backtop

Print 92 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Aug 4 at 9:32 AM
The federal "Cash for Clunkers" program off to a good start

Several days of the well-known "Cash for Clunkers" program has seen more than 4,000 new vehicles purchased, with $35 million of the budgeted $1 billion already spent.

As some Americans begin to turn in their clunkers" for new, fuel-efficient vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency has modified the eligibility of 164 vehicles that previously qualified for the program.  Seventy-eight cars and trucks that initially were approved don't qualify, while 86 vehicles that weren't on the list now qualify.

Unless the government offers another extension, the program will end once the $1 billion is handed out.  If all of the $1 billion isn't used, however, the federal government will end the program on November 1.  The program was designed specifically to help get gas guzzlers off the street, especially as fuel economy thresholds continue to get stricter for new vehicles.

More than 16,000 dealerships across the country have applied for the program, and that number is growing each day.  Dealerships now are attempting to work with local junkyards to have the engines and transmissions removed before the clunker is sent on its death march.

Anyone interested must meet certain criteria to qualify: If a car is manufactured in 1984 or later and averages 18 mpg or less, a person qualifies for the program.  The owner must have had the car registered and insured for at least 12 months and it has to start.  A government voucher for $3,500 is given if the new car gets between 4-9 mpg more than the old car -- a voucher for $4,500 is handed out if the car has 10 miles more per gallon.

"Unlike the previously available mileage data, which was solely intended to guide consumers' vehicle purchases, more precise data is required by the new CARS legislation (to four decimal places)," according to an EPA report.  "Of the 30,000 vehicle model types spanning 25 years, the result of converting to the more precise data needed for the CARS program meant that an additional 86 model types gained eligibility while 78 no longer qualify."

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood believes there is enough money to offset the cost of 250,000 new vehicles.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
There is some sense to it all.
By Smilin on 7/29/2009 3:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
How else can you spend ~$3000 in taxpayer money to get ~15,000-$35,000 put into the economy?

It's better than those stupid fvcking refund checks.




RE: There is some sense to it all.
By ExarKun333 on 7/29/2009 3:15:08 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, but you realize the 15-35k is actually just indebting people more, right? I doubt many people are buying these with cash...


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Sulphademus on 7/29/2009 3:36:44 PM , Rating: 5
But thats what the $700billion to the banks was for: so you can take a loan for the rest!

Your Paycheck -> Taxes
Taxes -> Bank Bailout
Taxes -> Cash for Clunkers
Cash for Clunkers + Bank Bailout -> Your Car Loan


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By borismkv on 7/29/2009 10:14:45 PM , Rating: 5
No. The 700 billion dollars to the banks were so the people who started this mess could continue snorting the best cocaine off the stomachs of the most expensive prostitutes.

Your Paycheck -> Taxes -> Banks -> Prostitutes -> More Taxes -> Prostitutes for the government

That's how it *really* works.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Sulphademus on 7/30/2009 8:24:31 AM , Rating: 3
If you're using prostitutes in the definition of sex workers, they don't pay taxes (unless you're in Reno).


By MrPoletski on 7/30/2009 9:05:07 AM , Rating: 1
What kind of tax would that be called anyway?

the Lust Levy? the c0ck tax?


By MrPoletski on 7/30/2009 8:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. The 700 billion dollars to the banks were so the people who started this mess could continue snorting the best cocaine off the stomachs of the most expensive prostitutes.


sad, but true in spirit.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Smilin on 7/29/2009 3:36:46 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe, maybe not.

Cash or credit the result is the same: an autoworker keeps his job, al gore is happy, and America imports less oil.

As a bonus we get to make some (or more than) that $3000 back as we won't be paying unemployment to the auto worker.

As far as dumb sh1t the government has done this really isn't all that bad of an idea.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Hiawa23 on 7/29/2009 3:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but you realize the 15-35k is actually just indebting people more, right? I doubt many people are buying these with cash...

yeah the individuals might be indebted but the dealership still gets paid from the bank, so $15-35k is also going to the dealership to the employees & into the economy. I think the program is good, for those who have been holding off buying cars until now, but some will whine about anything the government tries to do to get the economy moving. Your indebted comment doesn't fly cause most people in my circle that I know don't buy vehicles cash much like most people have to get a mortgage.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By porkpie on 7/29/2009 10:18:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Your indebted comment doesn't fly cause most people in my circle that I know don't buy vehicles cash
WTH does that have to do with anything? We're in a recession brought about by bad credit . Too many people owing too much money, and not able to pay it back.

Indebting the country even more isn't a good thing. At least some of the people who use these vouchers are going to pull the trigger thinking they're "saving" $4,500 bucks. Then in a few months, they'll find out their clunker owned free and clear was a pretty good deal, compared to a $400/m car payment and extra insurance and tag costs also. Some who were already struggling to pay their mortgage might wind up pushed over the edge by this "free" money.

Then again, those of us who had $4500 TAKEN from us to pay for this program will spend that much less. Net effect on the economy: zero. Less than zero, when you work in the overhead and inefficiencies of the program itself.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By BansheeX on 7/30/2009 3:47:44 AM , Rating: 5
Few consumers in this country understand fundamental economics, and I don't mean the voodoo socialist economics taught in American schools today. True credit is borne by savings. A loan exists because someone out there has savings instead of debt. Domestically, Americans and it's government consume far more than they produce, and must borrow in the short term from foreigners at an increasing pace at compounding interest. We have the equivalent of an ARM on our national debt. For the youtube generation, Schiff's debate with Forbes can be pretty educational:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdj3Gx4A8w

Note Steve's argument at about 7:30. "Trade deficits mean nothing because we've always had them." The fatal flaw in that logic is failing to differentiate what we did with the money. America used to borrow from foreigners mostly to expand productive capacity. Now we borrow mostly to consume the production of others and domestic services, and that is an unsustainable trend.

This ultimately has one of two consequences:

(a) we "default" on our debt obligations by printing money at no labor or material cost, increasing the quantity of dollars relative to goods (inflation) and causing the cost of imported goods to go up well in advance of domestic wages.
(b) we raise interest rates sky high to 20+%, making the cost of borrowing prohibitive for consumers, but more importantly for companies with the proverbial shovels to get bulldozers. I say more importantly, because consumption is borne by production, not the other way around as taught by Keynesian schools.

The choice is to preserve the dollar or our service economy a little longer at the expense of the dollar. Ideally, the government cuts back dramatically, raises taxes, and we start paying off our creditors legitimately to prevent all of this, but so many people in this country are now dependent on a government program or paycheck that it is politically impossible to win on such a platform (see: Ron Paul) even though it's the truth. So you will see what has happened to every unbacked currency happen to the dollar as well.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By MrPoletski on 7/30/2009 8:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
well it's certainly a better way of funneling public money back into the private sector than starting wars.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 9:32:00 AM , Rating: 1
No no no. You have it all wrong.

When we start wars we are supposed to cut taxes and send everyone a check. That way we can put the cost on credit for our children (and maybe grandchildren) to pay off.

Some pussys think we should raise taxes to match the cost or sell war bonds or some other logical crap like that. I mean "if you can't afford war, don't start one" is something a pacifist traitor would say.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Cerin218 on 7/29/2009 3:57:58 PM , Rating: 5
Why does everyone automatically assume that any debt is bad debt. Debt is not necessarily evil as long you you are careful about the type of debt you assume. Most people don't have $20-30,000 in their hand to buy a car. Yet many people need a car. Which means you borrow the money. I didn't have $110,000 to buy my house so I took a mortgage. As long as you assume that debt responsibly there isn't an issue. I would much rather drive a Corvette instead of my 10 year old S-10, but $22,000 for my truck is better then $50,000 for a payment at my income level. Now I own that truck and it contributes to my financial worth. Student loans are other type of smart debt. You are investing in your skills to increase your worth to en employer to earn more money.

Credit cards on the other hand are foolish debt. Usually used to buy things you may not need with money that you don't have subject to the whim's of a questionable lender.

The recent financial problems were caused by people that did not understand the type of debt they were getting into. How is an ARM a good idea for 99% of people buying a home? It should be common sense, but people made poor decisions, and the banks allowed them to. Banks used to give you money based on your ability to pay back that money. When I bought my first new car in 2000 the bank laughed when I asked for a loan making $22,000 a year with no credit history on a $432 a month car payment. I had to have my father cosign. I paid that off and have since raised my credit score to where I walk into a bank, ask for a loan, and they ask me how much I want and by when. Even in this "credit starved" economy.

Debt used responsibly can help you to meet needs and wants even though you don't always have the cash to do it. If it takes 3500 for someone that may need a car anyway to spend $35,000 on a product, that stimulates the economy. I woould much rather have $8,000 go to a new homeowner like myself to help fix up and improve my property as I just stimulated the economy to the tune of $110,000. Better then a corporate bailout. Gives me an incentive to go to work every day so that I can improve my standard of living. Beats living in my parents basement collecting welfare.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Smilin on 7/29/2009 6:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in the "debt = bad debt" category but I understand your argument.

It's my goal to pay cash for everything and this is quite possible. You'll be amazed how much cash you have on hand when you aren't paying monthly payments on things you bought months or years ago. Mind you I have to buy used cars instead of new and sometimes I can't get that shiny gee-whiz thing I want right away.

Now that said - I'm GLAD that people have debt. The bank isn't going to pay me much interest on my savings if someone isn't paying them interest on the back side.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By HotFoot on 7/30/2009 5:41:31 AM , Rating: 3
Debt is good debt if what you buy with it increases in value or produces value faster than the interest on the debt itself. Buying a house in a stable market is usually this way (just ignore the last few years). Any big business that rigidly does not borrow money from any source is bound to fall very quickly behind their competition.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Moishe on 7/30/2009 9:22:56 AM , Rating: 2
Most consumer debt is not "good" debt. But you're right.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Moishe on 7/30/2009 9:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
You're smart for paying cash. I think anyone who has been burned by the American debt mentality and learns from it can do well.

I used to have a TON of debt. I was young and stupid and credit card companies were throwing money at me (like they do with everyone). Once I figured out what was going on, I started working my way out and I got free. Since that day my financial philosophy has changed and I am so far better off for it.

Here is the key: With patience we can have just about anything we want.

I want a car, a washing machine, a blu-ray player, etc. Anything I want I can have, I just need to be patient and wait for it. The benefit to waiting is more than just paying cash. While I'm waiting, sometimes I just end up not buying the thing I wanted before. Sometimes my needs/wants change, and prices always fall. One of the best parts about it is that while I am "saving" for multiple household projects or large purchases, the money is sitting in my account drawing interest and providing me a safety net for if the fit hits the shan.

Using this concept I have only a home mortgage debt. I've paid cash for my last 3 cars, none of which are junk (the last one cost $17k used). I'm known to have the latest gadgets and lots of tech. I buy everything with money that I already have set aside. I have enough cash in the bank to easily live a year without working. I don't need the government to wipe my @$s, sorry but I wipe it myself.

Americans are largely sunk by their own inability to wait patiently and have financial balance between the long and short term. The "gotta-have-it-now" mentality is dangerous and lots of people end up living paycheck-to-paycheck without any stability.

[end rant ;]


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By porkpie on 7/29/2009 9:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Banks used to give you money based on your ability to pay back that money.
They stopped that when the government began underwriting nearly all the risk in the mortgage market. Why worry about the borrowers ability to repay when the Feds are either going to buy the note from you directly, or if not, just bail you out?

ANY government meddling in the economy is a bad thing. Yes, this program is less braindead than most, but it still isn't helpful. Anyone who takes advantage of this program would have almost certainly bought a new car anyway either right now, or within the next 2-3 years. So either they rushed their purchase when they may not be ready for it, or they used the voucher to buy a more expensive car then they otherwise would.

I know someone who was going to buy a new Yaris. Now with their voucher, they're probably going to buy a Matrix instead, which gets LESS mileage. So for them, this program means they're going to burn MORE gas, not less. Plus since he moved up his purchase six months, his old car loses 6 months of its life -- not a great tradeoff for a few gallons of saved gas, considering how much energy it takes to actually build a car.

Let's not forget these $4,500 checks don't come out of thin air. The money is taken from the rest of us. We therefore spend less. Is that good for the economy?


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By porkpie on 7/29/2009 9:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and just to add this: if your "clunker" DOESN'T get destroyed, then it justs get resold to someone else, who drives it around using just as much gas as you did.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By JonnyBlaze on 7/30/2009 7:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
The people getting the loans more than likely have jobs also. So the money is coming from them too.


RE: There is some sense to it all.
By Moishe on 7/30/2009 9:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
The issue isn't the money that comes from the loans. You're right that some private money will go into this.

My issue is with the tax money that *I* am paying to fund someone's vehicle upgrade. The government has a horrid track record for spending wisely or efficiently. I don't know why anyone would give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

The economy would be better off if everyone (especially the government) was wise with their money. God-forbid...


Pie in the sky
By Ammohunt on 7/29/2009 2:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am sorry this is one of the dumbest waste of taxpayer money ever. 1 billion divided by $4500 = 222222 “clunkers” off the road. In Colorado(where I live) for example there are on average 2 cars registered per person that’s approximately 6 Million cars just in a smaller state like Colorado alone. Let’s be generous and say that 300k Clunkers are removed from the roads of America its still a drop in the bucket considering that you would only be eliminating gas usage equal to the different in gas mileage from the car traded in to the new one purchased meanwhile another 1 billion dollars down the drain.




RE: Pie in the sky
By Entropy42 on 7/29/2009 3:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
This program is really just a way to get people to buy new cars, with a big green bow on top of it. The old cars are completely destroyed. They can't be resold (and I thought they couldn't be scrapped for parts, though the article seems to indicate otherwise). Seems awfully wasteful to me.


RE: Pie in the sky
By Cerin218 on 7/29/2009 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 1
So what we should do is nothing at all. Ever bit helps. People have to purchase things for the economy to improve. The idea that people are being helped to buy cars that lower emissions and gas use, to me doesn't seem as large a waste as my state government spending 2 million dollars to change road signs around our airport because people get confused which is the domestic airport and which is international. 2 million? The change might be small to you but small changes can add up to major changes. Give peace a chance.


RE: Pie in the sky
By knutjb on 7/29/2009 6:44:30 PM , Rating: 5
They make 4000 cars sound like a big deal, out of 16000 dealers? Don't forget Chrysler is doubling that when you buy one of theirs. And yes, you the tax payer are picking up that one too.

Nothing at all would have been a whole lot cheaper and would have produced more. When the government screams that they are going to increase taxes in a big way companies and investors stop spending and hang onto their cash and the economy stagnates, that's what happened during the depression.

This another in a very long list wasting tax money. It's right up there with wanting to spend $700,000,000.00 for some land and birth control for horses. Who owns the land? Can't shoot a horse but human euthanasia as described in the house medical bill, pgs 425-430, is A OK!

The economy is in the dumps, so we spend more of what we don't have so the government can spark the economy? We deserve what we get, bankruptcy. Spending huge amounts DID NOT WORK during the depression according to the Secretary of the Treasury in 1939. It didn't work then why would it work now?


RE: Pie in the sky
By knutjb on 7/29/2009 7:22:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
house medical bill, pgs 425-430, is A OK!


HR 3200 SEC 1233 Advance Care planning Consultation.

Scare yourself, read it.


RE: Pie in the sky
By Sulphademus on 7/30/2009 8:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA0...

I didnt see anything about Euthanasia.


RE: Pie in the sky
By MrPoletski on 7/30/2009 9:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
besides, every Megadeth fan knows the correct spelling is 'Youthanasia'


RE: Pie in the sky
By knutjb on 7/30/2009 12:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong document try

The whole bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.320...

Or SEC 1233:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./tem...

When the government mandates specific provider patient consultations that include suspending life sustaining treatments there is a HUGE problem. While a provider may respond to a patients request for such information it is NOT the role of government to mandate said discussions. These kind of mandated discussions are tantamount to illicit pressure to end ones life. No the word euthanasia is not spelled out, it is implied by they text mandating the discussion of withholding care. Simply to coerce an elderly person to do whats best... If that implication doesn't concern you wait til it's forced on a family member or even on you.


RE: Pie in the sky
By cdwilliams1 on 7/30/2009 4:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
This bill doesn't force or coerce anything. Remember the Terri Schiavo incident? When the country was up in arms about whether or not to pull the plug? A lot of people wanted to talk to their doctor about what options they had. Guess what? Medicare didn't cover this consultation. So everyone on medicare (just about everyone over 65) couldn't talkto their family doctor about end of life planning. This bill says that once every 5 years medicare will pay for this consultation. What level of care do you want? Do you want the doctors to pull out all the stops to hkeep you living, even if it means you're a vegetable? Do you want to saddle your estate with that debt? Do you want a D-N-R order? These things can now be discussed and *paid for* by medicare. There's NOTHING in here about euthanasia. Even the spokesman of the AARP was on national public radio yesterday talking about how this is a good idea! He said while he's not sure they can support the whole healthcare bill he feels these discussions are certainly a good idea. Please stop listening to the rightwing nutjob radio guys and come back to reality :-)


RE: Pie in the sky
By porkpie on 7/29/2009 9:44:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
People have to purchase things for the economy to improve.
No. If purchasing was all there was to it, we could just print a few trillion each year, pass it out, and have the best economy in the world. Problem is, every country who tries that winds up in the toilet fast.

"Purchasing" doesn't help the economy. Efficiently converting resources into products that people want does. Taking billions from productive people and businesses, and passing it out randomly doesn't even boost overall spending. The MOST it may do is cause a short term increase, at the result of a longer, larger term decrease.


RE: Pie in the sky
By Moishe on 7/30/2009 10:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
You sound like a hippy.

Money doesn't grow on trees. if the U.S. had tons of extra and we wanted to push the green agenda, then *maybe* I could understand it. This kind of wasteful thinking is what got us into this kind of insane debt as a nation. More of this spending on "small change" at this point with the kind of debt we already have is very foolish.

As a consumer, I know that driving a "clunker" without a payment for 3-5 more years is far more financially wise than getting rid of it and buying a new(er) car that only gets 10MPG more and having a car payment. 10MPG more costs a lot of money (unless you're going from a truck to a small car) and the cost of the car payment will never be covered by the difference in gas mileage. I see this as the government's way of fooling people into making stupid financial decisions so that we can bail out the economy for the greater good.

The problem is that government policies and government spending are what put us in the recession and the consumer shouldn't have to take one up the @$s just to bail us out. Not to mention the fact that the government shows no signs of putting a halt on the spending. Basically it's a big Eff-you from the government. We pay for their wastefulness and then pay for it again and again. I say to hell with that.

IMO When we have a surplus and no debt, only then should we consider spending money on FLUFF... which is exactly what this is. Our economy is in no position to handle more BS. Our government is staffed wholly by corrupt @$shats.


RE: Pie in the sky
By jkresh on 7/29/2009 3:48:57 PM , Rating: 1
It is true that even if the 1billion is used the % of cars that will be exchanged is small, but it should help the auto industry (if it raises employment then that means more taxes and less money going towards unemployment), it should help with fuel usage (though not a major change considering the number of cars on the road), and hopefully it will help with pollution (so of the cars still on the road from the mid 80's pollute signifi9cantly more then current cars (even with close mileage) so that could be a substantial boost).

In terms of pollution this works a lot better if a car from the 80's is replaced with something new and clean vs a relatively low emission car that's only 5-10 years old (but gets poor mileage). of course a lot depends on which vehicles are taken off the road and what they are replaced with (6 year old car with 16 miles to the gallon replaced with something that does 25, has a lot less of an impact then a 26 year old car with 10 miles the gallon replaced by a hybrid or clean diesel that could get 30-40 more miles/gallon then the clunker).


RE: Pie in the sky
By Smilin on 7/29/2009 6:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
So which would you rather have:

A. 15 billion bailout to auto industry.

B. 1 billion bailout + consumers fork over the other 14billion of their own money in exchange for some cars.

C. 60 billion in unemployment payouts plus 5 billion to build a retaining wall around Michigan as it will soon degenerate into some Mad-Max sort of canibalistic society.

(note: pulled the numbers out of my ass... you get my point though)


RE: Pie in the sky
By porkpie on 7/29/2009 9:33:27 PM , Rating: 3
That's whats known as a false dilemma. I'd rather not have ANY of my money spent to bail out worthless union auto workers. They'll then have to get new jobs, where they actually have to do some work now and then. That's good for the economy, not propping up failed businesss.

I won't even comment on the idiocy of claiming a few thousand extra car sales (over half of which will go to foreign car makers anyway) is somehow going to single-handedly prevent an entire state from descending into anarchy.


RE: Pie in the sky
By MrPoletski on 7/30/2009 9:01:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's whats known as a false dilemma. I'd rather not have ANY of my money spent to bail out worthless union auto workers. They'll then have to get new jobs, where they actually have to do some work now and then. That's good for the economy, not propping up failed businesss.


American autoworkers are worthless and never do any work?

*takes notes*


RE: Pie in the sky
By Targon on 7/30/2009 9:33:55 AM , Rating: 3
There is a problem you don't seem to understand, and that is the lack of manufacturing jobs in this country has dropped over the years. With things like NAFTA, and other stupid government policies enacted by both Republicans and Democrats, government has PUSHED for companies to move manufacturing out of this country. When those jobs leave, and there are no other jobs of their type being made, what do you expect people to do when their jobs go to Mexico or some other country?

You have your own areas of knowledge and expertise. You think a certain way based on those things, and based on your interests. Well, people working in skilled manufacturing jobs have skills. Now, in the same way that you would have a hard time if people started to tell you you should change careers to work in the biomedical field as a chemist, those in manufacturing will have just as hard a time switching careers to something else.

If you have been out of school for ten years or more, the idea of going back to school to learn about something you have no interest in really does not seem very attractive. It is one thing to change career paths when you have a desire and interest in the new direction, it is quite another to be told to do something you don't care about.

The government should drop things like NAFTA and put money into helping bring manufacturing back to this country, since that would solve many many problems. If all products were made in the USA, then the value of the dollar would only affect the price of oil, since exchange rates would not affect costs.


Whew!
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 2:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thank God that people are allowed to swap out their cars now before the new CAFE standards take effect.

My only question is why are vehicles older than 1984 excluded? Some sort of Orwellian conspiracy?




RE: Whew!
By Warder45 on 7/29/2009 2:55:04 PM , Rating: 3
The EPA doesn't have any fuel economy data from before 1984.


RE: Whew!
By Smartless on 7/29/2009 3:05:19 PM , Rating: 3
Hehe maybe it's considered a classic, like a Gremlin? Aw come on Wayne's World.

It's probably to catch all those SUV's that were made during the start of the craze.


RE: Whew!
By danrien on 7/29/2009 6:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My only question is why are vehicles older than 1984 excluded? Some sort of Orwellian conspiracy?


Yep, that's when the telescreens started getting put in cars.


RE: Whew!
By Souka on 7/29/2009 7:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
cuz if they were I'd go pickup a "working" 1977 pickup truck for $500...and get $4500 off a new car I was going to buy anyhow...which defeats the tradein program


RE: Whew!
By borismkv on 7/29/2009 10:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
Except that you have to have had the car registered to yourself for a year prior to trading it in. Go read the requirements.


This law is bad for the enviroment!!
By AEvangel on 7/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: This law is bad for the enviroment!!
By TheSpaniard on 7/29/2009 4:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
the clunkermust be stripped for parts and crushed

thats the rule


RE: This law is bad for the enviroment!!
By AEvangel on 7/29/2009 6:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah....sure it will be, your telling me if my sister decided to trade in her 2002 Infiniti QX4-V6-4WD Utility 4D and after the dealer gives her the $10k trade in value the dealer is going to just throw that $$ away by crushing the vehicle??


RE: This law is bad for the enviroment!!
By Atheist Icon on 7/29/2009 7:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah....sure it will be, your telling me if my sister decided to trade in her 2002 Infiniti QX4-V6-4WD Utility 4D and after the dealer gives her the $10k trade in value the dealer is going to just throw that $$ away by crushing the vehicle??


Nope, because her car would not qualify under the program, the vehicle has to be a 2001 or older. Not only that, but you get EITHER 3500/4500 or the trade-in value. If the trade in is higher that the cash-for-clunkers, then why go the clunkers way? The dealer honestly does not give a rats ass about someones car when the US govt is paying the tab.


By borismkv on 7/29/2009 10:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite. The 2001 date is for Category 3 vehicles, which includes:

quote:
Trucks w/ GVWR 8,500-10,000 lbs. that are either pickup trucks with cargo beds 72" or longer or very large cargo vans.


Also known as massive gas guzzling behemoth trucks. Like the H2.

Also, you get the 3500/4500 and the *scrap value* of the car. Basically, whatever the salvage value of that model vehicle is, you can negotiate with the dealership to receive as a discount for your purchase.

The way dealers are handling this, though, is to offer the government allotment for the trade-in at purchase, then fill out paperwork. In answer to the question you failed to answer accurately, the dealer *can* offer that price and decide not to actually scrap the car, but they will not receive any of the money from this program, as it requires paperwork and evidence of the vehicles actually being destroyed.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't going to be gobs of dealerships acting fraudulently, particularly with newer vehicles, but rest assured that if they get caught doing it, they're gonna get in big freaking trouble.


Numbers game...
By UNCjigga on 7/29/2009 2:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
...would be more fun if we knew how many of those cars were domestic brands vs. foreign




RE: Numbers game...
By Murst on 7/29/2009 2:59:48 PM , Rating: 3
What difference does it make?


I dont remember....
By brybir on 7/29/2009 5:11:18 PM , Rating: 3
I dont remember who said it but it was along the lines that most governments make all the necessary laws to run a society in about 15-20 years, and after that its all just make work laws to keep politicians feeling important.

Seriously, why is the Federal government involved in so much of this stuff. How about this: the federal government stick to its core roles of defense, interstate cooperation and dealing with foreign affairs, and leave the rest to the states.

Seems to me the tax rates should be reversed, instead of 30% of my income going to the feds it should go to the state and 7% to the federal government. Then I get some accountability for my tax dollars and deprive lobbyist of teh honeypot of corruption that is the Federal government. And shockingly, this would allow states to set up governments and programs in ways that

/sigh

Anyways, not sure why I felt like ranting today. Feel like the country is on a slow slide toward failure, whether it be from massive deficits, political corruption or the erosion of individual liberty among other things. The day we stop fighting international "wars" everywhere, have a balanced fiscal budget, shrinking deficit and a shrinking federal government, I will by a round for everyone here.




RE: I dont remember....
By tedrodai on 7/30/2009 11:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
You make some good comments save in the 3rd paragraph. You speak as if there is somehow less corruption in state governments. State governments make laws as useless and wasteful as the federal government, simply on a different scale.


I heard....
By Souka on 7/29/2009 7:20:27 PM , Rating: 1
my wife said she read an article in the Seattle times (on-line...we're green, so we don't get a newspaper..heh)...that you could trade in your 16mpg HUMvee for a 18MPG Humvee under this program..... nice one gov.

But I guess they changed the rules to fix that little oversight...right?




RE: I heard....
By Souka on 7/29/2009 7:23:02 PM , Rating: 1
Oh... my wife drives a 2005 Acura MDX in mint condition...25k miles...her avg mileage is only 17mpg! Pretty nice clunker if you ask me!

Sure beats the heck out of my highschool clunker...a 1972 datsun wagon, leaking oil and antifreeze....but wouldn't ya know it...got 28mpg when doing 55mph on the freeway. :)


Ridiculous
By fleshconsumed on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ridiculous
By kattanna on 7/29/2009 3:05:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Fuel economy too low? Let's give everyone $3500 for getting a new car


if you honestly think this has anything really to do with fuel economy and not simply a way to jumpstart a failing auto-industry.. then they got you


RE: Ridiculous
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/29/2009 3:06:02 PM , Rating: 5
Hey, my wife and I are gonna make good use of that $8,000 when we file our taxes next year ;-)

We all complain about the government throwing money away along with this-and-that, but I don't know anyone that is gonna turn down an $8,000 tax credit on "principle".

Can you stand there with a straight face and say that you would turn down the money if you qualified (for either the $8,000 or the clunkers credit)?


RE: Ridiculous
By ExarKun333 on 7/29/2009 3:12:29 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, it's a great thing to get a tax credit on a house when the value of the house will keep going down. You get a tax credit plus your upside-down on your mortgage - great deal!


RE: Ridiculous
By ebakke on 7/29/2009 3:13:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Can you stand there with a straight face and say that you would turn down the money if you qualified (for either the $8,000 or the clunkers credit)?
Nope, but I will stand here with a straight face and tell you that in the next election I will vote against any representative who voted for that garbage.


RE: Ridiculous
By Entropy42 on 7/29/2009 3:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
If this was an argument in favor of that type of law, its pretty weak. If they passed a law that everyone could go to the local treasurer and get $5k for free, you'd be an idiot not to, but that doesn't mean that its a good law.


RE: Ridiculous
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/29/2009 3:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that it's good or bad -- just that I'm not going to turn down the money if it's made available.

My wife and I were in the market for a house anyway being that we just got married; so it's not like we bought something that we wouldn't have otherwise because of the credit.


RE: Ridiculous
By therealnickdanger on 7/29/2009 3:56:58 PM , Rating: 4
If anything, you and your wife deserve it anyway. I imagine that you two are actively employed and contribute TO the economy, pay your bills, and pay taxes.

If not... GIVE IT BACK! :D


RE: Ridiculous
By ebakke on 7/29/2009 4:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
Deserve the tax credit because they're contributing citizens? How about they deserve not to have their money taken in the first place, only to be redistributed for the sake of artificially propping up a slumping industry?


RE: Ridiculous
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 5:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
How do you redistribute the money of non-contributing citizens? That's silly! We wouldn't be a democracy if we didn't have bread and circuses.


RE: Ridiculous
By therealnickdanger on 7/30/2009 8:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
Oh believe me, I disagree with ALL of this bullsh*t. I'm just saying, we can change what's happening, so I'm trying to look on the brightest side possible. I would rather see contributing members of society take advantage of this program over anyone else. In reality, I wish EVERYONE would boycott this program and not use it at all...


RE: Ridiculous
By danrien on 7/29/2009 6:23:31 PM , Rating: 1
kind of like the "tax rebate" checks bush used to people?


RE: Ridiculous
By Lord 666 on 7/29/2009 4:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just chuckle when Obama extends the $8000 credit for first time buyers to $15,000 for anyone. Probably the restriction will be you can't have received money under the previous program.

Its coming very soon. Even though house pricing has leveled off and appears to be on an uptick, there is still another wave of foreclosures coming.

Regardless, a sincere congratulations.


RE: Ridiculous
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 3:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
They tried it, but it wasn't popular. Later they tried flushing it down the toilet, but the plumbing bills were outrageous - you should have seen the bill just for the toilet seat!

So far taxing the rich and giving to the upper middle class seems to get the most votes.


RE: Ridiculous
By Brutus1234 on 7/29/2009 3:40:19 PM , Rating: 5
Over the last 6yrs we've racked up $1 Trillion debt with the Iraq war.
We still supplement farmers $100 Billion /yr to NOT grow crops.

1 Billion ( trivial in comparison ) on a program that's going to help a handful of people buy a car and now you get upset?

Car sales in the US should exceed $225 billion this year. This program is not going to make or break the auto industry. It's a superficial "feel good" program but at least it's has a positive effect for handful of people (not corporations) unlike the other crap we're wasting money on.

Just a few days ago, people on this site were pissed we didn't spend $2.5 Billion EACH to buy some F22s we don't need. Where was the economic outrage there?

I think there's a bunch of people here who are not going to be happy with anything the government does until a Republican is back in the Whitehouse.


RE: Ridiculous
By michal1980 on 7/29/2009 4:07:09 PM , Rating: 3
so 2 wrongs make a right?


RE: Ridiculous
By therealnickdanger on 7/29/2009 4:26:30 PM , Rating: 3
No, only liberals can be right. Haven't you been paying attention to your little red book (i.e. school and television)?


RE: Ridiculous
By FITCamaro on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ridiculous
By Brutus1234 on 7/29/2009 6:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously I was wrong when I cited the cost of the plane. I confused a couple different things.

BUT

100,000 people at an average fully burdened annual cost of 75K ( assuming they're not unionized but getting some medicial benefits)

Would have an annual labor cost of 7.5 Billion.

Your math doesn't work either.


RE: Ridiculous
By porkpie on 7/29/2009 9:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with YOUR math is that national defense helps us all. New weapon systems are like fire insurance...costly if you never need them, but unbelievably cheap if you do.

And if you seriously can't see the difference between paying to defend the country, and a redistribution of wealth program that takes money away from some people to give to others, then I feel sorry for you.


RE: Ridiculous
By rtrski on 7/29/2009 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just a few days ago, people on this site were pissed we didn't spend $2.5 Billion EACH to buy some F22s we don't need. Where was the economic outrage there?


$2.5 Billion EACH? Are you sure about that, Sparky?

quote:
A new amendment will help remove $1.75 billion that was originally slated for manufacturing seven more F-22 Raptors.


Second quote from: http://www.dailytech.com/Senate+Votes+Against+Fund...


RE: Ridiculous
By Brutus1234 on 7/29/2009 6:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I got that mixed up.

I thought the 1.75 billion was the amount for the new engine development and the plane costs were in the billions.

I should have checked the facts before posting. My bad.


RE: Ridiculous
By rtrski on 7/30/2009 8:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
s'okay...its "teh internets". There's always some self-important arsehat ready to jump on your every mistake. Today that was me. Tomorrow I'll be the one having my nuts handed back to me in a sack (dry roasted).

;)


RE: Ridiculous
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 4:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think there's a bunch of people here who are not going to be happy with anything the government does until a Republican is back in the Whitehouse.

I'd settle for a sane person in the Whitehouse.


RE: Ridiculous
By Nfarce on 7/29/2009 4:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Or just someone who knew what in the h3ll was going on instead of being a puppet for Nancy Pelosi & Co.


RE: Ridiculous
By andrinoaa on 7/29/2009 6:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sane? Thats an oxymoron!


RE: Ridiculous
By Hiawa23 on 7/29/2009 4:45:16 PM , Rating: 3
I think there's a bunch of people here who are not going to be happy with anything the government does until a Republican is back in the Whitehouse.

I agree. I think the program is good as whether someone pays with cash or credit the dealerships gets paid, employess are kept, & trickles down, but like you said some won't be happy until....


RE: Ridiculous
By Nfarce on 7/29/2009 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over the last 6yrs we've racked up $1 Trillion debt with the Iraq war.


Yeah, it's all Iraq's fault. Don't forget that 2 of the last 6 years saw Democrat rule in both the Senate and the House. Congress are the ones that actually establish all economic policies in this nation, among other things. But, so what of that $1 Trillion over 6 years? I don't hear any deficit whining from Obama supporters when the deficit reached $1 Trillion for the first time in U.S. history two weeks ago; I also don't hear concern about near-term inflation and necessary interest-rate increases to float this spending. Finally, the federal deficit for the year is expected to be $1.8 Trillion - a sum nearly double over the last six years combined .

quote:
I think there's a bunch of people here who are not going to be happy with anything the government does until a Republican is back in the Whitehouse.


That's the entire POINT. We don't WANT the government to do much. This nation wasn't founded and grown by government in all aspects of our lives (just about everywhere except the bedroom where those pesky conservatives want to according to liberals). And it certainly will not survive under it.


RE: Ridiculous
By brybir on 7/29/2009 5:18:06 PM , Rating: 3
I can agree with you about your last paragraph.

I have to add though that it would have been nice not to be in Iraq fighting that very expensive conflict. I wish the US would stop feeling the need to be engaged in major conflicts around the world every 15 years or so.

Is it so much to wish for a smaller government, a smaller defense oriented military, smaller social programs and a foriegn policy that advances our interest without trying to control the rest of the world? Would that really be so bad?


RE: Ridiculous
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 5:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that when we mind our own business we get attacked. (See December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001)

The world has grown smaller over the years, and we cannot simply ignore what happens outside our borders.


RE: Ridiculous
By Targon on 7/30/2009 9:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
And we went in to Afghanistan and kicked butt...Iraq is a different story.

Iraq was more about George W. wanting to finish up what his father was involved in than a true fight caused by the war on terror. Iraq may have been seen as an issue, and a threat, but it was NOT really a place where terrorists were organizing. Anti-Americanism is not the same thing as Terrorism.

That is why Iraq keeps being brought up, because it was not NECESSARY at that time to pick a fight with Iraq when Afghanistan was and still is a complete mess. Pretty much the entire world understood and agreed that this country was in the right when we went into Afghanistan, but it was not fully accepted when this country went into Iraq.

It is like organizing a bunch of kids to beat up on a bully in school, but once you are done with the bully, you start to pick fights with other people just because you don't like them. Your support will drop, and people will look at you as someone who wants to be a bully yourself.

And, the US Government racked up a huge bill(that wasn't even included in the budget) by going into Iraq.

Now, don't get me wrong, Iraq was a threat that might have needed to be dealt with at some point, but terrorism was never the reason to go in there at that point in time. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is never a good thing either.

If you look at your history, the USSR did not get involved in World War 2 until THEY got attacked, and look what happened. The same thing applies to the USA, you attack us, and we will come and kick your butt. History says that those who are attacked for no reason will gain the support of other countries.

And so, we keep our defenses strong, but keep our nose clean. Keep our troops at home, and the cost savings of not having them deployed in the field can be used to fund all the R&D needed to stay strong.


RE: Ridiculous
By Nfarce on 7/30/2009 3:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iraq was more about George W. wanting to finish up what his father was involved in than a true fight caused by the war on terror. Iraq may have been seen as an issue, and a threat, but it was NOT really a place where terrorists were organizing.


1) The Bush I administration along with the UN brought Saddam to the table to end Gulf War I in 1990. Remember General Schwartzkopf being there? Saddam signed agreements agreeing to UN resolutions. We let him go back to his palaces.

2) Saddam violated those resolutions and continued to violate every new resolution the UN put out there (17 of them in total) over a period of 12 year, including at the end throwing out the UN weapons inspectors. Remember that?

3) Intelligence we gathered from many different national security agencies pointed towards Saddam building a WMD arsenal in clear violation of the treaty and UN resolutions. He and his regime continued to refuse to cooperate and was given ultimatum after ultimatum.

The rest is now history, which is still being written as I write this. We and a few other nations on board with us made the decision to go in and take out Saddam's regime. The goal (mission) was to remove Saddam from power. It was for oil like many say and certainly not to "finish Bush I's war" like you say because that was war was finished.

Now faulty intelligence or not, good decision or bad, and other topics be the invasion a complete mistake altogether can be debated all day long. What needs to be realized is that we can't go back in time and we can't undo what's been done. What we can do is support the new government in transitional power and gradually withdraw from that nation, as both the former Bush administration and now Obama administration planned on.

Finally, it was not "Bush's War." Presidents need Congressional authority to project any military campaigns oversees. Both Republicans and Democrats sat on the Senate Intelligence committee at the time and saw the same intelligence, same data, and same arguments both for and against an invasion. That committee brought the arguments to the floors of Congress on the Senate floor and both parties voted as a majority for the authorization to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein, which, again, was the ultimate goal. People can spin it, twist it, or roll it up and smoke it, but them's the facts on Iraq II.


RE: Ridiculous
By Nfarce on 7/30/2009 3:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, correction: "It was for oil like many say"

Should read: "It was not for oil like many say"


RE: Ridiculous
By brickd007 on 7/30/2009 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh...but we haven't been minding our own business for a long time.


RE: Ridiculous
By Nfarce on 7/29/2009 7:36:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Is it so much to wish for a smaller government, a smaller defense oriented military,


The reality is that the world is never at "peace" and has never been at "peace" and WILL never be at "peace." It is up to a few nations to step up and be the world's police force. Now, if you would like the US to step down off the strong military spending stance and turn it over to Russia and China, please, by all means, state your reasonings as to why.


RE: Ridiculous
By porkpie on 7/29/2009 10:00:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Over the last 6yrs we've racked up $1 Trillion debt with the Iraq war
Obama racked up more than that his first six MONTHS in office.

In fact, Obama has already exceeded the total deficit of all presidents before him. Combined . And he hasn't even got his two most expensive programs passed yet.

But yeah, we shouldn't worry about government spending. Yeah. Right.


RE: Ridiculous
By FPP on 8/3/2009 7:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
oh god...we should BE so lucky. Obama's deficit makes Bush's look like he ran a lemonaide stand! The $1 trillion for the war pales to the:

$787 billion "stimulus" a euphenism for spend it on anything you want..like these rediculous car purchases.

$60 billion (so far) to Bail out GM, a fools errand that is destined to cost even more ( I compute soft cost to be in excess of $75 billion, to date)

A budget busting defense bill($668 Billion!) that beats Bush's by a mile, in spite of another fools errand to cancel the F22 that still does not lower the defense budget from last year.

All of this on top of a budget that boast 1 out of every two dollars as deficit spending, a fact that makes Bush look like a penny pincher.

Enjoy your new cars. It will be paid for with the devaluation of your inflated dollars. Change you can(not) believe in!


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki