CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Cash for Clunkers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cash for Clunkers

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
Well, the program seems to be a real success and it looks like Republican Senators are nit-picking at it but I think they're backing the wrong side of this argument.

For example:

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009...refrigerators/

Quote:
Don't count on Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to support another $2 billion for the cash-for-clunkers program when it comes to the Senate floor this week. The 2008 GOP presidential nominee thinks the idea is
ridiculous.

"I just don't think it's a proper use of the taxpayers' dollars," McCain told The HIll. "The argument can be made, 'Why don't we have cash-for-refrigerators?' Or cash-for-anything? It's just a very, very bad use of tax dollars."

McCain acknowledged the program has brought an uptick in car sales, but said the effects will actually be negative in the long run.

"The results will be temporary, and when the money runs we're going to see the distortions that it's created in the market," he said.
There are so many more ancillary dollars being generated with a new car purchase rather then a new refrigerator. Everyone will have to get full auto insurance, since their clunker probably just had state minimums. Not to mention routine maintenance will generate sales for the next 3 years for each car sold, people don't often maintain their refrigerators. Let's also factor in most people when they purchase a new vehicle like to go on road trips and more often then not. That's money for the destination (hotel, food, tourism and gas) which will boost their local economy. Also, there are usually 'new car' purchases everyone makes. Cup holders, mats, rims, etc...

Now there are some people who are nitpicking at data suggesting American cars aren't topping the list. Well, so what? that isn't the programs fault. Have you SEEN the deal hyundai is offering???

Elanta (for example)
$14,120 base
- 2,000 - Cash incentives
- 4,500 - CARS program
- 600 fuel savings (estimated with the $1.49 a gallon deal)

+ you get Sales Tax Credit back if you qualify (make uner $125k a year)

So you can buy a new Hyundai Elantra base for a little over $7,600 (without haggling on MSRP and talking the sales guy down a bit more) and you get your tax's back at the end of the year and your gas costs half the price.

Now, Chrysler announced they were going to 'double down' the CARS program and give $4,500 in savings but I happen to have been looking at cars for the last few months and they jacked their prices up about 10K before the program started which was really fucked up and might explain why they're not getting the sales.

All in all, this program is fantastic from an economic standpoint and I wish my car qualified because GM isn't offering any discounts on the Camero and $3,500 off would be niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

Anyone here actually take advantage of the offer?

ETA

It's worth noting, I'm not entirely ready to buy a car until the 2011 models come out but I'm a sucker for a real good deal and I almost picked up a Hyundai (I was eyeing the Sante Fe) and I figured I'd just end up getting another car down the road when the 2011 Camero Convertibles or the plug in Prius come out )
post #2 of 59
You're the first Republican I've seen that is praising this. Everyone else I know is faux-outraging about the program needing more money, which I thought was...you know, a good thing.

My garage sale analogy went over like a wet fart in a spacesuit when I tried to tell them that the program needing more funding was an indicator of how well the program was doing.
post #3 of 59
I have a Mercury Villager that I think qualifies (it's a '95/96). Been trying to convince my wife to get rid of it, but having a hard time since she likes it for sentimental reasons.

I figured some dealers were going to jack up the prices to take advantage of it. Is it best to negotiate the price and don't tell them about the clunker until the very end?
post #4 of 59
I just love how the Republicans' argument is essentially the same one they use for gay marriage -- the whole idea of a slippery slope -- first cars, then toasters, then whores!
post #5 of 59
I'm glad that this program has been so successful... If only American cars topped the list, but well, that's our own damn fault.
post #6 of 59
A retarded idea...which is no surprise.

And I could care less about the (relatively) minor $2.5-5 billion were spending. Or whatever slippery slope analogy you want to throw in.

It's a retarded idea because were telling people to take cars that are probably close to being paid off or paid off completely and providing incentives for them to go further and further into debt.
post #7 of 59
Also, since there are obviously some supporters here, if one of them could explain to me how a program convincing people to take out loans in order to buy primarily foreign cars (which increases the trade deficit) is supposed to improve our economy I would be excited to hear it.
post #8 of 59
I took advantage of the program to trade in my 13 year old car for a compact SUV. My old car would have traded in for between $500-$1000, so this was a big boon. As a relatively new home owner, and soon-to-be dad, this is going to be a big help.

As far as negotiating a good deal, just do your research and don't go out with just one car in mind. I test drove a lot and got down to 4 I really liked then negotiated until I found a deal I was happy with. Don't be afraid to walk away if you think you can do better, I did that twice before settling. Also, know the available rebates that you might qualify for and what it takes to get it, such as havig to finance with the company. This is especially true for more obscure ones for college students, military, first time brand buyer, etc. that the salespeople might not be as aware about.

From my experience www.kbb.com was the most acurate site as to what prices I was able to negotiate down to, although cars.com and edmunds.com have some good reviews to consider.

Dealers are getting a lot of traffic, so they may not drop their price a whole lot right now, but if they got a ton of the vehicles in stock, the better your chances. I would think the traffic will be even heavier now that the fear of the program running out of funds is out there. I contemplated waiting till all the 2011s were out, but with my car on its last legs and now the funding issue I'm glad I didn't.
post #9 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
A retarded idea...which is no surprise.

And I could care less about the (relatively) minor $2.5-5 billion were spending. Or whatever slippery slope analogy you want to throw in.

It's a retarded idea because were telling people to take cars that are probably close to being paid off or paid off completely and providing incentives for them to go further and further into debt.
A lot of reports are saying people are saving more then ever and decreasing their debt, so I would not knock people who now have the money to take advantage. A smart consumer can take advantage if they plan ahead.

Also, the car has to be 7+ years or older to qualify, so they should be paid off unless you got it used, but then you had to have owned it for over a year to qualify. So, this deal works better for people who typically go from used car to used car, but now allows them to maybe afford something new instead for the same price, with a warranty which cuts down thier upkeep costs tremendously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Also, since there are obviously some supporters here, if one of them could explain to me how a program convincing people to take out loans in order to buy primarily foreign cars (which increases the trade deficit) is supposed to improve our economy I would be excited to hear it.
Selling and supporting even foreign cars provides jobs here. There are a lot of foreign companies that manufacture here, you know. Also, Ford, the only big U.S. automaker with a clean nose, has seem much better sales so far. Lastly, even though they have been getting better, the big 3 are still a step or two behind the foreign companies in quality for the price.
post #10 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
It's a retarded idea because were telling people to take cars that are probably close to being paid off or paid off completely and providing incentives for them to go further and further into debt.
A great example is what R A Smith just typed. This is a program that helps with the trade in value of a much older car that you'll most likely not get much in return.

This is not making anyone go into debt, if they can't afford it, they just do not need to do it. This is about fiscal responsibility, no one is forcing anyone to do it.

And given that most foreign cars are cheaper it's not too surprising that most people are going for them. And hell, you know that most are built in the United States right?
post #11 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by R A Smith View Post
A lot of reports are saying people are saving more then ever and decreasing their debt, so I would not knock people who now have the money to take advantage. A smart consumer can take advantage if they plan ahead.
Indeed, and I applaud those folks. But honestly, its not like Americans arent ones to overextend themselves...especially at the sight of what is positioned to be a good deal.
Quote:
Also, the car has to be 7+ years or older to qualify, so they should be paid off unless you got it used, but then you had to have owned it for over a year to qualify. So, this deal works better for people who typically go from used car to used car, but now allows them to maybe afford something new instead for the same price, with a warranty which cuts down thier upkeep costs tremendously.
Thats true, however the point remains that theres a lot of people (I would argue the vast majority) who are taking something that works perfectly well and trading it in for an additional 4 or 5 figures worth of debt. I really will never understand where the Keynesian's aversion to savings comes from.

Quote:
Selling and supporting even foreign cars provides jobs here. There are a lot of foreign companies that manufacture here, you know. Also, Ford, the only big U.S. automaker with a clean nose, has seem much better sales so far. Lastly, even though they have been getting better, the big 3 are still a step or two behind the foreign companies in quality for the price.

Companies like Honda, Toyota, etc dont need this additional spurt of car sales. Its not like the prospect of 2-3 months of increased volume in their dealership is going to force them to hire any additional workforce whatsoever.
post #12 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Also, since there are obviously some supporters here, if one of them could explain to me how a program convincing people to take out loans in order to buy primarily foreign cars (which increases the trade deficit) is supposed to improve our economy I would be excited to hear it.
Sure.

For starters, anyone who would buy a foreign car with this program would also buy it without this program. Toyota has overtaken GM as number one in car sales for a reason, they produce more appealing cars to buyers; either by gas mileage, design, comfort or whatever the consumers primary motive happens to be. Are there some great American cars being produced? Sure and that is why GM is number 2 and not kia or hyundai.

As to taking out loans? Debt is not always a bad thing. With this debt, buyers are getting a minimum 36 month warranty (usually at zero percent interest on car loans) that means they have a fixed bill each month that they must pay (great for families that budget!) versus car owners that have paid for cars having to handle wear and tear out of warranty. These break downs are usually very expensive and end up going on credit cards since the average American has negligible savings (it's also worth noting, these credit cards aren't at zero percent interest). Let's also get into the fact that these people are buying cars at a phenomenal time due to the epic recession we are in. They're getting huge discounts from manufacturers due to the weakened market plus the dealers are throwing in incentives to generate a sale to keep their business open and factoring in the government savings and these people are picking up cars damn near 20-50% off (at zero percent interest).

As to the economy? See first post + this post. Let's tick off everyone getting money out of this. Dealers, Car Manufacturers, Banks, Insurance companies, auto parts stores (rims, mats, cup holders etc...), local economies on road trips (because the fear of break down is removed), etc... etc... etc...
post #13 of 59
The only downside to this program has shown us this administration can't budget worth a damn.
post #14 of 59
People need credit. This is a great opportunity for people to build up their credit again. Sure, you're going to have some people who probably can't afford the new car. But a car isn't a house. And with the prices marked down as much as they are plus the stimulus money, the dealer industry won't take nearly as bad a loss.
post #15 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
A great example is what R A Smith just typed. This is a program that helps with the trade in value of a much older car that you'll most likely not get much in return.

This is not making anyone go into debt, if they can't afford it, they just do not need to do it. This is about fiscal responsibility, no one is forcing anyone to do it.

And given that most foreign cars are cheaper it's not too surprising that most people are going for them. And hell, you know that most are built in the United States right?
I know. Smith provided a great example, and Im happy he was able to get a good deal replacing a car that, according to him, was on its last leg.

But come on. "This is not making anyone go into debt?" Gimme a break. The vast majority of cars are purchased via debt, and as of last year close to 1/3 of consumers who had a car loan were underwater. Its not like the government doesnt know this. What bugs me is that not only do they know this, but they think the answer to all of our current problems is to entice people to go further into debt. They tried this back in 2000 when they lowered interest rates and enticed everybody to go out and buy homes. Maybe the jury is still out on that one, but last I checked it didnt work out too well (even though the strategy had the public blessing of jokers like Paul Krugman and Alan Greenspan).

And see my response above regarding purchasing foreign cars. This short term program isnt creating jobs. Yes the money is being spent here, however the fact remains its a foreign purchase which therefore increases the trade deficit.
post #16 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Companies like Honda, Toyota, etc dont need this additional spurt of car sales. Its not like the prospect of 2-3 months of increased volume in their dealership is going to force them to hire any additional workforce whatsoever.
It's hard to get away writing a bill that gives a billion dollars in government incentives to people who only buy cars from government owned institutions.
post #17 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
however the fact remains its a foreign purchase which therefore increases the trade deficit.
It's capitalism. They make the better vehicles. If that sticks going down to the "Buy American" folks, well, they should stop building shitty things. It really is that simple. I love how unbridled capitalists like to add wrinkles to the idea that the best made products shouldn't win out.
post #18 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
People need credit. This is a great opportunity for people to build up their credit again. Sure, you're going to have some people who probably can't afford the new car. But a car isn't a house. And with the prices marked down as much as they are plus the stimulus money, the dealer industry won't take nearly as bad a loss.
If someone is interested in rebuilding their credit, tell them to get a low limit credit card designed for such purposes.

And the "a car isnt a house" analogy doesnt make sense in my mind. Its like saying its ok to offer light beer to a recovering alcoholic. It least its not 90 proof, right?

I dont see why its so difficult to entertain the notion that a deep recession brought on by too much debt will not be improved by the creation of further debt.
post #19 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
A retarded idea...which is no surprise.

And I could care less about the (relatively) minor $2.5-5 billion were spending. Or whatever slippery slope analogy you want to throw in.

It's a retarded idea because were telling people to take cars that are probably close to being paid off or paid off completely and providing incentives for them to go further and further into debt.
You're really one ignorant guy, are you? It's like universal healthcare: it work, everywhere in the world but in US conservative's minds.

Works here, works in Europe, but hey, we're a socialist state!
post #20 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
It's capitalism. They make the better vehicles. If that sticks going down to the "Buy American" folks, well, they should stop building shitty things. It really is that simple. I love how unbridled capitalists like to add wrinkles to the idea that the best made products shouldn't win out.
Okie dokie. Feel free to point out exactly in my post(s) where I suggested that people shouldnt purchase foreign cars or that the best product shouldnt win.

Its not there, is it?

Cash for clunkers is one of the measures intended to perhaps help improve the national economy, yes?

Okay, so again; how will people going further into debt to finance the purchase of a foreign made vehicle...again, which increases the trade deficit (which we are already concerned about)...improve our national economy? Do you really think that what we need right now is more debt?
post #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
You're really one ignorant guy, are you? It's like universal healthcare: it work, everywhere in the world but in US conservative's minds.

Works here, works in Europe, but hey, we're a socialist state!
I support universal healthcare.

Im wondering if you actually read and, perhaps, comprehended what I wrote?

I didnt know Europe has Cash for Clunkers going on right now.
post #22 of 59
Frankly, I think the conservative bitching about this thing comes straight from the fact that it's working, and it's coming out of the Obama administration. At least Snaieke recognizes that it's getting people out to buy again, which is the only thing that's going to get us out of this recession. Sure, the plan can't last forever. It shouldn't last more than another couple of weeks, frankly. But it's injecting capital in economic areas of the country that really need it. It's a temporary fix, but a good one.
post #23 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
It's hard to get away writing a bill that gives a billion dollars in government incentives to people who only buy cars from government owned institutions.
People can buy cars from whoever they want. IMO foreign cars are better (although my Jeep is awesome...but I have a Toyota too in order to balance out the universe) but again, thats not what Im concerned.

If people want to go out and only buy Hondas and Toyotas on their own thats super. If the government wants to convince people to go into debt by providing incentives for them to do so while at the same time saying it will help our ailing economy then thats something else.
post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Okie dokie. Feel free to point out exactly in my post(s) where I suggested that people shouldnt purchase foreign cars or that the best product shouldnt win.

Its not there, is it?

Cash for clunkers is one of the measures intended to perhaps help improve the national economy, yes?

Okay, so again; how will people going further into debt to finance the purchase of a foreign made vehicle...again, which increases the trade deficit (which we are already concerned about)...improve our national economy? Do you really think that what we need right now is more debt?
Because most of the foreign cars you're talking about aren't made overseas. They're made here. It's a foreign company that gets the profit but it's the American worker that reaps the benefit of more cars being made. We don't need more debt, but we need people to start buying things again. That is how an economy works, you know. Someone buys a car, which employs people in steel mills, factories, insurance companies... this has been explained to you already.
post #25 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Okie dokie. Feel free to point out exactly in my post(s) where I suggested that people shouldnt purchase foreign cars or that the best product shouldnt win.

Its not there, is it?

Cash for clunkers is one of the measures intended to perhaps help improve the national economy, yes?

Okay, so again; how will people going further into debt to finance the purchase of a foreign made vehicle...again, which increases the trade deficit (which we are already concerned about)...improve our national economy? Do you really think that what we need right now is more debt?
Closer, this has already been answered for you. Snaieke, of all people, answered it for you. Improving our economy and closing the trade gap are not synonymous.
post #26 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
Frankly, I think the conservative bitching about this thing comes straight from the fact that it's working, and it's coming out of the Obama administration. At least Snaieke recognizes that it's getting people out to buy again, which is the only thing that's going to get us out of this recession. Sure, the plan can't last forever. It shouldn't last more than another couple of weeks, frankly. But it's injecting capital in economic areas of the country that really need it. It's a temporary fix, but a good one.
Youre right. Im only bitching about this because its working.

Why dont you simply answer the straightforward question I posed above instead of turning this into us vs them hogwash (or hogworsh, as my dad would say)?


Regarding the bold, people consuming is phenominal. People who are already in debt choosing to go further into debt for a relatively silly reason (eg upgrading the 2005 to the 2010 model) is not.
post #27 of 59
OrSpell Check Your Text
Language: English (change)


Unfortunately my "Clunker" was sold before this Obama Age program was initiated. Oh well. Seeing the resistance to this in congress gives me many reactions. Once i manage to swallow the populist bile rising in my throat at the sight of men in 500 dollar Italian shoes talking about "Real Americans" the program supposedly wont help, i came to a conclusion.

Would this not all be helped greatly were the program to have a catchier name? Right now, it doesn't rhyme. I am a strong proponent of rhymes and their almost mystical ability to hold the human mind in their thrall. If this program were branded with a catchy rhyme, how could you stand on the floor of the senate and denounce it. How can you be the guy to say "This adorable RHYMING PHRASE needs to be eliminated?!".

In that spirit, I've offered up these alternatives (they are merely phonetic, and not representative of the final rhymes I'd like to see assembled)
Chunky Clunks
Crunk Dunkers
ETC

You get the idea. If you were to rename this program with a topically appropriate rhyme, i do not see the cash for clunkers program getting the current level of resistance that it currently has in our government.
post #28 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeI View Post
Closer, this has already been answered for you. Snaieke, of all people, answered it for you. Improving our economy and closing the trade gap are not synonymous.

Thats my point...it is not improving the economy. $10,000 worth of consumption is meaningless if $10,000 worth of debt is created simultaneously.
post #29 of 59
First of all, I think this program was budgeted correctly in so far that this wasnt something you can easily pin a pricetag on, as it depends a LOT on whether it catches on with the populace.. and THAT is unreliable especially in the day and age of the 24h news cycle, and the "scandal of the day" format so easily distracting people away from government programs.
Also, 2 billion means that its not, in the current picture, a huge sum to perhaps be blown on a bad program. You can always extend it.
Screaming about the government being unable to budget something that is more of an experiment or left-field idea than a policy is just the usual reflexive bashing you see with virtually anything right now. Besides, I dont think I am the only one, and I am not even american, who simply stopped caring about all the cries of wolf on a daily basis.
In a way, people against this program using bad or simply wrong analogies or reasoning are contributing to the fact they get heard less and less: There is so much noise about this and other things, such a bad signal-to-noise ratio in political discourse, that I doubt anyone can make much sense of it anymore.

The program itself, in my opinion, is a late good pick. As far as I am concerned, programs such as these, which give the consumer the choice to , well, consume even in bad economic conditions, allow for a much more effective weeding out of just bad companies. As someone said above, if you want to stick to the free market philosophy, which apparently America does, you have to realize that once Toyota makes better cars, GM has a problem.
Sometimes I think the american free market philosophy, in reality, is: We want free market as long as our products are the best. Once they are not, please socialize us.
post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Thats my point...it is not improving the economy. $10,000 worth of consumption is meaningless if $10,000 worth of debt is created simultaneously.
Huh ... why?
post #31 of 59
You do know that most of these people who buy these cars are going to pay it back, right? Or are you just assuming it's all a bunch of deadbeats?
post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Thats my point...it is not improving the economy. $10,000 worth of consumption is meaningless if $10,000 worth of debt is created simultaneously.
But that isnt whats happening here, really.
First of all, 4500 of that 10k is government money. Which is similar to bailouts, but now given out by the lowest instead of the highest tier of the economy, and it gives people something to do. It may keep a business running, it may keep someone working who would have lost the job etc.

So, instead of piling another 4500 onto some AIG account, you have 4500 going from , likely, the bottom rung (consumer) all the way up top, and causing work to be done along the way.

Secondly, it removes old inefficient cars. This isnt such a small use, its a nice green sideeffect.
Third, people who spend stupidly will do so. If they cannot afford a car and now buy one, do you honestly believe they would have saved up instead without this program? Nope, they would have bought something else with money they dont have, if they havent smartened up already. This program likely just means its a car instead of a huge flat screen TV. Big fucking deal.

Also, and I think thats really the biggest use here, this is something people see that the government does for them. The bailouts? They are a joke, most of the money apparently just gets stolen again, and nothing really changes except the top 1% bank accounts. I said it a long time ago, fixing this economy is best done from the grounds up, not as Wall Street desperately tries to tell us, from the top down.
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Huh ... why?
To spare everybody on this thread Ill look up a post I wrote on this that currently resides in the black hole known as the economy...oops thread and link it to you when Im not confined to my iPhone.
post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaunshar View Post
Third, people who spend stupidly will do so. If they cannot afford a car and now buy one, do you honestly believe they would have saved up instead without this program? Nope, they would have bought something else with money they dont have, if they havent smartened up already. This program likely just means its a car instead of a huge flat screen TV. Big fucking deal.
I guess this is what I was alluding to earlier. I know and accept that people will spend like morons. What bugs me is that the government is giving them an incentive to do so, when they should be doing exactly the opposite.
Quote:
Also, and I think thats really the biggest use here, this is something people see that the government does for them.
Truth be told I never appreciated that angle. I see how, as a side effect, its nice to have, but I think that if the government was really interested in our long term fiscal security they would have chosen to make us feel better in a different way.
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
I support universal healthcare.

Im wondering if you actually read and, perhaps, comprehended what I wrote?

I didnt know Europe has Cash for Clunkers going on right now.
Not every country, but some have it. You don't seem to get the program, do you?
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
Not every country, but some have it. You don't seem to get the program, do you?
Apparently not.

Then again, I still dont understand your original reply or the comparison to universal health care.

You could enlighten me.
post #37 of 59
Is it just me or does the 18 mpg maximum disqualify a lot of vehicles? Even my '89 Camaro V6 gets 20 mpg.
post #38 of 59
The whole point is to get rid off the worst offenders, so to speak. If anything, I'd like to see the fuel efficiency standards raised a bit. That would prevent the re-up from going broke so quickly also.
post #39 of 59
So what happens to the clunkers once they are traded in?
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Augustine View Post
So what happens to the clunkers once they are traded in?
Apparently they're covering this tonight on ABC World News.
post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Augustine View Post
So what happens to the clunkers once they are traded in?


http://features.csmonitor.com/politi...-the-old-cars/

Quote:
What happens to your clunker when you trade it for that shiny new, fuel-efficient car of your choice?

It’s not a pretty end for your dear old Ford Explorer, reportedly the most surrendered car under the “Cash for Clunkers” program (which is officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS).

After your new-car purchase, the dealer is obligated to drain your old car’s oil and replace it with a sodium silicate solution, also known as liquid glass. The silicate is causes the engine’s parts to freeze and ensures it never cruises the highway again. Then the dealer writes the cruel words, “junk vehicle, cars.gov” on the car’s title.

The dealer has seven days after receiving government reimbursement before the car has to be sent to its next stop on the retirement road trip – the certified disposal facility (CDF). Most dealers will shop around, searching for the CDF willing to offer the best price for your clunker, whether it’s a scrap processor, auto recycler, or salvage auction.

Yet clunkers are unknown entities for the CDFs, according to Michael Wilson, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association. They have to invest $700 to $1,200 to remove a car’s fluids, mercury switches, and Freon, and after that, they’re not sure what kind of return they might be able to get. In ordinary times, the drivetrain and engine block account for about 60 percent of the salable parts, but the CARS program renders the engine useless and limits the terms under which the drivetrain can be sold.

At this point, the clunker has two options. If it’s a newer model, it will usually go to a full-service, professional parts dismantler where it will be instantly stripped of the 20 to 40 most commonly reused parts. If it’s an older model, it will sit at a self-service parts recycler, where individuals will pick a needed piece here and there.

But either way, the CARS program mandates that clunkers be crushed or shredded within 180 days, whether all usable parts have been salvaged or not. In contrast, nonclunkers might remain at a professional parts dismantler for 36 months.
post #42 of 59
A really intersting report based on the 1st 250,000 cars purchased under the program.

http://finance.boston.com/boston/?GU...ge=MEDIAVIEWER

A good bottom line is that with the improved gas mileage from this program, we are estimated to save 185 million a year in gas costs. Project that out to the estimated 750,000 sold if the program gets the additional $2 billion in funds equals 555 million a year. Within 6 years, the fuel saving will exceed the cost of this program. That should help our trade deficit and oil dependency just a bit.

Also, I love that Richard Shelby doesn't like this program, even though Alabama's largest export is cars and car parts, and over 12% of the GDP comes from auto manufacturing. Way to support your state Dick.

I was living in Tuscaloosa, Alabama at the time the Mercedes plant was built between there and Birmingham. The influx of jobs really revoltionized the whole economy of the area. Tuscaloosa and SW Birmingham has grown tremendously because of it. So, even though all the big players in the state are all foreign (Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes car manufacturing and Toyota engine plants), there are a lot of Americans benefitting.
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Augustine View Post
So what happens to the clunkers once they are traded in?
Opportunities arise!
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Apparently not.

Then again, I still dont understand your original reply or the comparison to universal health care.

You could enlighten me.
Mistook you for one of the few here against universal health care. My bad there. Most people against it are simply unaware of what it is.
post #45 of 59
In BC there is a similar system in place but instead of money for a car, you get $1200 towards a bike. That's right - a bicycle - it's a kind of 2 wheeled non-motorized conveyance which encourages exercise and healthy living.

The UK government is under pressure to introduce a similar scheme but as our motor industry is dead as a doornail why should the government bother trying to prop it up. Plus, cars in europe are generally much smaller and more efficient than the North American gas-guzzling SUVs because fuel is so damn expensive there, but you'll learn that one eventually.

I'd like to see on the news some redneck republican getting his C4C dollars, trading in his fucked up F-150 for a new prius or smart car then looking dead in to the camera and saying how he hates the scheme and how the democrats are wasting money. That would make my fucking day.
post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by R A Smith View Post
A really intersting report based on the 1st 250,000 cars purchased under the program.

http://finance.boston.com/boston/?GU...ge=MEDIAVIEWER

A good bottom line is that with the improved gas mileage from this program, we are estimated to save 185 million a year in gas costs. Project that out to the estimated 750,000 sold if the program gets the additional $2 billion in funds equals 555 million a year. Within 6 years, the fuel saving will exceed the cost of this program. That should help our trade deficit and oil dependency just a bit.
Where exactly is the government going to make up the lost 14 million per year(if my math is correct) in gas tax revenue? This also begs the question on other green vehicle mandates from this administration. If they keep herding us towards cars that run forever where is the lost revenue made up?
post #47 of 59
Bicycles, lol!

I like the program, but the environmental benefits are questionable.
post #48 of 59
I'd kill to have $1200 for a bike. Holla @ u lata, shitty $300 Trek bike.
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
Mistook you for one of the few here against universal health care. My bad there. Most people against it are simply unaware of what it is.
No problem, but I still dont see the correlation between the two.

A bad idea is a bad idea. Low cost/high quality health care for everybody is a good idea, IMO. Cash for Clunkers is not.
post #50 of 59
He assumed you were another ignorant American that likes to ignore how much better all other countries are.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Cash for Clunkers