Cash for Clunkers - Yay or Nay?

[quote name='JolietJake']You realize that that the cars will be junked and recycled, right?[/QUOTE]

Buy *why*? I could trade in my car, which is a fine running 2002 that gets the maximum mileage allowed by the program. It's not *great*, but it's a good car.

Meanwhile, someone could be driving a 1985 Oldsmobile that they pour oil into on a regular basis because it leaks, the muffler is falling off, it gets about 8-10 miles/gallon and part of the passenger's side floorboard is rusted out. They don't have the money (or the credit rating) to finance a new vehicle.

Why destroy my old car and get a couple hundred in scrap fees? Why not sell it to the guy with the Oldsmobile for that same couple hundred, then scrap his car for the scrap fees. *bamn* - just doubled your money there.
 
You realize that this program did not have any one single goal. One was to get people buying automobiles, new ones in particular. To help the auto industry, your plan doesn't do that.
 
Yeah... they gotta do whatever they can to get people buying this domestic crap. They and the domestics have made that quite clear. lol

Too bad, I don't give a rats arse.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't have info on what cars are being turned in.[/QUOTE]

I saw the list, its dominated by SUVs sized Ford Explorer or bigger.
 
How so? The initial buyer (in my story, me) still buys a new vehicle.

But in my story, we increase the chances of getting the worst-of-the-worst clunkers off the road. And, if we let the dealerships that take the trade-ins resell the not-quite-clunkers, then we just got the dealerships some extra cash - and they're hurting as well.

So, I'd still achieve one of the goals while increasing the value of the other goals.
 
If the top 10 list is any indication, is it a bad thing that the large majority of the cars being traded in are from the "Big Three", while only half the new ones being purchased are domestic?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']@ whoever said something about the ford focus being the best selling car for this cash for clunkers right now.

its actually the toyota corolla. so that makes 4 foreign cars and a ford in the top 5. stimulate baby, stimulate. (btw lol @ thinking any of these cars are real 'merican cars in the first place)[/QUOTE]

I still don't think it's a bad thing. The foreign car dealerships are owned by American's so it's a good thing for the economy still.

And hopefully this will give the US automakers more incentive to catch up and make cars that are competitive with Honda, Toyota, Mazda etc. etc.

But honestly, I don't care that much about US auto manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs are always going to be dominated by developing countries with cheap labor, so regardless of economy the time of the US being the leading manufacturer of much of anything is pretty much over.

The economy will be more and more dominated by service jobs, technology jobs etc. along with all the standbys like education, police, plumbing, construction, electricians etc. etc. Unskilled jobs will continue to move to countries with cheap labor. Our economy and workforce have to adapt, and it will be a painful process for adults with little education or marketable skills.
 
Thanks, Troy.

At least the cars listed by year are (w/ the exception of Jeep, as it might be aggregated?) 11 years or more old, and largely SUVs.

Granted, an 11-year old car ain't old by my standard...
 
Yeah I wish I could have kept my Subaru Impreza longer. It was only 8 years old when I got rid of it. Transmission was going out, and it had some issues with oil leaks and something setting off the knock sensor etc. that was going to cost a good bit more than the cars trade in value to fix.

I was especially disappointed since my parents had 2 or 3 Subaru's over the years and never had any major problems and put at least 150K on all of them before ditching them. My great uncle still drives one of them my dad gave him, think it's around 250K now.

But I do love my 2008 Mazda 3, just hate having a car payment again.
 
I've got a Prizm pushing 15 years and isn't eligable for the program.

But scraping cars seem like a bad move, but it's all logistics too. I would think pushing these further down the line, like hand-me-downs in kids, evetually it's just too much work.

It's sad to see that Ford will really be the only one benefiting it, but not to say that the other two couldn't, it's sad to see that they can't.

Even with the option, having car payments all over again would not motivate me much. I wasn't going to buy a new car till it's a lawn orniment.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How so? The initial buyer (in my story, me) still buys a new vehicle.

But in my story, we increase the chances of getting the worst-of-the-worst clunkers off the road. And, if we let the dealerships that take the trade-ins resell the not-quite-clunkers, then we just got the dealerships some extra cash - and they're hurting as well.

So, I'd still achieve one of the goals while increasing the value of the other goals.[/QUOTE]
Gah, do you not know what a new car is? Hint: It isn't your old used one. Someone buying your old car is not a new car sale, it doesn't count as a sale for the manufacturers. Tha't one point of this program, to stimulate new car sales.
 
Reading comprehension ftw.

Someone buys a new car (A), trades in their old car to the dealership(B). Instead of B destroying the cars engine and "recycling" as much of it as they can, give it to someone (C) who cannot afford to buy a new car in exchange for their junk heap that is getting worse mileage then the car person A traded in. That way we truly are getting the most bang for our buck both environmentally and economically.
 
I'm mixed on this one. I like the idea of getting more efficient cars on the road, but why are we rewarding people who chose to buy these cars? What are the specific rules on brands, mileage etc.?
 
Thanks for that link Troy.

If anyone sees any good data on the program, including anything to do with the actual #'s of each vehicle being traded in, avg mpg of the cars being bought/junked, etc., please link to it. I'd love to work up the numbers and get a better idea of the true value of the program. Now that I've thought about it and saw troy's link, I'm certain the 17mpg average I gave to the trade ins is absurdly high.
New vehicles sold under the program average 25.3 miles per gallon while those traded-in got 18.5 mpg.
Click to expand...
How is that possible that the average trade in is 18.5? You would have to have half be over that number (or a huge outlier population) that would put it over the 18mpg limit. Huh?
Autoblog adds, "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the average fuel economy increase so far is 9.4 mpg; a 61% increase."
Click to expand...
Hmmm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I'm curious about is what happens to all of that crushed steal and tin? Instant overstok of inventory on recycled metals and therefore rebuilding the World Trade Center gets costs cut by 10%?

The argument for 18mpg and 22mpg being too close isn't as close as it sounds. That's better than a 20% increase in MPG and by the time you get 200 miles out of a tank of gas you're talking about a 40 mile gap.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']That's a huge difference (9.4 to 6.8).[/QUOTE]
Right, but that 18.5 figure the other one gives is over the limit of the program, so that can't be right..
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You realize that that the cars will be junked and recycled, right?[/QUOTE]

For some reason that just doesn't sit right with me. It's wasteful. There are many poor people out there that would love to have those cars for dirt cheap or free. Seems to me like a wasted opportunity to provide welfare.

It would have been better to maybe give the rebate if you could prove that you signed over your title to someone under the poverty line. I'd have been more ok with that.

The energy was already put into creating the cars. Even more energy will go into recycling them. Tax payers have a few more billion to add to their list. And for what? For a couple mpg?

I don't know what's next, I guess we can start slaughtering our cattle on a grand scale, because of how much their flatulence pollutes. Maybe we can offer 6-8 grand of tax payer money for each cow killed and thrown away. If we do I hope we do it in front of the poor and starving.
 
That's simply displacing low-fuel-efficiency cars, which would, I suspect, defeat a portion of the purpose of the program.

That's not to say I think scrapping each car is a fine idea - but I also don't think that offering credit at the front of the dealership and handing the trade-ins out the back is a fine idea.
 
Yeah, the scrapping of the low MPG cars is a key part of the program.

My only real gripe is that the MPG on the new car should be higher than 22. Sure maybe it's a 20% or more increase, but 22 is still lower than should be allowable IMO.

Economically speaking, it's more work for recycling plants, so that's good as well I suppose--economically speaking.
 
Buying a used economy car would do a lot more for the environment... but then we wouldn't be able to save crappy failing businesses.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
I don't know what's next, I guess we can start slaughtering our cattle on a grand scale, because of how much their flatulence pollutes. Maybe we can offer 6-8 grand of tax payer money for each cow killed and thrown away. If we do I hope we do it in front of the poor and starving.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that the cattle industry? Wild animals are not the problem, it's our lovely beef manufacturers. You should be on Fox News.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I don't know what's next, I guess we can start slaughtering our cattle on a grand scale, because of how much their flatulence pollutes. Maybe we can offer 6-8 grand of tax payer money for each cow killed and thrown away. If we do I hope we do it in front of the poor and starving.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that the cattle industry... wild animals are not the problem, it's our lovely beef manufacturers. You should be on Fox News.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Reading comprehension ftw.

Someone buys a new car (A), trades in their old car to the dealership(B). Instead of B destroying the cars engine and "recycling" as much of it as they can, give it to someone (C) who cannot afford to buy a new car in exchange for their junk heap that is getting worse mileage then the car person A traded in. That way we truly are getting the most bang for our buck both environmentally and economically.[/QUOTE]
Please, you know that wouldn't happen. The dealers would auction the cars or sell them to anyone who would buy them. Plus, i fail to see how that would help the dealerships.

This was about selling new, fuel efficient cars, not handing down your old SUV.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']
Isn't that the cattle industry? Wild animals are not the problem, it's our lovely beef manufacturers. You should be on Fox News.[/QUOTE]

Cattle produce an incredible amount of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. If we are to believe greenhouse gases are causing Armageddon then it's only logical to kill all the cattle, right?

Yes the beef manufactures will suffer, but think of how much the agricultural business will boom. Plus, I'm sure nobody has a problem offering tax payer subsidies to the beef people as incentives to switch to growing celery or tomatoes.
 
Decreasing meat consumption leads to less wasted farmland, which leads to more crops, more sustainability (provided crops are rotated) and healthier people. We are getting off topic here, but it's not the animals fault, it's the overproduction (how depressing) of said animals.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's simply displacing low-fuel-efficiency cars, which would, I suspect, defeat a portion of the purpose of the program.

That's not to say I think scrapping each car is a fine idea - but I also don't think that offering credit at the front of the dealership and handing the trade-ins out the back is a fine idea.[/QUOTE]

It would have to be done correctly - I.e.: Only cars that meet a certain criteria would qualify for redistribution - and only certain types of cars would qualify to "trade-in" to one of the cars that had already been traded in. Basically, a way to get the worst-of-the-worst off the streets.

Face it, the people driving the worst-of-the-worst cars aren't likely to qualify/be able to afford loans on the "new" cars in the first place. These are the people that need to get into a better, more efficient vehicle - even if it only gets 18 MPG.
 
touche. an admirable start for a middle ground - that we evidently won't be heading towards.

it's not as if these cars will not be recycled at all, but that doesn't change that some will be wasted when they might be in fine condition.
 
Yup. One of the many issues I have with the implementation of this program. I mean, I'm no fan of using tax dollars in this fashion to begin with, but if you're going to do it, don't screw it up. ;)
 
It's a crappy idea which puts more burden on the taxpayers, most of whom are paying for other peoples cars, in addition to paying Ford and the rest of them billions already. It also shows favortism to the car companies, which the government now owns a part of, and doesn't do shit for all the other industries suffering and laying people off. And it's not fair to people who aren't planning on buying a new car since they are paying for everyone else's and get no benefit at all from the government. On top of that, all these people buying the new cars are probably the same people who couldn't make their mortgage payments, and 6 months from now with the continued job losses many people will probably lose their cars.

Now let's go rush a health care plan through RIGHT NOW, even though it took Obama 6 months to pick out a fucking dog for his kids.
 
So what should the program look like then? I like some of the ideas here, but I don't see what the actual bill would look like that would promote these ideas.

My desire is solely to take as many dollars out of the pockets of those parts of the world that produce oil as possible because I detest just about all of em, but that's a political reason and not much of a basis for sound policy.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']It's a crappy idea which puts more burden on the taxpayers, most of whom are paying for other peoples cars, in addition to paying Ford and the rest of them billions already. It also shows favortism to the car companies, which the government now owns a part of, and doesn't do shit for all the other industries suffering and laying people off. And it's not fair to people who aren't planning on buying a new car since they are paying for everyone else's and get no benefit at all from the government. On top of that, all these people buying the new cars are probably the same people who couldn't make their mortgage payments, and 6 months from now with the continued job losses many people will probably lose their cars.[/quote]

Ford never took the bailout gov't money. So don't lump them in with GM/Chrysler.

Now let's go rush a health care plan through RIGHT NOW, even though it took Obama 6 months to pick out a fucking dog for his kids.
Click to expand...

Speaking of dogs, I hope the healthcare bills are taken out back Old Yeller-style.
 
[quote name='speedracer']So what should the program look like then? I like some of the ideas here, but I don't see what the actual bill would look like that would promote these ideas.

My desire is solely to take as many dollars out of the pockets of those parts of the world that produce oil as possible because I detest just about all of em, but that's a political reason and not much of a basis for sound policy.[/QUOTE]

Personally I don't think any program would be overly efficient, but here I go.

As long as money is being passed out, do it as efficiently as possible. However, I would require there to be a larger difference in mpg, such as only cars over 28 mpg qualify.

Stimulus wise, I think the current idea is fine. $4500, plus many dealers are matching it. I also agree with the fact the car has to have been registered/insured for the past year just so people aren't bringing in random piles of crap.

However, I think environmentally we could change a few things. I think the cars being traded in that get 13-18 mpg could be saved. I obviously don't have any numbers on this sort of thing, but I think there are plenty of people that don't have enough cash to trade in their clunker for a new car regardless of the credit they receive. If these cars average >12 mpg, we could use these 13-18 mpg cars to give to them in exchange for their clunker. Of course I think we could put these cars through emissions tests and what not to be sure we are actually making positive changes instead of trading car A for car B just to gain 3 mpg while putting more smog into the air.

Biggest thing though, new cars with at least 28 mpg would be the only ones to qualify to buy. Meh.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Maybe they could just put a new field on next years tax forms and require us to put a % of our income to the program so dealers get paid timely.[/QUOTE]

That might upset people.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']It's a crappy idea which puts more burden on the taxpayers, most of whom are paying for other peoples cars, in addition to paying Ford and the rest of them billions already. It also shows favortism to the car companies, which the government now owns a part of, and doesn't do shit for all the other industries suffering and laying people off. And it's not fair to people who aren't planning on buying a new car since they are paying for everyone else's and get no benefit at all from the government. On top of that, all these people buying the new cars are probably the same people who couldn't make their mortgage payments, and 6 months from now with the continued job losses many people will probably lose their cars.[/QUOTE]

exactly. completely ridiculous and another ploy for the redistribution of wealth... from tax payers to people with old crappy cars + more money to the auto industry. And possibly the biggest thing is that foreign car companies are getting a lot of the tax payer dollars.

Just as bad as the Back to School aid. You're giving tax payer money to a particular group of people who will go out and spend it on unnecessary crap/more expensive items. when someone else is paying, you're not going to care about the price.

[quote name='jputahraptor']Now let's go rush a health care plan through RIGHT NOW, even though it took Obama 6 months to pick out a fucking dog for his kids.[/QUOTE]

the effects wouldn't even start until 2013. They were hoping to pass it now, let people forget about it/say that their healthcare hasn't changed, and go for a second term, dropping the other shoe toward fucking up our country.
 
I wonder if private hospitals and doctors would stop accepting patients with government health insurance for similar reasons... I know there are several that don't accept Medicare/Medicaid as it is.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wonder if private hospitals and doctors would stop accepting patients with government health insurance for similar reasons... I know there are several that don't accept Medicare/Medicaid as it is.[/QUOTE]

more than several...
lots of places do ~1 case/month for their "service"
 
I was speaking to the manager at a reasonably sized used car dealership and he said all people care about is getting the $4,500 and that a majority of the time they are just trading in the vehicle outright and sidestepping the cash for clunkers program.

Then he said "They usually don't care, unless they're a hippy." I just rolled my eyes and moved on.


My parents (middle class) used the program and pay a shit load of taxes, so lets not all act like this program is just for non-taxpayers.
 
Yeah, my parents are thinking of taking advantage, and they're solidly in the middle class as well.

Thinking of trading in a 20 year old or so truck they don't use much (just for firewood etc.) and maybe getting an '09 Impala. They can get $3,500 for the truck which is worth pretty much nothing as it's old, high mileage and beat up. But they figure if they're paying the taxes for the program they might as well try and take advantage of it if they can find a car they like for a reasonable price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top