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.
I mildly oppose the "Cash for Clunkers" program because I believe it is flawed. As I libertarian-conservative I am opposed to corporate welfare, which has become a serious problem under the Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama administrations. I see "Cash for Clunkers" as a second bailout of the auto dealers, car manufacturers, and auto parts manufacturers. It is true that this is stimulative, but it singles out a single sector and class to benefit. People who couldn't afford a car before the program, still cannot afford a car. This is a incentive for wealthy and upper-middle-class people who have an old car laying around to go try and buy a new car. I also read an article today that stated that 4 of 5 of the top selling models so far are from Japanese or Korean automakers. This is because if we were to incentivise American's to purchase vehicles from American-owned automakers it would be a violation of our trade agreements with the other countries that sell products here.
I agree with most of what you said in your post but disagree that "wealthy" people are trading in cars to get a measley $4500 from the government. Wealthy people buy a Lexus, Jaguar, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche etc. They don't buy Toyotas or Hyundai's. The high end cars do not qualify for the program so this in itself excludes "the wealthy " right from the start. The most traded-in vehicles are trucks. Trucks are as middle American as you can get. I think the program is unnecessary, I agree it is a second bailout for an already propped up auto industry too. People who cannot afford a car still cannot afford a car. There should be no program to buy cars for the poor. They tried this with the sub prime mortgages giving the unqualified "a chance" to own a house and we all know how well that brainstorm worked out.
It is outright pandering, that's why. The government will run a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit this year, and we're now subscribing to giveaway programs like this to buoy General Motors, a company that is now facing its reckoning for 50 years of terrible business practices. Zero sense to me. Mimp, if you want a new car, save up your money and buy it yourself. Don't ask me, the taxpayer, the do it for you.
This program bothers me because it's expensive, it's not going to make any huge environmental impact, and it's being touted as a success when really, there is hardly any data about the program available to anyone -- even senators who are being asked to approve an additional $2 billion.
This program bothers me because it's expensive, it's not going to make any huge environmental impact, and it's being touted as a success when really, there is hardly any data about the program available to anyone -- even senators who are being asked to approve an additional $2 billion.
I agree. There will be no huge envrionmental impact until battery and capacitor technology reaches the point of 300 miles between charges and charges take five minutes or less. Then people will willingly get rid of the gasoline fueled vehicles in favor of the new technologies. They will not ,however, go backwards in technology nor give up the amenities they have become accustomed to to save the envrionment. If the Government wants change they need to dump stimulus money into the technology needed to make that change not in tiny cars with motorcycle engines in them.
Suppose I have 2 vehicles-----a vehicle I drive a lot with good mileage and a gas guzzler I drive very little.
I had planned on trading the vehicle I drive a lot for a new car, however, it doesn't qualify for " cash for clunkers"
I then trade the vehicle I drive very little for the cash for clunkers .
The govt will then brag how much fuel is being saved by this trade,when the fact is it was very little as that gas guzzler never was driven much to start with.
The govt is assuming the clunkers being traded were driven the same # of miles as the new car being bought when they label their program a success.
Sen. Shelby is pretty good, but too much of a porker for my taste. I think that Sen. Sessions is great. Both will hold their Senate seats until they retire or die (or go for a higher office).
Suppose I have 2 vehicles-----a vehicle I drive a lot with good mileage and a gas guzzler I drive very little.
I had planned on trading the vehicle I drive a lot for a new car, however, it doesn't qualify for " cash for clunkers"
I then trade the vehicle I drive very little for the cash for clunkers .
The govt will then brag how much fuel is being saved by this trade,when the fact is it was very little as that gas guzzler never was driven much to start with.
The govt is assuming the clunkers being traded were driven the same # of miles as the new car being bought when they label their program a success.
Not necessarily !
Good post, I'd be willing to bet that scenario is 75% or more of the trade-ins involved.
Suppose I have 2 vehicles-----a vehicle I drive a lot with good mileage and a gas guzzler I drive very little.
I had planned on trading the vehicle I drive a lot for a new car, however, it doesn't qualify for " cash for clunkers"
I then trade the vehicle I drive very little for the cash for clunkers .
This would've been our situation had we gone ahead and made the trade. But we opted not to. Hubby doesn't see much point in the destruction of a perfectly good engine and/or drivetrain (whatever). Our cars are one owner and in great shape (plus quite fuel efficient in the first place) and would make perfectly good used vehicles for someone. Lots of people need and want used cars for a variety of reasons.
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.