ca$h for clunker$ @ stealership

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by tnoice

Doesn't the Federal Government already have the power to look at your financial records through the immense power of the IRS!!

Yes they do, but in fairly narrowly defined way, using a little thing we like to call Probable Cause.

Even in a random IRS audit the IRS can only use your income as reported by your employer or you Bank or financial institutions. If they want to probe deeper, they must first seek a warrant after first presenting Probable Cause before an elected magistrate (who acts on your behalf to protect your personal freedoms).

[mptoledo]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

As the resident libertarian, I am all for small small government. You can understand why I think the Feds meddling in car purchases is not such a good idea.

But, hey, I could be wrong!

+ 1
The government has just screwed up the whole free market car system. Ask any economist and just about all will agree. Adam Smith's Invisible hand theory states that

"[An individual is] led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."

They(govt) has disrupted the used car market,
1.) Disenfranchised the poor by destroying their only hope of getting a car.
2.) With less inventory the prices of used cars will go up and become unaffordable.
3.) Robbed peter to pay paul, they haven't created new buyers, they just moved up their time frame of buying a new car.
4.) Put us closer to inflation, and possibly hyper inflation by spending useless taxpayer money.

This administration thinks its Robin hood. I hate to break it to you, you have the "right for the pursuit of happiness" You don't have the "right for happiness". That my friends, is earned not given. If you don't think its fair, then educate yourself, work harder and maybe your kids will have the opportunity for happiness. I know my Grandparents as most people's were dirt poor and worked 2 or 3 jobs each, just to get by and send my parents through college. That was called sacrafice!!

[fatmike]

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

[fatmike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

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.

Why exactly is a shifting of the wealth a bad thing?

I won't go into a piece by piece analysis of your post, but I will concentrate on the overall theme.

First off, you are correct, that the only people truly being helped by this program are the fairly well off middle class. They have good enough credit in order to be given a car loan right now, and have enough income that they can afford a new car payment, after the deduction of the $4500 from the new cars MSRP.

A poorer person or family most likely can not afford to replace their POS truck that they bought several years ago when gas prices were low, and the wealthy have vehicles that most likely do not meet the definition of a clunker.

So the middle class gets the most benefit.
Oh my! Someone is trying to help the middle class! Lets string up the current administration for helping the common man!

Why is it that when something like this program gets released, there are factions who can't really take advantage of it, get their panties all bunched up? You obviously don't need the help as much as a middle class family, if you're not driving a POS truck that gets crap for gas mileage, and is on its last legs reliability wise.

Honestly, I'm all in favor of just about any program that will get SUV's off of the public roads. They waste fuel when they are driven as single person transportation. They waste resources for all the oil that goes into creating tires and oil for all the parts that need them. They are rarely ever used in 4 wheel drive mode by the average owner during the life of the vehicle. So why were people buying them in the first place?

Then we look at the vehicles that people are trading in their '95 Ford Explorer in on. A Nissan Altima, a Toyota Prius, a Honda Civic. All three of those cars are considerably better on fuel economy, have good to excellent reliability records, hold their value better over the long run, and put out fewer emissions than that Ford Explorer.

I would much rather have the highways filled with those three brand new cars than it filled with smoke belching, badly aligned, fuel wasting, unsafely maintained SUV's being driven by inattentive fools who are too busy texting on their phone, or are having a conversation with their husband/wife about who's responsible for their idiot daughter/son's ignorant behavior that got their self expelled from school, and then have that person blow a light, and t-bone me in my Boxster.

If the SUV t-bones me, I'm probably not living through the accident.
If a Honda Civic hits me instead, I probably will.

That means that my family won't have to bury me.
That kind of means a lot to me, to be right frank about it.

There are lots of families out there that a program like this one helps immediately. Not everyone can afford to buy a new home, to get that tax credit. Not everyone owns a home in order to write off the interest they pay on their mortgage. Not everyone has 3 kids to write off on their taxes. Not everyone has a capital gains loss that they can write off on their taxes every year. Not everyone can afford to invest in a 401k program that allows them to lower their gross wages, and fall into a lower tax bracket, and get a good match from their employer for that 401k, which means that they actually make more money in the long run.

So let the common man who could use a break get an extra discount on their car.
Their lives get improved a slight bit as they get to enjoy the new car smell for a month or so.

Also, one person I was talking to in the Walmart parking lot a couple weeks ago took advantage of the cash for clunkers program the day before I ran into them. They traded in an old SUV that was costing them several hundred dollars a month for a new Kia Spectra.

The Kia started off as a $15k car.
Take off $4500 for the program.
Take off another $5500 for the fact that the car had hail damage from a bad storm we had a week before they bought it.
They just bought a brand new car with a full 10 year warrantee for ~$5000.
So now they went from spending several hundred dollars a month on a POS truck, to not having to spend anything on their new car, because they were able to pay the $5000 with cash they had actually saved up.

That sounds like it was beneficial to them.
I like that.

BC.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by Bladecutter

Why exactly is a shifting of the wealth a bad thing?

Wealth is not a privledge or a right, it is the reward for getting educated and working hard, either you, or someone in your family before you.

Lower income people have an easier time getting into college (esp. minorities) due to scholarships because of economic need, not to mention quotas and lowered admissions standards. Add to this that these people emerge from their education without the burden of loans that most middle-class kids have to carry through the first decade of their careers. And, you can even forget about education altogether - the top 5 wealthiest people in the US did not get a college degree.

You make it sound as if it's wrong to acquire wealth. If it's such a bad thing, why are you in favor of spreading it around? You don't need the government to do it, just give away a portion of your paycheck every two weeks, nothing wrong with that. But, don't try to take away a portion of my paycheck - that, you have no right to do!

I won't go into a piece by piece analysis of your post, but I will concentrate on the overall theme.

First off, you are correct, that the only people truly being helped by this program are the fairly well off middle class. They have good enough credit in order to be given a car loan right now, and have enough income that they can afford a new car payment, after the deduction of the $4500 from the new cars MSRP.

A poorer person or family most likely can not afford to replace their POS truck that they bought several years ago when gas prices were low, and the wealthy have vehicles that most likely do not meet the definition of a clunker.

So the middle class gets the most benefit.
Oh my! Someone is trying to help the middle class! Lets string up the current administration for helping the common man!

You are making a lot of assumptions here since NO data about the CARS program has been released.

Why is it that when something like this program gets released, there are factions who can't really take advantage of it, get their panties all bunched up? You obviously don't need the help as much as a middle class family, if you're not driving a POS truck that gets crap for gas mileage, and is on its last legs reliability wise.

Again, assumptions. In fact, I own a car that is the poster child of the CARS program. I would get the max $4500 for it in trade. But, I do not believe in handouts, or assuming unecessary debt, which is what I would have to do were I to trade it for a new vehicle. My wife and I combined put less than 10k mi./yr. on our vehicles, so I am not gobbling up vast quantities of oil, or spewing tons of carbon out the tailpipe.

Honestly, I'm all in favor of just about any program that will get SUV's off of the public roads. They waste fuel when they are driven as single person transportation. They waste resources for all the oil that goes into creating tires and oil for all the parts that need them. They are rarely ever used in 4 wheel drive mode by the average owner during the life of the vehicle. So why were people buying them in the first place?

If you want the SUVs off the road, why not legislate against them, if the automakers didn't make them, they wouldn't be available. And, if you do your research, you'd see that the advent of the SUV by automakers was to avoid government mandated crash safety and mileage requirements (because they were technically trucks and so exempt from requirements for autos), so it was the government, in well meaning, but shortsighted legislation which created this issue to begin with. And, while you're at it, why not eliminate the Boxster and other sports cars since they too are not the best gas mileage or crash safety rated vehicles out there?

Then we look at the vehicles that people are trading in their '95 Ford Explorer in on. A Nissan Altima, a Toyota Prius, a Honda Civic. All three of those cars are considerably better on fuel economy, have good to excellent reliability records, hold their value better over the long run, and put out fewer emissions than that Ford Explorer.

I would much rather have the highways filled with those three brand new cars than it filled with smoke belching, badly aligned, fuel wasting, unsafely maintained SUV's being driven by inattentive fools who are too busy texting on their phone, or are having a conversation with their husband/wife about who's responsible for their idiot daughter/son's ignorant behavior that got their self expelled from school, and then have that person blow a light, and t-bone me in my Boxster.

Unbelievable! So, according to you, swapping cars through this program will immediately cause everyone's attention level and driving skill to improve, their kids will become better behaved, and we'll never see another cell phone conversation while driving. If only that were true, I'd actually be in favor of the program myself!



If the SUV t-bones me, I'm probably not living through the accident.
If a Honda Civic hits me instead, I probably will.

That means that my family won't have to bury me.
That kind of means a lot to me, to be right frank about it.

There are lots of families out there that a program like this one helps immediately. Not everyone can afford to buy a new home, to get that tax credit. Not everyone owns a home in order to write off the interest they pay on their mortgage. Not everyone has 3 kids to write off on their taxes. Not everyone has a capital gains loss that they can write off on their taxes every year. Not everyone can afford to invest in a 401k program that allows them to lower their gross wages, and fall into a lower tax bracket, and get a good match from their employer for that 401k, which means that they actually make more money in the long run.

Boo-Hoo... so we're supposed to make everything right by taking from the rich and giving to the poor? Then, don't they become the rich? This is all so confusing!

So let the common man who could use a break get an extra discount on their car.
Their lives get improved a slight bit as they get to enjoy the new car smell for a month or so.

Also, one person I was talking to in the Walmart parking lot a couple weeks ago took advantage of the cash for clunkers program the day before I ran into them. They traded in an old SUV that was costing them several hundred dollars a month for a new Kia Spectra.

The Kia started off as a $15k car.
Take off $4500 for the program.
Take off another $5500 for the fact that the car had hail damage from a bad storm we had a week before they bought it.
They just bought a brand new car with a full 10 year warrantee for ~$5000.
So now they went from spending several hundred dollars a month on a POS truck, to not having to spend anything on their new car, because they were able to pay the $5000 with cash they had actually saved up.

That sounds like it was beneficial to them.
I like that.

BC.

see above:

[Topless]

This whole "re-distribute the wealth" through federal handouts is frightening. It is not 21st century Robin Hood, more like Robin Hood on crack. We are robbing the middle class to give to the other middle class. Hey if we run out of money, no problem. We can always print more... It works for Brazil and Mexico. Oh, wait... maybe it doesn't work so well for Brazil and Mexico.

I am afraid my Grand kids will ultimately be forced to pick up the tab for all this.

[d18mike]

Newbie here -- my first post so I will strenuously avoid discussing politics. But a couple of comments from here in Michigan.

1) I find it remarkable that a plan that had hopes of helping to perk up the American automotive industry has yielded the following results:

Top 10 cash for clunkers purchases
Toyota Corolla
Ford Focus
Honda Civic
Toyota Prius
Toyota Camry
Hyundai Elantra
Ford Escape FWD
Dodge Caliber
Honda Fit
Chevrolet Cobalt

More than half the cars in the top ten are from companies headquartered outside the USA. I know many are built here ... but that leads into the more important point.

The central issue for the American car industry is reigniting the country's passion for the automobile. It does not lie in rebates or tax incentives or even in quality (table stakes). It's about producing something that doesn't look and drive like a jellybean on 4 wheels and understanding that the difference breaking even and making a profit lies in the passionate consumer.

[Brucelee]

It's funny, but Robin Hood is the model for the whole "redistribute the wealth" myth. Robin Hood, was in fact, a thief. The fact that he gave his stolen property to the so-called poor is in my book, irrelevent.

Now, it is so 60s to think RH was a cute guy and that what he did was a good thing. However, once you decide that stealing is OK for some, well then, the slippery slope has begun.

Indeed, when those in power decide that YOU are the guy to have his wealth re-distributed (stolen), you may feel differently about RH and how cute he was.

Hey, money is a relative thing. Someone ALWAYS has less than you do. If so,

HAND IT OVER>

[timothy]

Texas instituted a Robin Hood school finance plan in 1993. Since we do not have state income tax, property tax revenue funds K-12 education. The idea was to take money from property tax rich districts and give it to districts with lower property tax values. As many expected the state to waste huge amounts in redistribution, one option enabled a "rich" district to partner with and write a check directly to a "poor" district.

The district where I was a student wrote a big fat check to one in southwest Texas. So what did they did with tens of millions in new found wealth? One would expect the poor district to buy supplies, hire better teachers, expand lunch programs, etc. No, instead they built a brand new football stadium. Soon after our district severed ties and sent money to the state instead.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by timothy

Texas instituted a Robin Hood school finance plan in 1993. Since we do not have state income tax, property tax revenue funds K-12 education. The idea was to take money from property tax rich districts and give it to districts with lower property tax values. As many expected the state to waste huge amounts in redistribution, one option enabled a "rich" district to partner with and write a check directly to a "poor" district.

The district where I was a student wrote a big fat check to one in southwest Texas. So what did they did with tens of millions in new found wealth? One would expect the poor district to buy supplies, hire better teachers, expand lunch programs, etc. No, instead they built a brand new football stadium. Soon after our district severed ties and sent money to the state instead.

Sad but typical. "Free" usually means that folks who get free don't value it.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Sad but typical. "Free" usually means that folks who get free don't value it.

Thomas Jefferson: "The value of something given for free is not perceived"

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by d18mike

Newbie here -- my first post so I will strenuously avoid discussing politics. But a couple of comments from here in Michigan.

1) I find it remarkable that a plan that had hopes of helping to perk up the American automotive industry has yielded the following results:

Top 10 cash for clunkers purchases
...
More than half the cars in the top ten are from companies headquartered outside the USA. I know many are built here ... but that leads into the more important point.

The central issue for the American car industry is reigniting the country's passion for the automobile. It does not lie in rebates or tax incentives or even in quality (table stakes). It's about producing something that doesn't look and drive like a jellybean on 4 wheels and understanding that the difference breaking even and making a profit lies in the passionate consumer.

Interesting POV. This program (CARS) has done nothing to specifically target America's automakers.

India on the other hand just passed legislation reducing the tax owed by their automakers on foreign revenue earned by 30%. That's a real incentive and also allows them to price their cars more competitively overseas. We'll soon be seeing offerings from India here, in fact we already do... it's called Jaguar.

[Lil bastard]

A couple more disturbing points about this program.

According to the text of the act, of the initial $1B set aside, $50 million is allocated to the Dept. of Trans. for administering the program! Government efficiency at it's best!

Second, you do not even have to be an American citizen (or even a Resident Alien) to qualify for the rebate! That means that even Obama's Illegal Immigrant Aunt, who twice ignored deportation orders and is living on welfare in a Boston Housing Project would qualify for the rebate and have the Taxpayers foot the bill!

Very Sad!

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by timothy

No, instead they built a brand new football stadium.

in the rural parts of texas, high school football is king. the rest of the school can be falling apart and teachers need chalk, but football never wants for anything.