# cash for clunkers



## Vortex (Aug 4, 2009)

Anyone else take part in this? leave the politics out of it.  Paperwork was quite a bit of work and needed to be perfect.  We found out the hard way. The mini van has been put to rest.:-o  Thought the program would not make it past Sunday.  Still going am today.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 4, 2009)

It makes me sad that they have to destroy the cars that are traded in. If it was "push, pull or tow" for clunkers...sure..get rid of them. But based on what I'm seeing/reading. while most of these cars being traded in aren't "cream puffs", they're still operable cars. I just can't wrap my brain around the concept of destroying something that's perfectly operational.


----------



## hammer (Aug 4, 2009)

As a new Volvo owner this video bothers me...bit it did take some time to kill it...



Wish my 11YO Outback could have qualified, although I'm OK with donating the car and seeing it get some use.


----------



## Vortex (Aug 4, 2009)

We got a S-40.  Much better gas mileage and a safe car to teach our soon to be driving son.

I was just going to buy a new car and give the van to him.

  Can't beat the trade in value, but still not sure of how I feel about getting rid of the old one

. Two sides or the story.  It raises the value of used cars due to less inventory, but does get traffic into car dealer and trickles down to many industries.

 The other point I have heard is that it does indeed raise the value of  used cars and makes them not affordable to those who need access to them the most at the lower cost.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 4, 2009)

Neighbor works for a car dealership.  He is LOVING the program.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Neighbor works for a car dealership.  He is LOVING the program.




According to the nice southern man on the news this morning... It's destroying America and must be stopped..  
It's one of those "no" things....


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

Glenn said:


> It makes me sad that they have to destroy the cars that are traded in. If it was "push, pull or tow" for clunkers...sure..get rid of them. But based on what I'm seeing/reading. while most of these cars being traded in aren't "cream puffs", they're still operable cars. I just can't wrap my brain around the concept of destroying something that's perfectly operational.



I'm sure people felt that way when steam engine cars and horse and buggy were replaced by petrol cars...

It's ok...


----------



## drjeff (Aug 4, 2009)

Glenn said:


> It makes me sad that they have to destroy the cars that are traded in. If it was "push, pull or tow" for clunkers...sure..get rid of them. But based on what I'm seeing/reading. while most of these cars being traded in aren't "cream puffs", they're still operable cars. I just can't wrap my brain around the concept of destroying something that's perfectly operational.





dmc said:


> I'm sure people felt that way when steam engine cars and horse and buggy were replaced by petrol cars...
> 
> It's ok...



Charities that rely a bit on donation of used cars aren't too hapy about this.  Plus, if the gov't wanted to, and argueably this would be controversial.  It could essentially give the clunkers in good working order to folks who really couldn't afford the purchase of a car, but would greatly benefit from having some form of their own transportation to get to/from a job.  Sure, the cars may not get 30mpg, and they'll have to pay some (likely minimal insurance), BUT it would be a better use for workable pieces of equipment that just the crusher IMHO.

But hey, just fund it some more, after all what's the interest on the couple of billion of borrowed $$ the gov't is using for this going to cost us


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

All the people that make, sell and support the new car business are happy...  All the people that collect scrap metal are happy.  We can't afford to loose the car companies...  It would kill us as a country...

Every time i turn around all i hear is "NO" anymore...  Frankly I'm happy somethings happening...   My goal is to see the country succeed not our President fail...


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> All the people that make, sell and support the new car business are happy...  All the people that collect scrap metal are happy.  We can't afford to loose the car companies...  It would kill us as a country...
> 
> Every time i turn around all i hear is "NO" anymore...  Frankly I'm happy somethings happening...   My goal is to see the country succeed not our President fail...



Actually the junkyards aren't too happy about it. They can sell off the parts of these cars, but not the engines, which I guess is the biggest money maker.

But I'm with you on your sentiment.


----------



## Vortex (Aug 4, 2009)

My last car I gave to Nh public TV.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

Glenn said:


> It makes me sad that they have to destroy the cars that are traded in. If it was "push, pull or tow" for clunkers...sure..get rid of them. But based on what I'm seeing/reading. while most of these cars being traded in aren't "cream puffs", they're still operable cars. I just can't wrap my brain around the concept of destroying something that's perfectly operational.


And obviously the fairly small amount of gas saved offsets the energy cost of building a new car.

Doesn't the exact $1bn number tell anybody that this is hack job of a plan? Then whoops, we didn't actually think about the numbers, here's another $2bn...



dmc said:


> All the people that make, sell and support the new car business are happy... All the people that collect scrap metal are happy. We can't afford to loose the car companies... It would kill us as a country...
> 
> Every time i turn around all i hear is "NO" anymore... Frankly I'm happy somethings happening... My goal is to see the country succeed not our President fail...


We can sure afford to lost the car companies. Maybe if companies were allowed to fail they...


Bob R said:


> leave the politics out of it.


*sigh*


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Actually the junkyards aren't too happy about it. They can sell off the parts of these cars, but not the engines, which I guess is the biggest money maker.
> 
> But I'm with you on your sentiment.



junkyard maybe not...  But recyclers are...
Tradition is out the window... It's a new world...


----------



## drjeff (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> junkyard maybe not...  But recyclers are...
> Tradition is out the window... It's a new world...



If I'm not mistaken, due to the world wide economic crisis, the world scrap metal market has gone from hot to not recently. So while scrap my pile up in the junk/recycler yards, it's not readily being either melted back down in the US or being loaded onto a tanker and shipped off to various parts of the world as readily as it was a few years ago.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> junkyard maybe not... But recyclers are...
> Tradition is out the window... It's a new world...


Umm, what are junkyards other than recyclers? Oh wait, they're reusers. Recycling without any waste.

But recycling sounds so green, junkyards not so much.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> We can sure afford to lost the car companies. Maybe if companies were allowed to fail they...



Would destroy whole communities?
Severely cripple our economy?
Put even more people out of work with no healthcare?
Allow other countries to walk all over us?
Place more people on welfare?
Cause more house foreclosures?

for some things... Failure is NOT an option...  
Mainly banks and car companies.....


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Umm, what are junkyards other than recyclers? Oh wait, they're reusers. Recycling without any waste.
> 
> But recycling sounds so green, junkyards not so much.



Whatever...  You know what I meant...
Scrap metal is worth a ton now...


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> Would destroy whole communities?
> Severely cripple our economy?
> Put even more people out of work with no healthcare?
> Allow other countries to walk all over us?
> ...


And allow actual sustainable economic growth instead of decades of inflation?

Remember, fires make forrests stronger in the long run.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> And allow actual sustainable economic growth instead of decades of inflation?
> 
> Remember, fires make forrests stronger in the long run.



Forests maybe... But not cities...  and lives...     Fires make people die...


----------



## Glenn (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> I'm sure people felt that way when steam engine cars and horse and buggy were replaced by petrol cars...
> 
> It's ok...



I guess I'd agree but we're taking apples and apple here. The vehicles that are getting traded in are gasoline powered with internal combustion engines. It's not like it's "trade in your S-10 Blazer for a hoverboard." You get money to trade something in that gets slightly better mileage. And one thing no one mentions...once people get more fuel efficient cars, they tend to drive more. Ooops! "Hey, that $60 of gas can now get me farther north!" Oh well! 

If this was for domestics only, I'd say it's another way to "help" (albeit another I don't agree with) them. But since every brand is pumping this hard, I hardly see how this will help "save" Detroit. 

Great quote in the WSJ yesterday:"_On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years._"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574326531645819464.html


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 4, 2009)

Glenn said:


> I guess I'd agree but we're taking apples and apple here. The vehicles that are getting traded in are gasoline powered with internal combustion engines. It's not like it's "trade in your S-10 Blazer for a hoverboard." You get money to trade something in that gets slightly better mileage. And one thing no one mentions...once people get more fuel efficient cars, they tend to drive more. Ooops! "Hey, that $60 of gas can now get me farther north!" Oh well!
> 
> If this was for domestics only, I'd say it's another way to "help" (albeit another I don't agree with) them. But since every brand is pumping this hard, I hardly see how this will help "save" Detroit.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is arguing it's good economics. It's feel-good economics that may give a slight bump in the fuel economy of the overall fleet and bail out the car manufacturers. Although I don't agree that it's merely a transfer of money. If it preserves jobs, those are folks who are still out there spending money in the economy.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 4, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing it's good economics. It's feel-good economics that may give a slight bump in the fuel economy of the overall fleet and bail out the car manufacturers. Although I don't agree that it's merely a transfer of money. If it preserves jobs, those are folks who are still out there spending money in the economy.



If it was really about job preservation than it would apply to cars assembled in the US only!  You could further argue on the job preservation standpoint that the parent company of that US assembled car should be based in the US.

While the good folks in Korea assembling Hyundai's I'm sure are deserving of their pay,  since this is a program being funded in one form or another by the US tax payer (heck, sooner or later we gotta pay that borrowed $$ back to China & Co.) having direct benefit to US workers from US owned companies might be a bit wiser use of tax payer dollars


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 4, 2009)

drjeff said:


> If it was really about job preservation than it would apply to cars assembled in the US only!  You could further argue on the job preservation standpoint that the parent company of that US assembled car should be based in the US.
> 
> While the good folks in Korea assembling Hyundai's I'm sure are deserving of their pay,  since this is a program being funded in one form or another by the US tax payer (heck, sooner or later we gotta pay that borrowed $$ back to China & Co.) having direct benefit to US workers from US owned companies might be a bit wiser use of tax payer dollars



Thing is where do you draw the line? You also have to consider all the dealers, truckers and transport companies that benefit from moving these new cars around the country. It's not just about who owns the company.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

But Hundais are sold by americans...  serviced by americans...  The koreans pay tariffs to us to sell their cars here...

you guys are being shortsighted for some reason...  there more to cars then some guy in Korea making them...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc brings up a good point

Kia is opening a new factory in West Point Georgia.  2500 jobs at the factory, 20K total for the area over the next five years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/07/08/fortunate.town/

yes, most of the profits end up going back to Korea, but that's still 20K people making and spending money here in the states.  Actually, I'm sure plenty of the profit money ends up staying here in the states via stock purchases by US citizens.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

Take it from a guy that works with people and travels all over the world to seel and install software for an American company.....

We ARE in a global economy..  We NEED other countries to do well so we can do well...
If it were not for other countries - I'd be on the unemployment line...


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Actually, I'm sure plenty of the profit money ends up staying here in the states via stock purchases by US citizens.


US citizens buy stock?

Why do we want low paying manufacturing jobs in the US?


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> Take it from a guy that works with people and travels all over the world to seel and install software for an American company.....
> 
> We ARE in a global economy.. We NEED other countries to do well so we can do well...
> If it were not for other countries - I'd be on the unemployment line...


And at the heart of globalization is specialization. If the US isn't good at making cars, we should shift to other industries.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> US citizens buy stock?
> 
> Why do we want low paying manufacturing jobs in the US?




and sell stocks.  I bought some Ford Stock in November and just sold it five minutes ago after doubling my money :grin:


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> And at the heart of globalization is specialization. If the US isn't good at making cars, we should shift to other industries.



We are great at making cars!! My old Ford Ranger had 150,000 miles on it when i finally got a new one..  My girl owns an Pontiac that runs like a champ!!!

we need to shift from old style cars to new style cars..  (hoverboards)...
And keep the business here in the US!!!!


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Why do we want low paying manufacturing jobs in the US?



Why not?  not everyone needs to buy season passes and rent second houses for skiing every year... Some people just want a steady job to live in a house and have kids...   if they can get health benefits with that..  then they are set...


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> We are great at making cars!! My old Ford Ranger had 150,000 miles on it when i finally got a new one.. My girl owns an Pontiac that runs like a champ!!!


Making good cars is different than being good at making them. If the current American system of making cars was good, then the big 3 wouldn't be losing money.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> Why not? not everyone needs to buy season passes and rent second houses for skiing every year... Some people just want a steady job to live in a house and have kids... if they can get health benefits with that.. then they are set...


You're extremely confusing. You hate government intervention in your private life, yet welcome it when it comes to business. Want the gov't to prop up companies so the economy doesn't crash, but don't want the economy to do well through pursuit of better paying jobs.


----------



## Marc (Aug 4, 2009)

Just a quick question here... what's with the hypotheticals?  GM *did* fail.

They filed for Chapter 11 in June.  We have bankruptcy protection for a reason, and yet we are terrified for companies to use it.


----------



## RootDKJ (Aug 4, 2009)

Bob R said:


> My last car I gave to Nh public TV.


Cool :beer:


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

Marc said:


> GM and Dodge *did* fail.


FIFY.

I'm with you on the bankruptcy thing. It's not like AIG going bankrupt would cause an instant $110bn hole in the economy.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 4, 2009)

Marc said:


> Just a quick question here... what's with the hypotheticals?  GM *did* fail.
> 
> They filed for Chapter 11 in June.  We have bankruptcy protection for a reason, and yet we are terrified for companies to use it.



x1billion. 

They should have just let chaper 11 proceed as normal. Now it's a gigantic cluster "fudgesicle" with the dealers suing to keep their unprofitable dealers open, the unions keeping their overly rich benefits and retirement packages...it's obsurd. 

And let me just say...I'm all for people keeping their jobs. But throwing money at a problem for the sake of keeping a job isn't the way to do it. It ends costing us all in the end.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 4, 2009)

One thing I do know

Lots of strong opinions in this thread (none of them 100% right except for mine, which for the most part I'm keeping to myself :grin  and very little chance of people switching sides to an opposing view.

probably why politics is generally a crappy 'debate' on message boards and at the dinner table.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 4, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> and sell stocks.  I bought some Ford Stock in November and just sold it five minutes ago after doubling my money :grin:



Congrats...that is a serious rate of return!!!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 4, 2009)

guys cut out the political discussions!!!


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 4, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> guys cut out the political discussions!!!



Yes, lets talk about healthcare!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 4, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Yes, lets talk about healthcare!




please wa-loaf..this thread is about cars..start another thread about healthcare..

Shout out to Ted Kennedy


----------



## Marc (Aug 4, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> One thing I do know
> 
> Lots of strong opinions in this thread (none of them 100% right except for mine, which for the most part I'm keeping to myself :grin  and very little chance of people switching sides to an opposing view.
> 
> probably why politics is generally a crappy 'debate' on message boards and at the dinner table.



Good format for dinner discussions: make it one sided only... so for the first half, one person is only allowed to ask questions and the other only allowed to answer.  Then switch.  I find that keeps debate very civil.



GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> guys cut out the political discussions!!!



Lol, nice transparent mod attempt.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> You're extremely confusing. You hate government intervention in your private life, yet welcome it when it comes to business. Want the gov't to prop up companies so the economy doesn't crash, but don't want the economy to do well through pursuit of better paying jobs.



whatever dude...  i don't need you picking me apart....  You don't even know me...  Or what i really stand for..  

I just care about people suffering...  And the collapse of our economy would actually make people die...


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> guys cut out the political discussions!!!



I haven't said anything political..


----------



## Vortex (Aug 4, 2009)

I asked for it not to political and it seems to be decent mellow debate.  My intent was to see if anyone else did this. My guess is the answer is no.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)




----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

Glenn said:


> They should have just let chaper 11 proceed as normal. Now it's a gigantic cluster "fudgesicle" with the dealers suing to keep their unprofitable dealers open, the unions keeping their overly rich benefits and retirement packages...it's obsurd.



Those people are fighting for their livelyhood... Can you blame them?  Wouldn't you rather fight for what you have then be destitute and insuranceless???

I mean come on.. show some compassion...  this isn't JUST numbers... it's people...


----------



## drjeff (Aug 4, 2009)

dmc said:


> Those people are fighting for their livelyhood... Can you blame them?  Wouldn't you rather fight for what you have then be destitute and insuranceless???
> 
> I mean come on.. show some compassion...  this isn't JUST numbers... it's people...



It is people, but very often in situations like we're talking about here it's people with a sense of entitlement(often false), where they're so quick to rally what they perceive to be their right (regular raises inspite of the economy, fully subsized healthcare, full pensions, regular and expected overtime, etc).  The auto industry of today ISN'T anything resembling what it was 10, 20, 30+ years ago, however the expectations of the auto workers is, and in the modern, global economy one has to ask if that's really a realistic expectation???

*Note* me personally I've only owned GM cars (my wife on the other hand ) and I've got a couple of GM retirees as patients so I hear things from them. Plus as a boss, I have provided atleast annual raises, and maintained our medical and retirement benefits to date.


----------



## dmc (Aug 4, 2009)

Call it what you want - but if you are given something and someone tries to take it away...  It will piss you off...  i don't care who you are...   And if it's your living, your healthcare and your future... It's going really really piss you off...  It's human nature..

I'm in IT - was laid off after 15 years at AT&T... the only thing I am is jealous of people that get all that stuff...


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

I'm just so glad people are willing to assuage the suffering of their generation for the mere cost of increased suffering of mine...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> I'm just so glad people are willing to assuage the suffering of their generation for the mere cost of increased suffering of mine...



would you say that to a veteran?

are you suffering?

has any generation of Americans truly suffered for a long period of time due to the decisions of a prior generation?

If so, examples please


----------



## mondeo (Aug 4, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> would you say that to a veteran?
> 
> are you suffering?
> 
> ...


dmc's word, not mine.

I think you have to go to China, Russia, and North Korea to find populations who have suffered as a whole due to the decisions of the previous generation, probably the only cases in history where populist movements caused suffering. Part of the perspective I've gained over the last year is that depressions/recessions aren't the universal tough times they're portrayed as in schools, but more of a a% has really tough times, b% lower their standard of living somewhat, c% stay level, and d% benefit more from the deflation than are hurt. Working engineering for a solid blue chip company, the lower cost of gas and food have more than offset the lack of a raise this year, and I'm in the market for a house.

But I do believe deficit spending is merely a way of putting off the pain, however much is due, and with the losses associated with it increases the total pain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 4, 2009)

mondeo said:


> dmc's word, not mine.
> Working engineering for a solid blue chip company, the lower cost of gas and food have more than offset the lack of a raise this year, and I'm in the market for a house.



There was a point in time not too long ago where GM was far more sound a company than Boeing and I'm sure their young engineers viewed the recessions of those times with rose colored glasses because the downturn didn't really affect them and opened up some great opportunities.  

It's great to be optimistic in light of opportunities presented to you even when times are bad for many others; just don't be narcissistic about life is what I believe dmc is getting at.   You can't just say fuck em' to auto workers just like you can't just say fuck em' to New Orleans residents.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 5, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> You can't just say fuck em' to auto workers just like you can't just say fuck em' to New Orleans residents.


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying 2 years of 5% higher than normal unemployment for  20 years of 2% is a lousy trade. 2 years of GDP decline is better than 20 years of stagnation. etc.

Nobody wants to see other people hurt. But bailouts help select groups by hurting the population. 100,000 people at one company or 10 at 10,000 companies, you've still got the same number of people unemployed.


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

mondeo said:


> dmc's word, not mine




huh?


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

mondeo said:


> That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying 2 years of 5% higher than normal unemployment for  20 years of 2% is a lousy trade. 2 years of GDP decline is better than 20 years of stagnation. etc.
> 
> Nobody wants to see other people hurt. But bailouts help select groups by hurting the population. 100,000 people at one company or 10 at 10,000 companies, you've still got the same number of people unemployed.



Your never going to sway me...  I care too much about the suffering thats happening now.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 5, 2009)

dmc said:


> Those people are fighting for their livelyhood... Can you blame them?  Wouldn't you rather fight for what you have then be destitute and insuranceless???
> 
> I mean come on.. show some compassion...  this isn't JUST numbers... it's people...



Can't say I blame them. But on the other hand, we're the collateral damage in this one. It's really easy to justify "helping" someone keep their dealership or their job; it's almost a tangable example. But what about the rest of us who don't get a bailout? Or have to pay for this for the next x number of years? Or the fact that money that's being thrown at saving one job, is probably costing 2 or 3 elsewhere in the ol' economy?


----------



## mondeo (Aug 5, 2009)

dmc said:


> Your never going to sway me...  I care too much about the suffering thats happening now.


No one's going to sway anyone here.

But you're not going to get me to feel guilty for looking at the total impact of what's happening instead of the 4 year impact which many others are looking at.


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

mondeo said:


> No one's going to sway anyone here.
> 
> But you're not going to get me to feel guilty for looking at the total impact of what's happening instead of the 4 year impact which many others are looking at.



not my intention to make you feel guilty..


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2009)

mondeo said:


> No one's going to sway anyone here.
> 
> But you're not going to get me to feel guilty for looking at the total impact of what's happening instead of the 4 year impact which many others are looking at.



And what I'm saying is in today's world, taking a look at anything beyond 4/5 years is pretty much pointless.  

Five years ago, people were rampantly flipping houses and becoming millionaires over night in the real estate boom.  Outside of the wars, the good times were rolling and maybe 1% of the population saw the impending doom.  I did, but only because I turned down a job in mortgages because I saw the loans they were making as unsustainable based upon who they were giving money to.  Didn't predict it would be this bad, but knew the gravy train wouldn't last.

Five years before that, people were becoming millionaires over night in the dot.com and technology boom.  Probably half the country didn't have cell phones or know how to use email at that time.

20 years ago, we were in the S&L crisis with the government bailing the banks out to the tune of 160 billion, which at that time everyone thought would cripple future generations.  Is it even a thought today?  Not at all.  

That's the point I'm making.  Trying to forecast a 20 year period for GDP not only doesn't make any sense, it's impossible to do and a poor argument for lassiez faire economics.  The past 50 years shows this.  The world moves too fast.  Just when people think they have it figured out, planes crash into buildings and all hell breaks loose.

That's why I asked you for examples of previous generation decisions dooming life for future generations.  Whether I agree with all this stimulus/bailout or not; one things for certain and that's that five years from now I highly doubt people will even be talking about it.  The world will be onto the 'next' thing by then.


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Can't say I blame them. But on the other hand, we're the collateral damage in this one. It's really easy to justify "helping" someone keep their dealership or their job; it's almost a tangable example. But what about the rest of us who don't get a bailout? Or have to pay for this for the next x number of years? Or the fact that money that's being thrown at saving one job, is probably costing 2 or 3 elsewhere in the ol' economy?



What about it....?  What's the choice?  
Do you know how close we were to having a collapse of our economy?


----------



## hammer (Aug 5, 2009)

Going back to the original question...

Didn't use the program when I bought my car last month, unfortunately my "clunker" was a bit too fuel efficient.

Seems like it's an OK program...not perfect, but I think the end result of increased new car sales is a good thing.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 5, 2009)

dmc said:


> Do you know how close we were to having a collapse of our economy?



Seems like certain folks are trying to bring us closer and closer to it every day


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2009)

hammer said:


> Going back to the original question...
> 
> Didn't use the program when I bought my car last month, unfortunately my "clunker" was a bit too fuel efficient.
> 
> Seems like it's an OK program...not perfect, but I think the end result of increased new car sales is a good thing.



definitely not perfect

I saw a commercial last night saying you could get a Ford 150 through this program.  That's kinda effed if you ask me if one of the goals is a more fuel efficient national auto fleet.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 5, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> definitely not perfect
> 
> I saw a commercial last night saying you could get a Ford 150 through this program.  That's kinda effed if you ask me if one of the goals is a more fuel efficient national auto fleet.



The lovely semantics of this program,  Trade in your old truck that gets 13mpg for a new truck that gets an EPA estimated 21 mpg(maybe going downhill with a tailwind for 40 miles) :lol:


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Seems like certain folks are trying to bring us closer and closer to it every day



Now that was political...  
I'm done...  Or I'll respond..


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2009)

unfortunately, politics and economics go hand in hand.  I don't have an issue with people expressing their views provided the tone remains civil.  

I know I for one don't view this topic as a donkey vs elephant thing


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> unfortunately, politics and economics go hand in hand.  I don't have an issue with people expressing their views provided the tone remains civil.
> 
> I know I for one don't view this topic as a donkey vs elephant thing



So is it OK to respond to DrJeff? And lay/assign blame to a specific political individual who left a huge mess with a crap economy and a stupid war for another political individual who had to make some tough choices to keep our country from going under and is not making any fans of the previous individual happy?

Maybe I should just put "Throwin Stones" on and sit in the yard...


----------



## drjeff (Aug 5, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Seems like certain folks are trying to bring us closer and closer to it every day





dmc said:


> Now that was political...
> I'm done...  Or I'll respond..



Did I ever once mention republicans or democrats?? socialists or capitalists??  or even terrorists?? Nope.

If you want to try and guess what I'm thinking and then go with it from there, fine your free to do so,  but I puposely worded my statement to be as vague as possible for a reason, and NOT simply because of the AZ anti-political discussion rule


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Did I ever once mention republicans or democrats?? socialists or capitalists??  or even terrorists?? Nope.
> 
> If you want to try and guess what I'm thinking and then go with it from there, fine your free to do so,  but I puposely worded my statement to be as vague as possible for a reason, and NOT simply because of the AZ anti-political discussion rule



wow...  Vague statements can still mean the same thing...  You know what you meant..  And you knew where it was directed..


----------



## mondeo (Aug 5, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> 20 years ago, we were in the S&L crisis with the government bailing the banks out to the tune of 160 billion, which at that time everyone thought would cripple future generations. Is it even a thought today? Not at all.


Nobody's talking about it, but they probably should. The S&L crisis was brought about partly by deregulation, which allowed S&Ls to make bad loans. Sound familiar? The big problem with bailouts is not the one time cost, it's the after effects. Through bailouts, the government has entered the business of subsidising risk. If you're a CEO, it's ridiculous not to take enormous risks. It works out well, you win big. If not, well, the government is there to take the financial hit. The upside of taking risks with government backing is way too big. Part of the conversation should be, what if the government didn't bail out the S&Ls? Would it have led to a different corporate leadership atmosphere that was more risk-averse, thus avoiding the current problems?

The other issue is the national debt. A country is no different than a person in this respect, where at some point people stop lending you money, and there are big problems when you don't have enough in the bank to pay the bills on the loans. The difference between people and governments is that governments can print money. Which means the solution to the national debt when it gets to the crisis point is just printing money to pay it off, leading to disgusting amounts of inflation. It's the only way out with the more of the same attitude towards government budgets.

None of us here (well, maybe ctenidae, it's his realm,) are smart enough to figure out the exact impacts 20 years down the road. And the general public will have moved on by November 2012. But that doesn't mean there aren't 20 year impacts or that we shouldn't be worried about them. Exhibit A, Japan, with 15 years of relative stagnation.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 5, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Seems like certain folks are trying to bring us closer and closer to it every day





drjeff said:


> Did I ever once mention republicans or democrats?? socialists or capitalists??  or even terrorists?? Nope.
> 
> If you want to try and guess what I'm thinking and then go with it from there, fine your free to do so,  but I puposely worded my statement to be as vague as possible for a reason, and NOT simply because of the AZ anti-political discussion rule



C'mon no offense DrJeff, but it was pretty obvious where this was directed.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 5, 2009)

dmc said:


> wow... Vague statements can still mean the same thing... You know what you meant.. And you knew where it was directed..


 


dmc said:


> Every time i turn around all i hear is "NO" anymore... Frankly I'm happy somethings happening... My goal is to see the country succeed not our President fail...


At least he didn't basically quote the party line.


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

mondeo said:


> At least he didn't basically quote the party line.



Party?!?!?! Did someone say PARTY!!!!


----------



## Marc (Aug 5, 2009)

I'm at least a little disappointed youtube is blocked for me and I can't see what dmc just posted.  Anyone care to give me the textual version?


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2009)

dmc said:


> Party?!?!?! Did someone say PARTY!!!!



FTW

POTD

:lol:


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

Eddie Murphy - PArty All the Time...


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 5, 2009)

Marc said:


> I'm at least a little disappointed youtube is blocked for me and I can't see what dmc just posted.  Anyone care to give me the textual version?



Eddie Murphy; Party All The Time.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2009)

Marc said:


> I'm at least a little disappointed youtube is blocked for me and I can't see what dmc just posted.  Anyone care to give me the textual version?



My girl wants to party all the time, party all the time, party all the time


the genius of Eddie Murphy


----------



## drjeff (Aug 5, 2009)

dmc said:


> wow...  Vague statements can still mean the same thing...  You know what you meant..  And you knew where it was directed..





wa-loaf said:


> C'mon no offense DrJeff, but it was pretty obvious where this was directed.





mondeo said:


> At least he didn't basically quote the party line.




Think what you want,  but I'll pretty much guarentee that what I was thinking and what you all think I was thinking are very different things


----------



## mondeo (Aug 5, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> the genius of Eddie Murphy


Must be an 80s/90s thing. He's decent, but genius is a bit of a stretch.


Hijack #2! Hooray!


----------



## mondeo (Aug 5, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Think what you want, but I'll pretty much guarentee that what I was thinking and what you all think I was thinking are very different things


For the record, I'm on your side.


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

mondeo said:


> For the record, I'm on your side.



whatever that side may be...  I know where your coming from... Not sure about Jeff...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Must be an 80s/90s thing. He's decent, but genius is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> 
> Hijack #2! Hooray!



I think the song is funny as hell for how cheesy it is.  Probably one of Eddie's least genius moments.


As far as his standard comedy, for about 10-15 years Eddie was King.  He's been hit or miss for the past decade or so.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 5, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I think the song is funny as hell for how cheesy it is.  Probably one of Eddie's least genius moments.
> 
> 
> As far as his standard comedy, for about 10-15 years Eddie was King.  He's been hit or miss for the past decade or so.



I'd say that for last 5 years or so, he's batting about .125  

Delirous + party all the time + SNL,  probably Eddie's tri-fecta there


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2009)

48 hours, Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop #1, Coming to America

lots of funny movies in the 80s.

Now?  He's pretty good at donkey voice overs, but that's about it. :lol:


----------



## Glenn (Aug 5, 2009)

I have nothing more to add....so here's the best dmc picture evAAAAAAAr! 

Big smile FTW:


----------



## dmc (Aug 5, 2009)

I used to be a mogul god...   i need to get the that joint in CT you guys talk about and show y'all some old school moves...


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 5, 2009)

This is kinda cool:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/autos/0908/gallery.cash_for_clunker_trade_in/index.html

PT Cruisers on only get 21 mpg? What a useless car.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 5, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> This is kinda cool:
> http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/autos/0908/gallery.cash_for_clunker_trade_in/index.html
> 
> PT Cruisers on only get 21 mpg? What a useless car.


 But they're _cool_.

uke:

Along with the Neon, it's the epitome of why Chrysler failed. They introduced a bunch of models that sold based on fashion with no substance, but basing products on fashion doesn't give them a whole lot of shelf life.


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 6, 2009)

Wow, interesting read------I will tell you this, and that is "Clunkers" is working. Without it I'm not sure where/how last month would've ended up or how this month would've started. I'll share this with you to give you some idea----in the last 10 days of July we did 57% of our monthly total number, 90% of them were "clinker" deals. This bill is generating tons (no pun :smile biz and the trickle down is being seen/felt with overtime being paid to office staff, techs and even hiring a body in the service dept. 

You should see some of the crap people are trading in uke:

1 takes the cake tho----1985 Pontiac Parisian wagon w/ 269,0000 miles.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 6, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Wow, interesting read------I will tell you this, and that is "Clunkers" is working. Without it I'm not sure where/how last month would've ended up or how this month would've started. I'll share this with you to give you some idea----in the last 10 days of July we did 57% of our monthly total number, 90% of them were "clinker" deals. This bill is generating tons (no pun :smile biz and the trickle down is being seen/felt with overtime being paid to office staff, techs and even hiring a body in the service dept.
> 
> You should see some of the crap people are trading in uke:
> 
> 1 takes the cake tho----1985 Pontiac Parisian wagon w/ 269,0000 miles.



Funny how people call it a failure because it's too successful.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 6, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Funny how people call it a failure because it's too successful.


Funny how people call it a success because it's too, uh, failureful.


----------



## Vortex (Aug 6, 2009)

If you see or feel the benefits its a good idea to many , if not many see it as a bad idea. 

 We should all look it it from the other perspective.  If I was going to lose my job without this,,,  how would I feel?.  I am quite conservative with money,,  I have supported this program with my money and thoughts.  No sure I am in favor of just payouts and loans. 


At least this plan helps consumers and employees in many sectors. Closes the circle a bit.  Also does go along with the green theme.  Many of the stimulas dollars are going to construction of more effiecient energy buildings. Cars are now falling into that realm. I am much happier to to see a program like this than just tax dolalrs given to car companies.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 6, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Funny how people call it a success because it's too, uh, failureful.



Regardless of how you feel about the need for the program itself, the fact is that more people than anticipated are using it. That they need to add more cash for it and the dealers, car companies, and buyers seem to be happy with it sounds like a success to me. You can argue about the politics of it and whether we should be propping up the car companies. But it is doing what was intended.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 6, 2009)

Here's a question: what's going to happen to the auto industry over the next 5 years when everybody has new cars? What about the loss of spare parts sales to keep all the clunkers running? Service fees? Increase in warranty payouts? Even within the auto industry, it's a short term play.


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 6, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Regardless of how you feel about the need for the program itself, the fact is that more people than anticipated are using it. That they need to add more cash for it and the dealers, car companies, and buyers seem to be *happy* with it sounds like a success to me. You can argue about the politics of it and whether we should be propping up the car companies. But it is doing what was intended.



I'm waiting until we get paid, then I'll be happy. Right now, nervous---can you say "float"---geeee-zus are they making us jump thru hoops to get the consumers $$$$. Doesn't take long to have hundreds of thousands of dollars flapping around in the breeze.


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 6, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Here's a question: what's going to happen to the auto industry over the next 5 years when everybody has new cars? What about the loss of spare parts sales to keep all the clunkers running? Service fees? Increase in warranty payouts? Even within the auto industry, it's a short term play.



The industry has been down for so many years now I don't even think this short "burst" will bring it up to par.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 6, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Here's a question: what's going to happen to the auto industry over the next 5 years when everybody has new cars? What about the loss of spare parts sales to keep all the clunkers running? Service fees? Increase in warranty payouts? Even within the auto industry, it's a short term play.



5 years? There's going to big drop-off as soon as the incentives are over in 2-3 months. I think there are plenty of us who have cars right now that don't qualify who are still going to need new ones in 2-3 years. I'm talking about success in the small scope of the program itself. Everything we do (or not do) always has some long term consequences we may not be able to predict. Hope the dealers are smart enough with their money to be able to weather the dry spell that will come after this.


----------



## campgottagopee (Aug 6, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> 5 years? There's going to big drop-off as soon as the incentives are over in 2-3 months. I think there are plenty of us who have cars right now that don't qualify who are still going to need new ones in 2-3 years. I'm talking about success in the small scope of the program itself. Everything we do (or not do) always has some long term consequences we may not be able to predict. Hope the dealers are smart enough with their money to be able to weather the dry spell that will come after this.



Clunkers will be over in 2-3 weeks, IMO. I'd love it to last 2-3 months.


----------

