Cash for clunkers? - ad nauseam

It is/was stupid.

They should have given the cars to returning Veterans.

It cost over $30 for each pound of CO2 that they saved, ridiculous.

The only people it helped was the richer middle class, who else has a spair $15,000 sitting around to buy a $20,000 car?

If the program was anythiong like the California program, there were restrictions and requirements. Whne my Escort would no longer pass Smog inspection, I took advantage of the program. The car cost me $500. The state paid me $1000 to take it off the road.

Since I am on a fixed income (VA disability) and only pay about $50 per year in income tax, and remembering that what I do pay is spread across a ton of differenttax supported services, I wonder just how many years it would take the state to recoup from my trade in. Then multiply that on the federal level program. Neither would recoup the costs.

I am more concerned with how many people who really can't afford the payments even after receiving the credit, have taken advantage of the program.

Few people driving clunkers can afford a new vehicle. The wealthy can afford one whenever they want. That leaves the middle class tax payers to finance the program.

And now we have "Kitchens for Kash".

I am thinking a better program, would have been for the government to make a deal with the auto companies to just give everyone with a clunker, a new fuel efficient car instead of letting them go to Toyota, Honda, or whomever.

Sounds kinda pricey...

Pricey - true. And yet, in the long run, would it not be better than idiot short term programs like Cash for Clunkers? It would clean the air (of our country only) and extend oil reserves in a big way. It would bring the US in line with the rest of the world regarding vehicle size, resulting in less crowding. Less wear and tear on the roads. Increased safety. And more.

As for the cost of the vehicles, if you research the actual costs of production, you'd find that there is a pretty hefty markup at each level from production to sale.

This was one of the factors which made it possible for Ford to sell

5.0 Mustangs to the California Highway Patrol for something like 1/4 the MSRP. They also wrote a large portion off to advertising... and it worked to increase sales nation wide.

With GM, the government own a large portion of the corporation as it is, and as long as the are bailing out GM, a program like this would require vehicle production, meaning employment, tax revenues, and all the rest.

Admittedly, I have not worked out all the bugs. That woud take some time.... which to me is far better than these knee jerk reactionary fixes for the economy which don't really do anything, or are fixes for problems which don't actually exist.

Cash for Clunkers and similar programs are like getting a flat tire and only replacing the lug nuts. It gets worse with greater sized programs. Healthcare for example, where about 80% of the people have insurance they are happy with (though some minor improvements would be welcome). The remaining people, including illegal aliens presently have free coverage in any ER.

So the new program wants to toss out everything and start from scratch when at leat 80% of it is already good. That is like having a darn good ol' car that one day breaks a fanbelt. Obama wants us all to go deep into debt to buy brand new cars instead of just fixing the fanbelt and rolling on down the road.

Ooo I agree, I'll take the CTS-V....

So with the improved emissions from the new car over the old car, how long would the new car need to be operated to recoup the emissions from the acquisition of raw materials, transport, and manufacture of the new car?

Government has been involved with tranportation for a long time i.e. buses, light rail, etc.

Admittedly, I don't have much faith in a government run system like you propose when the far simpler 'Cash for Clunkers' system was imperfect at best.

seems like the industry sold a lot of cars which is good for all.......but looking at the news stories I didn't see that many "beaters": mostly dumb vehicles that the dumbies shouldn't have bought in the first place......and the rest of us have to bail them out.

as an aside: I'm in a small town: 1 Ford, 1 GM & 1 Chysler/Jeep dealer.....so no local headlines about Cash for Clunkers.

BUT nowthe local Ford crook has launched a big "Buy Ashland" promotion i.e, spend your money locally instead of going to another town (and getting a better deal). If you buy a car from him, he'll give you coupons worth $500 in discounts at area merchants. WoW!!

The kicker is, the owner is a total a__hole and a general crook: when the '05 Mustangs came out, he was charging $3000 to $5000 over sticker, charging for "aluminum wheel package" and...get this: "added dealer profit" right there on the window!!!!

So now business is slow and the snake wants people to buy locally. I got my Mustang from a dealer 20 miles away.....for $5800 less than the snake wanted. Gee, wonder who's paying for the coupons "....to reward your loyalty and hometown pride". Too bad his franchise doesn't get lifted - there would be a lot more Fords in town.

While you may not agree with it, it is the law of supply and demand in action. Notice, if you will, that dealers give the biggest discounts to the slowest selling vehicles. Mustangs command a premium price becuse the sell fast. Camaros have been sitting on lots an average of

4 days from the time the dealer takes possession, and have actually passed Mustangs in sales. Two cars beat that rate. Audi has two models that are fast movers.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong but that is the way it is, and has always been. Like everything else, I shop around. If I have a bad experience with a dealer in any product, I send then a letter and tell them why I took my business elsewhere. One dealer asked me to return and he'd give me a brand new 'vette at dealer cost.