Cash for Clunkers - Yay or Nay?

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Is this a good idea?

Is it really helping the environment to destroy perfectly good fossil fuel burners so people can buy new ones that burn slightly less?

Is it really helping the economy to make us all subsidize this and have people still go into more debt to buy new cars?

Is it really fair to give even more tax payer money to the automotive industry while ignoring other industries?

Is it really a good idea to force our children pay for all this?
 
Yes. Its a good idea as it helps car companies, their suppliers, dealerships, banks, consumers, and others. Its better then simply throwing money at car companies anyway.
 
Of course it's a fine idea.

The same people who get all pissy about policies like this would support tax cuts for the wealthy, like they did under Bush.

It didn't matter that we were $5 Trillion in debt going into 2001, and it didn't matter that we had a balanced budget for two years under Clinton. We needed tax cuts, and we needed them that minute. The $5T in debt we accrued under Bush was not enough to coerce these folks to rescind the tax cuts.

They argue that the wealthy spend money and create jobs/hire people, so therefore the tax cuts would help the economy grow, rendering the debt obsolete.

So they support putting money in the hands of the populace as long as it passes through the hands of the wealthy first.

But if the middle man is cut out of the equation, suddenly it's remorseful deficit spending and "wealth redistribution."

Maybe we should have opted to allow for greater tax credits on Bentleys and Maseratis; then it would have been okay. Right, folks?
 
As it stands now my "clunker" '88 wannabe hachi roku gets 28 mpg... Why in gods name would I give that up for a lesser MPG newer "non clunker" and also add car payments?

Uh... NAY
 
wtf is a 88 wannabe 86?

I get near 40 MPG on my 02 Honda Civic, so I have nothing to upgrade to. Wouldn't want to anyway. Got to get to 250K first.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']Everyone I know has a car that qualifies for this.......yet my 97 honda CRV DOES NOT :( damn it![/QUOTE]

lol! OWNED How you like that great resale value now?

[quote name='mykevermin']wtf is a 88 wannabe 86?

I get near 40 MPG on my 02 Honda Civic, so I have nothing to upgrade to. Wouldn't want to anyway. Got to get to 250K first.[/QUOTE]

It's a Toyota AE92...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course it's a fine idea.

The same people who get all pissy about policies like this would support tax cuts for the wealthy, like they did under Bush.

It didn't matter that we were $5 Trillion in debt going into 2001, and it didn't matter that we had a balanced budget for two years under Clinton. We needed tax cuts, and we needed them that minute. The $5T in debt we accrued under Bush was not enough to coerce these folks to rescind the tax cuts.

They argue that the wealthy spend money and create jobs/hire people, so therefore the tax cuts would help the economy grow, rendering the debt obsolete.

So they support putting money in the hands of the populace as long as it passes through the hands of the wealthy first.

But if the middle man is cut out of the equation, suddenly it's remorseful deficit spending and "wealth redistribution."

Maybe we should have opted to allow for greater tax credits on Bentleys and Maseratis; then it would have been okay. Right, folks?[/QUOTE]

It almost sounds as if you are trying to argue that two wrongs make a right.
 
No. I'm trying to argue that the idea of benefiting the country only if the wealthy get to pillage through the allocation first is a terrible idea that has shown zero positive dividends since Reagan first stepping into office.

And I'm arguing that it's rather silly to be upset at policies that get at the end result you champion of the aforementioned conservative policies.
 
Don't feel strongly for or against it. Waste of money in terms of environmental impact, but it is causing people to go out and buy new cars in a shite economy - with an American company having the best selling vehicle of the program (Ford Focus). So it can go either way.
 
In theory, it's a decent idea. As someone said above, it's better than just throwing cash at Big Auto.

However, the current implementation of the program, with the horrible estimates of cost, the destruction of perfectly good (at least - better than some that are still out there) vehicles, the minimal requirements for increases in mileage, the requirement that the car must be financed, the requirement that the car must be new... well, this particular bill is fail.
 
What's wrong with "throwing cash at Big Auto" as long as the consumer is buying a decent car and the auto maker isn't making garbage?
 
I'm for it.

Gets people buying cars which is good given how much dealer ships are hurting. And getting gas guzzlers off the road is a good thing as well.

But the increase in MPG should be larger trading in 18 or less for 22 or more is too close. Should have made it 25 or 28 or even 30 and really focused on getting more fuel efficient cars on the road.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No. I'm trying to argue that the idea of benefiting the country only if the wealthy get to pillage through the allocation first is a terrible idea that has shown zero positive dividends since Reagan first stepping into office.

And I'm arguing that it's rather silly to be upset at policies that get at the end result you champion of the aforementioned conservative policies.[/QUOTE]

I'm upset at just about any so called "solution" to just about any problem that is primarily just throwing (tax payer debt) money at it.

And that includes most of the things you listed that Bush did, but you and I both know we will see a middle class income tax hike in the next 3 years. Not to mention the countless hidden taxes on the table.

As far as environmental solutions go, this Cash for Clunkers is a joke. If we absolutely must borrow billions from our kids to throw at environmental causes, this is incredibly inefficient. As far as economic stimulus goes, I guess its a small short term gain at a marginal long term loss that's hard to quantify yet.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']but you and I both know we will see a middle class tax hike in the next 3 years.[/QUOTE]

I've known since the late Reagan administration, when I was not yet 10 years old, that we'd have to pay for this shit sooner or later.

I'm not kidding, either.

Tax hikes will happen at some point. We can either blame them on "tax and spend liberals," and perpetuate an anti-intellectual America. Or, we can say "oh, fuck, we're $15T in debt - guess we have to pay that off now," like responsible human beings.

Of course, the latter will never happen, and those in office are kinda cool with the status quo. The vast majority of them will be dead long before the collection agency starts callin'.

To be fair, though, we experienced budget surpluses under Clinton for two years - now he raised taxes, but we also experienced a remarkable amount of economic growth at that time. So it's possible to do this comfortably, even if growing debts change the odds of that by the day.

It's possible - it's just not bloody likely.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But the increase in MPG should be larger trading in 18 or less for 22 or more is too close. Should have made it 25 or 28 or even 30 and really focused on getting more fuel efficient cars on the road.[/QUOTE]

Would've made a lot more sense then again, you'd see everyone in a Prius...
 
its not perfect, nothing the government does ever is. but as far as stimulus money goes, i think this has had the fastest (and most observable) impact on the economy yet.
 
While killing the Used Car arena, as well as decent used cars. Although, yeah... hopefully that means the weakest stuff goes away and the good stuff stays.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Gets people buying cars which is good given how much dealer ships are hurting. And getting gas guzzlers off the road is a good thing as well.

But the increase in MPG should be larger trading in 18 or less for 22 or more is too close. Should have made it 25 or 28 or even 30 and really focused on getting more fuel efficient cars on the road.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']In theory, it's a decent idea. As someone said above, it's better than just throwing cash at Big Auto.

However, the current implementation of the program, with the horrible estimates of cost, the destruction of perfectly good (at least - better than some that are still out there) vehicles, the minimal requirements for increases in mileage, the requirement that the car must be financed, the requirement that the car must be new... well, this particular bill is fail.[/QUOTE]

I agree with both of these. I think the bill should have incorporated both of these comments. If you purchased a car that had 10 MPG better, you got the $3,500. 15 MPG + gets you the $4,500. And I don't get why all the old ones needed to be destroyed.

Something not covered here. So far an estimated 160,000 cars have been traded in on this program (I think I saw that on Wonkette). Assume that the average MPG before was 17 and now is 24 (is that too high or too low?) on those cars and that the average person drives 15,000 miles a year (probably too low, but let's go with it).

15,000 / 17 = 882
15,000 / 24 = 625
===========
Difference: 257 gallons per car per year

257 * $2.50/gal (here in Texas, I know it's higher elsewhere) = $642.50 saved per car per year.
Years to "pay back" $3,500 in savings = 5.4
Years to "pay back" $4,500 in savings = 7.0
Savings per year on the entire program = $642.5 * 160,000 cars = $102,800,000 per year

I love that that's money not going to Venezuela and the Middle East. Does that make me a bad person? If it had been structured as above (10mpg gets 3,500 etc) then the savings would be WAAAAAAAAAY higher.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I've known since the late Reagan administration, when I was not yet 10 years old, that we'd have to pay for this shit sooner or later.

I'm not kidding, either.

Tax hikes will happen at some point. We can either blame them on "tax and spend liberals," and perpetuate an anti-intellectual America. Or, we can say "oh, fuck, we're $15T in debt - guess we have to pay that off now," like responsible human beings.[/quote]
Here's the thing though. You can raise taxes all you want, but you won't get much money. In 1984 the Grace Commission report was released. It said that if government were to take 100 percent of all income above $75,000 dollars, they would only get $17 billion, enough to run the government for a week. You really can't get much more out of the wealthy. So, you would have to tax the poor, and middle class.
Also, if we were to magically pay off our debt, there would either be no money in circulation, or a huge amount of money in circulation. Zimbabwe decided to pay off their debt by printing money. They printed so much that their currency is now dead. If we were to pay off our debt without killing our currency, there would be no money left. All of the money in the US is backed by debt, and issued because of debt. If there is no debt, there is no money. Unless we reform our banking system, we can't pay off our debt. If we did, we could also get rid of the income tax, because the income tax pays only for the interest on our debt.
Of course, the latter will never happen, and those in office are kinda cool with the status quo. The vast majority of them will be dead long before the collection agency starts callin'.
Click to expand...
Of course. Both parties don't really care. However, eventually one of four things will happen.
1. The debt will become so much that the federal government will default on its interest payments and collapse.
2. The debt will be so much that the federal government raises taxes on everyone to the point where they can't pay anymore. The people will revolt.
3. The federal government will print enough money to pay off the debt, and the dollar will collapse, and along with it the US economy.
4. The Fed is abolished, and along with it, most of our debt. We will return to a standard based on specie, which will insure the government can no longer create huge debts they can't pay.
To be fair, though, we experienced budget surpluses under Clinton for two years - now he raised taxes, but we also experienced a remarkable amount of economic growth at that time. So it's possible to do this comfortably, even if growing debts change the odds of that by the day.

It's possible - it's just not bloody likely.
Click to expand...
Clinton did balance the budget, but in order to do so, we borrowed from the social security fund. That will bite us in the ass pretty soon.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wouldn't have made sense because it would have omitted a lot of domestic vehicles.

;)[/QUOTE]

I think Ford is actually in great shape to compete in this area now. They have a lot of high MPG non-hybrids, which currently make more sense due to the large price hike hybrids costs. That is why the #1 selling car from the program is a high MPG non-hybrid, it is cost-effective and makes the most sense as $3k-$4k extra for a hybrid will not be paid off for a very very long time, probably not in the average lifespan of the car. Ford has some hybrids too, their SUV Escape hybrid was in the top5 sellers from the clunkers program. But their best hybrid - Fusion Hybrid, which Car & Driver rated above Honda/Toyota hybrids - was eclipsed by the more affordable non-hybrid Focus.
 
I guess that's good and all...but my car will be 8 years old in about 5 weeks and beats all of those in fuel economy except for the Fusion, whose highway mpg is about 4 higher.

I guess I'm not impressed with what appears to be, to me, a complete lack of interest in improving the fuel economy of automotives.

I own a Civic FWIW, so it's not like I'm comparing all this to a smart car or a yaris or one of those "weighs 8 pounds so it gets good mpg" cars.
 
@ whoever said something about the ford focus being the best selling car for this cash for clunkers right now.

its actually the toyota corolla. so that makes 4 foreign cars and a ford in the top 5. stimulate baby, stimulate. (btw lol @ thinking any of these cars are real 'merican cars in the first place)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']@ whoever said something about the ford focus being the best selling car for this cash for clunkers right now.

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

Them thar Toyotas keep my kinfolk in Kaintucky gainfully employed, mind you. Couldn't tell you where Fords are manufactured, other than probably "not Detroit."

I often point out in my intro class that the idea of an "American car" is long gone. And the geographic trail of manufacturing a hybrid from start to finish negates any gains of using it over a traditional gas motor.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I guess that's good and all...but my car will be 8 years old in about 5 weeks and beats all of those in fuel economy except for the Fusion, whose highway mpg is about 4 higher.

I guess I'm not impressed with what appears to be, to me, a complete lack of interest in improving the fuel economy of automotives.

I own a Civic FWIW, so it's not like I'm comparing all this to a smart car or a yaris or one of those "weighs 8 pounds so it gets good mpg" cars.[/QUOTE]

The current Civic is similar in mileage and price to the Focus. The problem with improving gas mileage is that there is no affordable way to do so beyond a certain point if you don't want to have super tiny cars like the Smart Car (which are unsafe due to lack of crumple zones and laws of basic physics). If a Smart Car hits a regular car at high speed, even if the smart car structurally stays intact and isn't launched in the air the driver will still have to absorb all of the energy from the crash - ouch.

The hybrid concept is a nice idea, but when it drives up the cost of the car by $3000-$4000 and only ups the mileage a bit, it would take something like 10+ years at current prices to make up the initial investment; given that most people don't drive a car that long and we are in a recession, it would probably be a financially foolish investment at this point. If you want to be practical, getting a non-hybrid Focus/Fusion/Civic/Accord/etc with an I4 engine will probably be the most financially sound decision.

I think Honda also was affected due to the recent recall with the 2001-2002 Accords having airbags that fire metal shrapnel into ppl's faces and killing them in some instances. Bad timing. Plus, unlike the other domestics Ford is actually in overall great shape and sold more cars this July than last July. Ford also didnt take the bailout money (which proved a waste of money), and I think ppl appreciate that.

I actually just bought a car - Mustang GT Premium. Its 17 city, 23 highway - which obviously is not the most efficient. But I don't mind paying extra for the performance. Plus, it is one of the few sports cars that takes regular gas, so you dont have to pay extra for premium. Given that Motor Trend benchmarked it at 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, thats pretty darn good mileage w/ option of regular gas given the class of the car. While this is an impractical car to own, its actually more practical than my previous (2002 Ford Thunderbird). So I am taking small steps to practicality ;)
 
[quote name='Ruined']The problem with improving gas mileage is that there is no affordable way to do so beyond a certain point[/QUOTE]

I would not be so cynical towards the potential of the American minds in the auto/engineering industry.

As for hybrid's sustainability, my comment was geared more towards the path a Prius takes from the initial mining of the material for the battery to the manufacture of the car being environmentally absurd - not the increased cost.

And we're doing so well being civil; you could keep your baseless "bailouts were a waste" out of this.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I would not be so cynical towards the potential of the American minds in the auto/engineering industry.

As for hybrid's sustainability, my comment was geared more towards the path a Prius takes from the initial mining of the material for the battery to the manufacture of the car being environmentally absurd - not the increased cost.

And we're doing so well being civil; you could keep your baseless "bailouts were a waste" out of this.[/QUOTE]

I was just saying that the bailouts were a waste because Chrysler and GM both went into bankruptcy anyway, and Bush openly admitted that they were offered because he wanted to give Obama's administration time to attempt to remedy the issue. Thats a lot of money spent just for the sake of buying time.

And yeah, the materials for the battery may be problematic in the future.
 
I guess my biggest problem with this whole program is the amount of waste it creates. All the cars are being totaled, and I think that's just a mess. There are plenty of people that could actually use those cars and have a lot worse cars that they are driving right now (worse both environmentally and aesthetically).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't have info on what cars are being turned in.[/QUOTE]

Just me being all conspiracy like, but my guess is - if the cars being turned in/destroyed are real clunkers, they'll release that data. If the cars getting destroyed are decent, they'll never say a word.
 
It took all of two minutes to find out the "Cars.gov is steeelin yer internetz!" was a crock of spicy shit.

I feel sorry for the people in this world who think some fatass stuffed shirt on a news program would have far more knowledge of computers than, say, the doods who go to Defcon every year. 'Cuz see, when I'm trying to determine if some shit is going down in the computer world, I go check out what those guys are talking about. Not only would they know almost instantly, but they'd broadcast it through their usual channels and alert the rest of us nerds. We'd know light years (read: days, if not weeks) ahead of everybody. Kind of like how Twitter has been around for three f*cking years.

In other words, if I wanted to know about how, say, a camera worked, I wouldn't ask the guy who thinks the camera is trying to steal his soul.
 
[quote name='speedracer']

15,000 / 17 = 882
15,000 / 24 = 625
===========
Difference: 257 gallons per car per year

257 * $2.50/gal (here in Texas, I know it's higher elsewhere) = $642.50 [/QUOTE]
I wonder how much these folks are spending on twelve months of car payments plus higher insurance premiums.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']I wonder how much these folks are spending on twelve months of car payments plus higher insurance premiums.[/QUOTE]

And in interest on that newly financed vehicle they couldn't even pay cash for.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I guess my biggest problem with this whole program is the amount of waste it creates. All the cars are being totaled, and I think that's just a mess. There are plenty of people that could actually use those cars and have a lot worse cars that they are driving right now (worse both environmentally and aesthetically).[/QUOTE]
You realize that that the cars will be junked and recycled, right?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And the geographic trail of manufacturing a hybrid from start to finish negates any gains of using it over a traditional gas motor.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that simplistic thinking though? I mean, you can't equate the mile the car spent on a huge frieghter in the middle of the sea to the mile the car would typically drive in normal traffic. The gas spent to move that car one mile on the open seas would be much less.

Yet it seems like that's what these comparisons do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top