# $$$$$ for clunkers passes



## campgottagopee (Jun 10, 2009)

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/house-passes-cash-for-clunkers-legislation/

Thoughts???


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 10, 2009)

Wish I had a clunker. Got rid of a VW last year, but that got like 30 mpg ...


----------



## bvibert (Jun 10, 2009)

If we had the money for a new car I'd trade in my wife's shit box for that credit tomorrow!


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2009)

I will refrain from comment for fear that I'll cross the AZ cardinal rule of "no political discussions" really quickly


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

drjeff said:


> I will refrain from comment for fear that I'll cross the AZ cardinal rule of "no political discussions" really quickly



You mean like how GM now stands for "Government Motors?"


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2009)

Paul said:


> You mean like how GM now stands for "Government Motors?"



Probably would have gotten there by my 6th or 7th reply


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Probably would have gotten there by my 6th or 7th reply



Да камрад, я понимаю 

Длиной живут People' республика s Amerika


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 10, 2009)

I like the idea on a lot of levels. It's expensive and all, but the longer-run cost savings (both in fuel and the environment) are huge. Transportation is one of, if not the, largest energy use sectors, and improving the efficiency (and safety/reliability/etc) of the on road fleet is a good thing, I think.


----------



## koreshot (Jun 10, 2009)

Paul said:


> Да камрад, я понимаю
> 
> Длиной живут People' республика s Amerika



HAHAHA -- did you use one of those web translator thingies?  The second sentence makes no sense.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 10, 2009)

It's lame. It's a government sponsored way to get new cars off the lot. I think the government has f'd with the free market/domestic makers hard enough since January; leave well enough alone. I'll have read the actual bill. But as it was proposed, you theoretically could go out and use the money to buy a newer pickup. The devil is in the details. 

To me, this makes about as much sense as tearing down your house to built one that's more energy efficient. "Look! I'm going to save $500 a year on my utilities! Let's ignore the fact that I just used half a forest worth of trees and litteraly tons of other raw materials...I'm saving the planet!!!!1111"


----------



## Marc (Jun 10, 2009)

koreshot said:


> HAHAHA -- did you use one of those web translator thingies?  The second sentence makes no sense.



No more speaking farking sputnik.  I'm sure you guys are just talking about pirogies and snow and shit, but cut it out.




Name that movie?


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

Paul said:


> Да камрад, я понимаю
> 
> Длиной живут People' республика s Amerika


 


Marc said:


> No more speaking farking sputnik. I'm sure you guys are just talking about pirogies and snow and shit, but cut it out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes comrade, I [Ponima?]

Dlinoy fivoot People's respooblika s America.

I think. I don't speak Russian, but learned Cyrillic a while back, so I'm a bit rusty.


----------



## koreshot (Jun 10, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> I like the idea on a lot of levels. It's expensive and all, but the longer-run cost savings (both in fuel and the environment) are huge. Transportation is one of, if not the, largest energy use sectors, and improving the efficiency (and safety/reliability/etc) of the on road fleet is a good thing, I think.



I wonder though, what the average delta in MPG will be.  Maybe 10mpg best case?  Will that be enough to offset the energy impact of folks trading in perfectly fine, but old, vehicles for newer ones?


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

koreshot said:


> HAHAHA -- did you use one of those web translator thingies?  The second sentence makes no sense.



Of course not, it's your Georgian dialect getting in the way.


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

glenn said:


> it's lame. It's a government sponsored way to get new cars off the lot. I think the government has f'd with the free market/domestic makers hard enough since january; leave well enough alone. I'll have read the actual bill. But as it was proposed, you theoretically could go out and use the money to buy a newer pickup. The devil is in the details.
> 
> To me, this makes about as much sense as tearing down your house to built one that's more energy efficient. "look! I'm going to save $500 a year on my utilities! Let's ignore the fact that i just used half a forest worth of trees and litteraly tons of other raw materials...i'm saving the planet!!!!1111"



*this*


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

Who cares about gas mileage? Shouldn't it be consumption that we care about?

Give everyone a tax credit equal to 8000 miles at whatever the current CAFE standard is and abolish the CAFE standard while reducing the tax credit year on year to be equivalent with the planned increases in CAFE. Don't reward people for getting a more efficient car that they still drive 30,000 miles per year.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 10, 2009)

Glenn said:


> It's lame. It's a government sponsored way to get new cars off the lot. I think the government has f'd with the free market/domestic makers hard enough since January; leave well enough alone. I'll have read the actual bill. But as it was proposed, you theoretically could go out and use the money to buy a newer pickup. The devil is in the details.
> 
> To me, this makes about as much sense as tearing down your house to built one that's more energy efficient. "Look! I'm going to save $500 a year on my utilities! Let's ignore the fact that I just used half a forest worth of trees and litteraly tons of other raw materials...I'm saving the planet!!!!1111"



Granted, this won't hurt manufacturers any, but if you start with the premise that we need to have a more efficient vehicle fleet (which I agree with), the only way to do it is replace older ineficient cars with newer more efficient ones. Getting the old cars off the road could be done by instituting stricter emmissions rules (with no grandfathering older cars past the regulations), but that would leave people who can't afford a new car stuck with no vehicles. At least with a clunker credit, it's possible for more people to update their cars. If tighter emmissions standards are then rolled in to make the incentive less of an option, then I think the impact would be greater.

I'm quite impressed by the steps GM is taking, really. My wife and I sat slack-jawed and amazed at one ad where they basically confessed to screwing up royally.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 10, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Who cares about gas mileage? Shouldn't it be consumption that we care about?
> 
> Give everyone a tax credit equal to 8000 miles at whatever the current CAFE standard is and abolish the CAFE standard while reducing the tax credit year on year to be equivalent with the planned increases in CAFE. Don't reward people for getting a more efficient car that they still drive 30,000 miles per year.



If we don't want people to drive, we have to give them an alternative. Try getting suburban NIMBYs and BANANAs to allow construction of a light rail line through their backyard.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2009)

Glenn said:


> It's lame. It's a government sponsored way to get new cars off the lot. I think the government has f'd with the free market/domestic makers hard enough since January; leave well enough alone. I'll have read the actual bill. But as it was proposed, you theoretically could go out and use the money to buy a newer pickup. The devil is in the details.
> 
> To me, this makes about as much sense as tearing down your house to built one that's more energy efficient. "Look! I'm going to save $500 a year on my utilities! Let's ignore the fact that I just used half a forest worth of trees and litteraly tons of other raw materials...I'm saving the planet!!!!1111"



+10


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 10, 2009)

Interesting responces, I find it a tad bit "over the top" but think it will spurr some sales during a very crucial time in the US auto industry. 

Don't think we'll benefit from this too much around here---can't even remember the last "older than 1984" anything I took in on trade. Most of them have been scraped already.

Will be interesting to follow.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 10, 2009)

That would be cool if it passes.  I have a Mercury Mountaineer V-8 AWD with 105,000 miles on it that I use as my tow vehicle and mud month/last 2 miles to the mountain ski vehicle.  It gets abysmal mileage.  With a government incentive, I'd love to flip it for a 4WD pickup truck that gets better fuel economy.  A Toyota Tacoma V-6 4WD extended cab with a towing package would work pretty well.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 10, 2009)

A similar plan really boosted car sales in Germany, although what good it did for the industry is debatable there since most of the cars are exported. 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article5840006.ece


----------



## bigbog (Jun 10, 2009)

*GM's Volt = ~$10k*

Paul,
I think I was remembering a show that mentioned GM's overpricing of their _Volt_.  Obviously set up to somehow help execs cover themselves fiscally..or something, cuz it certainly wasn't priced for the average American worker.  Maybe they intended it to sell off-shore...great strategy eh'.   Can't remember exact pricing but it was a total joke in comparison to Toyota, Honda, and the other hybrid/electric designers.

**EDIT:* Sure would've liked to see a little more than $4500...especially for those currently at ~$25000 or less.  Anyone griping at the mark..well isn't that TS, those not at their norms or lower incomes have fewer tune-ups..ie...another spinned idea by Washington.
 John Deere's top-of-the-line sit-on mowers comes close to that price...  *If Washington would provide a loan to the average Joe like that given to WallStreet...it could be done, but as mentioned previously...many of use just don't have the $$$ to spend.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 10, 2009)

france has something similar for old cars, and it has another program that gives money to those that buy fuel efficient cars and charges those that are inefficient.

the programs' stated goal is to improve the environment, which i tend to believe, since the credits/debits apply to all cars, regardless of their origin.

besides helping the environment, it helps less well-off people afford a car, since they are the people most likely driving an old clunker.

and i'd imagine taxes from increased car sales will probably help off-set the cost a bit.  

so, in the end, i have no problem with this initiative.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 10, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/house-passes-cash-for-clunkers-legislation/
> 
> Thoughts???



Sounds like a crock of crap..why should people get $4,000 for a $500 car..totally unfair..I'm likely buying a new car next year but my currently car is going to be worth over $10,000 so it won't apply..


----------



## koreshot (Jun 10, 2009)

Marc said:


> No more speaking farking sputnik.  I'm sure you guys are just talking about pirogies and snow and shit, but cut it out.
> 
> Name that movie?


No clue.  Wild guess, Spies Like Us.



Paul said:


> Of course not, it's your Georgian dialect getting in the way.



Dialect? DIALECT?  How dare you?!  Does this look like cyrillic letters to you?







We had written language when Russians were still grunting to each other.  :smile:


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 10, 2009)

bigbog said:


> Paul,
> I think I was remembering a show that mentioned GM's overpricing of their _Volt_.  Obviously set up to somehow help execs cover themselves fiscally..or something, cuz it certainly wasn't priced for the average American worker.  Maybe they intended it to sell off-shore...great strategy eh'.   Can't remember exact pricing but it was a total joke in comparison to Toyota, Honda, and the other hybrid/electric designers.




whatever show you were watching was wrong.  and it's wrong to compare the volt, which is an all-electric car, to a hybrid.  totally different animals.

the new, ground-breaking, technology is very expensive (R&D, manufacturing, etc.).  once it gets put in more cars (volume), the prices will come down.  GM needs the good press of the volt, so i seriously doubt they'd be messing with the prices.


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

koreshot said:


> We had written language when Russians were still grunting to each other.  :smile:



And what, exactly, has changed?:smile:


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 10, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Dialect? DIALECT?  How dare you?!  Does this look like cyrillic letters to you?






uhhhhh, yes?


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> whatever show you were watching was wrong.  and it's wrong to compare the volt, which is an all-electric car, to a hybrid.  totally different animals.
> 
> the new, ground-breaking, technology is very expensive (R&D, manufacturing, etc.).  once it gets put in more cars (volume), the prices will come down.  GM needs the good press of the volt, so i seriously doubt they'd be messing with the prices.



True. It's also a bargain compared to the Tesla Roadster. 

GM had a viable all-electric car. It was called the Saturn EV-1 They killed it off in the nineties.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 10, 2009)

Is Obama gonna give me money for my old skis and my old polo shirts???


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 10, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Is Obama gonna give me money for my old skis and my old polo shirts???





depends on the smell of those old polo shirts and how much a resulting risk to the environment they pose.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Is Obama gonna give me money for my old skis and my old polo shirts???




What's another few $$ of gov't spending these days


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 10, 2009)

drjeff said:


> What's another few $$ of gov't spending these days



I know it's rediculous...but my take home pay is higher after the recent middle class tax cut so I can't complain too much..

Anyway this is political so a mod should shut this down..


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 10, 2009)

drjeff said:


> What's another few $$ of gov't spending these days





don't blame the current man in charge.  not his fault.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 10, 2009)

Paul said:


> GM had a viable all-electric car. It was called the GM EV1 They killed it off in the nineties.



(FIFU)


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> (FIFU)



Oh yeah... but it was only sold and serviced at Saturn dealers.


----------



## Marc (Jun 10, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> whatever show you were watching was wrong.  and it's wrong to compare the volt, which is an all-electric car, to a hybrid.  totally different animals.
> 
> the new, ground-breaking, technology is very expensive (R&D, manufacturing, etc.).  once it gets put in more cars (volume), the prices will come down.  GM needs the good press of the volt, so i seriously doubt they'd be messing with the prices.



Que?

The Volt is a plug-in hybrid.  It can charge its batteries from 110 VAC or from the generator coupled to the IC gas engine on board.  There's no mechanical coupling of the IC engine to the drivetrain, which is what makes it different form current hybrids like the Prius.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 10, 2009)

drjeff said:


> What's another few $$ of gov't spending these days



Don't get me started. :evil:

Anyways, if this bill goes into law, look for it to be a shining example of "unintended consequences." Very similar to the person in our office who was shutting their monitor off when they left their desk to "save electricity"...only to shitcan the monitor because it's sensitive to being powered down. It cost us $200+ to save 5cents on our electric bill. F-ing brilliant!


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 10, 2009)

Marc said:


> Que?
> 
> The Volt is a plug-in hybrid.  It can charge its batteries from 110 VAC or from the generator coupled to the IC gas engine on board.  There's no mechanical coupling of the IC engine to the drivetrain, which is what makes it different form current hybrids like the Prius.





ooooops.  my bad.  i stand corrected.

wikipedia's entry explains it in detail.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 10, 2009)

Marc said:


> Que?
> 
> The Volt is a plug-in hybrid.  It can charge its batteries from 110 VAC or from the generator coupled to the IC gas engine on board.  There's no mechanical coupling of the IC engine to the drivetrain, which is what makes it different form current hybrids like the Prius.



Still don't wuite understand why this wasn't the technology they used in the first place. Hell, it's worked for trains for more than 50 years now.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 10, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> whatever show you were watching was wrong.  and it's wrong to compare the volt, which is an all-electric car, to a hybrid.  totally different animals.
> 
> the new, ground-breaking, technology is very expensive (R&D, manufacturing, etc.).  once it gets put in more cars (volume), the prices will come down.  GM needs the good press of the volt, so i seriously doubt they'd be messing with the prices.


All the design/manufacturing info is simply more "crap" to the under-paid...ie.._It Will NEVER Be Bought_ by anyone but the urban wage earners and the better paid & wealthy country folk, which has suited American business just fine so far.  As far as the pricing in comparison to what dealers outside the urban centers are selling good mileage gasoline Hondas and Toyotas, you're simply wrong!


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> don't blame the current man in charge.  not his fault.



Just wait 'til his healthcare proposal happens


----------



## Marc (Jun 10, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Still don't wuite understand why this wasn't the technology they used in the first place. Hell, it's worked for trains for more than 50 years now.



I think probably for two reasons... the first being that the battery technology isn't quite there for cars just yet... they were still struggling with that in the Volt last I heard.  The last iteration they planned to sell would get 40 miles on a full charge using li-ion batteries.  You could do better, and charge faster off the IC engine with more batteries but there's a weight penalty.  Not so with trains since they stop and go much less frequently and momentum is a big plus in a lot of situations.

The second is once the Toyota and Honda were leaning in that direction anyway, they both knew they'd have a hard time selling a car that went 0-60 in the length of five or six typical highway on ramps.  The IC engine gives the good acceleration and lets them use a smaller, lighter electric motor.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Still don't wuite understand why this wasn't the technology they used in the first place. Hell, it's worked for trains for more than 50 years now.


Power/weight in trains is a bit different than in cars. Who cares if you have to haul an extra ton of batteries in a train? Whoopdedoo, a fraction of a percent of your total vehicle weight. Extra couple hundred pounds of batteries? Big deal in a car.

The difference between current hybrids and Volt-type is two: for one, the architecture for a traditional hybrid results in minor modifications of an existing vehicle; the only thing you're really changing is the addition of the motor and associated hardware. In a volt, you have a different drivetrain architecture from the ground up. Secondly, the primary power source is completely different. Volt is intended to primarily be electric, current hybrids gas. Which means you need a lot more battery capacity in the Volt, so either better batteries or more batteries. This is what's driving the massive cost of the Volt, which will relegate it to business jet environmentalists.

The back-up motor in the Volt is puny, and will barely keep you at highway speed.

I wouldn't mind owning the right hybrid. Like this one:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hamilton_2009_Malaysian_GP_1.jp


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 10, 2009)

Couldn't a little Honda generator keep a car like the Tesla charged up for a really long time?

I was thinking you could do away with the batteries all together, but a 250 hp electric mtor requires 375 volts, and a 375 volt generator needs an 8 cylinder diesel, so maybe that doesn't work so well...


----------



## Glenn (Jun 10, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Just wait 'til his healthcare proposal happens



God help us. We should pull a Streisand and move to Canada. Oh wait...

And regarding to what the good Doc quoted. The guy is going to have to take some ownership one of these days. The finger pointing works great for the election..and the first 100 days. But he'll have to step up to the plate eventually.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2009)

Glenn said:


> God help us. We should pull a Streisand and move to Canada. Oh wait...
> 
> And regarding to what the good Doc quoted. The guy is going to have to take some ownership one of these days. The finger pointing works great for the election..and the first 100 days. But he'll have to step up to the plate eventually.



Problem is Glenn that he's got a plan where right now atleast the number of folks that will be stuck with the bill for everything aren't a significant enough portion of the population to voice they're displeasure and vote him out


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 10, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Just wait 'til his healthcare proposal happens



Wasn't that Hillary Clintons idea....yeah universal healthcare is gonna be a nightmare..Dr's will make less and poor people will be healthy and productive..I wonder what Arthur Bunker thinks about that..


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 10, 2009)

we should just have a politics forum like www.paskiandride.com since the moderators let political discussions happen,.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 10, 2009)

Just like bailing out people who took sub-prime loans (non-predatory), this rewards people who made bad buying choices and does nothing for people made appropriate buying decision. I like hybrid credits more than credits for making up for previous bad buys. Without knowing the full details, I can't comment much further, but I hope they included provisions for cars worth less than the credit. People shouldn't get credits for more than the car is even worth in the case of older high mileage junkers.

Finally, I don't support any legislation that seeks to save the failing auto industry. We need the auto industry to go through some consolidation. The companies that made bad business decisions need to fail.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 10, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Wasn't that Hillary Clintons idea....yeah universal healthcare is gonna be a nightmare..Dr's will make less and poor people will be healthy and productive..I wonder what Arthur Bunker thinks about that..



Archie Bunker. Damn kids ...


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 10, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> *Just like bailing out people who took sub-prime loans (non-predatory), this rewards people who made bad buying choices and does nothing for people made appropriate buying decision*. I like hybrid credits more than credits for making up for previous bad buys. Without knowing the full details, I can't comment much further, but I hope they included provisions for cars worth less than the credit. People shouldn't get credits for more than the car is even worth in the case of older high mileage junkers.
> 
> Finally, I don't support any legislation that seeks to save the failing auto industry. We need the auto industry to go through some consolidation. The companies that made bad business decisions need to fail.



Well said Riv


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Just like bailing out people who took sub-prime loans (non-predatory), this rewards people who made bad buying choices and does nothing for people made appropriate buying decision..



+1



campgottagopee said:


> Well said Riv



Yup!

I will admit to being partial to this bumper sticker pertaining to this scenario


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 10, 2009)

+2m, Hell make that PLUS a Billion !!! nah make that + 784 Billion  dammit !! -- There NOW i FEEL better


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Couldn't a little Honda generator keep a car like the Tesla charged up for a really long time?
> 
> I was thinking you could do away with the batteries all together, but a 250 hp electric mtor requires 375 volts, and a 375 volt generator needs an 8 cylinder diesel, so maybe that doesn't work so well...


I think a car consumes somewhere on the order of 20-30hp at highway speeds. And the Tesla being a sports car, it's not going to just be cruising along. If you're planning on using the generator a lot, it doesn't make sense to go with electric drive, you're just introducing additional inefficiencies into the process. To me the whole volt concept doesn't make sense. If you're going electric, just go electric. Yeah the ICE gives you a safety net, but it probably adds 200-300 lbs to the car all told.


----------



## severine (Jun 10, 2009)

Glenn said:


> God help us. We should pull a Streisand and move to Canada. Oh wait...
> 
> And regarding to what the good Doc quoted. The guy is going to have to take some ownership one of these days. The finger pointing works great for the election..and the first 100 days. But he'll have to step up to the plate eventually.





drjeff said:


> Problem is Glenn that he's got a plan where right now atleast the number of folks that will be stuck with the bill for everything aren't a significant enough portion of the population to voice they're displeasure and vote him out





GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Wasn't that Hillary Clintons idea....yeah universal healthcare is gonna be a nightmare..Dr's will make less and poor people will be healthy and productive..I wonder what Arthur Bunker thinks about that..


Now it's political. :roll:


riverc0il said:


> Just like bailing out people who took sub-prime loans (non-predatory), this rewards people who made bad buying choices and does nothing for people made appropriate buying decision. I like hybrid credits more than credits for making up for previous bad buys. Without knowing the full details, I can't comment much further, but I hope they included provisions for cars worth less than the credit. People shouldn't get credits for more than the car is even worth in the case of older high mileage junkers.
> 
> Finally, I don't support any legislation that seeks to save the failing auto industry. We need the auto industry to go through some consolidation. The companies that made bad business decisions need to fail.


What's the difference between this and the local dealerships running deals where they claim they'll take any clunker for a $3K trade-in? My sister took advantage of that when she bought her Hyundai several years back; her trade in wasn't worth spit.

I do take offense to the comment about "people who made bad buying choices." Not that I will be taking advantage of this program, but it's not because I think it's a bad one; it's because we're in a financial situation where buying socially-acceptable vehicles is not an option. That is unless we decided to go without eating, electric, heat, and possibly a place to live for a while. What good would that hybrid be to me if I had to live in it with 3 other people?

I think the intent is good. Not sure on the specifics of this. But like I said, our dealerships in CT do this sort of thing all the time anyway. It's usually $3K even if the vehicle is junk. $4500 isn't a huge leap, and it won't get me into a newer car that's more efficient because I can't afford one anyway, even with the gas costing less. Sorry, I'll take my offensive SUVs and keep driving them and pissing the rest of you off. If it bothers you too much, feel free to buy me a new car.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 10, 2009)

*Well said riv.....*



riverc0il said:


> Just like bailing out people who took sub-prime loans (non-predatory), this rewards people who made bad buying choices and does nothing for people made appropriate buying decision. I like hybrid credits more than credits for making up for previous bad buys. Without knowing the full details, I can't comment much further, but I hope they included provisions for cars worth less than the credit. People shouldn't get credits for more than the car is even worth in the case of older high mileage junkers.
> 
> Finally, I don't support any legislation that seeks to save the failing auto industry. We need the auto industry to go through some consolidation. The companies that made bad business decisions need to fail.


x++

*Like the bumper sticker *drjeff...*now _that_ makes me wanna go grab a gun...


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 10, 2009)

severine said:


> Now it's political. :roll:
> 
> What's the difference between this and the local dealerships running deals where they claim they'll take any clunker for a $3K trade-in? My sister took advantage of that when she bought her Hyundai several years back; her trade in wasn't worth spit.
> 
> I



Diff is one is a dealership gimmic and the other is tax payers $$$$


----------



## eatskisleep (Jun 10, 2009)

I don't think this is a good thing at all. People are already in debt and spending another $20K+ on a new car isn't going to help; it just sinks Americans further into debt. They are giving you $3,500 if you get a car that gets atleast 4mpg better? Come on now, like four mpg is really going to make a huge difference. If they really wanted to make a difference make it something like you have to get a car that gets 12 more mpg than previously.

Another problem with this system is some people will buy cheap cars in classified ads just to get their $3,500 check toward their new car. 

If I was already a good person and driving a fuel efficient car, how come I don't get money???

The government loves to bailout the car companies, what about the construction companies, the record companies,  what about me?!

Also as someone who loves old cars and hotrods, you are gonna see a lot of gems that could be restored just go to the junkyard now and that is what really saddens me the most.


----------



## severine (Jun 10, 2009)

eatskisleep said:


> If I was already a good person and driving a fuel efficient car, how come I don't get money???


So if your car isn't fuel-efficient, you're a bad person? :-?


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 10, 2009)

eatskisleep said:


> I don't think this is a good thing at all. People are already in debt and spending another $20K+ on a new car isn't going to help; it just sinks Americans further into debt. They are giving you $3,500 if you get a car that gets *atleast 4mpg better*? Come on now, like four mpg is really going to make a huge difference. If they really wanted to make a difference make it something like you have to get a car that gets 12 more mpg than previously.
> 
> Another problem with this system is some people will buy cheap cars in classified ads just to get their $3,500 check toward their new car.
> 
> ...




I'm sure they're considering emmissions as well, but I hear ya. Again, I don't think there are too many 25+ yr old cars that are still on the road to be traded for this credit, or at least in the Northeast there isn't.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> I'm sure they're considering emmissions as well, but I hear ya. Again, I don't think there are too many 25+ yr old cars that are still on the road to be traded for this credit, or at least in the Northeast there isn't.


Way I read it was dealers just had to show cars less than 25 years old ended up shredded. So a 1990 MY car is eligible, just has to be destroyed with proof.


----------



## eatskisleep (Jun 10, 2009)

severine said:


> So if your car isn't fuel-efficient, you're a bad person? :-?



Of course I don't mean it that way. My truck gets 12-14 mpg, and I don't consider myself a bad person. I just meant "good" in terms of the governments definition and their "go green" eyes.


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

Some of you people need to RTFA.

You can't go buy a $50 clunker and trade it in for a $4500 credit towards a new car, the car needs to have been registered to you for at least one year. This program is only good for a year.

I agree with Camp's point, It is the Manufacturers and/or Dealers that should be offering this type of incentive. This should NOT be funded by taxpayer $$ That's part of the whole "Free-Market" thing.

As far as "bad choices" that's just plain bullshit. What about builders, contractors etc... that need large vehicles? What about folks who buy used due to not having sufficient credit or cash-flow to afford a new vehicle? If you want society to move to more "eco-friendly" vehicles, give them a reason to do so. This whole idea is completely myopic, keep developing better fuel efficiency in new vehicles going forward and the older gas-guzzlers will fade-out through attrition.

The problem with our society is that we just don't understand that paradigm shifts take time, you can't fix these problems overnight, or legislate them away.


----------



## eatskisleep (Jun 10, 2009)

Paul said:


> As far as "bad choices" that's just plain bullshit. What about builders, contractors etc... that need large vehicles? What about folks who buy used due to not having sufficient credit or cash-flow to afford a new vehicle? If you want society to move to more "eco-friendly" vehicles, give them a reason to do so. This whole idea is completely myopic, keep developing better fuel efficiency in new vehicles going forward and the older gas-guzzlers will fade-out through attrition.
> 
> The problem with our society is that we just don't understand that paradigm shifts take time, you can't fix these problems overnight, or legislate them away.



Totally agree.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 10, 2009)

Paul said:


> This whole idea is completely myopic, keep developing better fuel efficiency in new vehicles going forward and the older gas-guzzlers will fade-out through attrition.
> 
> The problem with our society is that we just don't understand that paradigm shifts take time, you can't fix these problems overnight, or legislate them away.



Sometimes there isn't time to wait for a slow paradigm shift.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 10, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Diff is one is a dealership gimmic and the other is tax payers $$$$


Which is a HUGE difference. Not even comparable.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 10, 2009)

Paul said:


> As far as "bad choices" that's just plain bullshit. What about builders, contractors etc... that need large vehicles? What about folks who buy used due to not having sufficient credit or cash-flow to afford a new vehicle? If you want society to move to more "eco-friendly" vehicles, give them a reason to do so. This whole idea is completely myopic, keep developing better fuel efficiency in new vehicles going forward and the older gas-guzzlers will fade-out through attrition.


It is absolutely NOT bullshit. It is the very foundation of the current economic crisis. Buildings, contractors, etc. who need large vehicles to run their businesses are not included with the "bad decision" crowd. That is the exclusive providence of those that bought more than they could afford. And that isn't just about cars. Though in reference to cars, if gas prices going up $1-2 per gallon brakes the bank... then yes, that was a bad decision. If you are that close to the edge, a cheap fuel efficient car would have been a better option.

--Different thought...

SUV drivers can have your SUVs. I don't give two craps what you drive (in so much as it effects me... I DO care that it increases gas consumption i.e. demand and thus increases prices, etc.). But I do take issue with folks getting free money in the name and way this program is structured. What I am talking about is why do folks that drive gas guzzlers need $3500 to scrap a car that is worth nothing? In two years... my 35+ MPG light weight car bought for $8k is going to be worth $500 trade in at best when it reaches 200k. Where is my $3500 to scrap the car? Not that I would want it, cause the program sounds whacked.

I would like to see less hostility towards those suggesting this program is wrong and more defense of the program from those who disagree. Let's stop attacking semantics and argue the issues here.


----------



## Paul (Jun 10, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Sometimes there isn't time to wait for a slow paradigm shift.



Most times there isn't. Unfortunately, trying to force it can cause more harm than good. Of course, the change does happen, there's just a lot of pain during the process. 

JMHO, but I don't think the government getting directly involved in private business is the best solution. 

See: USSR


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> If we don't want people to drive, we have to give them an alternative. Try getting suburban NIMBYs and BANANAs to allow construction of a light rail line through their backyard.


Light rail isn't an alternative, in most cases it's probably worse; it's just so massively subsidized that its use is affordable.

But no one wants to think about the real alternatives. Stop driving unless absolutely necessary. Move closer to work. Carpool, bike, etc. 8000 mi/year should cover getting to and from work for most people, and hiked gas taxes would encourage conservation.

For some reason the burden of change can only fall on those who are deemed able to afford it.


----------



## snoseek (Jun 10, 2009)

This seems like the wrong way to go about a problem that needs to be addressed. 

I'm probably a small a minority to think that we need a much higher tax on gasoline (maybe ease off for business?). Expensive gas will definately change our ways faster and more dramatically. Money could then be used for jump-starting "green economy".

I'm still rooting for 5$ a gallon gas.


----------



## eatskisleep (Jun 10, 2009)

snoseek said:


> This seems like the wrong way to go about a problem that needs to be addressed.
> 
> I'm probably a small a minority to think that we need a much higher tax on gasoline (maybe ease off for business?). Expensive gas will definately change our ways faster and more dramatically. Money could then be used for jump-starting "green economy".
> 
> I'm still rooting for 5$ a gallon gas.



If you were forced to drive a vehicle that takes a lot of gas, like a truck to ship good, or whatever, dump truck for construction, etc you would NOT be rooting for $5 a gallon. It is killing the small companies.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

eatskisleep said:


> If you were forced to drive a vehicle that takes a lot of gas, like a truck to ship good, or whatever, dump truck for construction, etc you would NOT be rooting for $5 a gallon. It is killing the small companies.


But if we're saying people should back off on energy consumption, then it shouldn't be just be taxing personal gas consumption; it needs to be extended to the energy that goes into the stuff you buy. Best way to do that is to tax the final sale of energy in general; sales of diesel for trucking, coal and oil to power plants, etc.

It'll force a few companies out of business and shrink the rest, the ones remaining will then be able to raise their prices and regain profitability due to reduced supply. Consumers pay more, suppliers get less, that's a tax for ya. But then taxing gas for everyone will reduce discretionary spending that way. All taxes hurt the economy. That's all there is to it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2009)

This is what I think about the abundance of politics going on in this thread

four words, "It don't mean shit"

whether it's health care policy or car credit policy, "It don't mean shit"

The 'clunker' credit is no more going to help people that are for it than it's going to hurt people and bankrupt the grandchildren of those who oppose it.  I'm not saying that people should be apathetic and not be engaged and voting on such issues, but the older I get, the more sensationalistic it all seems to me.

The one argument I HATE, whether it's a war, universal health care, business sector bail out, clunker credit, pretty much anything is an opposing argument that, 'Oh we definitely can't do this because our grand children are going to be paying out their teeth for this choice'

BULL SHIT

When my grandfather was old enough to vote, he was driving a jeep for General Patton in the desert of North Africa and listening for plans for D day.  (By the way, General Patton had girlfriends in every village and had a thing for red heads in case you were wondering).  At about the same time I'd imagine that maybe a third of Americans even had a car.  Since then there's been the Korean War, Vietnam, Civil Rights Movement, Cold War; Gulf War, Isreal wasn't even a country back then.....countless changes/big moments in history.  Things change a lot more quickly than most care to admit..

So, if you're worried about a policy affecting your grand children, don't.  As smart as you are, you have zero idea what this world is going to be about when your grandchildren have to pay for it. Chances are they will be better of for the most part.  As much as certain vocal people try and lead you to believe differently, throughout history, the quality of life when taken as a whole, is drastically better with each passing decade..

Again, I'm not saying people should disengage themselves about what's going on around them.  I just think that everyone should make decisions on what's in their individual and societal best interest for the next five years maximum.  Beyond that, hard to tell what life will bring.....


----------



## mondeo (Jun 10, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> This is what I think about the abundance of politics going on in this thread
> 
> four words, "It don't mean shit"
> 
> ...


I've tried to take on the Chinese attitude. You're one voice in a sea of 300 million/6.5 billion, so you might as well not care because your opinion doesn't matter anyways.

Really, it's entertainment to me more than anything. Thought experiments and the like.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2009)

mondeo said:


> I've tried to take on the Chinese attitude. You're one voice in a sea of 300 million/6.5 billion, so you might as well not care because your opinion doesn't matter anyways.



You're missing the point.  I mentioned at least twice that I'm not saying people shouldn't be engaged and ignore their right to vote..  I just think politics / decisions backed up with claims of how the sky is going to fall 20 years from now are proven time and time again to be arrogant sensationalist bullshit.  Obama's universal health care plan and it's costs is going to be forgotten like opposing colored chuck taylor sneakers in fifteen years.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 11, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> You're missing the point.  I mentioned at least twice that I'm not saying people shouldn't be engaged and ignore their right to vote..  I just think politics / decisions backed up with claims of how the sky is going to fall 20 years from now are proven time and time again to be arrogant sensationalist bullshit.  Obama's universal health care plan and it's costs is going to be forgotten like opposing colored chuck taylor sneakers in fifteen years.



The SCARY thing about the universal healthcare plan conceptually for me atleast is, if the gov't can't successfully run the VA healthcare system, how the heck will it be able to tackle this much more massive proposed system???  Atleast if they're going to do it, figure it out 1st with the VA and then scale it up nationally


----------



## Mildcat (Jun 11, 2009)

snoseek said:


> I'm still rooting for 5$ a gallon gas.



So you want to turn this from a recession to another Great Depression?


----------



## Marc (Jun 11, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> You're missing the point.  I mentioned at least twice that I'm not saying people shouldn't be engaged and ignore their right to vote..  I just think politics / decisions backed up with claims of how the sky is going to fall 20 years from now are proven time and time again to be arrogant sensationalist bullshit.  Obama's universal health care plan and it's costs is going to be forgotten like opposing colored chuck taylor sneakers in fifteen years.



Kinda like how Social Security, enacted in our grandfather's age, is going so well....

/Sorry, DHS, that was low hanging fruit, nothing personal
//Really not that political, can't bring enough change on that front to be bigger than the other fish I've got frying


----------



## Glenn (Jun 11, 2009)

What worries me about $5 gasoline is that it has a broad effect on the economy as a whole. I can see folks thinking that it will curb driving and fuel consumption. And to a degree, that's probably true. But when $4 hit last summer, IMHO, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Your food prices went up, utilities went up, business went down(less travel less spending $$$) hell, ski boots went up due to the cost of plastics! Again, I see the thinking behind it, but it ends up having a great ripple effect. 

Another thing I don't like about this law: Destroying the vehicles. I like vehicles and I consider myself a fairly practical guy. I have a problem "throwing out" (crushing) a vehicle that's in decent shape. To me, it just seems wasteful. It goes back to my 1st post in this thread about tearing down your house. Sure, a bunch of shitbox rust buckets will be taken off the road. But I have a feeling a lot of solid, decent cars will be scraped for the sake of saving some $ on a new car.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 11, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Way I read it was dealers just had to show cars less than 25 years old ended up shredded. So a 1990 MY car is eligible, just has to be destroyed with proof.



Could be, haven't read the entire bill (nor will I)....I thought it was MY 1984 and older


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2009)

Marc said:


> Kinda like how Social Security, enacted in our grandfather's age, is going so well....
> 
> /Sorry, DHS, that was low hanging fruit, nothing personal
> //Really not that political, can't bring enough change on that front to be bigger than the other fish I've got frying



I don't think that even Social Security is exactly a great example.  In fact it's the perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Google 'Social Security Bankrupt' and in the titles of the the first 6 responses you see 2041, 2017, 2010 and 2042. Major differences of opinion.

I just think that people have far less accurate crystal balls than they think they do.  20 years ago no one (except for maybe Al Gore  ) knew that the internet would be so dominant for commerce and information sharing.  

Even in our own sport no one was predicting 20 years ago that our skis would be twice as wide.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 11, 2009)

The ONLY thing we know with CERTAINTY  about the future is best summarized by one of the premier futurists of our time namely YOGI BERRA ,  who when queried about the subject uttered this enlighteningly clear pronouncement ;    "The Future Ain't What it used to Be"  

Gotta luv the Yogster !!


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 11, 2009)

IMHO, if it gets _some_ older less efficient more polluting cars off the road, then it's good.
If it gets _some_ people to buy a new car, and _some_ of those are Ford, Chrysler, or GM, then it's good (we all own a piece of Chrysler and GM, after all. Be nice to get some return on that investment).
If it loosens up _some_ consumer lending, then it's good.

Long and short of it is, it'll only cost as much as it's used, and the end result of anyone getting and using the voucher is good. Saying the program is baad because it doesn't apply to your particular situation, or because it's complicated, or because you can't tell if it's MY 1984 or MY 1990 isn't very convincing.

I think the program addresses two problems directly. How effectively is up to some debate, but I think the cost to taxpayers is acceptable. The efficiency of the car fleet increases, and Detroit manages to sell a couple more cars. I don't see either of those things being bad, and $4500 for increasing the efficiency of one driver by 10 mpg isn't, I think, a bad deal.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 11, 2009)

Paul said:


> JMHO, but I don't think the government getting directly involved in private business is the best solution.
> 
> See: USSR





this kind of attitude just drives me bonkers (not picking on you, studman, just the attitude).  we have a crisis of unprecedented levels not seen in 75 years and something had to be done.   what was the alternative?  let fannie, citi, chrysler, gm, etc., fail?  lose all the jobs?  lose all the tax revenue?  more people on welfare?  etc. etc.  and just to remind everyone, the decisions to intervene with public money were primarily made in washington in late 2008.

as much as it feels good to think "F them, they screwed up their business, so F them", it's just not that simple.  

something had to be done.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 11, 2009)

drjeff said:


> The SCARY thing about the universal healthcare plan conceptually for me atleast is, if the gov't can't successfully run the VA healthcare system, how the heck will it be able to tackle this much more massive proposed system???  Atleast if they're going to do it, figure it out 1st with the VA and then scale it up nationally





i don't think anyone is proposing a VA-type system for the country.  at least i hope not.

as per my other post, something has to be done.  it seems like the "free market" in the healthcare industry is broken.  just my opinion.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 11, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> IMHO, if it gets _some_ older less efficient more polluting cars off the road, then it's good.
> If it gets _some_ people to buy a new car, and _some_ of those are Ford, Chrysler, or GM, then it's good (we all own a piece of Chrysler and GM, after all. Be nice to get some return on that investment).
> If it loosens up _some_ consumer lending, then it's good.
> 
> ...




+1!


----------



## koreshot (Jun 11, 2009)

eatskisleep said:


> I don't think this is a good thing at all. People are already in debt and spending another $20K+ on a new car isn't going to help; it just sinks Americans further into debt.



Clearly, you know nothing about the economy, because all economists know that we have to spend ourselves out of this mess.  Buy buy buy!  Buy as much crap as you can, because it helps our economy.  It doesn't even have to be anything you need, or even want.

I had a 6 month nest egg saved up -- living expenses for my family if I were to lose my job.  But then I realized how selfish this was and I spent it all.  That money just sitting there, it doesn't do anyone any good -- how are the credit card companies supposed to make money if I don't owe them a bunch of money at 17% APR?

Why don't you use your brain before posting next time?!  Or at the very least watch some programs to educate yourself on the state of the economy.  Jim Cramer is a good start.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 11, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> You're missing the point. I mentioned at least twice that I'm not saying people shouldn't be engaged and ignore their right to vote.. I just think politics / decisions backed up with claims of how the sky is going to fall 20 years from now are proven time and time again to be arrogant sensationalist bullshit. Obama's universal health care plan and it's costs is going to be forgotten like opposing colored chuck taylor sneakers in fifteen years.


No, I just expanded on it.

I agree that the sky is constantly falling, yet we still seem to be ok. Nuclear war never happened, the next ice age never happened, etc.

But acknowledging limited foresight goes hand in hand with acknowledging limited impact. 99.9999% of individuals won't scratch the surface of having a national impact. So we should focus our efforts on what we can do. Focus on your job, family, and local community. That's where you can actually make a difference.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 11, 2009)

As long as people keep dying...it's all good for me..


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 11, 2009)

mondeo said:


> No, I just expanded on it.
> 
> I agree that the sky is constantly falling, yet we still seem to be ok. Nuclear war never happened, the next ice age never happened, etc.
> 
> But acknowledging limited foresight goes hand in hand with acknowledging limited impact. 99.9999% of individuals won't scratch the surface of having a national impact. So we should focus our efforts on what we can do. Focus on your job, family, and local community. That's where you can actually make a difference.



Could it be that nuclear war didn't happen because of all the actions that didn't "scratch the surface"?
Could it be that the entire financial system didn't collapse because of initiatives that didn't "scratch the surface"?

Maybe 99.9999% won't have an individual impact, but 0.0001% 999,999 times can.


----------



## Marc (Jun 11, 2009)

So far, I think we've done a good job at keeping everything civil.



Well, except for that beligerent guy from Georgia, but what the hell does he know about anything anyway, except maybe how to grow peaches.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 11, 2009)

Marc said:


> So far, I think we've done a good job at keeping everything civil.
> .



Can't this turn into a Flame war..I'll pay someone $500 to kick AndyZee in the Pumpkin Patch..


----------



## mondeo (Jun 11, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> this kind of attitude just drives me bonkers (not picking on you, studman, just the attitude). we have a crisis of unprecedented levels not seen in 75 years and something had to be done. what was the alternative? let fannie, citi, chrysler, gm, etc., fail? lose all the jobs? lose all the tax revenue? more people on welfare? etc. etc. and just to remind everyone, the decisions to intervene with public money were primarily made in washington in late 2008.
> 
> as much as it feels good to think "F them, they screwed up their business, so F them", it's just not that simple.
> 
> something had to be done.


Yes, it is. The real problem is the goverment has demonstrated over the last many decades that the policy is to prop up companies that have failed, which encourages risk taking because, hey, it doesn't matter if you fail. Everyone pointing fingers at deregulation failed to take into account the reason that free markets work well is that companies learn to account for risk in their decision making. There was no actual risk to the companies, so they did what they could, like spoiled children.

The downfall was severely overstated. Like the trillions in CDSs. No one took into account that most of those would probably cancel - Citi has a CDS with BOA in case AIG fails, BOA has one with AIG for Citi, AIG has one with Citi for BOA. They all fail, those CDSs all cancel. And the companies wouldn't have failed, per se, they just would've entered bankruptcy. Some chapter 7, some chapter 11. Assets sold off, some of the companies would cease to exist, but most of the commercial and retail banking arms would continue to exist in some form. There would be some chaos for a while, but insted of entering a long period of inflation (like we're in now, though nobody's recognized it,) we'd get over it as a crisis and actually have real sustainable growth afterwards. Welcome to Japan.

As far as your thinly veiled political statements, the decisions were primarily made in Washington in late 2008, partly in deference to the incoming president, partly due to the urging of the Fed, in particular the president of the Fed Reserve Bank of New York - starting off with Bear Stearns and AIG.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 11, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Jim Cramer is a good start.



If you were really listening to Jim Cramer you would have lost that nest egg already.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 11, 2009)

QUOTE=GrilledSteezeSandwich;432277]Can't this turn into a Flame war..I'll pay someone $500 to kick AndyZee in the Pumpkin Patch..[/QUOTE]

:smile::smile:​


----------



## Marc (Jun 11, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Can't this turn into a Flame war..I'll pay someone $500 to kick AndyZee in the Pumpkin Patch..



Yo!  Hell, I'll do it for free.  That old geezer has been asking for a beatdown for some time now.


----------



## koreshot (Jun 11, 2009)

Marc said:


> Yo!  Hell, I'll do it for free.  That old geezer has been asking for a beatdown for some time now.



No!  I wanna do it!

I'll roshambo you for it -- but only if I get to go first.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 11, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Clearly, you know nothing about the economy, because all economists know that we have to spend ourselves out of this mess.  Buy buy buy!  Buy as much crap as you can, because it helps our economy.  It doesn't even have to be anything you need, or even want.
> 
> I had a 6 month nest egg saved up -- living expenses for my family if I were to lose my job.  But then I realized how selfish this was and I spent it all.  That money just sitting there, it doesn't do anyone any good -- how are the credit card companies supposed to make money if I don't owe them a bunch of money at 17% APR?
> 
> Why don't you use your brain before posting next time?!  Or at the very least watch some programs to educate yourself on the state of the economy.  Jim Cramer is a good start.



The fact is spending drives the economy, more spending equals more products bought equals more jobs equal more income. Whether that's good for you or not is up to you to decide. It's also very smart to have a cash reserve and savings for when times get tough. Gotta find the right balance, because over spending leveraged with easy credit is what got us to where we are now.

Should you go out and take out a big loan to buy a car just because there's some kind of tax credit/refund available? NO. But if you do need a car and are maybe just short of the cash you need to get one and this tax credit is enough to put a new car in your budget. GREAT! You get a new car, some dude at GM (or toyota) gets to keep his job and its gets a less efficient vehicle off the road.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 11, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> this kind of attitude just drives me bonkers (not picking on you, studman, just the attitude).  we have a crisis of unprecedented levels not seen in 75 years and something had to be done.   what was the alternative?  let fannie, citi, chrysler, gm, etc., fail?  lose all the jobs?  lose all the tax revenue?  more people on welfare?  etc. etc.  and just to remind everyone, the decisions to intervene with public money were primarily made in washington in late 2008.
> 
> as much as it feels good to think "F them, they screwed up their business, so F them", it's just not that simple.
> 
> something had to be done.



I think Chapter 11 would have been a better option. People think when a company files, that's it...the company is done, everyone is fired, machines are sold to China and that's that. 

I think there were a lot of problems with the domestics that could not have been sorted out based on some laws/rules and just complicated red tape. However, when filing for chapter 11, you're no longer subjected to those rules. So, union contracts would be subject to renegotiation in a more reasonable manner, as welll as franchise agreement for the dealerships. The way things are currently, the unions made some minor tweaks..and I'm sure the dealer closing will go to court and be clogged there for years. 

We threw how many billions at the automakers to save them and what happened? We just stopped the bleeding for  a few months. And now things are a bit "funny"..IMHO. The government "claims" they're not running GM...but the CEO was fired...and the board of directors was fired and replaced...by the government. And from the sounds of it...the government wants to start having a hand in designing the cars. But again, they're not running the company. I'm not getting political...and I don't want to. Regardless of who's at the helm, this isn't a good thing..IMHO. And I agree, all this bailout crap started before January of this year. It's not about what party/political ideals...it's just bad goverment. Again, IMHO. 

I really think things could have been handled better. IMHO/armchair quaterback.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 11, 2009)

Glenn said:


> And now things are a bit "funny"..IMHO. The government "claims" they're not running GM...but the CEO was fired...and the board of directors was fired and replaced...by the government. And from the sounds of it...the government wants to start having a hand in designing the cars. But again, they're not running the company. I'm not getting political...and I don't want to. Regardless of who's at the helm, this isn't a good thing..IMHO. And I agree, all this bailout crap started before January of this year. It's not about what party/political ideals...it's just bad goverment. Again, IMHO.
> 
> I really think things could have been handled better. IMHO/armchair quaterback.





fair points re: the government, but, in the end, the government is the company's largest creditor at this point.  indeed, it was the only one to step up and provide funding, so it's only natural that it has a say (albeit limited, hopefully) in how the company is being run.  that's a good thing, b/c what's the alternative?  let the prior GM management continue to mismanage things?

regarding the design point, the only directive has been that GM utilize some of its excess capacity to build a small, fuel-efficient car.  if you take the largest stakeholder at its word, it's not going to pull a chair up to the design table and start drawing circles for wheels.  let's hope not, at least.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 11, 2009)

The trouble with Unions and Chapter 11 is that the Union pensions get offloaded to PBGC- the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation, which is a government entity.  If we're going to be covering the PBGC anyway, I'd rather taxpayers have a stake in the company and share in the upside, if any. 

As for government designing cars, they've been doing that since seatbelts were mandated, safety glass was required, headlights, airbags, crash safety, emissions, etc etc. Is the gov't running GM? Maybe. The CEO should have been fired by the Board a while ago, the Board should have been fired by the shareholders a while ago. The gov't takeover really just amounts to the largest leveraged buyout ever. I wouldn't claim that teh government is a good candidate for private equity manager of the year, but the only way some of the changes that have to be made can be made is this way. Or by letting the company fail altogether, which has many negative side effects.


----------



## koreshot (Jun 11, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> The fact is spending drives the economy, more spending equals more products bought equals more jobs equal more income. Whether that's good for you or not is up to you to decide. It's also very smart to have a cash reserve and savings for when times get tough. Gotta find the right balance, because over spending leveraged with easy credit is what got us to where we are now.
> 
> Should you go out and take out a big loan to buy a car just because there's some kind of tax credit/refund available? NO. But if you do need a car and are maybe just short of the cash you need to get one and this tax credit is enough to put a new car in your budget. GREAT! You get a new car, some dude at GM (or toyota) gets to keep his job and its gets a less efficient vehicle off the road.



I won't argue with that, I was just blowing smoke anyway.  Unfortunately, what I fear is that many of the folks that take advantage of this cash for clunkers cars will be digging themselves deeper into dept.  Kinda similar to the whole overborrowing frenzy with the housing market.

If everyone was responsible with their credit I wouldn't have to throw empty beer cans at my TV because yet another F-ing "consolidate your dept and free yourself from payments" commercial came on.

(and no, I don't drink beer that comes in cans, it was a verbal prop...for dramatic effect)


----------



## mondeo (Jun 11, 2009)

koreshot said:


> (and no, I don't drink beer that comes in cans, it was a verbal prop...for dramatic effect)


Wouldn't throwing beer bottles at the TV be an even more dramatic display of your displeasure?


----------



## koreshot (Jun 11, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Wouldn't throwing beer bottles at the TV be an even more dramatic display of your displeasure?



Yeah, but it just isn't practical.  If I do that enough times, I will become a customer.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 11, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Yeah, but it just isn't practical.  If I do that enough times, I will become a customer.



Now that's funny---come to my house then, I want a new t v


----------



## Glenn (Jun 11, 2009)

I guess what bothers me about the government running the company is their claim: "It should be profitable in 3 years...then we'll sell it off an make money." Now, it was before my time, but I thought Nixon said basically the same thing about Amtrak...and we know how "well" that cluster f of an operation went...and continues to go.


----------



## koreshot (Jun 11, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Now, it was before my time, but I thought Nixon said basically the same thing about Amtrak...and we know how "well" that cluster f of an operation went...and continues to go.



That can only be used as a data point if there is a comparable company that is privately owned and IS profitable.

There probably is, but I can't think of one.... cause I don't use regional transit.  Come to think of it, I don't know of anyone who does.  Maybe thats the real reason Amtrak is not profitable?


----------



## eatskisleep (Jun 11, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Why don't you use your brain before posting next time?!  Or at the very least watch some programs to educate yourself on the state of the economy.  Jim Cramer is a good start.


Pretty rude if you ask me. I know a fair amount about the economy and how consumer spending fuels our economy.
:roll:



koreshot said:


> I won't argue with that, I was just blowing smoke anyway.  Unfortunately, what I fear is that many of the folks that take advantage of this cash for clunkers cars will be digging themselves deeper into dept.  Kinda similar to the whole overborrowing frenzy with the housing market.



That is what I was saying in the first place... this is only going to hurt a lot of people. Granted it could help some, but hey my buddy next door wants to get rid of his car, he has $0 and an unstable job, yet they are going to give him a car. Unless he keeps his job and manages to pick up another in the meantime, I doubt he will be able  to keep up with the payment.

:roll:


----------



## koreshot (Jun 11, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> and its gets a less efficient vehicle off the road.



I am going to make an assumption that some people who otherwise wouldn't have bought a new car will buy one because of this offer.  How can I make such a bold assumption?  Because if it didn't, this argument would be pointless (which means I would have to get back to boring work) and so would the cash for clunkers bill.

Following this logic, there will older cars that didn't get great mileage but were otherwise acceptable methods of transportation going into dump.

So, if we assume that the average mileage delta is 7mpg, how many years will it take before the reduction in greenhouse gases is felt if that new car took 4,000 gallons of fuel to manufacture?

Do I agree with you in spirit and agree that long term this measure will reduce pollution.  But in the short term, No.   :smile:


----------



## koreshot (Jun 11, 2009)

eatskisleep said:


> Pretty rude if you ask me. I know a fair amount about the economy and how consumer spending fuels our economy.
> :roll:
> 
> 
> ...



Apologies.  That post was a sarcastic joke.  I wholehearted agreed with your post and then dropped my reply in just to mess around. I thought the "you should watch Jim Cramer" bit was going to tip everyone off that I was being a troll.

Sarcasm is always a challenge in text.


----------



## eatskisleep (Jun 11, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Apologies.  That post was a sarcastic joke.  I wholehearted agreed with your post and then dropped my reply in just to mess around. I thought the "you should watch Jim Cramer" bit was going to tip everyone off that I was being a troll.
> 
> Sarcasm is always a challenge in text.



No worries :beer: Just didn't follow and probably read the topic too quickly.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 11, 2009)

time to make some popcorn..


----------



## scootertig (Jun 11, 2009)

koreshot said:


> (and no, I don't drink beer that comes in cans, it was a verbal prop...for dramatic effect)



You should try some of Oskar Blues' stuff, or Sly Fox...  Then you get good beer AND you can throw the can wherever you want*.


aaron


(* in an ecologically-friendly sort of way, of course)


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 12, 2009)

Glenn said:


> I guess what bothers me about the government running the company is their claim: "It should be profitable in 3 years...then we'll sell it off an make money." Now, it was before my time, but I thought Nixon said basically the same thing about Amtrak...and we know how "well" that cluster f of an operation went...and continues to go.





i don't think you can compare amtrak, which is a public service, with a company that manufacturers goods.  

i just don't understand the hate on amtrak.  if you were to take the amount of money spent on I-89 or I-91 (a lot) and the amount generated directly by users of the service (oh yeah, zero), i think you'd find it to be a money-loser, too, but people don't regularly advocate shutting down the highway system.


----------



## Marc (Jun 12, 2009)

eatskisleep said:


> Pretty rude if you ask me. I know a fair amount about the economy and how consumer spending fuels our economy.
> :roll:



Don't let him get to you.  You just can't expect a dirty, dirty Russian transplant to behave with civility, even around more civil and sophisticated intellectuals like you and me.

Just be glad he hasn't threatened anyone with his Kalashnikov or Spetsnaz skills yet.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 12, 2009)

Marc said:


> dirty, dirty Russian transplant





i don't get it.  is kore from atlanta or russia?  he keeps saying he's from georgia.  anyway, is it right that, either way, he's a commie?  or maybe an ex-commie?

so confused.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 12, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> i don't think you can compare amtrak, which is a public service, with a company that manufacturers goods.
> 
> i just don't understand the hate on amtrak. if you were to take the amount of money spent on I-89 or I-91 (a lot) and the amount generated directly by users of the service (oh yeah, zero), i think you'd find it to be a money-loser, too, but people don't regularly advocate shutting down the highway system.


Interstates don't lose money due to the amount of money they save those that use it. The same can't be said for Amtrak or most light rail companies. It would be more cost effective to subidize automobile use than subsidize Amtrak.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 12, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> i don't get it. is kore from atlanta or russia? he keeps saying he's from georgia. anyway, is it right that, either way, he's a commie? or maybe an ex-commie?
> 
> so confused.







Calling him Russian is just Marc's way of insulting him.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 12, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Interstates don't lose money due to the amount of money they save those that use it. The same can't be said for Amtrak or most light rail companies. It would be more cost effective to subidize automobile use than subsidize Amtrak.





tell that to the millions of people that use amtrak in the northeast corridor.  

also, i'm sure al gore wouldn't be happy with your solution.  :smile:


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 12, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Calling him Russian is just Marc's way of insulting him.




aaah, ok.  thanks!  this must be the first time someplace else in the world is named after something in america.

USA!  USA!  USA!

if only they used the same strategy with some of those city names, too, it'd probably be easier to get around.

:flag:


----------



## koreshot (Jun 12, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> i don't get it.  is kore from atlanta or russia?  he keeps saying he's from georgia.  anyway, is it right that, either way, he's a commie?  or maybe an ex-commie?



I'm from Joisey beotch!!!


----------



## koreshot (Jun 12, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> aaah, ok.  thanks!  this must be the first time someplace else in the world is named after something in america.
> USA!  USA!  USA!



"Georgia" is what you imperialists call us.  We call ourselves Sakartvelo.

Last I checked there was no "Sakartvelo" in the US road atlas.  So there!


----------



## Paul (Jun 12, 2009)

koreshot said:


> "Georgia" is what you imperialists call us.  We call ourselves Sakartvelo.
> 
> Last I checked there was no "Sakartvelo" in the US road atlas.  So there!



Eat a Peach.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 12, 2009)

koreshot said:


> "Georgia" is what you imperialists call us.  We call ourselves Sakartvelo.




"sakartvelo"?  really?  too funny.  of all the things to call yourselves, you chose "sakartvelo"?

i would have gone with something like "friggin' awesome" or "i like vodka" or even "georgia" before "sakartvelo".


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 12, 2009)

koreshot said:


> I'm from Joisey beotch!!!



Wow..they need some SPF-45..in my next life I'm gonna be a Jersey Guido!!


----------



## koreshot (Jun 12, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> "sakartvelo"?  really?  too funny.  of all the things to call yourselves, you chose "sakartvelo"?
> 
> i would have gone with something like "friggin' awesome" or "i like vodka" or even "georgia" before "sakartvelo".



You know, the name is inherited and has history behind it.  You can't just pick it!

If it was that easy, I would have changed my name legally to McLovin years ago.


----------



## koreshot (Jun 12, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> ..in my next life I'm gonna be a Jersey Guido!!



Why wait?  Start now!  Its never too late.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 12, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Why wait?  Start now!  Its never too late.



Thanks Kore  I just blew my oatmeal thru my nose onto my keyboard with THAT shot


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 12, 2009)

koreshot said:


> Why wait?  Start now!  Its never too late.



funny thing is, I don't look much better than that with my shirt off..loluke:


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 12, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> funny thing is, I don't look much better than that with my shirt off..loluke:





can someone get an infraction for harassing themselves?


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 12, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> SAD thing is, I don't look much better than that with my shirt off..loluke:



ftfy


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 12, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> can someone get an infraction for harassing themselves?



LMBFAO!!!!...good thing I'm in charge of the office this morning and can just hang on here..lots of good posts..I need to get my fill before I take a 24 hour break from the net to attend an out of town wedding..


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 12, 2009)

Marc said:


> No more speaking farking sputnik.  I'm sure you guys are just talking about pirogies and snow and shit, but cut it out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rounders


----------



## mondeo (Jun 12, 2009)

Marc said:


> No more speaking *farking* sputnik. I'm sure you guys are just talking about pirogies and snow and shit, but cut it out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Battlestar Galactica is a TV show, not a movie.


----------



## Marc (Jun 13, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Rounders



Winnar!

You win... uh... nothing!  Yay!

These days most people in debt would be pretty happy to have nothing instead


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 13, 2009)

Marc said:


> Winnar!
> 
> You win... uh... nothing!  Yay!
> 
> These days most people in debt would be pretty happy to have nothing instead



Are you kidding...nothing is what I'm best at---just ask my wife.


----------



## skijay (Jun 18, 2009)

It looks like today it passed the Senate.  I keep seeing that the vehicle must be at least a 1984 and must get 18 MPG or less.  I can not find out if that means city, highway or combined.  

I have checked www.fueleconomy.gov for the car that we have that is part of the Estate and it is rated at 17 city / 26 highway with a 20 mpg combined.  It has been registered and insured for the 1 year requirement.  I hope it qualifies as we have been trying to sell it for just about a year now with no luck.  We would be happy with the $3,500 since it is $700 more than our asking price.


----------



## skijay (Jun 18, 2009)

If it is combined, it is kind of hard to find a car that qualifies.  It looks like you need to have one of these to trade.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=541

or

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEngine.jsp?year=1999&make=Cadillac&model=DeVille

What we have gets a combined of 20 mpg (17 city / 26 highway) under the "new" way of calculating.

So this is good for someone who may have picked up a "winter beater" 1985 Caddy 2 years ago for $500 and decides to take advantage of the Cash for Clunkers bill and trade up to a 2010 Prius for $22,000.  It looks like they will be paying $22,000 - $4,500 = $17,500 and also do not have to pay any sales tax.  Not bad as that 1985 Caddy owner makes out well on the trade in.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jun 18, 2009)

skijay said:


> If it is combined, it is kind of hard to find a car that qualifies.  It looks like you need to have one of these to trade.
> 
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=541
> 
> ...





Yeah but how could someone with a $500 car afford a discounted $22,000 car????


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 19, 2009)

wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the various cash-for-clunkers programs around the world:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrappage_program

it's been a huge hit in places like germany, with big sales increases (and costs, too).


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 19, 2009)

I just realized today that Cash-For-Clunkers was tucked into the funding bil for the war in Afghanistan. No way it wasn't going to pass, regardless of what anyone thinks of it.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 19, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> I just realized today that Cash-For-Clunkers was tucked into the funding bil for the war in Afghanistan. No way it wasn't going to pass, regardless of what anyone thinks of it.


There should be a constitutional amendment banning riders.

Not that it would be respected any more than the restriction of spending bills originating in the House.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 19, 2009)

mondeo said:


> There should be a constitutional amendment banning *riders.*



And you thought snowboarders were pissed off by MRG, Deer Valley, and Alta....


----------



## Philpug (Jun 20, 2009)

What is going to happen with these cars that are traded in? Did the owner have to have them for a period of time? what is to stop someone from picking up a POS Ford Bronco for 800 then getting a credit of 4500 on a high MPG car?  

I am all for spurring auto sales. Simplify things though. Let the state sales tax a federal tax credit or let people deduct the car value off of their gross income.


----------



## skijay (Jun 20, 2009)

Philpug said:


> What is going to happen with these cars that are traded in? Did the owner have to have them for a period of time? what is to stop someone from picking up a POS Ford Bronco for 800 then getting a credit of 4500 on a high MPG car?
> 
> I am all for spurring auto sales. Simplify things though. Let the state sales tax a federal tax credit or let people deduct the car value off of their gross income.



You have to have owned & insured & registered the car for one year or longer.  
My reason for buying a new vehicle last month was the sales tax credit.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 21, 2009)

skijay said:


> You have to have owned & insured & registered the car for one year or longer.
> My reason for buying a new vehicle last month was the sales tax credit.



That makes sense that you have to have it at least a year. I am still sure many of dealers are going to get some serious auditing and chargebacks for fudging some paperwork.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jun 26, 2009)

Philpug said:


> That makes sense that you have to have it at least a year. I am still sure many of dealers are going to get some serious auditing and chargebacks for fudging some paperwork.



Kinda doubt it---$15K per incident


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 26, 2009)

skijay said:


> You have to have owned & insured & registered the car for one year or longer.
> My reason for buying a new vehicle last month was the sales tax credit.



The notion of  CALLING  it a sales tax CREDIT  is flawed , because it is an ABOVE THE LINE  DEDUCTION from one's GROSS income NOT a REAL tax CREDIT

So  --- the impact depends solely on one's tax bracket  -----------------------------------------governmental double speak here      So what initially looked like a $1000-1500 REAL tax credit off your tax liability  isNOW just a %  of that based on your bracket ----- IF i UNDERSTAND the details 

So REALLY NOT much of an INCENTIVE at all  :flame:


----------

