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: berri (Nov 01, 2009 12:44 pm) I could get behind programs modeled after the WPA. I doubt they would be possible with the Union influencing the WH. The whole bailout including C4C was paybacks to the auto industry Unions. It is obvious guys like Wagoner did not kick in enough to save his job. All the babbling about getting the $3 billion back in taxes is just that ramblings of a fertile imagination. That money is gone and we are right back where we were in June. Only the cars are mostly 2010 models. I would be real surprised if C4C added 125k sales to the total for the year. Of course there is no way to prove it one way or the other. So both sides spin it to fit their fantasies. Same as the crap about jobs saved by the stimulus.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 01, 2009 1:57 pm) No program is perfect, state funded or corporate. Cash for Clunkers had a limited scope and focus and seems to have met or exceeded the goals that wound up in the legislation. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: berri (Nov 01, 2009 12:44 pm) Amen on that. The prices on new and used cars went up. It was just like Nixon's price freeze: Krogers had the stockers in changing prices on the shelf before they opened so that would be the new higher price limit at which they could sell. The car companies took advantage of the people buying in a similar manner.
|
|
|
Replying to: berri (Nov 01, 2009 12:44 pm) Over the first 6 mo's of the year LV sales were Jan... 655K Feb.. 687K Mar.. 855K Apr.. 817K May..923K Jun.. 857K ==> Avg 801K Jul.. 995K ====> +194K over the 1st 6 mo's average Aug 1,259K ===> +458K over the 1st 6 mo's average Sept 774K ==> returned to near the 1st 6 mo's Avg monthly sales In our case very few of the buyers had ever set foot in our store before. I don't doubt that there were some 'pull forwards'. There had to be. But those pull forwards were needed this year, not next year. Newxt year will take care of itself. The market is beginning to improve if we are to believe Edmunds forecast today on Oct sales due out on Tues. The C4C may just have been the impetus to get buyers out of their homes and into the market again. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Nov 01, 2009 2:32 pm) First of all you have neither your logic nor your wording correct. The 'car companies' did nothing during C4C. I'll repeat what I noted before. The car companies built cars in the 1st 6 months of the year, shipped them to the dealers from Jan to Jun and then invoiced the dealers at the time the vehicles were shipped. The vehicles that were on the lots when the C4C buyers showed up had already been invoiced and paid for before the buyers arrived. Faux News would lead you to believe that 'the car companies' were the beneficiaries of direct subsidies from the US Treasury. This is simply false and if you believe it then you live in a fantasy world where everyone is taking advantage of you. What berri did correctly refer to was that buyers often did pay higher prices to 'the auto dealers' ( not the car companies, the car companies already had their money before the buyers arrived ). That was mainly due to the fact that supply began to run out during the end of the program and the buyers still wished to buy. That was their choice. However nobody from either 'the car companies' nor 'the auto dealers' went off into the night and dragged poor Mr and Mrs America down to the showroom in their pajamas and nightgowns, held a gun to their heads and said "BUY". If you believe this then that's another manifestation of living in a fantasy of unproven fears. |
|
|
Replying to: houdini1 (Nov 01, 2009 1:52 pm) Facts are the only arbitors. So far no one except Edmunds in its flawed article has attempted to bring out any facts to dispute that C4C did exactly what it was planned to do....and that it was a phenomenal success in doing that. All the the complainers are simply exhibiting hand-wringing sobs and fears of some unknown boogeyman. That's also called being paralyzed by fear. Bring facts to discuss, facts are your friend. Otherwise continue to hide under the covers.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 01, 2009 1:57 pm) Oh really? Well my fearful interlocutor where did that money go then? Was it set on fire? Was it buried in the back yards of UAW members all across Michigan? Did it end up paying some Wall Street banker his bonus? You've got lots of fears but no facts to back them up. Where did the money go? Here I'll help you. 690,000 vehicles in the program Typical selling price ~$20000 per vehicle Typical rebate to the buyer $4000 Typical state sales tax rate 5% Typical Fed/State Marginal tax rate 25% Typical Fed/State Business tax rate 30-40% So where did the money go? It's pretty obvious if you understand the business and a little bit of accounting. Facts...keep it to facts, not fears. Facts are your friends.
|
|
|
|
|
>Fox News and Edmunds would lead you to believe that 'the car companies' were the beneficiaries of direct subsidies from the US Treasury. The car companies and their sales units benefitted. The money the dealers made selling the car for which they had already paid went into their pockets and to order replacement cars from the CAR COMPANIES (unless they bought them from CNN and ABC Nightly News which apparently are the only correct news reporting agencies? grin?  _) It's nice we have someone to try to catch us on each detail of our posts. Were it that I weren't so lowly ignorant . If BO isn't around to help straighten things out, it's good to have someone.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 01, 2009 3:57 pm) You are fond of saying the car companies didn't get any of the CFC money. When your Chevy dealer ordered up some cars to fill the empty space on your lot and you paid for them, who did you pay the money to? And, where did you get the money? (see post #3965) This program was a sop to the unions at the car companies, in your case GM. All of the paragraphs you have pounded out in defense of CFC were pure sophistry. Happy you made a few extra bucks. Write more after the Oct, Nov. and Dec. sales numbers come out. Must admit, though, it's been a hoot, Regards, DQ
|
|
|
YES, better gas mileage results from trading in a clunker for a new vehicle. I do believe studies have confirmed that average Joe driver does accumulate more driven miles when driving a more efficient ride! YES, the crazy millions pumped into the scheme gives you a short lived boost. Talk to me in 10 years when the up front crazy millions are added to the back end loaded crazy millions required to manage/process/pay interest for this brilliant government run plan. A riddle for yas, what's the process called when one goes from full blow capitalism to socialism........"DENIALISM". I've said enough, I need to continue searching for me first home which will bring me $8000 in tax breaks next year. |
|
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
