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 401 of 411: 1; ...; 398; 399; 400; 401; 402; 403; 404; ...; 411; Prev; Next; Last

#4000 of 4110 Re: White House and Obama lash out at Edmunds for CFC info ! [nbdeuce] by kernick Nov 03, 2009 (7:40 am)
Replying to: nbdeuce (Nov 03, 2009 3:08 am) You may want to also Google how much corporate taxes Ford as paid since 9-11. Companies only pay income tax when they make an annual profit. If they sell $20B of goods but they spend $20B to do so, yes they pay no income tax. But consider that all the $20B they spent went to wages for all their employees who pay tax and social security and medicare taxes, and the company matches those taxes, and the property taxes of their buildings. So a company that pays no income tax still pays plenty in taxes. And yes I agree that Exxon does pay a lot in taxes, and royalties to drill and move the oil. Replies to this message: nbdeuce (Nov 03, 2009 11:14 am)
#4001 of 4110 Re: White House and Obama lash out at Edmunds for CFC info ! [kernick] by nbdeuce Nov 03, 2009 (11:14 am)
Replying to: kernick (Nov 03, 2009 7:40 am) Exxon and alike have dinero printing presses, you would hope they would return some of it back to the consumer in the form of taxes. Did they not have all time record quarters early last year? Like record breaking all time EVER...like in the history of mankind EVER.
#4002 of 4110 AP CFC analysis by newdavidq Nov 04, 2009 (2:30 pm)
This is a pretty good summary of the CFC program and some good reasons why we should not even think about doing this program again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers Regards, DQ Replies to this message: kyfdx (Nov 04, 2009 4:48 pm) gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 5:08 pm) hpmctorque (Nov 04, 2009 8:47 pm) steve_ (Nov 04, 2009 9:03 pm) and 20 more... newdavidq (Nov 05, 2009 3:46 am) kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:04 am) andre1969 (Nov 05, 2009 7:28 am) gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 7:48 am)
#4003 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [newdavidq] by kyfdx HOST Nov 04, 2009 (4:48 pm)
Replying to: newdavidq (Nov 04, 2009 2:30 pm) Semi-interesting article which totally misses the point... A lot of old Ford pickups were traded on new Ford pickups... uh... wasn't this the idea? And, as a bonus, that is a USA based manufacturer benefiting! 14,000 transactions seem to have violated the rules.. 2% of the total... um... okay.. Was it a good idea? Can't tell from this article... BONUS They quoted Edmunds' CEO.. Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 5:08 pm) hpmctorque (Nov 04, 2009 8:47 pm) steve_ (Nov 04, 2009 9:03 pm) gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) and 7 more... kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:23 am) and 11 more... newdavidq (Nov 05, 2009 3:46 am)
#4004 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [kyfdx] by gagrice Nov 04, 2009 (5:08 pm)
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 04, 2009 4:48 pm) I think the rules stated they could take in 7.5% of the total stimulus package for large PU truck sales. And there was not much data on mileage as the EPA did not test all 3/4 ton and larger vehicles for mileage. I am not sure where they got the mileage data for many of the large trucks or SUVs such as the 3/4 ton Suburbans and Excursions. My 1/2 ton Suburban 4X4 is not listed. That all added to the circus atmosphere of the whole program.
#4005 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [kyfdx] by hpmctorque Nov 04, 2009 (8:47 pm)
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 04, 2009 4:48 pm) It totally depends on what your point is. Yeah, you can make the argument that the C4C achieved the government's goals. I and others who disagree with you understand that point. However, many of us believe that the program's achievements were more illusory than real. Those of us who feel this way are just as convinced as you are on this matter. We believe that the intermediate term (say, 2-5 years) and longer term consequences of this program are negative and unjust. Maybe those who liked C4C and those who didn't can agree that this discussion can go on forever, and that very few people will be persuaded to change their minds. Replies to this message: steve_ (Nov 04, 2009 9:03 pm) gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) srs_49 (Nov 05, 2009 3:56 am) hpmctorque (Nov 05, 2009 6:17 am) kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:27 am) plekto (Nov 05, 2009 12:19 pm) and 3 more... kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:23 am) dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 1:56 pm) and 10 more...
#4006 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [hpmctorque] by steve_ HOST Nov 04, 2009 (9:03 pm)
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 04, 2009 8:47 pm) The next question I think is whether we do it again next year. My guess is that the votes are there to do it again, at least until the 2012 mid-terms. Boxer may require and get better mpg standards the next time. Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) srs_49 (Nov 05, 2009 3:56 am) hpmctorque (Nov 05, 2009 6:17 am) kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:27 am) plekto (Nov 05, 2009 12:19 pm) ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) and 2 more... kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:23 am) dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 1:56 pm) ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 2:45 pm) and 9 more...
#4007 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [steve_] by gagrice Nov 04, 2009 (10:03 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 04, 2009 9:03 pm) If Boxer and the Greens get their way the program will flop. $4500 for a junker is what really sold the program. And a lot of those Explorers were used to purchase a slightly smaller Escape SUV. The green dreams of cutting the oil usage by a large margin just did not happen. I would guess with a new car to drive getting 10 MPG better, the average person will end up using more gas than they did with a old POC they hated to drive anyway. It was great for the opportunist with cash to spare. If they do it again they should raise the anti up to $5500 for a 15 MPG improvement. Without the goofy rules about not trading a large PU for a small car. Replies to this message: srs_49 (Nov 05, 2009 3:56 am) hpmctorque (Nov 05, 2009 6:17 am) kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:27 am) plekto (Nov 05, 2009 12:19 pm) ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) andre1969 (Nov 06, 2009 5:36 am) and 1 more...
#4008 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [kyfdx] by newdavidq Nov 05, 2009 (3:46 am)
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 04, 2009 4:48 pm) The point of the article was simply to present some information about the program and in that I think they succeeded. I guess you were referring to my point that the program was not a good expenditure of taxpayer money. I think the bottom line on that one is if you got some direct benefit from the program you might think it was a good idea. Its another example of the government taking a little money from a lot of people (read: taxpayers) and directing it to a select few (selected by politicians). Its easy to dismiss 14000 fraudulent transactions as "okay" because they were only 2% of the total (there were probably a lot more). If you earned $60K a year would you be so casual about getting $1200 stolen from you? BONUS Learned that Edmunds' CEO is one of the good guys.
#4009 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [gagrice] by srs_49 Nov 05, 2009 (3:56 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) If they do it again they should raise the anti up to $5500 for a 15 MPG improvement. Without the goofy rules about not trading a large PU for a small car. That rule never did make any sense, except from the point of view of the D3 who were having trouble getting rid of their new PU trucks and SUVs. Prohibiting the PU-for-small-car trade essentially forced anyone for a clunker F-250 to buy another big vehicle.