U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2009, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,641 posts, read 5,344,691 times
Reputation: 4782

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The whole objective is to get car production back up to speed.
Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It is a fact that the vouchers are valid only against the purchase of a NEW car.
Or a new truck, but ... right again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Which compels participants to not simply replace their old clunker, but to buy a new one.
Right. If you participate in the program, there are requirements that must be met.

Nice to see you switch from "every driver" (totally wrong) to "participants" (absolutely correct).

The use of the word "compels" is a bit misleading. No one is compelled to participate in the program. If you are driving a "clunker", you are free to continue to do so. If you want to trade it in on a used car, or a motorcycle, or ditch it altogether and take the bus, that's fine. You can even take your clunker to a car dealer, trade it in, buy a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle, and still not participate in the program (for example, perhaps your clunker is worth more than the value of a voucher).

But, if you decide to participate in the program, the federal government will help to off-set the cost of a new car or truck via a $3500 or $4500 voucher ... as long as you follow the rules of the program.

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/CARS-Law.pdf (broken link)
Sec. 1301. Short Title- This title may be cited as the `Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009'.

Sec. 1302. Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program- (a) Establishment- There is established in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration a voluntary program to be known as the `Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program' .....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2009, 01:11 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,366 posts, read 10,001,587 times
Reputation: 9115
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
I've read the bill.

Great. You're way ahead of about 90% of Washington who votes on these matters.

Did you read anything in there about a 'fine' if an individual doesn't wish to buy a new car? No? ... well maybe in the next draft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,858 posts, read 43,589,392 times
Reputation: 58603
Considering we are pretty much in a financial mess due to people purchasing more than they could afford.....wouldn't be rewarding people for getting in to additional debt kind of going backwards?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,641 posts, read 5,344,691 times
Reputation: 4782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Great. You're way ahead of about 90% of Washington who votes on these matters.
Sadly, I think you're right about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Did you read anything in there about a 'fine' if an individual doesn't wish to buy a new car? No? ... well maybe in the next draft.
No, no fine. If an individual doesn't want to buy a new car, that's okay, but that person won't get a voucher for his trade-in.

And no, the measure has been signed into law - no "next draft" coming. Perhaps, after this program has run its course, there will be a second program, but at this point, that's only speculation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 06:09 PM
 
21,408 posts, read 10,672,465 times
Reputation: 8709
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET View Post
House plan seeks to pull car sales out of doldrums - NewsFlash - OregonLive.com

The Presidentís latest plan for the economy is to give federal payment vouchers for purchasing new vehicles. In general, the vouchers are good from $3,500 to $4,500. It isnít necessary for the new vehicle to get better gas mileage, but if it even gets 10% more the voucher amount is higher. I realize this is much more a demonstration for the UAW to support the union than anything else, but aside from that Iím not very impressed with this idea.

For example, some liberal newspapers and reporters are touting this as a ďgreenĒ bill that helps the economy. Well, not if it means simply buying a new vehicle that gets no better or worse gas mileage (which is part of the plan so long as one trades in an SUV and buys another SUV). Now, it does help if it gets 20-year old vehicles off the road with their failing emissions- thatís a plus. I also think I could support this bill more if the vehicles being purchased got a minimum of 30 MPG on the freeway rather than the ability to qualify for a voucher on a vehicle getting less than 20 MPG. In other words, if this is to be forced upon us, fine, but why not make it really meaningful for the environment?

Another concern. Is it wise in the midst of a depression where thousands of jobs are being lost each day to entice people to take on tens of thousands of dollars of new debt for the sake of union pensions? In the Oregonian today there are letters to the editor that hail the Obama health plan tenant to close down insurance companies. Well, I work for a subsidiary of ODS and thanks to the new health plan I will probably be unemployed in 2-4 years. People at health care companies are looking for other jobs. When this health plan takes full effect (if it does) and several million people lose their jobs, what good is it to have new car payments?

And what about yesterdays announcement of Obamaís ďpay as you go planĒ? Letís say, for example, that 3,000,000 take up this voucher idea at an average payout of $4,000. Thatís $12 billion dollars of new federal debt. Some of that money comes back by way of taxes, but the accountant I spoke with tells me itíll be about 8% of the payout.

So is this a positive plan?
Sounds like another automotive gimmick to buy..................oops, I forgot, Obama owns GM and Chrysler.

My bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,625,428 times
Reputation: 35875
This plan won't work. If people who drive old clunkers could afford a new car, and wanted one, they would have already bought one. Each participant will sink more catastrophically into their irredeemable debt than they already are. This plan will fail, and there will be no alterntive but to go to Plan B. That will be the "next draft". Like the proposed health insurance plan, it will be less voluntary. There are many countries in the world where legislation or regulations exist to force older cars off the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 07:55 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,077,722 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB View Post
Considering we are pretty much in a financial mess due to people purchasing more than they could afford.....wouldn't be rewarding people for getting in to additional debt kind of going backwards?
Apparently you assume that everyone is in financial straights. Debt in and of itself is not evil, in fact without debt there would be very little economic activity. The question isn't the presence of debt but the amount of debt that an individual is capable of handling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 08:02 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,077,722 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
This plan won't work.
Funny similar plans are working quite well across Europe and there is little actual reasons for it not working here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/bu...01refunds.html

"If people who drive old clunkers could afford a new car, and wanted one, they would have already bought one."

From a personal standpoint, nothing could be further from the truth. My wife totaled her 1997 Honda Civic as a result were in the process of shopping for a reasonably prices low mileage used car ( we have long preferred used car purchases over new simply based upon the obscene depreciation on new cars): however, with the passage of this initiative we are now shopping for a new car and will use my dilapidated Jeep (we would have had to pay to have it junked) as far more valuable trade in. The $4,500 for my Jeep far outweighed any of our previous economic arguments against purchase of a new car.





Each participant will sink more catastrophically into their irredeemable debt than they already are. This plan will fail, and there will be no alterntive but to go to Plan B. That will be the "next draft". Like the proposed health insurance plan, it will be less voluntary. There are many countries in the world where legislation or regulations exist to force older cars off the road.[/quote]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,625,428 times
Reputation: 35875
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post

From a personal standpoint, nothing could be further from the truth. My wife totaled her 1997 Honda Civic as a result were in the process of shopping for a reasonably prices low mileage used car ( we have long preferred used car purchases over new simply based upon the obscene depreciation on new cars): however, with the passage of this initiative we are now shopping for a new car and will use my dilapidated Jeep (we would have had to pay to have it junked) as far more valuable trade in. The $4,500 for my Jeep far outweighed any of our previous economic arguments against purchase of a new car.



So, the success of the program is dependent on a handful of people who totaled their car and have a spare dilapidated vehicle that is just sitting around. Plus the teeming masses, millions upon millions of them, who can afford a new car and want a new car, but just haven't gotten around to trading in their '91 on it yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,641 posts, read 5,344,691 times
Reputation: 4782
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
This plan won't work. If people who drive old clunkers could afford a new car, and wanted one, they would have already bought one. Each participant will sink more catastrophically into their irredeemable debt than they already are. This plan will fail, and there will be no alterntive but to go to Plan B. That will be the "next draft". Like the proposed health insurance plan, it will be less voluntary. There are many countries in the world where legislation or regulations exist to force older cars off the road.
Are you as tired of being wrong as I am of telling you that you're wrong?

"If people who drive old clunkers could afford a new car, and wanted one, they would have already bought one."

[1] Yes, plenty of people have traded in older vehicles for new vehicles in the time since the economy went south. The number of vehicles sold is sharply down from normal sales figures - GM down 33%, Toyota down 32%, Honda down 30%, etc. - but people who both had the means and the confidence have continued to buy.

[2] There are also plenty of people who have made the decision to be more cautious in these economically-troubled times. They can afford a new car, and want a new car, but put off the purchase until either the economy showed some signs of life or they could get a good deal.

[3] Another category of prospective new car buyer is the person who can afford a new car and wants a new car but the purchase of a new car at this time would put a strain on their budget - a strain that they would not have been concerned about in the past but are concerned about today.

For people in categories [2] and [3], the voucher of $3500 or $4500 makes all the difference in the world. Those who have been understandably cautious about spending on a big-ticket item, those waiting to get a good deal, and those concerned about a new car purchase straining their budget are all potential participants in the program.

Personally, I fit into category 2. I've been waiting to get a good deal. I was hoping that our daughter's '99 Ford Escort would be among the eligible vehicles - it's not. But I'll be trading it in and getting a new car anyway - much like housing, it's a great time to buy a car .... if you can afford to do so.

Now, will the plan work? I have a feeling that it won't work as well as the Administration hopes it will. People are still understandably scared, and buying a new car - even with the government picking up $3500-$4500 of the tab - is simply not feasible.

But people will participate. However, I suspect that any degree of participation in the program will be declared a failure by those in our society who seemingly can do nothing but whine and complain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top