Cash for Clunkers...

[Code Doc]

... is doomed to failure.

(1) Many "clunkers" get better fuel economy than the new vehicles that are on the road today that deliver the same function.

(2) Who wants to see their car that has been taken care of and driven for over 10 years suddenly flattened in a land fill?

(3) Why can't someone who really needs your old car that is still in good shape and cannot afford a new one have a chance to buy it after you trade it in?

WDYT?

[si_the_geek]

The same kind of scheme has been done in various parts of Europe (without the mpg limitation, which is virtually guaranteed to be better in modern cars over here), and has worked well - economically at least.

The car industry has increased sales compared to the period before (thus more tax), so they and the dealers don't need to make staff redundant (who keep paying tax rather than going on benefits), scrappage merchants continue to have work coming in (ditto), etc

I'm not sure what happens to the old cars tho, which could well be a downside.

[techgnome]

Have you actually looked at the requirements for it? The car has top be a certain number of years old, must get less than a specified MPG (18), and you had to have owned it for at least a year. I have one car that almost qualified... except that it gets more than 18MPG (it gets 20).

-tg

[Lord Orwell]

this has been going on for decades in one form or another in california. The program included the power companies. They got credits towards pollution for every car they crushed.

[Code Doc]

this has been going on for decades in one form or another in california. The program included the power companies. They got credits towards pollution for every car they crushed.

Wait a minute, LO. Are you saying that Californian's believe that our nation's environmental pollution drops every time that a used car is crushed and a new one gets bought? That justifies cash for clunkers? I'm getting ill.

[Blakk_Majik]

This is part of Obama's bailout to the unions that helped him get elected.

It's designed to sell more cars, but will end up screwing us royally.

I can definitely see dealers raising sticker prices or adding unnecessary fees which will make your "rebate" pretty much useless.

Yet another Obummer program that wastes taxpayer money. "Change you can believe in: Or Else!"

[Lord Orwell]

Wait a minute, LO. Are you saying that Californian's believe that our nation's environmental pollution drops every time that a used car is crushed and a new one gets bought? That justifies cash for clunkers? I'm getting ill.

there was a big write-up about it in popular hot-rodding. They bought a car from a guy that was going to turn it in, an old camaro from the early eighties, and it passed emissions. In Indiana where i live, we used (and by we i mean ME) to do vehicle drivability inspections, which were basically the same thing without the tailpipe wand. The law expired though.

[Davadvice]

in the UK the metal from the cars that are crushed is reused to produce mutiple products including beer cans.

The emmisions created to perform the crushing of the car is estimated to be higher than that produced by the car over a 1 year period based on average usage. (i seen this on a tv show can't remember where though) could be crap!

The MPG thing seems a good idea, i don;t know if they have that over here though.

The only people that would benifit from this are the elderly as they may see it as a last car as the sell on value is so scary.

I would never buy a new car for the simple reason that i can get a almost new for far less than the sticker price and the money lost on a new car does not bare thinking about.

I bought a 1 year old VW bora (vento,jetta in the states) for 10k and the rrp was well over 15k as new. losing 5k in year would not be so nice.

[Lord Orwell]

in the UK the metal from the cars that are crushed is reused to produce mutiple products including beer cans.

The emmisions created to perform the crushing of the car is estimated to be higher than that produced by the car over a 1 year period based on average usage. (i seen this on a tv show can't remember where though) could be crap!

The MPG thing seems a good idea, i don;t know if they have that over here though.

The only people that would benifit from this are the elderly as they may see it as a last car as the sell on value is so scary.

I would never buy a new car for the simple reason that i can get a almost new for far less than the sticker price and the money lost on a new car does not bare thinking about.

I bought a 1 year old VW bora (vento,jetta in the states) for 10k and the rrp was well over 15k as new. losing 5k in year would not be so nice.

those shows like that though never give you the big picture. How much emissions would have been produced by mining the same amount of metal? Or the acid runoff that stripmining causes? Iron is mined in strip mines only, due to how it is in the ground. And of course there is the fact that eventually we'll have taken all of that out of the earth as well. We'll run out of oil before then though.

Personally i drive a 1986 Lincoln Town Car. I can't justify the purchase of a new car. I've had this car seven years and only had to fix the alternator and one spark plug.

[capsulecorpjx]

The same kind of scheme has been done in various parts of Europe (without the mpg limitation, which is virtually guaranteed to be better in modern cars over here), and has worked well - economically at least.

The car industry has increased sales compared to the period before (thus more tax), so they and the dealers don't need to make staff redundant (who keep paying tax rather than going on benefits), scrappage merchants continue to have work coming in (ditto), etc

I'm not sure what happens to the old cars tho, which could well be a downside.

Prob at least scrapped for metal.
Or maybe resold to developing countries.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My understanding is that the car HAS to be scrapped (with exceptions for a few select parts that can be harvested), and the dealer gets the rebate, not the consumer. The idea is that the dealer will pass the savings on to the consumer in the form of lower price. However, if the dealer jacks the price, such that the user sees less of a rebate...go to a different dealer. The point is that your clunker has considerably higher trade-in value because the clunker has a higher value to the dealer than it would as a straight trade-in. You still have to haggle, and you can still be screwed in the deal. However, the dealer will scrap the trade-in rather than attempting to ship or re-sell, because they have a financial incentive to do so (and an even bigger one if they can clean your wallet at the same time).

Overall, there are few downsides to doing this, especially since there is the mileage cap. Unlike the European result that si mentioned, cars in America have lost gas mileage in the last twenty years. My cars from the 80s got better mileage than all but a few hybrids today. The same model today gets worse mileage.

[Code Doc]

LO said, "Personally i drive a 1986 Lincoln Town Car. I can't justify the purchase of a new car. I've had this car seven years and only had to fix the alternator and one spark plug."
---------------
We are almost carbon copies. I am the original owner of a 1991 Town Car that I bought in December, 1990. It has only 56,400 miles on it and has not needed a repair in 10 years. One of the spark plug wires needed replacing so I replaced them all myself. The rest is all routine maintenance.

Now, do we really want to get rid of these gems and escort them to the junk yard and watch them crushed? Give me a break!

Pssst... I still cannot find a car that rides better than a Town Car.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Nobody is forcing you to buy a new car. The program would be an incentive for people to replace gas guzzlers for something new. However, if you have only put 56K miles on a car in 18 years, it makes not a whit of difference what you drive, because you aren't driving.

I currently telecommute three days a week, yet I average about 7K miles/year. Of this 7k, about 4k is commuting, 2k is vacation, and the rest is Misc. You are averaging FAR less total per year, and I do envy you that.

My last car was a 1982 Honda Civic. It could get up to 45 mpg, and generally was around 40 on the hwy. However, it had lived a rough life (a hurricane smashed it up pretty well, among other things), and EVERYTHING on the car was broken or breaking by the time I got rid of it.

My current car wouldn't qualify for CFC, as it gets 30 mpg. Hopefully, it will last for another 10 years, but by then it will have well over 200K miles, and will be old enough to drink.

[Code Doc]

SH, thank you for your understanding. I am sure that both Lord O and I appreciate that. Perhaps we do not drive that much. I know that I do not. That's my contribution to the green world. Let the record speak for itself--56,400 miles in nearly 20 years using a car that was engineered for much more than that.

Oh, and BTW, LOML drives a 1991 Toyota Celica GTS. She has less than 33,000 miles on it, not a scratch on it, and on the highway, it gets 32 mpg. Should we flatten her "clunker" to the ground this year?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Her 'clunker' would not qualify for anything. You have to get less that 18 mpg to qualify.

However, there is a secondary consideration. One of the reasons I was happy to get rid of that Honda was that lots of things have changed since then. If you have air bags, then I wouldn't change a thing. If you don't have air bags...then you might think about it.

On a different note, tell me how you manage it. I bought a house so that I could do most of my shopping and all of my commuting on foot. Then I changed jobs, but also moved to three days of telecommuting per week. The mileage didn't really change between the two, and I don't see myself getting lower in miles, but I'm curious as to how you do it? Even when I was walking to work every day, my miles per year was still about 7K, because my friends all lived a long ways off. I see that your location is Omaha. Is that a large enough place that you can get around on public transportation all the time?

[techgnome]

"Omaha" and "Public Transportation" don't belong in the same sentence. Omaha has one of the poorest and laughable PT systems I've ever seen... I see bus stops around, but I think on average I see one bus every 6 weeks or so. I hear about it, but I've yet to see it in action. I'm sure it's available, but it's limited. The way I understand it works is busses from outter ends of town head downtown in the AM, with some routes until shortly after lunch, then starting 4pm, the routes reverse and head from downtown outwards. Maybe Code Doc's experience is different from mine, if I remember right, he's at the other end of town from me.

Anywhere. In case it's not obvious, I live in Omaha too... Omaha, is known as a 20 minute city... you can get to just about anywhere in 20 minutes. Depending on where you live and where you work, it's easy to get around on foot or bike. For some of us, not so much. I work in mid-town, but live in the subburbs, out on the edge. If I was working in a casual environment, I'd be biking more often, at least half way (total distance is roughly 13-15 miles). Unfortunatly I don't so I can't. As for biking to groceries or such... it's not worth the risk down a heavily travels two laner with no shoulders and ditches on both sides. Makes for a scary ride, one I'm not willing to risk my neck on.

I'd personally like to see more developments made like actuall small communities, rather than large tratcs of house after house after house, punctuated by two city blocks of shopping. The place where I lived in Calif, most you ever had to walk anywhere for shopping was 10 minutes. It would be nice to get back to that.

-tg

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

I think we all have to ask ourselves, WWJD?

[Lord Orwell]

Why Waste Jack Daniels?

My grandfather has a ford aerostar van with over 300,000 miles. It's needed the transmission, dash guages, some axle bearings, and rear end gears.

I used to put about ten grand a year on my car. Before this i owned a 1982 Caddilac Barritz. It got 34mpg on the highway. Why can't full size cars get that now?!?

[Code Doc]

And, then there's the poor--another variable I thought I would throw in. Many poor people who are driving clunkers can't even afford to take part in the cash for clunkers program. They cannot afford a new car or the additional insurance and taxes that it would take to own one. That's not me, but there are tens of thousands of consumers in this financial position.

What they need to buy is one of the clunkers that is being flattened in the land fill--a car or truck that is likely in better shape that what they are driving--like mine, for instance.

But no, they get to watch vehicles that are in better shape than theirs destroyed. They don't even have the option to buy one or trade up a little.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I miss your point with that. Are you suggesting that we institute vehicular welfare?

I also fail to see why you keep suggesting that this is mandatory or in some fashion obligatory. This is an optional program. If it works for you, then use it. If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. No doors are being closed, so why the angst? That last post amounted to saying "Don't trade in your old car because there are poor people who can't afford a new car." There are others, like me, who have never bought a new car, but that's irrelevant to an optional program. This is nothing but an alternative, and as such, will only be acceptable to a certain segment. If you aren't in that segment, as I am not, then don't fret about it. Nobody is forcing you to do anything here.

The program gives people who are considering alternative options some economic incentive to make a choice that will benefit various ends. There's nothing more to it than that.

You should do it if:
1) Your old car gets less than 18 mpg
2) Your old car has less value than $4500.
3) Getting a new car makes financial sense for you.
4) The new car you are contemplating gets sufficiently better gas mileage to qualify for the program.

You should not do it if:
1) Your old car has more value than the rebate.
2) Your old car does not qualify for the program.
3) You can't afford to replace the car.

If you do decide to take advantage of the program, then find a dealer who is participating in the program (it isn't automatic or mandatory), and don't mention the program until you have negotiated a price for the new car. If you mention the program first, it may alter the price that the dealer is willing to offer for the new car.

[EntityX]

And, then there's the poor--another variable I thought I would throw in. Many poor people who are driving clunkers can't even afford to take part in the cash for clunkers program. They cannot afford a new car or the additional insurance and taxes that it would take to own one. That's not me, but there are tens of thousands of consumers in this financial position.

What they need to buy is one of the clunkers that is being flattened in the land fill--a car or truck that is likely in better shape that what they are driving--like mine, for instance.

But no, they get to watch vehicles that are in better shape than theirs destroyed. They don't even have the option to buy one or trade up a little.

But with the cost of gas so high why not buy a clunker that gets better than 18 mpg? Only the cars that are getting less than 18 MPG are going to be junked in the program. I don't think that that is any evil at all. No matter what program there is it's going to have it's advantages and disadvantages but if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages significantly than it has some value. If all the poor people are driving around 17mpg cars our dependence on oil will remain like it is even if the poor people are happy driving their inexpensive 17 mpg cars.

[Code Doc]

But with the cost of gas so high, why not buy a clunker that gets better than 18 mpg? Only the cars that are getting less than 18 MPG are going to be junked in the program. I don't think that that is any evil at all. No matter what program there is it's going to have it's advantages and disadvantages but if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages significantly than it has some value. If all the poor people are driving around 17 mpg cars, our dependence on oil will remain like it is even if the poor people are happy driving their inexpensive 17 mpg cars.

I guess that seals it. This "cash for clunkers" program is destined to not only make the poor pay more, it allows them to cry while cars and trucks that are still in good shape--vehicles that they could actually afford--get crushed at the landfill. What vehicle on earth are the poor supposed to buy after all the so-called clunkers get crushed? What is going to be left for them?

So, I lose $13,000 during the next two years while taking part in "cash for clunkers" and the poor get nothing while they watch my good car or truck that they could use get crushed at the landfill.

Our government is sick. How on earth did this program get launched?

[EntityX]

Millions of people who have cars that get less than 18 MPG or get more than 18 MPG can still sell their cars to poor people for whatever price or even give them to poor people. The cash for clunkers program will not interfere with that at all. But if you want to buy a new car at a dealer that is participating in the cash for clunkers program and you want to turn in a car that you have that qualifies so you can get money toward the new car you're buying than that low mileage car won't be available for anyone to buy or use. The idea is to get the low MPG cars off the road. There are a lot of cars that are inexpensive for poor people to use that get more than 18 MPG and if you're poor you wouldn't want to buy a car that got less than that anyway. It would be expensive to operate unless you're going to put very low mileage on it.

I had a 91 Geo Metro that I bought used in 1999 for I think around $ 1500. It was getting 45 MPG and sometimes better. I sold it for $ 1300 back in 2007. That's the kind of car poor people would appreciate and such a car would never qualify in the cash for clunkers program.

[penagate]

There are a lot of cars that are inexpensive for poor people to use that get more than 18 MPG and if you're poor you wouldn't want to buy a car that got less than that anyway. It would be expensive to operate unless you're going to put very low mileage on it.

Bingo! 18mpg is rubbish!

[penagate]

What vehicle on earth are the poor supposed to buy after all the so-called clunkers get crushed? What is going to be left for them?

As far as I can see the program will barely run long enough to crush any clunkers, let alone all of them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I can only assume that Code Doc is not reading anything I post, or else he's seriously drunk.

[Lord Orwell]

Millions of people who have cars that get less than 18 MPG or get more than 18 MPG can still sell their cars to poor people for whatever price or even give them to poor people. The cash for clunkers program will not interfere with that at all. But if you want to buy a new car at a dealer that is participating in the cash for clunkers program and you want to turn in a car that you have that qualifies so you can get money toward the new car you're buying than that low mileage car won't be available for anyone to buy or use. The idea is to get the low MPG cars off the road. There are a lot of cars that are inexpensive for poor people to use that get more than 18 MPG and if you're poor you wouldn't want to buy a car that got less than that anyway. It would be expensive to operate unless you're going to put very low mileage on it.

I had a 91 Geo Metro that I bought used in 1999 for I think around $ 1500. It was getting 45 MPG and sometimes better. I sold it for $ 1300 back in 2007. That's the kind of car poor people would appreciate and such a car would never qualify in the cash for clunkers program.

that's not a car i would recommend. I had to have the starter rebuilt on one because a replacement one cost $372 and had to be imported. The Geo factory was destroyed in the yugoslavia civil war. No one makes parts for them anymore. However, the local goodwill accepts cars for resale, and i personally paid $250 for a truck, $600 for a car, $800 for a car, $350 for a car, etc. I drove each of them thousands of miles. The only ones i would have turned in would have been the 77 granada (garbage) and i actually did junk the 80 ford courier pickup. It was a piece of garbage but got 24mpg combined city/highway. Oh i left one off the list. There was also a 1980 Dodge Aspen i paid a hundred bucks for. I sold that for five hundred to a guy, he paid $125 and the cops came by looking for him and we never saw him again for the rest of my money.

[Code Doc]

I can only assume that Code Doc is not reading anything I post, or else he's seriously drunk.

That's baloney and you know it.

The Poor Pay More. Think of the tens of thousands of consumers who cannot afford a new car because of the taxes, insurance, monthly payments, etc. These are people who are going to be watching "clunkers" flattened--cars and trucks that are in better shape than what they are currently driving. The poor are not even allowed to bid on them or trade up.

Did our government even consider the poor when it launched this clunker program? I think not.

[penagate]

Your argument is a mere appeal to emotion which you keep repeating rather than addressing any points made in response.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's baloney and you know it.

I was thinking that the first part might have been true, but the drunk comment was certainly tongue in cheek. My point is the same as what Penagate made: You appear to be overlooking the facts to make strange emotional appeals. The points you are overlooking are these:

1) Only cars that get terrible gas mileage will be eligible.
2) Nobody is being forced to take this option.

I have never bought a new car, and have never bought a car with gas mileage low enough to qualify for this program, nor do any poor people need to. There will be loads of used cars, just as there always have been. This will simply remove some of the least economical cars from the road, because the cars have to BOTH get terrible mileage, and have very little resale value. Fail either of those, and they will not be crushed.

[SJWhiteley]

Buying a new car, regardless of mileage (mpg), regardless of 'cash for clunker' programs (which has run out of money) will leave you economically worse off for approximately a decade. Basic math.

'Cash for clunkers' is a political statement to appeal to peoples emotions attempting to maintain the current administrations favorably, and does absolutely nothing either economically or environmentally (actually, it has a negative economic impact and a zero environmental impact).

Those that took advantage of the program are the well-off people who were going to purchase a new car, and took advantage of a reduction in their capitol expenditure.

[Lord Orwell]

Buying a new car, regardless of mileage (mpg), regardless of 'cash for clunker' programs (which has run out of money) will leave you economically worse off for approximately a decade. Basic math.

'Cash for clunkers' is a political statement to appeal to peoples emotions attempting to maintain the current administrations favorably, and does absolutely nothing either economically or environmentally (actually, it has a negative economic impact and a zero environmental impact).

Those that took advantage of the program are the well-off people who were going to purchase a new car, and took advantage of a reduction in their capitol expenditure.

quite possibly. But others are people who bought junk cars to simply tow them to the trade-in area to get the tax break. I'd spend $100 for that.

[techgnome]

you had to have owned it for at least a year before turning it in... a quick title check clears that problem up.

-tg

[Code Doc]

Buying a new car, regardless of mileage (mpg), regardless of 'cash for clunker' programs (which has run out of money) will leave you economically worse off for approximately a decade. Basic math.

'Cash for clunkers' is a political statement to appeal to peoples emotions attempting to maintain the current administrations favorably, and does absolutely nothing either economically or environmentally (actually, it has a negative economic impact and a zero environmental impact).

Those that took advantage of the program are the well-off people who were going to purchase a new car, and took advantage of a reduction in their capitol expenditure.

+1. I could not have said this any better. The poor are not getting anything for this nonsense. They can't even make an offer for the car being flattened or swap it for their junk heap. Whoever launched this program cares nothing about the poor and needs his head examined.

[storm5510]

I find the entire concept laughable. What some call a clunker, others would call a lifesaver. Why scrap them if others can still drive them safely. For me, it would be a great improvement on what I have now, which is nothing.

[Lord Orwell]

i finally got around to looking into the program. Evidently it is not designed to help the consumer at all, no matter how much they owe. It is a program designed in a round-about way to help the auto industry to keep from going bankrupt.

[techgnome]

Lord - well, DUuuh! Where have you been? It was never about helping people other than those in the auto industry. It just got wrapped up into "Feel Good" Legislation to include getting better milage vehicles.

-tg

[Code Doc]

i finally got around to looking into the program. Evidently it is not designed to help the consumer at all, no matter how much they owe. It is a program designed in a round-about way to help the auto industry to keep from going bankrupt.

+1. We are on the same page again. Of course, I have to ask this question. Why on earth was the "cash for clunkers" program not launched before General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and before thousands of their shareholders lost $billions?

The door is being closed after the cow already walked out of the barn.

Seems to me that the "cash for clunkers" program is about a year late--maybe a lot more. What is its primary objective? (1) save the domestic auto industry, (2) save energy, (3) save the economy, (4) save something else?

Please advise.

[Lord Orwell]

one and three go hand-in-hand, since it's quite possibly the largest industry in the united states, and most certainly the one that does the most exporting except possibly the agricultural industry. I am not sure if #2 is even a viable option, as the only real way this legislation would have any possibility of having a long-term effect on energy usage is to only give the benefit towards the purchase of a high-mileage vehicle or even a hybrid.

Personally, i would like to see the program work like this: I tow an ancient auto in, and leave on a moped getting 80 to 100mpg, with no cash out of pocket. I still have another vehicle for out-of-town driving, but mainly i would go to work.

as for "why wasn't this program launched before", it's because the person previously in charge didn't really give a crap whether normal citizens sank or swam.

[homer13j]

The program was not launched before not because of some insidious evil Republican plot, but simply because the government/unions did not own 2/3 of the US auto industry until very recently. It is now in the government's best interest to get as many people buying new cars as possible.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a new car.

The purpose of this program is to remove as many used cars from the market as possible. As used cars become increasingly difficult to find their prices will inevitably rise making new cars more attractive to the buyer.

The government will not need to force people into buying new cars - the market will force them to. It's quite a brilliant plan, actually... As long as you don't believe in free markets.

As far as I can see the program will barely run long enough to crush any clunkers, let alone all of them.

Never fear, billions more $$$ are on their way...

"Cash for Clunkers" is a textbook example of why they never teach basic economics in public schools.