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 404 of 412: 1; ...; 401; 402; 403; 404; 405; 406; 407; ...; 412; Prev; Next; Last

#4026 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [plekto] by stephen987 Nov 05, 2009 (5:06 pm)
Replying to: plekto (Nov 05, 2009 4:41 pm) Except that's also misleading as the fuel consumption isn't the big deal, since people who get better mpg tend to drive more. Or do people who drive more tend to choose cars that get better mpg? Replies to this message: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2009 5:43 am)
#4027 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [plekto] by kdhspyder Nov 05, 2009 (5:45 pm)
Replying to: plekto (Nov 05, 2009 4:41 pm) Up to a point maybe. However there are only so many hours in a day and there's only so far that one can and would want to drive. If a Ram owner traded up to a Prius thus tripling his rated fuel economy ( cutting fuel usage by two-thirds ) I doubt very much that he would suddenly triple the miles he drove in order to use up his 'gas ration'. No he'd drive the same distance more efficiently and pocket the savings to spend on something else.
#4028 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [kdhspyder] by ateixeira Nov 05, 2009 (6:07 pm)
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 3:15 pm) Now if a sliding scale of incentives were implemented.... I love that idea, brilliant.
#4029 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [kdhspyder] by dodgeman07 Nov 05, 2009 (7:37 pm)
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 3:15 pm) Up to 300 gal $2000..................... Malibu V6 to Cobalt, Tundra to Highlander ---------------------------------------------------------- Hey I'll take it. If and when the "CARS" 2010 kicks in, it shouldn't be a Cash For Clunkers deal but based on MPG improvements. Say 10mpg better as you noted but the old vehicle can be "traded" as in any other deal. Yes the credit may be lower but talk about getting millions of people into dealerships next spring? This thing could sell 2 million cars in a month if allowed. If "CARS" 2010 averaged $2K per vehicle and $4 billion was allotted to it, dealerships would run out of paper to print contracts on! I realize used car dealers would be livid but offer one month only then - March 2010.
#4030 of 4110 skip the car, get a golf cart by steve_ HOST Nov 05, 2009 (7:48 pm)
A Bailout ... for Golf Cars? (ABC) And here's the best deal: "Golf Cart Man is referring to his offer in which you can buy the cart for $8,000, get a $5,300 tax credit off your 2009 income tax, lease it back for $100 a month for 27 months, at which point Golf Cart Man will buy back the cart for $2,000. "This means you own a free Golf Cart or made $2,000 cash doing absolutely nothing!!!" Cash for Clubbers (WSJ) The only catch is you have to buy one that's street legal. Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:05 pm) bigjezza (Nov 05, 2009 8:07 pm) gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:14 pm)
#4031 of 4110 Re: skip the car, get a golf cart [steve_] by gagrice Nov 05, 2009 (8:05 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 05, 2009 7:48 pm) Here is one of several companies in San Diego cashing in on another Government boondoggle. I think I will get one just to cruise around town in. I have a friend that is a mechanic at one of the Casinos. He maintains all the carts they use. He says it is easy to kick them up to 40 MPH by adding a battery. http://www.sdstreetlegalgolfcars.com/3.html Replies to this message: bigjezza (Nov 05, 2009 8:07 pm) gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:14 pm)
#4032 of 4110 Re: skip the car, get a golf cart [gagrice] by bigjezza Nov 05, 2009 (8:07 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:05 pm) You are kidding me... Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:14 pm)
#4033 of 4110 Re: skip the car, get a golf cart [bigjezza] by gagrice Nov 05, 2009 (8:14 pm)
Replying to: bigjezza (Nov 05, 2009 8:07 pm) I got room in my garage for this little baby. Won't cost me net much more than a Kirby Vacuum cleaner. I like it. Just left a message at the dealer to call me tomorrow. I need all the tax credit I can get.
#4034 of 4110 Curious by newdavidq Nov 05, 2009 (8:16 pm)
After following this thread for a while I started to see some striking similarities between the CFC program and another noteworthy government program: Ethanol! What got me to thinking was the passionate defense of the program by some who try to justify the taxpayer expense by all sorts of examples. Energy saved here, jobs saved there, getting off of foreign oil, cleaning the air, etc., etc. I think gagrice once remarked on the amount of energy it takes to build a Prius or any other car for that matter. Just think how much energy Cuba is saving by recycling old cars! What is most striking is the casual way we are spending Billions of dollars without batting an eye. Many posters have suggested ways to improve the CFC program, and they are good ideas. Could not the dept of energy (with 60,000 employees and a $26 Billion budget for 2010) have provided some input. Incidentally, the dept, which was created in 1977 with the express purpose of getting us off of foreign energy has not had much effect. My main point is that CFC was bad simply because the government injected taxpayer money into a program that they did not think through, did not execute (remember dealers waiting for $ and the paperwork burden) and which distorted the free market, the consequences of which we have yet to see. Car dealers were caught flat footed and ran out of cars, junkyards don't have time to properly harvest parts and of course some government money was stolen. And of course the $3 Billion is all borrowed money and at 3% per annum over 60 months our cars payment would be $53,906,071,99. (Interest of $234,264,319.40) Heck, that's only about .78 for every man woman and child in the US. I guess CFC wasn't so bad after all. Regards, DQ Replies to this message: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 8:36 pm) gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:43 pm) steve_ (Nov 05, 2009 9:05 pm) and 1 more... dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 9:15 pm)
#4035 of 4110 Re: Curious [newdavidq] by kdhspyder Nov 05, 2009 (8:36 pm)
Replying to: newdavidq (Nov 05, 2009 8:16 pm) You state all the negatives well but you don't try to keep any sense of balance in your post. First the cost 3% pa was not $3 Billion. It was far less than $3 Billion. So right away your conclusion is faulty. This was stimulus money as part of the $787 Billion allocated to stimulate the economy. It was authorized by Congress for exactly this purpose. It's working as the economy turns around. It worked too fast and too quickly. The throught behind it and the depth of the benefits is far more than your cursory summary. It was in the works for 8 months. It simply worked too well too fast. Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:43 pm) steve_ (Nov 05, 2009 9:05 pm) gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 9:31 pm) dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 9:15 pm)