare for cars.

 

Do tell how you arrived at that number.

DailyBuzz

Originally posted by outfctrl


Washington sure is smart, are they not?
Cash for Clunkers Lesson:
How to Use the money to Buy a Gas Guzzler
My son’s station car is an old Ford Explorer AWD which, despite being a V-6, was rated at about 15 mpg. Approaching 100,000 miles, the SUV’ s resale value is very low.
The House approved a bill to give him a $3,500 voucher to buy a car that is supposed to get only 18 mpg, or $4,500 if it gets 20 mpg. Only 18-20 mpg? That’s not moving us much closer to President Obama’s pie-in-the-sky 35.5 mpg goalpost is it?
Consider how easy it would be to game this giveaway program by using that $4,500 voucher to buy a big SUV or V-8 muscle car.
First of all, with Chrysler and GM dealerships folding, it should be easy to buy a mediocre Chevy Cobalt or Dodge Caliber for about $10,000 more than the voucher.
What you do next is sell that boring econobox, even if you end up with $1,000 less than you paid — that still leaves you with $3,500 of free money, courtesy of taxpayers.
As this process unfolds, the flood of resold small cars will make it even harder for GM, Chrysler and Ford dealers to get a decent price for small cars, because of added competition from new cars being resold as used.
That’s their problem, not yours.
So, take the $9,000 net from reselling the crummy little car plus the $4,500 from Uncle Sam. Then use that $13,500 to make a big down payment on a used Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Tundra pickup or Corvette.

Ummm, why would someone buy your place holder for $3500 more than the purchase price from a dealer?

Mardy

Originally posted by Cleffy


Just like any other liberal program.  Tries to help the environment, but too expensive to concievably pay for.  When I saw the add $4500 for a trade in and $4500 cash allowance.  I was thinking, hmm if I trade in my Dodge Truck for a New Dodge Truck it would only cost me a few thousand dollars.
I think this bill should have failed, it did not properly take into account all the Charities that are funded by vehicle donations.

 

Personally I'm not totally against the bill.  Green is good within reason, less pollution is good.  But like all government funded operations, there's more bad than good, and it ends up costing too much money.

 

As for them not taking into account for certain things, they didn't take into account how this would affect car mechanics, auto parts retailers, etc.. pretty much people's jobs that depend on fixing & upgrading people's cars.

 

Also I find this CARS program kind of funny to be in effective AFTER GM filled for bankruptcy and AFTER GM closed hundreds of dealerships.  So I guess lucky to those dealerships that got kept huh?  Wouldn't it have made more sense to try something like this before GM filled for bankruptcy and before they closed dealerships?  It would've probably helped more people keep their jobs.

frodus

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by frodus


For every car GM and Chrysler sale they lose 2500.00 dollars.This nothing more than welfare for cars.

 

Do tell how you arrived at that number.

 

http://www.leftlanenews.com/study-domestic-automakers-losing-money-on-every-vehicle.html

this an older estimate.. I'm looking for the updated version...since the bailout the number has grown much higher.

I'm looking for the updated article for you.but the 2500 is close to the mark.

frodus

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

 

Where does the money for the program come from....

Trizic

Originally posted by frodus


"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

 
Where does the money for the program come from....

 

People who have more than enough share of the wealth? Don't give me the "they work harder" crap either because it isn't true. Someone at a lower paying job can work three times as hard as someone with a higher paying one, does he suddenly make the same amount? Sure something like a doctor is a good example of your point but something like the lottery or getting jobs due to connections rather than qualifications work for mine. Luck of the draw(your in the right field that is currently in demand, you know the right person, in the right place at the right time, EVERYONE slacks but your the least lazy of the pool of slackers to choose from) matters just as much in life than "hard work".

 

How do we even define "work hard" anyways?

Sabiancym

Originally posted by Trizic

Originally posted by frodus


"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

 
Where does the money for the program come from....

 

How do we even define "work hard" anyways?

 

Get straight D's in college but still graduate and therefore automatically make $20,000 more than the guy doing the same job who didn't go to college.

Precusor

Hasn't the auto industry already got bailed out for a 100 billion?

Cleffy

Originally posted by Sabiancym
Get straight D's in college but still graduate and therefore automatically make $20,000 more than the guy doing the same job who didn't go to college.

 

You don't instantly get paid $20k just for graduating college.  Anyone who has went to college can tell you, the people who do the bare minimum don't get jobs in that field.  If anything you limit your feild of employment since unskilled jobs will think you are overqualified and would quit in a short period of time.

Now if you want an unfair practice.  Having breasts will give you a higher chance at getting all non-male exclusive jobs.  Even if you are a guy with breasts. 

Arndur

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Trizic

Originally posted by frodus


"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

 
Where does the money for the program come from....

 

How do we even define "work hard" anyways?

 

Get straight D's in college but still graduate and therefore automatically make $20,000 more than the guy doing the same job who didn't go to college.

 

Most likely wasn't a good company in the first place as the major ones will ask for grades and I doubt straight D's will cut it.

 

Also theres no way in hell they lose that much money per car. Now they do pay out the ass to unions which have basicly taken control and its why they outsource. Why would a union worker work hard at a job when he knows Ford/GM would have to backflip through a hoop on fire to fire the guy. While in mexico each worker knows there is a 100 guys ready to take their spot and work their ass off to keep their bad pay.

Trenchgun

They're trying to spin this as the only part of the stimulus that wasn't a complete failure, which a joke considering that it's not very hard to make a government program "successful" if all it essentially does is throw money out a blimp for whoever wants to claim it.

All of this is coming out of inflation of the dollar, sowing the seeds of long term destruction for short term pick me ups. That is the failing of our system, that it favors politicians whose answer to everything is to throw money around and make things appear good in the short term in order to win relection.