Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
4110 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
For questions about how the program works or to discuss program details, please visit our discussion titled, "Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?"
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: kcflyer (Jul 01, 2009 7:57 am) Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America. C4C hopefully will not increase the # of cars. We have way too many as it is. You can see how time and space are influencing the types of cars we drive. Compare 1960 with 2006. I view C4C as just a small sustaining factor for an industry that must change to survive. |
|
|
What does everyone think the effect of this will be on the used market? My feeling is since there will be less low priced used cars/trucks on the market, dealers will use this as a reason and scare tactic to raise prices. Also, people who are close to qualfying may bypass buying now hoping for a revised government program next year. Again, less used vehicles on the market.
|
|
|
Replying to: kathyc2 (Jul 01, 2009 8:10 am) Best advice I can give you is to go back and re-read my whole post. The point I was making was that it's almost as beneficial to move someone from a 13 mpg vehicle to a 16 mpg as it is to get someone from an 18 mpg vehicle to a 28 mpg vehicle, in terms of fuel saved. Personally, I'm not too keen on seeing my tax dollars go to subsidizing ANYBODY's vehicle purchase, whether it's getting them into a more efficient SUV, or a more efficient car. But who knows? In the long run it might work out, reducing our dependency on foreign oil (which if I'm not mistaken, most of it actually comes from Mexico and Canada  ), and helping to get dollars back in circulation again, get people spending.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 01, 2009 8:25 am) Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America. I believe horses were individual transportation too. And bicycles in many parts of the world are individual transportation. If you look at many of the largest cities in the world - individual transportation is still the norm on a percentage basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 01, 2009 8:25 am) Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America. Wow! You may be surprised to learn that we don't all live in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc., even today. Mass transit is a "quaint notion" in a very large number of other metroplitan areas in the USA. It may be nice that it is there for a few senior citizens, unemployed folks, and a very small number of others that actually ride it, but it is hardly vital to anything. |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 01, 2009 9:39 am) In some cases though, we ARE benefitting from mass transit, even if we're not directly using it. For example, just imagine if Amtrak's Northeast Corridor didn't exist. Just imagine how much more crowded our highways would be between DC and New Yorker. They're bad enough as it is, but just think of all the traffic those trains take off of it. And I'm sure the DC Metro takes a lot of cars off the road, as well. A lot of people in big cities get by without even having a car. Just think if mass transit went away, and everybody suddenly needed to get a car. The streets would get more crowded, but even more than that, there would be no place to park them! More parking lots and garages would have to be built, and that's more infrastructure to be maintained. If cities were built upon the premise of every resident having a car, they would stretch out and up even more than they currently do. Now I agree, mass transit doesn't work everywhere. For instance, if I wanted to take the bus to work, I'd have to walk about halfway TO work, just to get to the nearest bus stop! At that point, might as well just walk the rest of the way. I'd be tempted to bike it on nice days, if the roads weren't so dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jun 30, 2009 4:01 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 01, 2009 9:39 am) So who should pay for the roads?
|
|
|
Replying to: kcflyer (Jul 01, 2009 7:57 am)  By compassion, I meant sometimes you have to give up some things to help others. I think you are oversimplifying things when you compare mass transit to welfare. it's a much more complicated argument than this. I view this as one of those necessary evils for cities. I travel to DC and NYC frequently. I rather spend $1.50 using the PATH to get into NYC rather than $8 to use the Lincoln Tunnel and another $25-$30 for parking, and hope the person next to me doesn't ding my car. The alternative is you have more people driving, more congestion, the need for more roads, more oil/gas being used, etc. Because of your posts, I actually paid attention to the people waiting for the buses in my town on the way to work. In my mind, we need to continue to provide public transportation but make it more efficient. Smaller buses, fewer routes, etc. I'm just thankful, I don't have to rely on it. Be Well, my friend.
|
|
|
Replying to: kathyc2 (Jul 01, 2009 8:10 am)  ). Somebody else's taxes go to supporting the Cash for Clunkers program. For example Toyota, Honda, BMW, Merc, Nissan, Mazda all pay more income taxes than any of us ( I think ) so let's just say that it's their taxes that are going to support this program.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
