backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 67 comment(s) - last by Nik00117.. on Jul 10 at 4:52 AM


Pres. Obama signing the controversial auto bill into law   (Source: White House)
It's possible Congress may extend the Cash for Guzzlers program, depending on its popularity and what kind of vehicles consumers are purchasing

President Barack Obama's Cash-for-Clunkers bill that eventually was turned into law last month could eventually be extended if the current program is considered successful, according to auto industry insiders.

The basis of the program, which was signed into law on June 24, aims to have car owners in the United States trade in their clunkers -- a 25-year car age limit is in place -- in return they'll get cash towards a new, fuel-efficient car.  Essentially, gas guzzlers will be taken off the roads and more fuel-efficient cars will be sold, which will help reduce pollution and stimulate the auto industry.

The program now has an expected $1 billion in funding, which will be good for only 250,000 vehicles, which isn't enough according to Dave McCurdy, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

"I think it'll go very quickly, and Congress may have to revisit it in the fall," McCurdy said during an interview with Automotive News.  "We think there'll be additional phases of this.  It'll probably evolve."

McCurdy clarified his stance by stating the program won't get an extension depending on the type of vehicles shoppers are purchasing.  A person purchasing a new truck qualifies for a $3,500 cash-back government credit assuming the truck has at least a 2 mpg improvement in city/highway fuel-economy than the vehicle being traded in.  It's possible a $4,500 credit will be issued if higher fuel efficiency standards are met.

A new car being purchased must be at least 4 mpg higher than the car being traded in, with a $4,500 credit also offered if the new car is at least 10 mpg more efficient than the old car.

There is some concern that car owners won't be interested in trading in their cars if 4 mpg is the standard, while it's possible many people may just go out and purchase new trucks.  If consumers are purchasing more trucks than cars, then Congress may elect to not renew the program this fall.

The program officially begins on July 24, but it appears a select group of car dealerships may be experimenting with the program.  Dealerships who are caught jumping the gun, however, face stiff fines up to $15,000 for each infraction, the U.S. Transportation Department said in a statement to auto dealers.

In a separate report, the government is warning interested consumers that they should verify the Web site they're looking at is a legitimate Cash-for-Clunkers site.  Scammers have already started using the likely popular car trade-in program to cash in by getting people to turn over their Social Security number and other personal information.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nobody will be happy.
By Smilin on 7/8/2009 3:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think most everyone is going to find some minor part of this program that they don't like. Why didn't they do it just this way? Why didn't they make it apply to some other thing? etc..

Overall though it's a really bold and refreshing move out of a govornment who normally would be in gridlock trying to get something like this done.

It's not perfect by a long shot but I think the program as a whole is a good move.




RE: Nobody will be happy.
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 3:34:52 PM , Rating: 4
Really More Spending? I would rather someone come up to me face to face and tell me to give someone 4,000 bucks for there piece rather than tell me at the end of the year I owe more taxes. At least I can see the person face to face who is punking me out of my money.

Before I get down rated, remember the government doesnt make money nor do they sell goods. So it only comes down being the people who pay taxes are paying for others to upgrade their car.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Scabies on 7/8/2009 3:52:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So it only comes down being the people who pay taxes are paying for others to upgrade their car.

Can I get the rest of the nation to fund, retroactively, my enterprising plan to buy some nasty clunkers that barely run for $500 each, trade them in, then re-sell the new cars and pocket the $4000 incentive?
In the name of the environment, may this pass!


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Maroon on 7/8/2009 4:43:10 PM , Rating: 5
To qualify the trade-in must have been registered and insured in your name for at least 1 year.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By monstrosity on 7/9/2009 11:00:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
To qualify the trade-in must have been registered and insured in your name for at least 1 year.


Ok so you buy a $500 car insure it for a year at about $100/mo registered for $100 that still is only 12*100=>1200+100+500=1800. It still looks like a guaranteed profitable business.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Smilin on 7/9/2009 2:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
Except the program will be expired before you can sell them.

Hey you wouldn't happen to be looking for some land in Florida would you?


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Moishe on 7/8/2009 3:38:40 PM , Rating: 5
I think it's a waste of cash that we don't even HAVE. Sure if all were well and we have money laying around... maybe then should we consider paying people to upgrade to more fuel efficient cars... but the government is broke and these tiny "green", feel-good measures are a complete waste at a time when we should be tightening our belts.

People who are broke don't need incentive to be more in debt by buying another car if the one they have serves the purpose, and people who can afford to buy a car don't need the help of my tax money to get a slightly better car.

This is a big hand out and redistribution of wealth with a "green" tag on it, and it's something that needs to be stopped.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 3:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a big hand out and redistribution of wealth with a "green" tag on it, and it's something that needs to be stopped.
C'mon man, don't you want to help out people that can't afford to participate in cleaning our Earth? You are wealthy. These people don't get the opportunities that you have. Don't you feel sorry for them? Don't you think you are being a little stingy for not giving up some of your wealth to help out your fellow man?


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Scabies on 7/8/2009 3:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
I missed the point where it was universally accepted that all humans wanted to improve the environment, or at least the wealthy individuals that have the means of doing so in whatever way.
on the other hand, I may have missed your subtle sarcasm. there are a good amount of crazies on DT these days...


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 4:04:28 PM , Rating: 1
Here is an idea thats equally as crazy, how about if you drive a gas guzzler, care about the environment, and can't afford to buy a new car, then don't drive your car AT ALL? To me that says you dont care and dont care what you have to do to sustain your self just as much as someone not wanting to foot the bill to pay for people to get to trade in there car on the government.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Moishe on 7/8/2009 4:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are completely nuts. That'll never work! Driving less or not at all is crazy. Why... people would have to walk or stay home and spend time with family. Bad idea. It'll never float ;)

Instead of being wise, it's a heck of a lot easier to just get me to pay more taxes so you can buy a newer car! Yay me!


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well I think asking someone to buy others (subsidize) there car is as equally crazy as asking someone to not use their gas guzzler.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 5:20:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I may have missed your subtle sarcasm.
He he. ;)


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Moishe on 7/8/2009 4:12:20 PM , Rating: 3
Now this is good sarcasm. :)

But seriously, I actually care about the environment (like most people), but it's not my religion and it's not the number one priority in my life. I'm not wealthy, but I take care of my own stuff and my loved ones.

I firmly believe that the "green" movement is mostly made up of people who use the label to advance their own agendas and gain power/money/fame. Very few greenies are serious about it.

As with most causes, the people who abuse the cause for their own good tend to reduce the effectiveness of the cause itself. it's a shame, but it's human nature.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Scabies on 7/8/2009 4:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very few greenies are serious about it.

mind your words, Masher is gonna come in here and cause trouble!


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By andrinoaa on 7/8/2009 5:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Some may say the same about the military machine, lol.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2009 4:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you guys bothering to give your reasons for why this bill is bad? Obama signed it, what more do you need to know?

I'm not sure if you've figured it out yet, but nothing he has done or is going to do is good for this country or has we the peoples best interest's at heart.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By mondo1234 on 7/8/2009 4:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
This will help sell a few more cars, but the biggest winners will be the Dealers as they will not need to budge on the retail price of the vehicle. They will know you are getting the money back. It will be like a 3000-4500 dollar rebate, but it wont come from the factory, it will come from the government (us). I wonder if the rebate will be considered taxable income after the fact (obama will have to recoup some money somewhere). I saw this a few years back with alt fuel vehicles where some of the states would give a large credit for the cost of conversion, but it had to be on new vehicles. As it turned out, the dealers sold the vehicles at list with the conversions at full price so you could get a 5k subsidy and reduced vehicle tags for life. It just milked the states for 200+ million and years of lower tags.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2009 4:16:44 PM , Rating: 5
Nor should anyone be happy with this program. The government has no business using tax payer dollars to give people money for their clunker. Pure waste. Plain and simple.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By teflonbilly on 7/8/2009 4:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
There is a similar program here in BC Canada. Though its less about replacing cars, and more to turn people to alternative transportation sources. The incentives are lower value than this plan but its great. Its both publicly and privately funded. I think the key is the lower incentive costs. I work in a bike shop that has seen several people turn to cycling as a commute option now because this was available. They never really thought about it before.

I have to say though that the system int eh US does seem a little odd, since you get a rather sizable rebate for a very small increase in fuel economy.

One thing though is I dont think I would call this waste. It does sell more cars. People who might not buy a car now have the option, and will turn to the auto makers. This puts more money into companies now owned by the government and the government begins to see the money returning.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 5:25:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One thing though is I dont think I would call this waste.
It's a waste of money that we don't have.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By DigitalFreak on 7/8/2009 6:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
Money we don't have??? The government can always print more money! /sarcasm


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Ristogod on 7/8/2009 4:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
If you like it so much, why don't you pay for it? Why must our government impose more wasteful spending and regulation? In no way is this benefiting anyone.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By bodar on 7/8/2009 7:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
It may benefit the car dealers, who are hurting right now, if it spurs people to buy a car that they may otherwise not have planned on buying. That is a pretty big "may" though, and I'd say the ROI would still be low even then.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By fownde on 7/9/2009 10:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree. They "may" buy a car. But in case they forgot, thousands have lost their jobs and many of those that haven't are saving up in case they lose theirs. This is a complete waste. Some may buy yes, but I highly doubt this will prompt a huge or even decent amount of car buying.


RE: Nobody will be happy.
By Smilin on 7/9/2009 2:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
I am.

I was also paying for it before the program went into place in the form of unemployment checks to auto workers as well as not getting a raise this year as my healthy company struggles to sell products to failing companies and consumers.


I see a problem
By rudolphna on 7/8/2009 3:06:15 PM , Rating: 5
It isn't well known, but there is a real problem with this program. I think it was CNN, but there may have been a DT article on this last week. This cash for clunkers is NOT in addition to the trade in on the car... It replaces it. IE if your trade in would be $5000 and the CFC is $4500.... Your only getting the $5000 for the trade in. This should be an "in addition to" program. It is flawed right now, and I can't see it helping.




RE: I see a problem
By h0kiez on 7/8/2009 3:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's unnecessary government intervention as it is. To make it what you're proposing would make it much MORE expensive and would serve as just another subsidy to the auto industry. Why not just get our massive gov't out of the auto business?


RE: I see a problem
By rs1 on 7/8/2009 4:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you can label this program "intervention". Nobody is being forced to participate or otherwise do anything that they do not want to. All this program does is provide an incentive for people to buy more efficient vehicle. And even if you don't care at all about the pollution argument, or the fact that it is just plain better to be doing things in an efficient way, or the fact that encouraging people to buy new cars may help the domestic auto industry from slipping even further down the tubes, you still have to concede that it is in the best interest of our national security to reduce the amount of foreign oil that we require. And encouraging people to drive more efficient vehicles is one way to do that.


RE: I see a problem
By Ristogod on 7/8/2009 4:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how bankrupting ourselves helps to solve any of those issues you rambled off. You're taking the approach of "we must fix all problems" despite the cost and consequence created along the way. It's irresponsible and immoral.


RE: I see a problem
By rs1 on 7/8/2009 5:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
First off, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about fixing "all problems", or that we should spend untold amounts of money to do so. I said that this specific program, when viewed on its own merits, doesn't look like a bad idea. It won't break the bank, its aims are worthwhile, and it has the possibility of accomplishing at least some of them.

But if you seriously don't see how having people drive more efficient vehicles would help reduce the total amount of oil consumed, then you fail at basic comprehension. Some things can't be helped.


RE: I see a problem
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 5:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It won't break the bank, its aims are worthwhile, and it has the possibility of accomplishing at least some of them.
It's spending money during a time when the government should NOT be spending money. They should be cutting not spending. California has this same disease. Spend, spend, spend. Meanwhile, tax paying CA residents and businesses are leaving the state because they're fed up with this crap.

quote:
Nobody is being forced to participate or otherwise do anything that they do not want to.
LOL! Nobody is being forced, huh? US citizens, whether or not they participate in this program and whether or not they agree with this program, are being forced to pay for it. The government takes our tax dollars and flushes it down the toilet. Like another poster said, people that own a car that's worth less than the credit aren't going to have the $15k and up to buy a new car. There's a reason they are STILL driving clunkers!!!


RE: I see a problem
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 7/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: I see a problem
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 4:29:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nobody is being forced to participate or otherwise do anything that they do not want to.


WRONG...I am being forced to participate by paying for it.


RE: I see a problem
By rs1 on 7/8/2009 4:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, now I think you're just looking for an excuse to complain. According to the article, the program costs $1 billion, so you probably paid about $10 to support it. If you want to complain about your tax dollars being wasted, then I suggest you pick a better target. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good start. The banking and auto industry bailouts, as a whole, make for good targets as well. But this program is a poor target, because its cost to the average taxpayer is extremely small.

Or, if you're really so outraged that the government would use $10 of your money for something you don't approve of, then maybe you should declare your independence from the government, hole up in a shack in the middle of the woods, and see how long it takes before some federal agents come and hunt you down like an animal, as a few notable people have tried before you. Having the government waste at least some of your money on things you don't agree with is just part of the cost of having a government in the first place. And if you want to complain about that, then you're entitled to, but at least pick a target that's large enough that it would actually make a difference if it were changed.


RE: I see a problem
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 5:00:03 PM , Rating: 4
The article isnt about the iraq or bailouts or I would complain about that. How about you pay 20 bucks for the two of us and send me my 10? Didn't think so. I am against all the unneeded gov spending. SS, bailouts, buying car manufactures, owning banks, supporting the paper plane industry, modernizing the rubber duck production facility... Its all bad and wrong to aimlessly spend money. The fact is 1 dollar or 1000 dollars, they shouldn't be wasting money on bad programs.

And really you think a billion is small? How much do you make? The reason a billion is small target is because we have been throwing multibillions away on other bailouts.


RE: I see a problem
By rs1 on 7/8/2009 5:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
On the scale that the federal government operates, a billion is pretty small. It's probably not even enough to buy a single B2 anymore. When you have 140 million taxpayers to siphon money from, even $10 billion is not all that substantial.

And I make enough that I could have a billion dollars...if I lived for about 10,000 years (assuming no raises, no bonuses, no expenses, and no additional income earned from investments of or interest on savings), and if the government would stop taking about half of it away to spend on pointless things.

I don't like having to sacrifice my cash at the altar of government spending much more than you do, but compared to most other government programs, I still think this efficient-vehicle-incentive program is fairly benign.


RE: I see a problem
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 5:36:16 PM , Rating: 4
Compared to a lot of things we have spent money, yes a billion isnt a lot, but thats pretty sad. Its sad that we have seen so much money being spent on all of these programs that it doesnt phase people what a billion dollars is.

A bargin as it might be, I guess I can't afford the government to save me any more money. In any case I just want it to stop, as I said above doesnt matter if its 1 dollar or 1000 dollars of my actual money spent on the program. Its just bad policy to get into.

Would you still approve if you/friend/family member was in debt to their eyeballs and asked you for money for a new car? Hopefully you would say No, stick with the one you have and stop spending money you don't have.


RE: I see a problem
By DigitalFreak on 7/8/2009 7:01:09 PM , Rating: 5
A billion here, a billion there. No big deal, right? It all starts to add up and before you know it you're talking trillions.


RE: I see a problem
By TSS on 7/8/2009 8:35:14 PM , Rating: 1
like trillions is so special. since around fall last year trillions have become normal. this years budget defiict, 1,85 trillion. next years, 1,25 trillion. i've heard rumors about obama talking about a new general stimulus plan, which like the last 2 i'm guessing will be just shy of a trillion dollars as well.

with current and future problems though, 2050 will be an exciting year. i can't wait to start talking about quadrillions of debt!


RE: I see a problem
By rudolphna on 7/8/2009 5:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm lets think about this.... Big SUV- 12 MPG. Trade it in for small car- 32mpg. Saving 20 MPG. Mutliply this by 10 million people trading in cars..... I don't want to do that math but that would work out to alot of gas.

Now you can say that is unrealistic because obviously not everyone is trading in a big SUV for a small car, but you get the point. Now, the big reason behind this program is to guess what, SELL MORE CARS. Not a single automaker, not even toyota and honda (sales for whom are down more year over year than Ford Motor) can make a profit when the industry is selling so few cars. Germany implemented this program, and it WORKED. Auto sales went up phenomenally. That is why its here. So more people buy cars.


RE: I see a problem
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 5:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mutliply this by 10 million people trading in cars
This program won't pay for 10 million people. Also, your present car must be worth LESS than the credit for this to be a good deal. Unless you're driving a SUV from the late 80's/early 90's, it will be worth MORE than that sold outright. I sold a 2004 Tundra pickup with 100k miles on it for $12k. And I was undercutting people to get it sold quick. A Sequoia of that same year would go for more. Like another poster said, if you're still driving a SUV that's worth less than the credit, you don't have the money to buy a new car. Otherwise, you would already have one.


RE: I see a problem
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 5:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
How does it help things if people buy more cars? Is buying..buying..buying that got us in this mess. You don't spend your way out of debt.


RE: I see a problem
By rudolphna on 7/8/2009 8:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
No but when people don't buy cars, car companies go bankrupt.


RE: I see a problem
By WW102 on 7/9/2009 8:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
So... they go bankrupt, and new better companies are formed. There is to much market share for cars to not make cars.


RE: I see a problem
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 3:47:44 PM , Rating: 3
The real problem is that for no real reason the government (ie. me you and everyone who pays taxes) is paying for people with POS car to get a new one. It doesnt make sense.


RE: I see a problem
By h0kiez on 7/8/2009 4:20:59 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, if you subscribe to a socialist ideology, it makes perfect sense.


RE: I see a problem
By rudolphna on 7/8/2009 5:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
USe less gas, and stimulate auto sales.


RE: I see a problem
By WW102 on 7/8/2009 5:49:53 PM , Rating: 3
Spending money doesn't get us out of Debt...... Its quite the opposite.


RE: I see a problem
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 7:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
USe less gas, and stimulate auto sales.
Which ends up using MORE gas because these people will now have a reliable car to drive around in. I know when I sold my 300k mile 92 Sentra and bought a shiny new 04 Sentra to replace it, I drove the crap out of that car. More reliable, more comfortable and even quicker than the old one.


RE: I see a problem
By rudolphna on 7/8/2009 8:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
So your saying car companies should build unreliable pieces of crap so their car is broken down most of the time and they aren't using gas because its in the shop? I know that's probably not what you mean, but that's what it comes across as you saying.


RE: I see a problem
By theapparition on 7/9/2009 6:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I missed the part where a "clunker" should be worth more than $4500.

This is not trade in your 4year old SUV for a new car program, its trade in much older cars that have less stringent pollution controls and get less gas milage for a new one.

Cars that are worth any more than $4500 should definately not be included in the program.

However, that's even beyond my own opinion that my tax dollars should not be going to fund this.


RE: I see a problem
By Nik00117 on 7/10/2009 4:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
That's not a problem, if your trade is in $5,000 then just go ahead and trade in the damn thing.

However if your like my family own a 1991 Thunder Bird that's worth a massive $500 this is a good deal.

We were the perfect candidates for this really, my family is stable even in our tough economic times. We have a old car that's worthless and we intend on getting a Ford Fusion, we have a price already from the dealer that says it's $21,500 when we go to trade in our Fusion we'll be getting an additional $4,500 knocked off, we decided we'd like to put half down so we get a brand new 2010 Ford Fusion for 17k, and payments of less then $200 a month at 3.9% on a 48 month loan.

Not bad, especially since our fusion will be much nicer then that POS Thunderbird.


2 MPG limit really?
By krotchy on 7/8/2009 3:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
This seems to me like there were 2 different agendas. The first agenda was improving fuel efficiency, the second was stimulus to make people buy new cars. Seems to me the stimulus agenda won, but they can make it look like an efficiency agenda to make green people feel good. 2MPG avg seems like a joke to me, I can increase the fuel efficiency of my car by 4mpg just changing the way I drive it on the same roads.

If they wanted to make this worthwhile it should have been like 5mpg for trucks and 10mpg for cars before you qualify. This way people are actually changing the fuel consumption of the vehicle they drive by a figure that can impact fuel usage.




RE: 2 MPG limit really?
By h0kiez on 7/8/2009 3:25:33 PM , Rating: 5
This program really just doesn't help all that many people anyway. How many people do you know that are driving a car worth significantly less than $3K-$4K (which would be necessary to make taking advantage of the program worthwhile) and also have the cash to go buy a new $15K-$25K car? Most people driving cars worth 2 grand are doing so for a reason...


RE: 2 MPG limit really?
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 3:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many people do you know that are driving a car worth significantly less than $3K-$4K (which would be necessary to make taking advantage of the program worthwhile) and also have the cash to go buy a new $15K-$25K car?
That's the funny part. There are few people that fit this category. IMO, you'll only get the people that are refusing to buy a new car not the average below average income person that is the supposed target of this program.


RE: 2 MPG limit really?
By Some1ne on 7/8/2009 4:40:08 PM , Rating: 4
Meh, I fit both those categories. My current car has about 140K miles on it and is completely covered in a spectacular dent pattern from a very severe hailstorm that took out pretty much every vehicle in town when it hit. It still runs fine and does the things I need it to, but it's resale value is essentially $0.

I could also easily afford a new/better car if I wanted to. Though at the same time, I think there are better things to spend my money on, so long as my scrapheap keeps running, and especially since any new car I would get is closer to the $25K end of the spectrum. Taking $4.5K off of a $25K bill just isn't enough incentive.


RE: 2 MPG limit really?
By DEredita on 7/8/2009 3:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
This program doesn't help anyone who already owns a car. It only caters to owners of old SUVs looking to buy a new SUV. Since most SUVs in the 1980s and 1990s got almost nothing.

Example: A 1996 Ford Explorer gets a EPA combined rating of 14 mpg. That owner can dump it and buy any new vehicle on the market today, and get at least $3500 towards it.


RE: 2 MPG limit really?
By Screwballl on 7/8/2009 4:28:56 PM , Rating: 4
several problems:

* The vehicles have to be 25 years old or newer.

* Any vehicle that gets traded in is REQUIRED to be crushed (except the engine and drivetrain, which cannot be sold whole, or for a profit).

* A majority of people that buy larger vehicles got them for a reason (several kids, overweight, above average height, boat/camper towing). So if they have a gas guzzling SUV, their only option would be to possibly go to a slightly better mileage (2-4mpg) minivan. There is no way these people will be trading in their mid to full size SUVs and trucks for a Prius.

* This is using MORE of our taxpayer money.


RE: 2 MPG limit really?
By DEredita on 7/8/2009 4:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
What about car owners than want a significantly more efficient car? I personally can't find any car that gets less than a combined 18 mpg, and is 25 years old or newer.


RE: 2 MPG limit really?
By Scabies on 7/8/2009 4:42:45 PM , Rating: 3
We should probably be looking into where this salvaging/disposal will end up taking place. My money is on Illinois (pun intended)


By DEredita on 7/8/2009 3:52:33 PM , Rating: 3
I currently have a 10 year old v6 car, that somehow the EPA rates as getting a combined EPA of 21mpg. In reality, the car is lucky to see 14 mpg, and is a complete lumbering clunker.

I was hoping to use this program towards a base model Honda Fit (EPA rated 31 mpg combined) or a base model Honda Insight (EPA rated 41 mpg combined).

The stipulation in this bill is that the car or truck must be rated for 18 mpg combined or less. While this is easy for almost every older truck to meet, it is almost impossible because of rules that dictated that cars need to meet certain mpg requirement. Cars that didn't meet these requirements were slapped down with gas guzzler taxes. Basically, the only cars to apply for this will be big honking V8 sedans from maybe 1984.

The other stupid thing is, SUV owners can ditch an old guzzler for a newer guzzler, as it only needs to get 2-5 mpg better.

Basically, people with older cars looking for an incentive to buy a fuel efficient new vehicle are getting nothing. People with worthless beat to shit SUVs from 15 years ago are getting a $4500 incentive to buy another guzzling road barge.

There should have been a stipulation that opened it up for anyone who wanted to get rid of their car, as long as the new car got at least 10 mpg more than their car they are getting rid of. Or, even if they made it stricter, like, If your current car is rated higher than combined 18 mpg, but the new car gets at least 15 mpg more than the old car, you are eligible for $4500 towards that vehicle.

Cliff Notes: I'm looking to get rid of a 10 year old fuel guzzler for a car that is rated to get an combined 41 mpg (20 more than my current car), but can't, because my current older car gets a combined of more than 18 mpg (but in reality only sees ~ 14 mpg). Owners with old SUVs gets a nice incentive to buy new SUV, as long as it gets 2-5 mpg more than their old barge.




By Maroon on 7/8/2009 4:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
I see where you're coming from but nothing is stopping you from trading in your car on a new Fit. The government just won't give you four grand to do it.

My wife's 1994 Suburban with 220k miles, on the other hand, is on the trading block. We don't want another guzzler, but are looking at RAV 4, CR-V, Escape, Rogue type small SUVs to replace.


No net stimulus
By tallredeye on 7/8/2009 5:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
Most people who have a clunker that qualifies and can afford to buy a new car would eventually do so anyway, without government incentive. A car that is worth little is likely at the end of its usable life and would need to be replaced in the near future. The stimulus program will nudge the owner to buy a car sooner than planned, which will then depress future sales.

Moving sales a few months sooner at the expense of later sales doesn't change the net purchase.




RE: No net stimulus
By rdawise on 7/10/2009 1:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
Don't think I agree with that logic. I think must people who have a clunker would probably buy a used car in this economy which is cheaper. This prompts for a new car which is more expensive. Many will see this as a chance to get something shiny, new and bite the bullet. Now using your logic of having the same sales numbers, if I sold 40 used cars at $5,000, I only make $20,000. If I sold 40 new cars at $10,000 that's $400,000. Quite a huge leap. I think a lot of compaines would like that net now rather than later.


By nafhan on 7/8/2009 5:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
My feeling is that this is more "economic stimulus" for the auto industry disguised as being helpful for the environment. "Green" is popular right now; the auto industry... is not.
Two things right off the top of my head:
1. I really doubt this bill takes into account the environmental impact of building a new vehicle.
2. It only requires an improvement of 2 MPG! If they were really worried about how much fuel was being burned they would make the requirement much higher than that.




Maybe I don't understand economicx
By rdawise on 7/10/2009 1:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Okay so...You are going to $3500 for a car that the only profit anyone is getting (government) is the state taxes you pay and for this you buy a car which I can all but assume will cost upwards of $10,000. Now I may not know economics but the government has now made money from taxes of the new car, the auto industry has been stimulated because of a new sale, and the state will probably up your taxes because it's a new car.

Now for the bad news. Unforunately this means that someone's (taxpayers) taxes will go up somewhere. Someone has to pay for this and it will probably be us (pun intended). I think WW102 said "Spending money won't get you out of debt...". I wholly disagree. If it wasn't for government spending (WW2 and creating new jobs) the Great Depression would have worsened. By that same logic, you would have to advocate when you invest money (spend) you never see a return. But hey maybe I don't understand economics...




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




5 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki