ca$h for clunker$ @ stealership - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners

gstoli · 08-07-2009, 01:21 PM

I explored this opportunity for getting a new car for my wife.

You can get all the info you need at http://www.cars.gov

There you'll read that

"Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in"

and also that the clunker needs to have an MPG efficiency lower than 18. If you have an old Jeep (Wrangler) you could qualify for that, but again you would be able to sell it for $4000 anyway...

I don't think many cars qualify...

Still, it's funny that people are trying to sell junk cars as "clunkers"

RandallNeighbour · 08-07-2009, 04:22 PM

What bothers me is the fact that the government didn't limit the program to domestic new car purchases. We're giving millions of dollars to Asian car makers when we partially own 2/3 of the domestic brands right now.

Makes no business sense whatsoever. Pay yourself back first.

gstoli · 08-07-2009, 04:48 PM

Randal, The aim of the CARS program is to limit foreign oil imports.
By allowing Asian cars to participate in this program they actually help customers getting rid of their old inefficient cars while buying (almost) whatever they like or find more affordable.

The government will get their money back because of all the pros that come with (loosely speaking) energy independence. So, the idea is clever...

Now, what is that car that costs less than $4500, has been in your possession and fully insured for the last year and has an MPG higher than 18? That's a question I haven't been able to answer :-)

tonycarreon · 08-07-2009, 04:52 PM

on this randall we do not disagree and maybe that makes me a bad democrat...

however i think the problem in limiting it to domestic cars is that it's getting harder to define what a domestic car is, is it one where the co. is based in the US? is it one where the car is built in the US?

toyota has a large presence here so cutting them out would have possibly meant layoffs in ?retaliation? either way, the program had potential, as did TARP, but then we let lawmakers set the rules and it went downhill from there.

( and this thread is getting close to being a lounge thread. i knew i should have created it there. )

urban_legend · 08-07-2009, 08:06 PM

Is very bad and is not at all capitalism. For one thing, other countires always retaliate. This was a major factor in the great depression. You don't buy their cars they don't buy your planes or corn and so on. Besides what is an america car today? A honda built in ohio or chrysler built in canada?

Also in any of these programs there are unitended outcomes some funny, some not. I sold my ford explorer to my neighbor two years ago for $2,000 and he spent $500 for tires - last Saturday he bought a new ford focus and got the $4.500. We got a good laugh over beers on that.

But, the teenager or poor young adult (unemployment here is nearly 25%) just lost a chance to get a good, dependable cheap truck - since it now crushed and off the market. And with poor credit scores they can't qualify for a new car purchase - so on this one Obama screwed the poor...not the rich.

Lil bastard · 08-08-2009, 02:01 AM

The Obama administration - if they had half a brain, they'd be half-wits!

Look at how the world is beginning to respond - Foreign Tax Breaks

In case you don't get it, India is now going to give a 10 yr. tax break on foreign revenue earned by indian automakers.

So what you say?

Well, Tata is now the owner of Jaguar, to name just one. This is a form of dumping, and whatever else, is certainly not gonna make the big three competitive.

And, the Senate is proposing tax breaks for those automakers who recieved federal bailout money. Ford, who didn't request or receive any federal money and is the only US automaker to try and make it on their own, without the dole, will be excluded by this bill.

Waaay to go Mr. Prez.

Brucelee · 08-08-2009, 07:10 AM

And then there is the case of my cousin.

Drives a 17 yr old Lexus with 310K on it.

She hears about the CFC program and decides its time for a new Lexus.

Now, I love my cousin but hey, she could buy 5 Lexus' for cash and not bat an eye. So, for the sake of an extra grand or so, she is in a lather to get a new Lexus.

Net net, her gas savings will likely be 8 MPG at the end of the day.

Do you think the govt could spend our money more wisely?

Hey, I hope so.

tnoice · 08-08-2009, 07:38 AM

Unfortunately the whole program is stupid and un-thought out. And why they are asking for the destruction of all of these vehicles that a teenager or a less fortunate family could use I will never understand. Lets advocate the acquisition of more debt!!!

gstoli · 08-08-2009, 07:45 AM

IMHO you are really missing the point here.

Brucelle, your cousin has too many $$$ sitting in the bank. The government needs to find a way to keep the economy rolling. When she buys a new Lexus (let's say for 40K) the dealer pays something like 10% (I guess it's way more but let's say it's 10%) in taxes. So for the government it's just a tax brake, they are not spending our money. They just don't get any BUT they help the economy rolling (which is crucial in our times). People working on the dealership will not loose their jobs, she would drive more to enjoy here new car, she might go on driving vacations etc etc... Just have money available in the market

On the other hand, the main point is this:
I am Greek. Greece is exporting vegetables, olive oil, yogurt, an of of course is making most of its money from tourism. We import everything else. To make our economy stronger the government needs to find ways to export more than we import.
Generally speaking, in Europe the "clunker" idea would fail because the concept in most of the cities is "do not use your car". But cities are built with an infrastructure that can support the "using mass trasportation" concept. In Boston, where I live now, there are several incentives in using the "T" (the public trasportation system). But if you live in UT or OH then you need to (must) use your car.

So, America is importing huge quantities of oil. Reducing that (by using more efficient cars) is good for the economy. You will end up importing less! And your carbon footprint is reduced at the same time.

Now, I agree that they mixed up a bright concept by allowing only some of the car companies in the CARS program (did they? I am not so sure) and by letting people think that this program supports the american automotive industry.

Last example...
Brazil was a joke (really people were laughing at their government) when they were spending millions on bio-ethanol research and developing an infrastructure for bio-ethanol. Today Brazil is one of the very few countries that enjoy independence in transportations fuels. They even export bio-ethanol.

Sometimes, it takes time for people to see the good in decisions that don't make sense at the time taken...

tnoice · 08-08-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallNeighbour

What bothers me is the fact that the government didn't limit the program to domestic new car purchases. We're giving millions of dollars to Asian car makers when we partially own 2/3 of the domestic brands right now.

Makes no business sense whatsoever. Pay yourself back first.

Just have to say; Toyota and Honda produce just as many cars in the US as Ford and GM. Toyota and Honda atleast do not outsource to Canada and Mexico.

fatmike · 08-09-2009, 12:37 PM

Does my '02 Boxster S qualify as a clunker? Does anyone know?

fatmike · 08-09-2009, 12:50 PM

I'll answer my own question:

* To qualify a car meet certain conditions, such as it must be registered to you and insured for the past year and it must get "18 mpg combined" or "less".

* What is the government's rating on the '02 Boxster S???? Anyone know? I do. It qualifies @ 18 mpg combined.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

I think I'm driving an official clunker... wooo hooo!!!

We're getting all righteous on this thread when maybe we should consider going car shopping? I did notice that the "new" car you buy isn't allowed to have an MSRP about $45K for the base vehicle. Need to continue to investigate this. But, so far looks promising. Has anyone taken the next step?

mptoledo · 08-09-2009, 01:35 PM

The gmc suburban and One of the hummers qualify as one of the cars you could buy.

As for your porsche, even with a blown engine and four flat tires its still worth more then 4500!!

urban_legend · 08-09-2009, 05:32 PM

Check the sales figures
- 0% financing after 9/11
- employee pricing (for all)
- cash for clunkers

All provided a great short term stimulus to sales...then sales came back to earth.
Like a sugar high then a crash.

sandyman65535 · 08-09-2009, 11:38 PM

Politics aside (I won't add to your debate about US politics, I know how you guys looove when foreigners do that) people trading in their old buckets of crap for new cars should result more cars with modern safety features: airbags, ABS, ESP etc.

So over time you should see net savings on police/fire/paramedics/physiotherapists etc that would be required in the event and aftermath of a car accident. Also means you and your pretty Boxster are less likely to be killed or injured by someone in an old s--tbox.

Brucelee · 08-10-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandyman65535

Politics aside (I won't add to your debate about US politics, I know how you guys looove when foreigners do that) people trading in their old buckets of crap for new cars should result more cars with modern safety features: airbags, ABS, ESP etc.

So over time you should see net savings on police/fire/paramedics/physiotherapists etc that would be required in the event and aftermath of a car accident. Also means you and your pretty Boxster are less likely to be killed or injured by someone in an old s--tbox.

This presumes that these clunkers would not have made their way to the graveyard in say, another year. Based on the past efforts of car companies to prop up their sales, one could argue that all this did was shift next years sales to this year.

And, the taxpayer paid for the privledge.

G'day mate!

Lil bastard · 08-10-2009, 08:38 AM

Well, in order to rate the program, one would need to outline the goals for that program so results could be weighed to see if the program actually accomplished those goals.

This programs goal were very ill-defined by the Administration, so no telling what may, or may not, have been accomplished. Not very reassuring for a program which was to cost the American taxpayer a billion dollars.

That billion dollars was burned through pretty quickly, with the Administration calling the program a success and requesting an additional two billion dollars.

But, no data about the number of participants, cars, est. mileage savings, oil savings, carbon reductions, etc. have been released by the Administration (Dept. of Transportation). Who have said they posess them, and that "appropriate information will be released at a later time". And they now seek an additional two Billion??

The Administration chided Congress into approving an additional two billion dollars in funding, without letting anyone know if it's working, even threatening Congress' August recess if they didn't meet to approve it.

So, now we have a 90-day program which has tripled the amount originally intended without even knowing if it works, or what the original goals were.

Who got the money? The automakers? Didn't we just throw a few billion to them recently?

Who benefitted directly? Why wasn't the program funded through an income tax deduction for those participating? Could it be that the recipients don't pay enough tax to take the deduction? Is this program open to non-US citizens, legal or illegal?

What about those citizens who do not drive (I have two of them in my own family). Why are they paying for someone else to buy a car?

Has it truly stimulated the auto industry, or has it simply reduced existing inventory? I am unaware of any auto co. ending it's current layoffs due to this program.

Sorry, IMHO, this was an ill-concieved program rushed into being simply as a first 100-days stunt by the White House. It is socialism, shifting the wealth.