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

What is this discussion about? Legislation, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV

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?"

Outline

Messages Page 140 of 411: 1; ...; 137; 138; 139; 140; 141; 142; 143; ...; 411; Prev; Next; Last

#1391 of 4110 Re: Is Toyota Exaggerating? [maryh3] by gagrice Jul 04, 2009 (5:31 am)
Replying to: maryh3 (Jul 04, 2009 2:47 am) The Toyota website needs a serious overhaul. It says my 99 Ford Ranger 2WD FFV auto does not qualify for any amount. According to the gov site it gets 17 MPG. That is a generous rating for this gas guzzling under powered truck. Sadly no new small truck with enough power to pull my utility trailer qualifies. Have a wonderful 4th of July..... Replies to this message: plekto (Jul 04, 2009 6:44 am)
#1392 of 4110 Re: This is an outrageous program ... [gagrice] by maryh3 Jul 04, 2009 (6:09 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 04, 2009 5:11 am) I wish I could help out Chrysler. My Chrysler minivans have been fantastic autos, but I already own a 2008 T&C so I'm looking for a AWD SUV to replace my 2000 T&C clunker and Chrysler really offers nothing. The 2 Jeeps - Compass and Patriot are horrible, the Sebring is pretty bad as well. Considered a hybrid Chrysler Aspen, even though it is bigger than I wanted, but it costs about 45K. It looks like there is a reason Chrysler is in trouble - their product line is weak. Though I qualify, I agree that this program, like the auto bailouts, is socialism. The government has no business interfering with the private sector like this, but they keep electing Socialists so what does anyone expect?
#1393 of 4110 Of course it's socialism by isellhondas Jul 04, 2009 (6:29 am)
Pure and simple. I'll stop there. Replies to this message: kdhspyder (Jul 04, 2009 7:17 am) isellhondas (Jul 05, 2009 2:32 pm) kdhspyder (Jul 05, 2009 3:27 pm) and 2 more... ingvar (Jul 06, 2009 4:18 am) and 3 more...
#1394 of 4110 Re: Is Toyota Exaggerating? [gagrice] by plekto Jul 04, 2009 (6:44 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 04, 2009 5:31 am) What gets me is how many older vehicles that came in a dozen configurations sometimes(mostly SUVs and trucks) only have 2-3 selections listed. If they really wanted to get the worst polluters off the road, they'd make it a rolling 15-25 year old window. If you have a vehicle that's 15-25 years old, it pollutes dozens of times more than even a 5 year old one. Mine burns a quart of oil a month at nearly 275K on the engine. Yet it barely passes smog. Squeeks by at just under 300ppm, which is really stupidly high compared to anything new.
#1395 of 4110 Re: This is an outrageous program ... [gagrice] by kdhspyder Jul 04, 2009 (7:05 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 04, 2009 5:11 am) Get off the political soapbox already. It's childish. Your anti-government rants about everything - on every subject - being the fault of... ..a) the local government of San Diego ..b) the state government in Sacramento ..c) the Congress ..d) the President ..e) the SCOTUS ..f) the EPA ..g) CARB ( did I miss any? ) ...is getting old and frankly boring. It's beautiful and sunny today...no rain..my grass is suffering...it's Congress' fault. I've got to work today...the EPA's fault The auto industry wrote a bill for their benefit..it's the President's fault The auto industry designed this legislation to benefit themselves. It's their bill they created it. Now it has to play out. BTW, in all your rants against everything you've been wrong nearly all the time; the first one from several years ago was the Great Battery Debate. How can you be so consistently on the wrong side of every subject? Replies to this message: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 04, 2009 7:27 am) andre1969 (Jul 04, 2009 7:52 am) fintail (Jul 04, 2009 7:55 am) and 3 more... maryh3 (Jul 04, 2009 7:56 am) kdhspyder (Jul 04, 2009 9:16 am) hpmctorque (Jul 04, 2009 1:32 pm) gagrice (Jul 04, 2009 12:25 pm) kdhspyder (Jul 04, 2009 4:00 pm) gagrice (Jul 04, 2009 9:36 pm)
#1396 of 4110 Re: Of course it's socialism [isellhondas] by kdhspyder Jul 04, 2009 (7:17 am)
Replying to: isellhondas (Jul 04, 2009 6:29 am) You didn't complain during the last socialist administration when it redistributed wealth from the gas guzzling buyers to your Honda Civic Hybrid buyers now did you? Nope that was in your benefit. Strange how perceptions change depending our personal involvements. Ford Fusion Hybrid buyers and Jetta TDI buyers today are the continuing beneficiaries of the previous socialist administration. But the curmudgeon from San Diego is in favor of that type of socialism. Curious how these similar situations are viewed positively and negatively simply when viewed through different political lenses. Or it can just be childish rantings ( see prior post ). Replies to this message: isellhondas (Jul 05, 2009 2:32 pm) kdhspyder (Jul 05, 2009 3:27 pm) isellhondas (Jul 06, 2009 6:36 am) ingvar (Jul 06, 2009 4:18 am) isellhondas (Jul 06, 2009 6:26 am) and 2 more...
#1397 of 4110 Re: This is an outrageous program ... [kdhspyder] by Mr_Shiftright HOST Jul 04, 2009 (7:27 am)
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jul 04, 2009 7:05 am) I think this program is about economics with no consideration about values. An economist would probably understand C4C in these somewhat formulaic terms and wouldn't try to inject moral values into it----of course, economic decisions like this always run into a hard sell, because people want to inject value judgments about "fairness", or who deserves what. But the economist, if he / she has her head on straight, is a "big picture" person and pretty hard-nosed about what the positive and negative effects might be, but only those effects were are measurable. Cars sales go up, PROGRAM GOOD. Car sales don't go up, PROGRAM BAD. Limited goals, seems to me, is the nature of C4C Like that Replies to this message: andre1969 (Jul 04, 2009 7:52 am) fintail (Jul 04, 2009 7:55 am) countonme (Jul 04, 2009 12:59 pm) and 1 more... srs_49 (Jul 06, 2009 5:35 am) maryh3 (Jul 04, 2009 7:56 am) kdhspyder (Jul 04, 2009 9:16 am) hpmctorque (Jul 04, 2009 1:32 pm)
#1398 of 4110 Re: This is an outrageous program ... [gagrice] by steve_ HOST Jul 04, 2009 (7:49 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 04, 2009 5:11 am) How is the C4C with only 250,000 additional sales going to make an impact in the market One thing it's done is given a lot of people car fever. Even if they don't drive a clunker, a lot of people are looking up the rules to see if they qualify for C4C. Then they spend a couple of hours at Edmunds dreaming of a new car. They may not buy this month but the pent-up demand is growing. Replies to this message: maryh3 (Jul 04, 2009 7:59 am) steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 8:05 am) maryh3 (Jul 04, 2009 8:17 am) and 2 more... kdhspyder (Jul 04, 2009 8:56 am) steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 9:01 am) fezo (Jul 04, 2009 10:01 am) and 1 more... dave8697 (Jul 04, 2009 2:50 pm)
#1399 of 4110 Re: This is an outrageous program ... [Mr_Shiftright] by andre1969 Jul 04, 2009 (7:52 am)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 04, 2009 7:27 am) Cars sales go up, PROGRAM GOOD. Car sales don't go up, PROGRAM BAD. I'm not totally convinced that it's going to make car sales go up. Pull sales forward, yes. But the only thing that's going to make car sales go up is an improved economy. Replies to this message: fintail (Jul 04, 2009 7:55 am) countonme (Jul 04, 2009 12:59 pm) steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 1:01 pm) srs_49 (Jul 06, 2009 5:35 am)
#1400 of 4110 Re: This is an outrageous program ... [andre1969] by fintail Jul 04, 2009 (7:55 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 04, 2009 7:52 am) Exactly. That's why all of this is hype more than anything else. Most who can afford to buy a new car will do so when they can afford it, which has little to do with a $4500 subsidy. And with the great recession here to stay, fewer are able to afford this no matter if they have an incentive or not. Replies to this message: countonme (Jul 04, 2009 12:59 pm) steve_ (Jul 04, 2009 1:01 pm) srs_49 (Jul 06, 2009 5:35 am)