backtop

Print 142 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Aug 7 at 4:50 PM

Toyota Corolla

Ford Focus
Ford's Focus leads the list of new cars bought under the "Clunkers" program

It was reported late last month that the $1 billion set aside for the Cash for Clunkers program had been exhausted. Under the Clunkers program, Americans were offered up to $4,500 to trade in old, gas guzzling vehicles -- the cash would then be applied towards the purchase price of a new, more fuel efficient vehicle.

According to the Obama administration, domestic automakers made up 47% of new car sales under the Clunkers program -- domestic auto manufacturers account for 45% of the overall auto market according to the Detroit News. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs detailed that the average "clunker" traded in under the program was rated at 15.8 mpg while the average for the replacement vehicle was 25.4 mpg.

Of the new, fuel efficient vehicles purchased under the program, Ford came out on top with its compact Focus according to the Transportation Department. The Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius, and Toyota Camry rounded out the top five. The top clunkers traded in were the Ford Explorer, Ford F-150, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Cherokee, and the Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan.

Not surprisingly, hybrid vehicle sales were up 35% year-over-year in July thanks to the Clunkers program. Toyota sold 19,193 Prius hybrids in July, while other models like the Altima Hybrid and Escape Hybrid saw double-digit increases according to Autoblog Green.

The success of Cash for Clunkers has led lawmakers to push through legislation to replenish the funds for the program. The House has already passed legislation to provide the additional $2 billion to the program. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday that the Senate will pass its version of the bill as well, much to President's Obama's delight.

"This program is going forward. We have enough money to continue. We encourage people to continue going into showrooms," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "The money will be there to be reimbursed by the dealer. And I believe the Senate will pass $2 billion."

"This is the one stimulus program that I believe has been the most popular," LaHood added.

**Updated 8/5/2009**
The Detroit News now reports that the Toyota Corolla has jumped ahead of the Ford Focus in "Clunker" sales.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
They aren't kidding
By rudolphna on 8/5/2009 1:26:42 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah I went out with my father to look at a focus for him today. Not many on the lots anymore. There are three decent sized dealerships nearby... None had more than 3 Focuses in their inventory. They said they were averaging 20 cars a day, they desperately need shipments of focuses (Foci?). The one we test drove was a 09 SES coupe. Red, black chrome. It was a beautiful car. Interior was excellent, and it drove very smoothly, and handled excellently. Seats were comfortable, and that 2.0L packed quite alot of punch. The automatic shifted smoothly, and unobtrusively... The sync system was awesome. One of the best cars I've ever driven, to be perfectly honest. I wouldn't mind picking up one. Really, anyone looking for a new car should definitely look at a focus.




RE: They aren't kidding
By rudolphna on 8/5/2009 1:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
RE: They aren't kidding
By WW102 on 8/5/2009 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 1
All cars drive smooth brand new. Thats like being surprised a brand new light bulb works when you screw it in. Way to be impressed by something shiny.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 9:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
Two words:

Smart Car.

Hardly looks smooth with a two foot step wheel base and about 1 inch of suspension travel.

Not all cars are smooth from purchase, thats why you pay more for Volvos or BMWs or Mercedes Benz


RE: They aren't kidding
By Samus on 8/5/2009 10:55:44 AM , Rating: 3
I have a Focus with over 100,000 miles on it and still drives solid. Considering how heavily I beat the shit out of it, that is admirable, especially since my last car, a Mazda Protege, didn't drive half as well as the Focus after only 60,000 miles.

The ball joints, tie rods and bushings used in the Focus are substantially beefier than those used on most Japanese compacts, because, even though we are in the 21st century, Japanese engineering still doesn't account for the massive differences in driving conditions across the United States (and most of the world for that matter) and continue to design cars with THEIR roads in mind.

If you've driven in Japan, then you know what I mean. Their roads are in excellent condition. However, they do have the stop and go traffic and occasional foot of snow of Chicago, they just don't have the salt and the massive pot holes.

This is where Detroit will always excel.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Mitch101 on 8/5/2009 11:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
Bigger/beefier doesn't necessarily mean better it may be that engineering knows where the real strain of the product lies and using more would be a waste of materials. There are also a number of conditions that one car may have experienced the other did not. Like road salt from living in the north occasionally takes parts in my car that cars in my new location generally don't have issues with so I have to go through a repair delay while they get the part from elsewhere because they wont stock it. Of course engineering can fail too.

My only disappointment with this program is that it doesn't take into account the mileage of the vehicle. My car doesn't qualify yet it has over 170,000 miles in it and doesn't get the mileage the government site believes it does.


RE: They aren't kidding
By EasyC on 8/5/2009 12:10:14 PM , Rating: 3
Ignorance is bliss.

I own a 91 Toyota MR2 Turbo with 209k miles on it. The ONLY thing I've had go on the suspension is an inner tie rod on the passenger side. It didn't even blow out, just started having very miniscule amounts of play. I also live in New England...where only the very best roads are at hand (sarcasm).

I'd like to see a performance vehicle from Detroit just driving at 209k miles (complete with quite a bit of track miles), never mind as smoothly.


RE: They aren't kidding
By 67STANG on 8/5/2009 12:59:41 PM , Rating: 5
I own a 67 Ford Mustang. It had 294,000 miles on it when I replaced the engine last year. Mind you-- the engine was fine, I just got a steal on a 351. A lot of those miles were clocked a 1/4 mile at a time. Aside from that and replacing the suspension bushings (the 40+ year old rubber was cracking), the car is original.

It would be interesting to see if your MR2 is still driving around in 2033, when it is as old as my car is right now.


RE: They aren't kidding
By EasyC on 8/6/2009 12:25:37 PM , Rating: 3
and yet I've seen brand new mustangs need new blocks/transmissions before 30k miles (without tracking it mind you).

I highly doubt you'd run the same stock motor at a 1/4 mile track for 294,000 miles. Unless of course you're one of those people who consider stock to be anything short of forced induction *eyeroll*

If it is indeed true, congrats on being a GREAT owner and with a rare occurence of a car.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Spuke on 8/6/2009 7:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and yet I've seen brand new mustangs need new blocks/transmissions before 30k miles
I've seen at least one example of a blown engine or transmission from EVERY car manufacturer. Does that mean they're all crap? Nope. The only data that matters is data collected scientifically, not some Joe Bob one owners anecdotal experience.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Ammohunt on 8/5/2009 2:14:16 PM , Rating: 1
I have a 1989 Chevy Silverado with a odo that stopepd at 201k a few years ago. The transmission was replaced but the engine is original doesn't smoke and the oil on the dip stick is clear like the day i put it in there. To bad that GM is owned by the governemnt i have been a life long fanboi of GM Cars and trucks and have owned many. I will not be replacing this truck with another GM product but most likely a Ford.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Hiawa23 on 8/5/2009 2:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
Ignorance is bliss.

I own a 91 Toyota MR2 Turbo with 209k miles on it.

I agree, as I have a 1997 Honda Civic DX, 225,000miles. Same engine, cv joints, alternator, transmission, only thing I have chnaged are batteries, & the thing still drives very good & gets 30mpg. this car is probably the reson I will continue to buy Honda. In 2006 I bought a 06 Lancer Ralliart. My dream car was the Evo but was out of my price range so I settled for that. I think it depends on how you take care of your vehicles which ultimately determines how they run even with high mileage.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Spuke on 8/6/2009 7:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, as I have a 1997 Honda Civic DX, 225,000miles.
Anecdotal. My wife's old 92 Ford Taurus had 370,000 miles on the original engine, A/C unit, ball joints, and tranny. My 92 Nissan Sentra blew two engines (rod went threw the block twice) in it's 225k mile life.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Hiawa23 on 8/5/2009 10:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
looking at the top 5 cars sold since this program started, yeah the Ford Focus was 1, but it's odd, maybe it isn't, that spots 2 3 4 5, were either Honda or Toyota. Is this telling us something, & it spreads out further if you look at spots 6 7 8 9 10(top 10). I think the program is good, but I thought part of the point was to move more American vehicles not foreign. I understand alot of those Hondas or Toyota are put together here, it seems like the mindset of most is to buy foreign when not looking to buy a truck or SUV. Guess it is true what they say, perception is reality. Can this mindset be changed, & if it can't our domestic Auto Industry will continue to have problems?

I know the govt couldn't come out say this program is only for buying American vehicles, but seems like more of an infasis should have been put on moving more American companies vehicles. Maybe I am wrong to think this way.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Slinger2112 on 8/5/2009 11:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
Like it or not, the American people are 'invested' in at least 2 of the 'Big 3' auto manufacturers. I think it would have been in the government's best interest to at least 'encourage' buying US autos with the Clunker incentives.

If it would have been unpopular to flat out exclude the foreign auto manufactrers, they could have put some conditions on the program:

1> Make the first week or two 'US only' ... then open it up to all. Not exclusive, but the people willing to buy US get first shot at the (limited) incentive dollars.

2> Open from the start to any 'Big 3' nameplate, *any* (eligible) car assembled in US, or any (eligible) car with over 50% US content. This supports the US companies (including those bailed-out), and if not that, US workers.

Exclusivity for Big 3 probably would have helped Chrysler and GM the most, but I'm sure the representatives of states with foreign auto plants pushed to keep the program from being US exclusive. I would hope that option 2 would have helped satisfy them. Its not happening anyway ... but just a thought.


RE: They aren't kidding
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 11:11:46 AM , Rating: 3
They can't. Not only would it violate our free trade agreements with certain countries, it would also provoke them to have "do not buy American" programs. As if our trade deficit isn't bad enough because the unions, environmentalists, EPA, and forms of taxation are driving manufacturing out of the country


RE: They aren't kidding
By Hiawa23 on 8/5/2009 11:27:15 AM , Rating: 3
They can't. Not only would it violate our free trade agreements with certain countries, it would also provoke them to have "do not buy American" programs. As if our trade deficit isn't bad enough because the unions, environmentalists, EPA, and forms of taxation are driving manufacturing out of the country

I agree, my point moreso is have many Americans just been conditioned that if you don't need a truck or SUV, buy foreign for fuel efficiency, reliability, & if so, can this be changed?


RE: They aren't kidding
By HotFoot on 8/6/2009 6:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like everyone here is all for free-market and capitalism until another nation's products are out-selling your own...

But look at it another way, and I'm hardly the first to point this out. It's not like 100% of the value of a Chevrolet is American, and it's hardly like 0% of the value of a Toyota is American. Chances are a good portion of that money going towards Toyotas is going to American workers' paycheques.


RE: They aren't kidding
By joemoedee on 8/5/2009 11:39:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
looking at the top 5 cars sold since this program started, yeah the Ford Focus was 1, but it's odd, maybe it isn't, that spots 2 3 4 5, were either Honda or Toyota. Is this telling us something, & it spreads out further if you look at spots 6 7 8 9 10(top 10).


Predominately smaller cars are going to be purchased under the program. The only domestic small car really worth considering is the Focus, and it's quite the good choice.

GM has: Cobalt / G5. Aveo.
Chrysler has: Caliber. PT Cruiser.

Unless it's a Cobalt SS, you'd be hard pressed to drive any of those cars versus the Focus then decide to NOT purchase the Focus.

Since Ford has increased the quality on the Focus (I had an 02 ZX3. A blast to drive, quite comfortable for being a smaller car, well equipped... but the reliability wasn't the greatest. It's improved dramatically since.) it can honestly be mentioned in the same breath as the Civic / Corolla and in many cases be the better purchase.

Additionally, Toyota and Honda have continuously increased the price on the Corolla / Civic throughout the years, to where the Focus is competing with them as well as the Fit / Yaris. The Focus fits right in the middle price wise.

GM realizes they're over-matched in the compact car segment, and I think the Cruze will at least make them somewhat competitive in the market. Chrysler on the other hand... Fiat 500 anyone?

It's just a case of the more affordable and better car winning...


RE: They aren't kidding
By 67STANG on 8/5/2009 1:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't you forgetting the Fusion/Fusion Hybrid? That's still smaller vehicle. (it's only 1.3 feet longer than a Focus).

The Fusion is an excellent car. My sister just bought one after driving a Honda Prelude for years, and she loves it.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Spuke on 8/5/2009 2:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aren't you forgetting the Fusion/Fusion Hybrid?
The Fusion is the same length, width and height as the Camry/Accord. It also has the same interior room. It's definitely NOT a small car.


RE: They aren't kidding
By walk2k on 8/5/2009 11:14:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yea right until the "Ford quality" rattles apart at 50k?

Get the Civic. Guaranteed 250k mi+ Honda quality.


RE: They aren't kidding
By Noya on 8/6/2009 12:55:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
look at a focus
quote:
09 SES coupe. Red, black chrome. It was a beautiful car. Interior was excellent, and it drove very smoothly, and handled excellently.
quote:
Really, anyone looking for a new car should definitely look at a focus.


Sorry, but the American Focus is a POS and no one should wasted their money on it when the Honda Civic and Mazda 3 are in the same price range. It's been using the same C170 platform since it debuted in the late 90's.

The International Focus uses the much superior C1 platform shared with the Volvo S40, V50, C70, and Mazda3.

Ford is going to make a single Focus in 2010-2012 (probably cheapening it compared to the C1 to make it affordable in the US).

Another case of America at its finest.<sarcasm>


Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By rudy on 8/5/2009 1:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
Chrysler cars rarely cost less for parts then ford or GM cars. The ford focus is a subcompact cheap car I highly doubt it has expensive parts.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By andrinoaa on 8/5/2009 3:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously, the giveaway wasn't meant for you, bunny


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By MrPoletski on 8/5/2009 6:03:36 AM , Rating: 2
I have the Brit version, 1.8l turbo diesel 04' plate and it was £140 to replace most of the exhaust (all except the cat). Is that expensive? (these are uk prices remember).


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By nct on 8/5/2009 1:19:49 PM , Rating: 3
You got voted down because 99.99% of people have neither the skills nor desire to weld their own f'ing exhaust. It's about as asinine as me suggesting that next time you want a cheeseburger, instead of going to McDonald's go buy one of these...

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/HappyCow.jpg


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By knutjb on 8/5/2009 2:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
They don't weld up exhausts in the UK, maybe between MOTs, they replace the parts. They have very thorough annual MOT vehicle inspections once a car is 3 years old and if the exhaust doesn't look factory you won't pass so you'll park it until it's repaired. Just their system. I lived there for 4 years and had friends who brought cars over from the US with perfectly good non-stock exhaust systems and they had to replace them.

It's funny how many exhaust systems I replaced over there working on friends cars. I have a 2000 Ford van with the original exhaust that looks almost new.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 9:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
This is not a Chrysler.. its the last of the Jeeps.

And why would i buy Chrysler parts for it? Thats just stupid.

When the front end goes I'm replacing with Dana 60, when the rear goes I'm replacing with Ford 9inch.

Everything else is solid and will never have to be replaced unless I roll it down a hill into a river of jagged rocks.. but in which case I don't think ill be worried about the jeep.

There is a big difference between a Jeep and a Chrysler car. Jeep may be owned by Chrysler but mine was built back when Jeeps were still jeeps and they were tough as nails.

Liberty, Grand Cherokee, Patriot, Compass, Commander etc those are all Chryslers..

CJ, YJ, TJ, XJs are all Jeeps. I'd never be without a jeep of some kind.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By oab on 8/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By mdogs444 on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By BrandtTheMan on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 8:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Look I don't care much for, nor would I ever buy, the Ford Focus, or any other small or compact car for that matter. But that's neither here nor there. The point is this guy trying to race bait the other poster. I'm so sick of people crying racism at every corner.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/5/2009 9:01:32 AM , Rating: 4
The first few model years were horrible for the car (numerous recalls). Now, the car is pretty much solid. I mean think about it, Ford has gone roughly 10 years without making any significant changes to the major structural, electrical, or drivetrain components of the car. It's about as solid as you can get for a small car.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that is still ugly as sin.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By matt0401 on 8/6/2009 12:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
foreign vehicles


Or more specifically, Japanese vehicles. Therefore he must have no problem with those of Hyundai, Kia, BYD, etc, as they aren't Japanese!

*shh* Don't tell him it's likely many of the parts in his Cherokee weren't made in the States. >.<


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 9:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Because you talk with a sour tone and make verbal attacks. You act like you're 14. If you really had to ask why you got rated down, then you're truly a moron.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 9:59:00 AM , Rating: 2
I act like I'm 14 for providing insight on specific products and my personal opinion on which vehicles I would buy and then backing it up with reasoning.

Where as you make wild complaints against you're government constantly yet never do anything about it.

I'm thinking the latter seems more like a 14 year old than the former.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 10:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
No, you swear at people, call them names, speak in slang, etc.

I do plenty. I vote...I attend my local political events.
quote:
I'm thinking the latter seems more like a 14 year old than the former.

It's your lack of "thinking" which gets you in trouble. Now stop being a troll and stay on target. Speak like a normal person, instead of a pompous ass, and maybe you'll get some better responses.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 10:08:52 AM , Rating: 1
When do I call people names or speak in slang?

I think my written english is quite good. The only slang I use online generally is words like diff because I don't feel like writing out differential.

My lack of thinking would be shown where exactly? It looks to me like my posts have been fairly accurate and articulate.

And by the way, if you vote and attend local political events and yet your government doesn't do what you want then maybe you are not part of the majority. Democracy works along the principal of majority rule remember? So if you don't like democracy when its not working in your favour then maybe you should go over seas and cease control of a country and run it the way you want, in a dictatorship.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 10:15:16 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
When do I call people names or speak in slang?

Let me show you:
quote:
Ohhh I know why, because you're a moron.

quote:
hangs down off your jeep like saggy old balls

quote:
Clearly I'm a racist fuck.

quote:
quit bitching

and now you come back with...
quote:
It looks to me like my posts have been fairly accurate and articulate.


I really don't think I need to add anything else T. Its your mouth and inability to have a down to earth conversation without getting disrespectful. Not to mention, you don't know the ages of the people on here - so not sure why you feel the need to use such vulgar words. Do you think that makes you look intelligent, and that maybe people will take you more seriously?


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By SilthDraeth on 8/5/2009 10:25:12 AM , Rating: 4
The problem with the U.S. is we are actually turning into a Democracy, instead of a Republic. The United States is technically a Republic, not a Democracy, but more and more Government officials are completely disregarding the Constitution, and that is rampant in both major parties.

Democracy: The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority.

Republic: The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 10:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
now THAT is insight.

Thank you for that definition.

Possibly a referendum may be in order?


RE: Jeep Cherokee?
By oab on 8/5/2009 11:14:21 PM , Rating: 1
1. Vietnam != Japan
2. "Jap" is a racial epithet (try calling your Vietnamese relatives "Charlie"). It has historical roots in the internment of the Japanese during WWII, in addition to the actual fighting.


Cash for clunkers is all a lie
By Beenthere on 8/5/2009 10:41:57 AM , Rating: 1
As anyone with a clue probably already knows, the cash for clunkers program is basically a lie and the public is being duped once again into paying billions for a worthless program. Feel free to read the article at the link below and see that the true environmental impact of this Billion dollar con job, not to mention the damage to the classic car industry which will lose more jobs as a result of such foolish programs.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090804/FREE/9080...




By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 10:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
not really a lie..

It gets the older cars off the road that are in poor condition.

I don't believe the purpose of the plan is to get rid of all the 56 Chevy belairs but to get rid of the 92 LeSabres off the road.


RE: Cash for clunkers is all a lie
By MatthiasF on 8/5/2009 12:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Boy, that article does a good job of undervaluing the results of the program. Let me show you the efforts from another perspective.

The Cash for Clunkers program has $1 Billion dollars to dole out, at an average of $4000 each (actually two amounts, $3500 or $4500). That means on average 250,000 cars will be traded in.

Now, the figures given to us and repeated in the article are telling us that the average miles per gallon of the cars being turned in is 15 MPG while the new cars bought is 25 MPG. Pardon me for rounding, trying to keep things simple.

The average driver in the USA supposedly travels 15,000 miles a year, or 288 miles a week. Let's say this group had an epiphany and decided to drive less with their new car (fat chance but I like round numbers). Let's assume the average person in this group taking advantage of the rebate drives 200 miles per week instead. At 15 MPG, they'd be using 13.33 gallons of fuel each week (200 divided by 15), while in their new cars at 25 MPG they'd be only using 8 gallons (200 divided by 25).

So before buying a new car, this group of people would be using 3,333,333 gallons of fuel each week (13.33 times 250,000) while after trading in only 2,000,000 (8 times 250,000).

That's 1,333,333 gallons of fuel saved in one week by this group of 250,000 drivers. Gas today costs around $2.40 a gallon, so this program is saving this group $3.2 million a week on average or $166.4 million a year.

Using the same logic, if this group decides to drive more after buying a new card, instead driving 300 miles a week those numbers rise to $4.8 million a week or $249.6 million a year.

The frugal of you are probably wondering why this is a big deal. Well, most arguments against the plan suggest that these handouts are coming from the rest of us. But that's very short sighted. In six or four years respectively, this group would have saved $1 billion in gasoline costs.

Since the cost of gasoline is based off supply/demand, this would also mean the rest of us should see our costs go down as well.

There are 250 million cars/SUVs/trucks in the USA with an average miles per gallon around 25. That means each week, drivers in the United States buy on average 11.5 gallons of gas each (288 divided by 25). That's 2.9 billion gallons of gasoline or $6.9 billion spent.

If the Cash for Clunkers program reduces the cost of gas $0.20 in the next three months, we would have all saved around $576 million. If the price of gasoline drops to $2.00, we would have saved $1.1 billion during the course of the program.

Something to chew on!


By Beenthere on 8/5/2009 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
People believe what they chose to believe...


By MatthiasF on 8/5/2009 12:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Opse, at the end there I mistakenly mentioned the $567 million and $1.1 billion for "billion during the course of the program" which isn't true.

Those are weekly savings. The program was meant to run over three months, or twelve weeks.


RE: Cash for clunkers is all a lie
By FITCamaro on 8/5/2009 4:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In six or four years respectively, this group would have saved $1 billion in gasoline costs.


Resulting in them costing the government even more money than the initial $4000 from reduced tax revenue.

quote:
Since the cost of gasoline is based off supply/demand, this would also mean the rest of us should see our costs go down as well.


While not completely disconnected, gasoline does not follow the supply and demand curve as other commodities and goods do. There are so many things that can effect the price of gas. Many of them are outside the US. Besides lower demand here does not equal lower demand worldwide.

quote:
If the Cash for Clunkers program reduces the cost of gas $0.20 in the next three months, we would have all saved around $576 million. If the price of gasoline drops to $2.00, we would have saved $1.1 billion during the course of the program.


Oil has gone up since the program started.

If you actually believed any of this, especially that this will lower gas prices, you're seriously deluded.

The only people who win here are those who got a car cheaper than they otherwise would have.


RE: Cash for clunkers is all a lie
By MatthiasF on 8/5/2009 5:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Resulting in them costing the government even more money than the initial $4000 from reduced tax revenue.


Huh? Resulting in $1 billion spent elsewhere which might be taxed in other ways (like sales tax on goods or income tax on services). I only threw in that sentence to show it's recipients would have doubled the money given to them in 4-6 years, which any investor would tell you is a good thing.

quote:
While not completely disconnected, gasoline does not follow the supply and demand curve as other commodities and goods do. There are so many things that can effect the price of gas. Many of them are outside the US. Besides lower demand here does not equal lower demand worldwide.


Numerous other nations are running the same programs. It's a concerted effort to reduce oil imports which will reduce commodity prices worldwide. And yes, gasoline does follow supply and demand, or perhaps you weren't paying attention during Katrina's aftermath when numerous southern refineries and pipelines were shut down.

quote:
Oil has gone up since the program started.


It started on July 27th. It's August 5th. Jumping the gun a bit?

As far as the ad hominem attack and distrust in those using the program, I think you should have given it a chance before judging it.


By FITCamaro on 8/5/2009 6:24:01 PM , Rating: 1
Where did I attack or distrust those using the program? It's not a matter of distrust of those using it. Its a matter of it never should have been.

Would you give someone the chance to kill you before trying to stop them? Again, not a matter of giving it a chance. Either money is being spent where it shouldn't be or it isn't.

I love it how all we hear is "give it a chance". Giving programs like this a chance means it stays around. If you "give it a chance" to government run health care, it never goes away since once people are on a government program, its nearly impossible to get rid of it.


RE: Cash for clunkers is all a lie
By lotharamious on 8/5/2009 11:23:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In six or four years respectively, this group would have saved $1 billion in gasoline costs.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen...

the reason you spend like CRAZY during bad economic times. It doesn't make sense to the short-sighted, instant gratification-fixed American people, but others see this as an INVESTMENT to the country.

Thank you for bringing some wisdom to this site.


By chick0n on 8/6/2009 12:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
This CARS program is nothing but another "bailout", its just a different form of bailout. but this time, they're bailing out the Auto industry, it doesnt matter who, Japanese, Europeans, Americans, cuz one way or another, its connected to the US auto industry, suppliers,etc.

if a person cannot afford a car without that extra 3,500 or 4,500 in the first place, they should not even buy a new car.

if a person go out and trade his/her car in just because they will get another 3500/4500 off, that means these people already "have enough" money to buy a car in the first place, this is just free money.

To me, this program is another failed from our government.


FU
By Machinegear on 8/5/2009 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care what most of these stupid posters think. Their feelings I care even less about. It is unfortunate that on a site that pretends to be a few notches up on the intelligence scale seems to be read by the same MSN crowd. Have said that to say this, OF COURSE THE PROGRAM WOULD BE A SUCCESS. I would place any bet that any future government program that gives away cash would be successful. DUH!

The real question is does the US government have the authority to do a Cash for Clunkers program? The answer is NO.

A secondary question not yet discussed here at DT, since the government has already implemented this illegal program what will be the long term effects? A half-idiot can figure out if someone wasn't willing to trade in their 'junker' in for a new car before the Cash for Clunkers program but did so after suggests the deciding factor was money. Therefore the government is again, not so unlike their initial cheap mortgage initiatives which led to a housing boom then BUST, are incentivizing people to take on more personal debt then they can handle. Do you think the government will release numbers on how many people still have that new Escort a few years later?

I'll leave Joe Biden to sum up the government's overall recovery plan; "We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt."

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx...




RE: FU
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 9:38:23 AM , Rating: 1
Why don't they have the Authority to do this?

If you believe so strongly about this why don't you sue the government?

Ohhh I know why, because you're a moron.


RE: FU
By FITCamaro on 8/5/2009 11:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe because others have and have lost? Maybe because he has a job and doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue the government? The government doesn't have the authority to do it because its not in the Constitution. Just like many things they've done in the past 80 years.

The Constitution says people have the right to pursue happiness. It does not say the government should steal or borrow money to provide for that happiness.

The Constitution is not a suggestion. It bestows powers to the federal government. Anything not in it is left to the states. Now I'm not saying every government program is evil. But we have gone far past what is needed.

But way to form a legitimate counter to his statement.


RE: FU
By rs1 on 8/5/2009 1:31:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Constitution says people have the right to pursue happiness.


No, that's the Declaration of Independence.


RE: FU
By FITCamaro on 8/5/2009 4:04:06 PM , Rating: 1
My apologies. Slipped on that one.


RE: FU
By andrinoaa on 8/6/2009 5:32:48 AM , Rating: 3
me thinks you slipped a few other things too, lol


RE: FU
By Nfarce on 8/5/2009 10:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt."


Exactly. I remember very clearly people laughing at Bush's comment post-9/11 when the everyone reeled and the economy sank: "Go out and spend! Use your credit cards!" People made fun of those comments back then and said it would drive debt up, but now nobody is laughing at this program (and Biden's asinine comment).

Votedown by Obamabots in three, two, one.....

Smart people will get rid of their clunker (none of which are probably worth more than $5,000 anyway) and go buy a 2-4 year old used car in good condition. But, whoever said this nation was comprised of a lot of smart people. Look what kind of government they've elected since the 2006 congressional election, and more recently, presidential election.


By sciwizam on 8/5/2009 1:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it's popular, when you are giving away money what idiot would not want to take advantage of it?

I want to see the sales data before dumping more money into this program, but looks like I'll have to wait for a while...

Obama Admin. withholding data on clunkers - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_go_pr_wh...

quote:
But the Transportation Department, which has collected details on about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.

The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said the agency will provide the data requested as soon as possible.

DOT officials already have received electronic details from car dealers of each trade-in transaction. The agency receives regular analyses of the sales data, producing helpful talking points for LaHood, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and other officials to use when urging more funding.

LaHood said in an interview Sunday he would make the electronic records available. "I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't do it," he said.


If you can't think of a reason,why don't you do it now?




By MatthiasF on 8/5/2009 8:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
Alright, number one: It's the government, they don't do anything quickly except lie.

Number two, they most likely didn't take the time or money to setup the system so the database is easily combed for statistics. Knowing how antiquated the government can be, I'm betting the car dealers send emails with details, or probably forms hand filed out and faxed.

If anyone actually works for a car dealer and knows about the process, please share!


Wow..you call that a Focus?
By jabber on 8/5/2009 12:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Over here we call this ...

http://autopinionsbyvolk.files.wordpress.com/2009/...

..a Focus!




RE: Wow..you call that a Focus?
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 12:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
ugly colour but alot nicer than the North american


Repos?!
By kryss187 on 8/6/2009 9:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
What happens when people can't make payments and we get a crap load of repos?




RE: Repos?!
By Hiawa23 on 8/6/2009 7:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
What happens when people can't make payments and we get a crap load of repos?

Nothing at all happens to you cause like the guy put it on CNN, if you have questionable credit, or not good enough credit, you weren't getting a loan for the vehicle.


This is good news . . .
By blueboy09 on 8/6/2009 8:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
To see that the Corolla actually shot up the charts to #1. Long live the Corolla! - BLUEBOY




RE: This is good news . . .
By Tsuwamono on 8/7/2009 12:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
Not as long as a jeep though. lol.


Hi poor people...
By Jeff7181 on 8/5/2009 5:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hope you enjoy your new car that we help you buy as much as I'm enjoying the new car I bought all by myself!




Expand this to 20MPG vehicles!!
By hyvonen on 8/6/2009 1:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
With extra money in, they should extend this to 20MPG vehicles! Better yet, allow people to test the damn cars at an independent MPG testing facility. My 1996 Bonneville is ineligible with its supposed 20MPG combined, but it sure as hell doesn't go more than 15MPG, old and crappy that it is.

Shouldn't the government want that POS off the road, too...?




Wrong direction!
By bobny1 on 8/6/2009 7:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
What they should do is invest all that money expanding solar panels around town(like Germany)and more hydrogen refueling stations to allow fuel cell cars to eliminate dependancy on oil. I think the government refuses to wear bifocals!.




Where are Obama motors?
By knutjb on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
Stupid Program
By BansheeX on 8/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid Program
By Hakuryu on 8/5/2009 2:10:51 AM , Rating: 5
I strongly disagree.

It is one thing to give automakers a bailout, but another thing entirely to give an incentive to the average consumer. This program may help sales of manufacturers, but more importantly it helps the buyers. Regardless of the 'green' factor and having more cars out there with better mileage, I see this program as a step in the right direction by helping out citizens and corporations at the same time.

We need to work on our economy, but at the same time our people could use some help. Why do you find this program to be stupid when it addresses both concerns at one time, and the 'green' movement to boot?

Get over the 'clunker' aspect of this program and realize it's real benefits. Sales to help corporations, incentives to help consumers, and better mileage to help the planet.


RE: Stupid Program
By V3ctorPT on 8/5/2009 7:50:35 AM , Rating: 1
I've had this program in my country for about 10 years, and it's great... lot's of people with old cars (+15 years) are illegible to the program, u have a car that's worth 200$, and they give u an incentive of 5000$ to buy a new car, i think that's good to the consumer.


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 8:04:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
u have a car that's worth 200$, and they give u an incentive of 5000$ to buy a new car,


And where is the other $4800 coming from? You think its great that your neighbors are helping you buy a car against their own will? And that the country is going to have to pay interest, thus making your neighbors foot the bill for that too? Yeah, what a wonderful program. Its only good for the person who has a $200 car and doesn't pay taxes. In that case, they shouldn't be buying a new car anyway - they should be spending their money on education and other needed things so they stop living off the government.


RE: Stupid Program
By bhieb on 8/5/2009 9:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
against their own will?


Your argument kind of falls a part there. The elected officials passed the bill, therefore if you believe in our system at all, they did so to appease the voters that put them in office.

Everyone cannot get their way, it just does not work that way, the majority party makes the rules. So plans like these are to be expected, and are NOT against the will of the voters.


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 9:50:45 AM , Rating: 1
so empeach them and quit bitching.

I fail to see the difficulty here.

If you don't like what your government is doing... Petition and hold a referendum.


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 9:54:35 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is that when the government creates more and more entitlement programs, the party who wants those programs start to garner more votes. Therefore, you create a dependent state where its next to impossible to get voted out until the "free" money runs out.

I'm not sure if you are like 16 and always talk like a moron, of if you really do not understand modern day politics and social interactions.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Stupid Program
By Spuke on 8/5/2009 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Here people don't just vote for the party that gives us the most free stuff.
It's worse than that here in US, people just vote for the same two parties regardless of whether or not it makes sense. Republicans don't work? Vote in Democrats! Democrats don't work? Vote in Republicans! It's like a two person circle jerk.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/6/2009 12:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
yeah that seems pretty dumb. However, with a two party system atleast you don't get minority government


RE: Stupid Program
By AEvangel on 8/5/2009 7:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your argument kind of falls a part there. The elected officials passed the bill, therefore if you believe in our system at all, they did so to appease the voters that put them in office. Everyone cannot get their way, it just does not work that way, the majority party makes the rules. So plans like these are to be expected, and are NOT against the will of the voters.


So by your standard the War in Iraq and the bailouts to Wall street where the will of the voters??


RE: Stupid Program
By Hiawa23 on 8/6/2009 8:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
If the idea was to help Japan even more, then job well done...


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 9:47:05 AM , Rating: 1
umm.. you know most likely in his country just like mine, our education is some what subsidized by the government so more of our population tends to have gone through higher education then in the USA.

Who says they are living off the government just because they took a free 5000$ towards a new car?

Perhaps he makes twice as much as you do but took the 5000$ because you would have to be an idiot not to.

Are you telling me that if you were making 500 000$ a year and went to the dealership to buy a new car and the guy tells you "Oh well what kind of car do you have now? You may be eligible for a free 5000$ towards your car" you wouldn't accept?

You jump to conclusions way too much


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 9:50:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Are you telling me that if you were making 500 000$ a year and went to the dealership to buy a new car and the guy tells you "Oh well what kind of car do you have now? You may be eligible for a free 5000$ towards your car" you wouldn't accept?

If I made $500k/yr, I wouldn't be driving a car that was a "clunker" worth less than $4,500.
quote:
Who says they are living off the government just because they took a free 5000$ towards a new car?

Wake up Smalls...its not FREE. Nothing is FREE. It's being paid for by people who are paying the federal income taxes. Most people who make under $50,000 per year, get most of their taxes back, if not all (homeowners).
quote:
Perhaps he makes twice as much as you do but took the 5000$ because you would have to be an idiot not to.

No, smart people don't buy things (cars) just because they are on "sale".


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 11:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
but its free to YOU. That was my point.

"Here want 5000$?"

"Where did you get it?"

"I took 2 cents from everyone in the country"

"meh.. ok"

I'm saying IF he was looking for a new car.

My father for example has been keeping his 300M for quite some time waiting for a good deal to come around. People don't buy JUST BECAUSE its on sale, they buy because they want one anyway and NOW its on sale.

My girlfriend has been looking at cars and even though she doesn't need one now, she may pick up a focus or aveo because of this discount.


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 11:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People don't buy JUST BECAUSE its on sale, they buy because they want one anyway and NOW its on sale.

quote:
My girlfriend has been looking at cars and even though she doesn't need one now, she may pick up a focus or aveo because of this discount.

Oh, well in that case, what a wonderful idea to borrow billions of dollars from China to repay it back with interest so that people like you and your family can buy cars that you don't need. Nothing says "lets mortgage our future" like a bunch of waste ... oh Cash for Clunkers.


RE: Stupid Program
By ksuWildcat on 8/5/2009 1:19:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oh, well in that case, what a wonderful idea to borrow billions of dollars from China


We're talking about $1 billion for people to buy new cars and stimulate the economy (maybe more if the Senate passes the extension), not $1 trillion spent on a pointless foreign war that was started under false pretenses.

I'd also like to point out that you fail to take into account payroll and sales tax collections, as well as gasoline savings that will be created by this program. The program is actually going to pay for itself, but people don't seem to realize it.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 1:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
One of the few programs I've seen in the states that does pay for itself.


RE: Stupid Program
By AEvangel on 8/5/2009 7:08:58 PM , Rating: 4
It wont pay for itself when you tack on the interest that Tax paying US Citizen's have to pay on that billion dollars we just borrowed to pay for this program. Then factor in loss tax revenue to the state from the gas tax since all these cars get twice the gas mileage of the trade in vehicle or "clunker".

Believe me this program will never pay for itself.

Also your not even taking into account the damaging environmental impact that this is having. when you take that many cars and send them to the scrap heap then on top of that manufacture the same # of cars to replace them, it's even worse for the environment then if they left the "clunkers" on the highway.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/2009 1:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
We aren't borrowing.. We still have a 13 billion $ surplus in our budget which we are continuing to use to pay down our debts.


RE: Stupid Program
By Spuke on 8/5/2009 2:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We still have a 13 billion $ surplus in our budget which we are continuing to use to pay down our debts.
He's talking about the US.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/6/2009 12:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
but I was talking about Canada and he just randomly switched it to USA.


RE: Stupid Program
By WW102 on 8/5/2009 4:41:00 PM , Rating: 1
Surplus - excess: a quantity much larger than is needed
Deficit - A situation in which liabilities exceed assets, expenditures exceed income, imports exceed exports, or losses exceed profits.

Think you might be confusing Surplus with Deficit. In which case the number is much larger than 13 billion.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/6/2009 12:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
Canada..


RE: Stupid Program
By chrgeorgeson on 8/5/2009 8:16:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You think its great that your neighbors are helping you buy a car against their own will?


I plan on going over to my neighbor after I buy my new car and saying "HAHAHA Phil I bought this new car with your TAX DOLLARS!!!! Maybe next time you'll keep the radio down to a reasonable volume at 1AM!!! HAHHAHA and pull those damn weeds, or my wife is going to buy a new car and you'll be helping with that one too!!! SUCKA!!!"

-Chris


RE: Stupid Program
By V3ctorPT on 8/6/2009 7:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
Hilarious your response... In my country, the Government makes in each car 5-10K just in taxes at the stand(small, medium cars), they call the 5000€ break as an "incentive", it's a way to estimulate consumption (of cars in this case), get rid of old cars to recycle and buy new cars to help the car industry and all other parts related industries, don't be fooled, the Government always gets their cut in other taxes related to cars.

We have a tax here, the newer the car, the more you pay. Ex: 15year old car gives 3-5€/year in taxes, a new car gets 100€ or more depending of the power of the engine, bigger engines bigger taxes (Ex. BMW 320 diesel costs 250€/year to a friend of mine)


RE: Stupid Program
By Bender 123 on 8/5/2009 9:23:33 AM , Rating: 3
The issue I have is that the program cuts out many cars that people would trade in. My wife and I were not looking for a new car, but figured that we would take a look, due to an employee discount with the American makers from my employer and the Clunker program, plus other dealer rebates would have netted almost 12,000 off the price of the car we wanted. We took in our Clunker and were told it was "Too efficient to qualify as a clunker."

Its a 1995 Buick LeSabre we got for free (long story) when I was in college with over 210,000 miles on it. It gets "20" miles to the gallon (my @$$) so it is not a clunker, yet our relative traded in a truck with 17 miles to the gallon and got one that gets 22. Thats OK. So the value of a 5 gallon increase beats our 14 that we were going to get.

What a joke.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Stupid Program
By V3ctorPT on 8/6/2009 1:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ups, I was wrong... It seems that my Government only "gives" 1500€ to +15 year old cars, and 1250€ to +10 years...
The 5000€ credit are the different brands trying to sell their car with the 1500€ included, it seems that the US Government is giving pretty good incentives...


RE: Stupid Program
By ctodd on 8/5/2009 8:25:52 AM , Rating: 3
An incentive created using money I paid in taxes which I don't qualify for. I don't see it as fair usage of tax dollars no matter how much the auto industry needs profits. We shouldn't be propping up any industry. PERIOD! Now, if every farmer in the world decided to stop growing food because it was not profitable, then maybe.

How can you *work* on the economy? Throw tax dollars at it? I don't think so! I'm sick of the bail outs. It is the easiest thing a politician can do to appear as though he/she is actually doing something.


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/7/2009 12:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
you could work on the economy by putting in safe guards that make sure that the financial institutions cant do whatever the hell they please. Free market is all well and good but when there are 3 companies that can take down the entire economy and they are all in the same industry doing the same things.. well maybe its a good idea to look into how much risk is involved in what they do and maybe limit the amount of risk they can take.

Canada has that format and RBC and TD are both huge banks and oh look... they aren't bankrupt.. infact they seem to be.. whats this? profits!?! what the hell?


RE: Stupid Program
By captainpierce on 8/5/2009 9:04:54 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Get over the 'clunker' aspect of this program and realize it's real benefits. Sales to help corporations, incentives to help consumers, and better mileage to help the planet.


Maybe we should burn down our houses and have Washington subsidize new ones with solar panels and wind turbines. Just to help out homebuilders. What do you think?


RE: Stupid Program
By Spivonious on 8/5/2009 9:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
Knock $50,000 off and we'll talk ;)


RE: Stupid Program
By captainpierce on 8/5/2009 9:52:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Knock $50,000 off and we'll talk ;)


Now I know why politicians sleep so well at night. They just can buy off their constituents. ;)


RE: Stupid Program
By MrTeal on 8/5/2009 10:59:18 PM , Rating: 4
And they get to smile because they buy them off with their own money.


RE: Stupid Program
By nct on 8/5/2009 1:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
No way dude, think how much carbon burning down your house would release! What we should do is hire a bunch of out-of-work Detroit union labor to go around knocking peoples houses down. Then we can recycle the building materials into new, environmentally-friendly homes paid for by the government. It's a win for everyone: reduces unemployment, helps the home construction industry, and saves the planet! Just ignore the billions of dollars the program would cost, the next few generations can work that out.


RE: Stupid Program
By sinful on 8/5/2009 11:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No way dude, think how much carbon burning down your house would release! What we should do is hire a bunch of out-of-work Detroit union labor to go around knocking peoples houses down. Then we can recycle the building materials into new, environmentally-friendly homes paid for by the government. It's a win for everyone: reduces unemployment, helps the home construction industry, and saves the planet! Just ignore the billions of dollars the program would cost, the next few generations can work that out.


I have a better idea.
What we should do is pay millions of dollars for a plane with lots of expensive bombs, blow the houses up, then rebuild the houses.
Oh, and let's do this in another country, and make the taxpayers of the US pay for it all.

Everybody wins!

Just ignore the TRILLIONS of dollars the program DOES cost, the next few generations can work that out. Really, what's $3 Trillion?

Let's call this idea "The War in Iraq".


RE: Stupid Program
By lco45 on 8/6/2009 1:30:12 AM , Rating: 1
That's actually pretty well put, Sinful.

Luke


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/7/2009 12:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
How is this not a 5 lol


RE: Stupid Program
By WW102 on 8/5/2009 9:09:07 AM , Rating: 3
It's "stupid" because people who do not support it are being forced to pay for it. If charities or private groups want to go out of their way to pay for cars (looks over at green peace), thats great, I wish/HOPE/pray the very best to them and wish/HOPE/pray they are very successful. Its bad, not just with this program but all government programs when they go out of there way to "help" people. Thats not there role. They shouldn't be coming up with these one size fits all programs that everyone is forced to participate in.

And as many have said before, this only does a short term stimulation. Yes Auto sales may spike, but at what cost? They spend 20K on a car that they really don't need to upgrade when that 20K could be in savings account(which is a small type of investment) or actually being invested in company that will do more to help the economy grow. What might happen with a good number of these new car sales is that people put themselves in a bind. They get under another 4/5 years of payments and possibly default or have their car repossessed.


RE: Stupid Program
By MatthiasF on 8/5/2009 9:13:46 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. The government should have started at the bottom, not the top. Giving immense bailouts to an industry is far less likely to produce efficient results than giving citizens back some of their money to adjust their own habits during times of crisis.

Had the government done this during the last oil crisis, we probably could have avoided over a decade of staglation under Carter and Reagan.

If you look what happened during this time, you'll see striking similarities with today. The population is sold massive, low MPG automobiles. Oil prices skyrocket. Banking regulations loosened. Credit crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession


RE: Stupid Program
By BansheeX on 8/5/2009 9:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is one thing to give automakers a bailout, but another thing entirely to give an incentive to the average consumer.


No, it is similar, believe it or not. In both cases, you're encouraging consumption and not production. GM was consuming more than they were producing, that's what bankruptcy is: a private entity runs out of capital and can't just steal or issue more of it like the government, so they're flushed out of the system. Nowadays, that doesn't happen. Nowadays, companies like that CAN effectively steal money from smaller productive entities, which produce, are forced to pay taxes on the profits, and those taxes get doled out to giant failures for not generating profits. That is the equivalent of theft, plain and simple. It creates a black hole situation where finite capital just funnels into an insatiable place to be spent rather than invested.

Citizens, too, are consuming more than they're producing and the government is enabling that by borrowing TRILLIONS they don't have and doling it out through the banking system to sheep who think it's growing the economy. It does nothing of the kind, it's like a drug. You get a short-term boost and then the credit dries up and all the stuff you bid up with it starts collapsing in value, causing every debtor to abandon his loan, leaving the banks with the worthless collateral, and ultimately, our foreign creditors with a bunch of worthless IOUs. After seeing this happen to stocks and homes in the last decade, you'd think people would buy a clue, but apparently not.

Even a simpleton can figure this out with some simple logic. If it was beneficial to stimulate consumption in the middle of the biggest debt-induced crisis ever, why doesn't the government just borrow 3x as much from the Chinese and do a straight up trade-in program? Free new cars for free old ones. Heck, let's do it for homes, too. Heck, let's do it for everything. Pumping out credit solves everything, right? You friggin wish it was that easy. The fact is, when the government borrows to subsidize someone, they have to pay it off with future taxes from all. So we all suffer in the aggregate more than you benefit individually. Because we accrued massive interest we didn't have to accrue. If you really wanted to help, you'd reduce government spending, lower taxes, and allow people the capacity to buy the things outright or invest in making them cheaper so we can export more, thereby reducing our taxes even more since we would be reducing interest obligations.

We had a normal bond market in the 60s, all 30-year financed. Now it's mostly t-bills, an ARM if you will. What do we do when the interest on those bonds comes due for these massive deficits each year? Are we gonna default? Print money? What's the difference? The music is going to stop soon and maybe you'll remember I told you so when it does.


RE: Stupid Program
By meyerds on 8/6/2009 9:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Best post of the entire thread... if you didn't read it because it looked too long or you didn't understand it... you are part of the problem.

Let's all try to understand this and become part of the solution, shall we?


RE: Stupid Program
By Hiawa23 on 8/6/2009 8:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
I figured it would be a matter of time before Toyota or Honda leap frogged the Focus. If the perception is that you make better autos, more fuel efficient, more reliable, Did Congress think that most cars sold would be American branded?


RE: Stupid Program
By Tsuwamono on 8/7/2009 12:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is its only PERCEPTION of quality instead of true quality.

Toyota Echo/yaris and all of their trucks/SUVs in the past 10 years have been garbage. aswell as several other CAR models that I dont care to research to remember.

Personally I don't buy ford cars because well.. i dont buy CARS.. I can't fit in them. But I love my Ranger and its built like a rock.


RE: Stupid Program
By melgross on 8/5/2009 4:11:44 AM , Rating: 1
It's also efficiency. Haven't you read the entire story? Or the articles about it in the papers, or on other web sites? Pollution, balance of payments for oil etc.

Yes, owning a clunker isn't good.


RE: Stupid Program
By inperfectdarkness on 8/5/2009 4:51:04 AM , Rating: 1
i don't have a problem with getting rid of throwaway cars.

i have a problem with this type of program paving the way for anyone with a "hobby" car to be pinpointed as perpetrating a problem.

i'm sure there's lots of c4 corvettes that probably qualify under this program--but does that mean they all warrant extinction?

how about a 69 charger? is that a "clunker" mileage can't be that efficient. where do they draw the line?

hell...i think a diablo vt qualifies as a "clunker" under their definitions. as an automotive enthusiast--i'm going to be mighty pissed if i see timeless sports cars being sent to the crusher.


RE: Stupid Program
By TheFace on 8/5/2009 7:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
You think that people with 69' chargers or c4 corvettes are planning on taking advantage of this program? A diablo would be worth more than the $4500 that you could get from the government and the dealer would probably take the car out of the program and rehab it itself. If you think that your precious classics are getting tossed away, think twice about it. People are stupid, but generally speaking, not insane.


RE: Stupid Program
By inperfectdarkness on 8/7/2009 4:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
in the extreme--i'll grant you're correct.

however, there's quite a few platforms out there which aren't properly respected or appreciated. and casual disregard for these platforms will boost the rate at which they disappear.

and the fact that my government is having a hand in this irritates me to no avail


RE: Stupid Program
By inperfectdarkness on 8/7/2009 4:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
in the extreme--i'll grant you're correct.

however, there's quite a few platforms out there which aren't properly respected or appreciated. and casual disregard for these platforms will boost the rate at which they disappear.

and the fact that my government is having a hand in this irritates me to no avail


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 7:46:49 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Pollution, balance of payments for oil etc.


While I think everyone would agree that less pollution and using less oil is a good thing - everyone of all political sides. However, you need to formally look at the downsides to this program and what negative side effects it has...

First off, taking out loaned money from China to subsidize the purchase of cars, most of which are made for foreign owned companies, is not a good thing. We're taking out $1B so far, another $2B on the way, and basically giving it to Japanese companies, and then paying interest on top it of it China.

Secondly, you need to look at the economic picture. Sure, while an increase number is total car sales is a good thing, this program is not creating new sales out of thin air. Its doing nothing more than shifting car sales from 1, 2, 3 years down the road to right now. So in the future, the economic numbers from car sales will be lower than they otherwise would have been. This is nothing more than taking water from one bucket and putting it into another bucket - your not getting more water from a new water source to fill up one or both buckets.

Thirdly, the pollution factor that you cite. Initially, its hard to claim anything either way right now because the administration is still holding back crucial data (why?!). However, destroying the motors of cars that salvageable and can be disassembled for used parts is not smart at all. In fact, many stories in the media are claiming that the damage we are doing by destroying 6,7,8, 9 year old cars and tossing them in junkyards is doing even more environmental damage than the upside of saving a mere 4, 6, 7 miles per gallon with a new car.

Finally, lets look at how we got into this mess to begin with. People purchased housing they could not afford - regardless who you want to blame. People have extended their credit far beyond their means of being able to repay. People are losing jobs, the country is losing wealth, revenues are way down, pensions are being deteriorated, and retirement is harder to come by. So what does our elected leadership do? Create an incentive for people to go take out $15k, $20k, $25k, etc loans. Call me crazy - but if we are in trouble because of too much credit, why would the House and Senate want people to extend themselves even more? Just because our administration doesn't understand the value of a dollar and being financially stable, doesn't mean they should push that burden onto the people in the guise of "environmentally friendly initiatives". The fact is, they are trying to manufacture ways to say the stimulus is working, when the real fact is that the $787B hasn't done anything - and only the people spending, not the government, will remove us from the slump.

You say "owning a clunker isn't good". I disagree. People are wealthy because they have and save money, not because they spend it before they even made it. If you have a car that is paid off, I don't care how ugly, polluting, etc it is - the fact is that no car payment is better than any car payment for your own personal wealth. I personally don't care how good or bad anyone thinks this program is - the bottom line is that spending more, and taking out loans, on our own working backs in order to make Congress look good is NOT a good thing for the people.


RE: Stupid Program
By tmouse on 8/5/2009 8:42:54 AM , Rating: 4
I think you hit the nail on the head. While I'm not any kind of an economics expert, I have to admit it seems to me most of these stimulus packages just push immediate problems into the future a bit and add to them. Take for example the new cops program, in my area the city was preparing to lay off some officers, but with this program they actually are planning to HIRE more, and everyone is dancing around like this is a miracle. The theory seem to be the economy is like a real engine where you can jump start it and it will take off and resume running. In three years most of the current stimulus packages will end and then we have to pay for all of the people hired under them or face even more drastic unemployment. In fact we have been digging a hole for quite a while and living the high life on a make believe economy based mostly on debt accumulation and the accrual of paper based wealth like home value. On paper the situation in the past looked great but the future was getting worse and worse, and now the bills are coming due. The current policies from both sides of the isle are just postponing the payments, and as in the real world the penalties are adding up. I think we will see some small improvements in the short term followed by more and more frequent sharp and severe declines every time any "bad news" comes out. In the long run borrowing from Peter to pay Paul only works until Peter either wants his money back or cannot loan any more. I have not seen one long range plan that actually seems to attempt to address any underlying problems in the economy. Maybe the plan is to create a cabinet level secretary of subsidies and short term solutions?


RE: Stupid Program
By Lord 666 on 8/5/2009 9:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
This is in response to mdogs as I rated him up... Have always felt there was a concerted effort to widen the poor/rich gap by the government. There would be many reasons to do this and it is not full of conspiracy bunk.

Before rating me down, think about these points;

1. Who is taking advantage on this program?

2. It would be interesting to see the average credit score for Cash for clunkers transactions along with average loan size.


RE: Stupid Program
By nafhan on 8/5/2009 9:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the environmental impact of actually building these cars in the first place.
There's a lot of energy that goes into obtaining the raw materials and assembeling the vehicle itself. I find the environmental aspect of this program to be a joke.
I will say that I prefer this method of giving money to the auto manufacturers over just handing them piles of cash. It at least lets the consumers decide which auto manufacturer they feel like should get the government money and it supports everyone from the dealer on up.


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 9:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It at least lets the consumers decide which auto manufacturer they feel like should get the government money and it supports everyone from the dealer on up.

And did you notice which ones those were? I'll give you a hint...it's not GM or Chrysler...


RE: Stupid Program
By captainpierce on 8/5/2009 12:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's also efficiency. Haven't you read the entire story? Or the articles about it in the papers, or on other web sites? Pollution, balance of payments for oil etc.


Efficient? Wanton destruction of goods is wasteful economic policy. On net, a new car may not be any better environmentally. Considering how manufacturing a new car is energy intensive, keeping a clunker may not actually be a bad idea.


RE: Stupid Program
By TSS on 8/5/2009 4:48:10 AM , Rating: 1
Actually i think it's one of the very best of them.

Because a car is a valueble asset and because consumer debt is so high, it's a good idea to stimulate the economy by helping out consumers make a valueble asset purchase (better then getting in debt over a margaritaville, aint it?). And a car will last them a long time if handled correctly.

Oh, and raising the interest rates is a very very very very very bad idea. Your nation's debt on average matures in 3 years, and more then half matures in a year (meaning old loans have to be paid back and new loans made i assume).

Then look at this: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TB3MS/...

Compared to history, your interest rates are insanely low. People are loaning you money at next to nothing and current *interest* for this year on the nation's debt is already $320 billion. If interest rates double, your interest paid doubles, meaning this figure doubles. And i don't see anywhere for it to go but up, because i seriously doubt anybody will pay you money to loan you money.

Your already at the end of the ponzi scheme. Those schemes end because they cannot keep up the returns to investors because you need an ever increasing pile of cash. You cannot increase the pile of cash futher then the world loaning you money for next to nothing.

If you raise interest rates by even the slightest bit, the whole thing implodes. If you don't, and the economy "recoveres", there's massive inflation, and the economy explodes. Either way the dollar becomes worthless.

Even with these ridicolous low interest rates, currently, 1 euro is worth 1,44 dollar. Compared to 1,57 dollar at it's peak in 2007 (remember how well the economy was doing?). the difference? back then, 5% interest rates, now, 0% interest rates.

All things considered it's a good time to own something which has some sort of high tangible value. Besides, today's cars make tomorrow's clunkers, right?


RE: Stupid Program
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2009 8:00:11 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Because a car is a valueble asset and because consumer debt is so high, it's a good idea to stimulate the economy by helping out consumers make a valueble asset purchase


Where in the world did you come up with this bunch of bologna? A car is a nothing more than a drain that you pour water into. A car (outside of older collector types) is not a valuable asset - in fact it decreases in value 20% the minute you drive it off the lot. The car never goes up in value, nor does it hold value until the final days of its life. If consumer debt is so high, why is it good to take out more debt on something that will never be worth what you paid for it? And that doesn't even factor in the interest you're paying.

If your mind really thinks about financial situations like this - its no wonder we're all in a boatload of trouble. You probably think its a good idea to buy a $300 game console, on a credit card with 29.99% interest, and make the minimum payments on it - since you'll play it for 3 years its a wise "investment" and tangible asset.

Wake up sonny.


RE: Stupid Program
By BansheeX on 8/5/2009 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you raise interest rates by even the slightest bit, the whole thing implodes. If you don't, and the economy "recoveres", there's massive inflation, and the economy explodes. Either way the dollar becomes worthless.


You're wrong, raising interest rates saves the dollar because it encourages savings and discourages consumption by making bond purchases more attractive. That means we have legitimate buyers of bonds instead of the Fed buying them with inflationary money it creates at no labor or material cost. Inflation is what decreases the scarcity of dollars relative to goods.

What raising interest rates would do is save the dollar at the expense of our phony economy. That's what we need and we would be able to recover from that collapse more quickly than a prolonged hyperinflation or interventionist period. Our economy is phony because it requires an expansion of credit year over year to "grow". That is unsustainable because real credit/loans come from saved production. Without savings, there is no real credit to lend to people with shovels who want bulldozers. That's why every bubble is doomed to collapse, because in artificially holding rates so low for so long, you make it so cheap to borrow that the entire pool of credit gets tapped out by consumers, and then you go into withdrawal like a drug. The withdrawal is the painful cure to the fun shot of heroine that preceded it.


RE: Stupid Program
By andrinoaa on 8/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: Stupid Program
By Spuke on 8/6/2009 7:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your economy is based on credit and the military machine Both are no good for you but take either out and your gone.
Our economy is not based on the "military machine". There's FAR more involved in the car biz than the military. Considering how many states get most if not all of their tax revenue from the auto and construction industries, those are the soft spots of the US economy. There are MANY cities and towns going bankrupt or near bankrupt because of the loss of tax revenue from the housing slowdown and car dealership closings. Those two things alone are what's killing California. Unless it's a small town or a town that ONLY employs for the military, closing a military base doesn't even make a dent in most economies.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











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