Topic: Cash for clunkers. Why kill the motor? WTF America?!?!

[mystic_1]

There sure does seem to be a lot of hyperbole flying around about this program, but what else is new in US politics?  

mystic_1

[DammitDan]

This program is so wrong in so many ways. It is a typical liberal "feel good" program that cannot accomplish anything it proposes.

It will cannabilize future sales of autos by artificaially accelerating them to the present, thus exacerbating the auto industries problems, years out.

With the US government now owners of GM and Chrysler, this has conflict of interest all over it.

So sad.  

Human nature: Increasing the fleet's gas mileage will not decrease dependence on foreign oil, it will only increase the amount of miles driven, overall fuel consumption flat to higher, consuming other resources like tires, oil, and roads.

Simply look at the last 20 years. The fleets average MPG is way up, but even factoring out the increase in # of vehicles, fuel consumption is not down.

I don't have backup for this, other than my own research over time. So take it or leave it. Its my opinion.

PS: Another point I just heard from a financial site is that this program rewards people who have made bad decisions. That is a hallmark of the whole recovery effort. The bankers and brokers who screwed everything, the borrowers who went in over their heads, the auto manufacturers who didn't plan for the future, are all being rewarded (bailed out) for their bad decisions and those who made good decisions are left to their own devices. This is bad policy.

The incompetent must be allowed to fail and the competent will bubble up to take their place.  But so far the courage to let this happen is not there.

Or so i think.

Listen to Bill O'Really and Lunch Limbaugh much?

[razor02097]

This program is so wrong in so many ways. It is a typical liberal "feel good" program that cannot accomplish anything it proposes.

It will cannabilize future sales of autos by artificaially accelerating them to the present, thus exacerbating the auto industries problems, years out.

With the US government now owners of GM and Chrysler, this has conflict of interest all over it.

So sad.  

Human nature: Increasing the fleet's gas mileage will not decrease dependence on foreign oil, it will only increase the amount of miles driven, overall fuel consumption flat to higher, consuming other resources like tires, oil, and roads.

Simply look at the last 20 years. The fleets average MPG is way up, but even factoring out the increase in # of vehicles, fuel consumption is not down.

I don't have backup for this, other than my own research over time. So take it or leave it. Its my opinion.

PS: Another point I just heard from a financial site is that this program rewards people who have made bad decisions. That is a hallmark of the whole recovery effort. The bankers and brokers who screwed everything, the borrowers who went in over their heads, the auto manufacturers who didn't plan for the future, are all being rewarded (bailed out) for their bad decisions and those who made good decisions are left to their own devices. This is bad policy.

The incompetent must be allowed to fail and the competent will bubble up to take their place.  But so far the courage to let this happen is not there.

Or so i think.

Listen to Bill O'Really and Lunch Limbaugh much?

Its a point of view expressed as an opinion. 

Everytime people talk about how great the goverment programs are we don't say "Listen to Obama and Pelosi much?"

[HavocTurbo]

Listen to Bill O'Really and Lunch Limbaugh much?

If they say the same thing then maybe for once they are not big mouthed retards.

I don't think MCRider is out of line here. The FED doesn't do it for anyone else on the verge of dying... so why the car companies? There are plenty of other manufacturers waiting to get their product out there.

If the FED offers bailouts to every major car maker.. then it isn't really a free market system is it?

[HavocTurbo]

Bah razor you beat me to it. 

[razor02097]

I don't think MCRider is out of line here. The FED doesn't do it for anyone else on the verge of dying... so why the car companies? There are plenty of other manufacturers waiting to get their product out there.

If the FED offers bailouts to every major car maker.. then it isn't really a free market system is it?

Agreed

Don't think that government palms arn't being greased too.  In fact every bill that passes there are hundreds of earmarks attached to it to pay off electoral favors.

[DammitDan]

Well Obama and Pelosi aren't exactly talking heads, are they?  That's why they aren't even near the same playing level as FOX's cronies.

MCRider takes a bunch of slippery slope fallacies and plugs them together into one big assumption.  It is an assumption that this program will cannibalize future sales of autos.  It is an assumption that owning a higher-mileage car will increase the number of miles driven.  It is an assumption that allowing companies to fail will inevitably allow competent companies to "bubble up" and take their place.

True, these assumptions sound valid, but that doesn't make them valid.

As for the argument about the government owning Chrysler and GM being a conflict of interest; Have you been paying attention for the last 15 years or so?  Corporate and private lobbies (such as the classic car lobby) are there to create a conflict of interest.  That's what government decisions are.  Compromises created due to basic conflicts of interest.  But I don't see how a bill which has no stipulation on WHICH brand you must buy is a conflict of interest.  I also don't see how a program created largely to support the middle class, a sector of the economy which has been slowly dying for the last 8 years, is a conflict of interest.

But then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion  

[HavocTurbo]

Ahem...

Cash for Clunkers applies only to NEW cars.

Seeing as how the manufacturers make NEW cars.....


But if we applied it to USED cars as well. Using only the mpg rating, wouldn't that help EVERYONE?

Who cares how old it is as long as it meets the mpg rating guidelines?

[Laminar]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/08/14/delozier.maserati.cash.KUSA

A 1985 Maserati bi-turbo with 18,000 miles gets traded in. Apparently the guy had been trying to sell it forever but couldn't, so he traded it in as a clunker and got $3500.

[DammitDan]

Ahem...

Cash for Clunkers applies only to NEW cars.

Seeing as how the manufacturers make NEW cars.....


But if we applied it to USED cars as well. Using only the mpg rating, wouldn't that help EVERYONE?

Who cares how old it is as long as it meets the mpg rating guidelines?

Because, in the end, this is designed as an economic stimulus.  New car purchses ultimately generate more economic impact than older used car purchses.

Take it from the end user (the public) all the way back through the line.  New car purchases fund millions of jobs around the country.  Dealerships, assembly workers, managers, parts manufacturers, logistical support, designers, physicists...  All these people will be supported if the general public is required to buy new cars as a part of CFC.  This is not to mention the ancillary support that this program generates for the manufacturing communities which will now have money to buy things.  And when these communities are thriving (a.k.a. Detroit doesn't die), it helps generate international revenue streams which boost the value of the dollar globally.  It's like a big circle of economic life; everything is tied together when you consider the big picture.

Now apply CFC to the economy if the public is allowed to purchase older used cars.  Say someone chooses to buy a used car instead of a new car, who does that benefit?  I can think of two steps: the dealership, and to a much diminished extent, the local community around that dealership.

Which makes more sense to you?

[razor02097]

Well Obama and Pelosi aren't exactly talking heads, are they?  That's why they aren't even near the same playing level as FOX's cronies.

Obama and Pelosi are employed by the government their job is to talk.  O'Really and Limbaugh are employed by clear channel and their job is also to talk.

What you don't realize is that in America its all about the people NOT THE PRESEDENT!  They present bills and laws that may benefit the people and its suppose to be the people that decide.  Seems not so much anymore but that is the way its suppose to be.

The first amendment is a powerful one.  The ones that exercises that right are the ones that get beat down.  Its funny how if you go against the Obama wishes you are automatically a political terrorist.  That is just wrong.

MCRider takes a bunch of slippery slope fallacies and plugs them together into one big assumption.  It is an assumption that this program will cannibalize future sales of autos.  It is an assumption that owning a higher-mileage car will increase the number of miles driven.  It is an assumption that allowing companies to fail will inevitably allow competent companies to "bubble up" and take their place.

True, these assumptions sound valid, but that doesn't make them valid.

You seem to be assuming that everthing will be ok. 
#1 When you hear that dealerships are selling out OMG wow it must be working... keep in mind that many many dealerships where dumped by the manufacturer.  Less dealerships to sell new cars.

#2 When a product sells the manufacturer makes another.  What the heck do you think will happen when a dealership sells out?  They get more vehicles in.  When CARS is over you think they are going to continue to sell cars at even close to the same rate?

As for the argument about the government owning Chrysler and GM being a conflict of interest; Have you been paying attention for the last 15 years or so? Corporate and private lobbies (such as the classic car lobby) are there to create a conflict of interest.  That's what government decisions are.  Compromises created due to basic conflicts of interest.  But I don't see how a bill which has no stipulation on WHICH brand you must buy is a conflict of interest.  I also don't see how a program created largely to support the middle class, a sector of the economy which has been slowly dying for the last 8 years, is a conflict of interest.

Even that statement has nothing to do with cash for clunkers... No the bill doesn't say what brand you must by but as HT said it has to be new.

But then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion  

Just remember you said that not me.

[razor02097]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/08/14/delozier.maserati.cash.KUSA

A 1985 Maserati bi-turbo with 18,000 miles gets traded in. Apparently the guy had been trying to sell it forever but couldn't, so he traded it in as a clunker and got $3500.

Oh my jesus god 

[DammitDan]

Well Obama and Pelosi aren't exactly talking heads, are they?  That's why they aren't even near the same playing level as FOX's cronies.

Obama and Pelosi are employed by the government their job is to talk.  O'Really and Limbaugh are employed by clear channel and their job is also to talk.

What you don't realize is that in America its all about the people NOT THE PRESEDENT!  They present bills and laws that may benefit the people and its suppose to be the people that decide.  Seems not so much anymore but that is the way its suppose to be.

The first amendment is a powerful one.  The ones that exercises that right are the ones that get beat down.  Its funny how if you go against the Obama wishes you are automatically a political terrorist.  That is just wrong.

Do we have to go over the definition of a Democratic Republic?

In America, the people do not decide on anything except who represents them.  Obama and Pelosi are two of those chosen representatives.  They are not employed to talk, they are employed to make decisions in the best interest of their constituents.  In Pelosi's case, she is supposed to act in the best interest of the 8th District of California.  In Obama's case, he is supposed to act in the best interest of the majority of the nation.  

Besides, I seem to remember a few years ago it was the conservatives bashing liberals for exercising their first amendment rights, and how if you went against the Bush administration's wishes you were branded an un-patriotic Communist  

You seem to be assuming that everthing will be ok. 
#1 When you hear that dealerships are selling out OMG wow it must be working... keep in mind that many many dealerships where dumped by the manufacturer.  Less dealerships to sell new cars.

#2 When a product sells the manufacturer makes another.  What the heck do you think will happen when a dealership sells out?  They get more vehicles in.  When CARS is over you think they are going to continue to sell cars at even close to the same rate?

This is why it's called an economic stimulus.  It's designed to stimulate the economy to start working again.  I don't expect people to continue buying cars at the same rate, but it will have done some good to get the economy over the slump it's in.

Even that statement has nothing to do with cash for clunkers... No the bill doesn't say what brand you must by but as HT said it has to be new.

And I have explained the benefit of new vehicle purchases over used vehicle purchases.  You can't call something a conflict of interest if it isn't one.

[333]

Compare the number of people employed in the used car industry versus auto manufacturer.  Of course the program supports the new car industry.

The first amendment is a powerful one.  The ones that exercises that right are the ones that get beat down.  Its funny how if you go against the Obama wishes you are automatically a political terrorist.  That is just wrong.

But it was right when The Dixie Chicks criticized Bush and was called unpatriotic?

[DammitDan]

 

[Duke McDukiedook]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/08/14/delozier.maserati.cash.KUSA

A 1985 Maserati bi-turbo with 18,000 miles gets traded in. Apparently the guy had been trying to sell it forever but couldn't, so he traded it in as a clunker and got $3500.

Oh my jesus god 

Don't worry or lament too much.
That model was utter #$%*e, made it to number 37 on the list of "crap cars".
Was Time Magazine's worst car of 1984.

[Laminar]

Compare the number of people employed in the used car industry versus auto manufacturer.  Of course the program supports the new car industry.

Also consider someone trading in a $4500 car for a $5000 car. Sure it helps the economy, but barely. Since people are being forced to buy NEW cars, there's a significantly higher "stimulation" per car traded in.

[333]

Nobody is being forced to do anything.  You make it sound like Obama and Pelosi are holding a gun to your head.  If you can't afford a new car, keep your old one.  I'll bet that there isn't one person who got in on this that is complaining.  Other than maybe that they didn't get the full $4500.

[Laminar]

Nobody is being forced to do anything.  You make it sound like Obama and Pelosi are holding a gun to your head.

Who, me? You're making it sound like I was disagreeing with you.

[Laminar]

Obama and Pelosi are employed by the government their job is to talk.  O'Really and Limbaugh are employed by clear channel and their job is also to talk.

Not even close.

[mystic_1]

Human nature: Increasing the fleet's gas mileage will not decrease dependence on foreign oil, it will only increase the amount of miles driven, overall fuel consumption flat to higher, consuming other resources like tires, oil, and roads.

Simply look at the last 20 years. The fleets average MPG is way up, but even factoring out the increase in # of vehicles, fuel consumption is not down.

"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus."
-Agent Smith




mystic_1

[razor02097]

But it was right when The Dixie Chicks criticized Bush and was called unpatriotic?

sigh... lets see... unpatriotic vs political terrorist? 


Look the government is not suppose to hold your hand.  Seriously the CARS program is a good idea on paper its just  what they made it out to is stupid.  A lot of people that can afford the upkeep of a car but can't afford the UPFRONT cost of the car have no assistance
The program was suppose to do 3 things. The problem is that the term "clunker" may mean one thing to the EPA and another to me or you or whoever.  Its cut and dry.  I don't want to get rid of my car yet I'm still paying for other people to get rid of theirs.

#1 stimulate car sales (be it only temporary)

#2 get people into a newer efficient car  (which doesn't have to be made in America)

#3 get "clunkers" off the road  (which are crushed and sold as scrap to recoup some cost but lose thousands  of $ per vehicle.)


How about they start a program to feed the hungry?  Fix the joke FAFSA, or help people get a decent home?  Tax holiday?  Where are those tax cuts?  Sounds to me like more and more government programs popping out of DC every week... how are we going to pay for it?

In the end CARS (like most government programs) will benefit the few and cost the masses.

[DammitDan]

Razor, you flip-flop around so much people might think you're a fish out of water.

First you say that you're upset because people who can't afford a new car aren't offered assistance.  Then you turn around and say you don't want to pay for it because you can't afford a new car.  Then you turn around again and suggest that the government start welfare programs for people less fortunate than you, then say that DC is creating so many new programs that we won't be able to pay for them all.

You sound compassionate about people who need help, but still have a tinge of "but not if I have to pay for it" vibe.  You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[chrislib]

We blew up over 50 engines yesterday. I still see it as a waste for the most part, goes against my frugal nature I suppose. I will say that the program is moving LOTS of new steel off the lot, we are currently at a tick over $400,000 of "clunker" inventory that needs to be disposed of (needless to say the "boss" wants it done yesterday). The store moved about 360 units for July and is already at 75% of Aug`s goal for sales, I just hope the downside crash is`nt too painfull.

[HavocTurbo]

Well I went to every dealer in my area (i know almost everyone at each) and talked with all the mechanics and paper pushers.

When I got to the local Chevy/GMC/BMW/VW/Porsche dealer I ran in to a government service provider who picks up and drops off all the paperwork for our area. Apparently the mail is lost on our civil servants.

I had a few questions for him. I paraphrased his answers because my memory isn't THAT good.

Can you go to any new car dealer and get this rebate?

Almost, while it was originally introduced at primarily american companies, it is now being extended to every maker/importer in the US.

What happens to the cars after they leave the dealerships?
Can you do anything with them?
Can they be parted out?

They are taken to a certified scrapyard. They are to be completely destroyed then broken down for recycling. Plastic and all.

Why go to such extremes when disposing of the old cars?

To be honest, I have no idea.


It was then that he had to leave. I hung around and yakked with the techs and sales people a little longer. I got fuming mad and decided to leave when a guy came in and traded his almost new 08 Chevy 3500 Dually with a v8 for a brand new porsche.

Eh... whatever.