|
ca$h for clunker$ @ stealership
just got back from my local stealership - picking up an oil filter - and noticed this clunker sitting there. made me laugh.
http://s180500392.onlinehome.us/posts/clunker.png |
Interesting. I was just at my local dealership yesterday where I brought the subject up to the GM and the bulk of his sales force, and they said that the cash-for-clunkers program has done nothing for them - haven't had a single one, nor did they expect any.
They said that their usual clientele doesn't normally keep a car long enough to qualify as a clunker. Collectively, their political view of the program was that it was a useless, wasteful, 'feel good' with little real effect either on the current economic woes, or in it's impact on environmental concerns. :cheers: |
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" |
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. |
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 :-) |
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. ) |
Protectionism..
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. |
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. :cheers: |
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. :barf: |
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!!!
:barf: |
Quote:
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. :cheers: |
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... |
gstoli, you've been drinking the kool-aid too much.
Cash for Clunkers is not about reducing foreign oil consumption. If it were, there would be a second "step" in the process that would allow less-affluent consumers to trade in their true "clunkers" for the cars that were traded in by the more affluent. The guy in Cleveland driving around in a 12-mpg 1976 Caprice that hasn't seen a tune-up since the Reagan years would be happy to get a grand for it in trade on a 17-mpg traded-in "cash for clunkers" car. Instead, Cleveland guy is still stuck driving the 1976 Caprice, and polluting more to boot. Meanwhile, the engine in the 17-mpg vehicle is rendered permanently inoperable. Brilliant idea, Obama administration. Cash for Clunkers is simply "feel good" legislation that is supposed to make the sheeple think that their government is "taking action!" Fortunately, from the online chatter I've seen, most people aren't buying it, and see it for what it really is. |
Quote:
Not to mention, if I were going to help someone out by offering them $4500 for their car, which was only worth, say, $2000, I would want to sell it for at least $1000 and cut my loss from $4500 to $3500. Multiply this by the number of cars we, as the taxpayer, are effectively buying, and it amounts to a significant sum. How about the car that got traded that was really worth $4000? Another decent car going to the scrap pile for no reason. I'm also surprised that the environmentalists haven't ********************ed about this yet from the standpoint of the materials and resources used to make these new cars. |
I don't even vote here, so why am I defending Obama's policy???
Well, I don't, I just think CARS is a program in the right direction. A teenager can always buy a car for a few $$$. The cars in the 1-3K range are typically the old camrys focuses civics and so, that don't qualify as clunkers because of their (relatively) high mpg (higher than 18). Now if a teenager wants to buy a 1990 Wrangler (that qualifies as a clunker), well he (or she) shouldn't! The old guy from Cleveland with the 30 years old Caprice is driving a car for 30 years with an average millage per day less than 30 (30 miles * 300 days * 30 years = 300K miles => the engine is dead or will die very soon). His Caprice doesn't qualify as a clunker because of the 25-years-old upper limit of the CARS program. It shouldn't because it's not being driven a lot and it will die soon (if it's not almost dead, left in a backyard, waiting for some stupid government to call it a "clunker" :) ). These cars will not have a significant effect on tomorrow's oil consumption. The CARS program, is a tax brake. When we trade clunkers between us, generally when we buy a used car, we don't pay tax (or at least is negligible). So, when you trade your 15 years old 16 MPG clunker for a 12 years old 18 MPG better clunker and the government pays you $4000, then it's me and you who are actually paying that money. Do you want that? I don't... And finally, the clunkers are not supposed to be sold because the whole point is to stop using them! If the government sells them for (say) $1K, then the concept of CARS is lost... The inefficient clunkers will still be used... The beauty of the program is endless IMO ;) . The only thing that is wrong is that a low MPG "clunker" typically costs $3-5K anyway... So, the $4.5K are not as tempting. If you are going to make an omelet you need to brake some eggs (pay a few extra $$$, so the customer is really tempted for change) .... |
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! :D |
Quote:
I agree completely. And CARS is just the beginning. If anyone really want to get the ******************** scared out of them, download the text of H.R. 3200 the "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009". The degree to which this act wants to direct the choices and level of care you may have, and intrude into your lives, such as complete and involuntary access to your financial records, is truly hair raising. It makes the Canadian and British healthcare system look good by comparison. My most disturbing issue with the current Congress, and Administration (beyond policymaking) is the degree of secrecy and lack of debate on issues which have very real effects on both our wallets and our lives. To date, any legislation (or Presidential Orders) has rarely seen the light of day until it has already been enacted as the 'Law of the Land'. There seems to be a priority on rushing everything through with little debate or explanation to the American people for fear that opposition may rise up. I believe that right now, it is more important than ever before to scrutinize everything coming out of our government... we're in this fix because of our collective abstinence and apathy for what is going on on our behalf, easy to assign blame elsewhere, especailly when the root cause is us! Yet, through all this - (the poor economy, TARPS payments of millions, citizens of all strata tightening their belts), Congress still found the time to give itself a raise and fund a new fleet of private jets for their use. IMHO, any healthcare proposal should first start with Congress and the White House doing away with their generous pension and healthcare plans! They should be forced to use, and pay into, Social Security and Medicare like all the rest of us. Then, and only then, will you see these programs improve for all of us. :cheers: |
I agree completely. What galls me is the arrogance of these Congressman. They act like royalty, impervious to how the rest of the world lives.
As an example, as one bill come forward that has addressed how the USA will be economically competitive with the rest of the world? How about the vanishing industrial base? Instead, I hear BO feels that all US Citizens have a RIGHT to healthcare and a RIGHT to higher education. I guess we have a RIGHT to a new car too. How can this nonsense be tolerated>? A chicken is every pot was never true. |
Doesn't the Federal Government already have the power to look at your financial records through the immense power of the IRS!!
|
I hate to tell you folks but it is working
Bruce's relative is getting 8MPG more. She spends her money, the dealer pays his salesguy, the salesguy feels good and buys a home. The money spins through the economy and everybody starts to feel normal times are a possibility and they start spending.
I see the new car across the street and I buy a new car because it is now socially acceptable to buy a car...I always could but I didn't want to be seen as one of the rich guys while others were suffering and I was saving my $ because I wasn't sure...and I don't qualify for the rebate but buy anyway and my money goes spinning through the economy. And the cars that they are taking in are a glut on the market already. The used car lots I see are already full of precisely those cars and, by taking thousands out of the available market, they actually help the value of those still there. There will still be a lot of these cars available for those who need them because of their financial ability to spend and because of their family circumstances (my mini-van did 90k miles going back and forth to colleges with kids and their stuff and then I didn't need it any more and bought that higher-mileage Porsche Boxster) And when I talk to people in the auto parts making business they see orders picking up, people being put on full time, people being hired and even an occasional shift being restarted. And a company or two saved.... without the governemnt owing anything or dictating which car you can buy. At one time I owned a Dodge mini-van made in Ontario, a VW Jetta made in Mexico and a Mazda (partially owned by Ford) made in Michigan by UAW workers with 85% US parts content. I couldn't tell how I was to tell what the import was. But each was bought and serviced at a US dealership. |
Quote:
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). :cheers: |
Quote:
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!! |
Does my '02 Boxster S qualify as a clunker? Does anyone know?
|
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? |
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!! :cheers: |
Deja vu...all over again
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. |
On the upside...
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. |
Quote:
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! :) |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
:cheers: |
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. |
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. |
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> :barf: |
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. |
Quote:
Sad but typical. "Free" usually means that folks who get free don't value it. :D |
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson: "The value of something given for free is not perceived" :cheers: |
Quote:
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. :cheers: |
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! :cheers: |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website