Originally posted by: wnied
Ok then I stand corrected on the trade in value as well as the clunkers money. It still doesnt change the fact that I have a 10 year old car that doesnt get the mpg that the government says it does, thus not qualifying for the program.
At least kiss me before you bend me over!
wnied
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Gov is not matching; the dealerships are. They call it a match but at least my local one said you can get that "match" even without a clunker. It's just another rebate or whatever that stealerships always do.Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Where is the profit? It's no wonder the big three are up there when you have, for example, Chrysler MATCHING the government rebate. I think this means the government pays you twice if you buy a Chrysler?Makes sense. This also takes out of the market 250,000 engines that could otherwise go into cars that people are not replacing, which interestingly would raise the costs of engines to poor people who need to replace them but cannot buy a new car.2) The charities are complaining about these clunkers that would normally be donated which are being scrapped.
Originally posted by: themusgrat
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: her209
Do they get the trade in value in addition to Cash for Clunkers credit? I don't know, but I wouldn't think they would. Reason being, the cars that are turned in are being destroyed and as far as I know, the federal government is only reimbursing the dealers the CfC credit.Originally posted by: wnied
From where I stand, it rewards people who purchased gas guzzling cars and trucks, to trade their rolling sh!tbox in for a newer car, while reaping the incentive of our tax dollars to the tune of $3500. - $4500. dollars plus their car/trucks trade in value.
Don't forget the $3,000 lost on each GM car sold.
And the answer to the question is a big NO
http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-13
You're seriously turning into an idiot. First off, the program was successful in doing exactly what it intended to do. That is, to get money out of the pockets of people who could afford, it, and into the hands of people who really needed it.
Secondly, it's better to get all these cars off the lot. If you have a company building computers for 200, normally selling for 400, and get a backlog, not selling much at all for 2 years? You'd be very wise to sell the computers for 180 each just to get them off your hands, losing a small percentage is better than losing 100%. Don't be stupid, and stop arguing here, this is nowhere near your supposed claim of dropping money from a blimp. Then again, I wouldn't mind that if it came by my house.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Gov is not matching; the dealerships are. They call it a match but at least my local one said you can get that "match" even without a clunker. It's just another rebate or whatever that stealerships always do.Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Where is the profit? It's no wonder the big three are up there when you have, for example, Chrysler MATCHING the government rebate. I think this means the government pays you twice if you buy a Chrysler?Makes sense. This also takes out of the market 250,000 engines that could otherwise go into cars that people are not replacing, which interestingly would raise the costs of engines to poor people who need to replace them but cannot buy a new car.2) The charities are complaining about these clunkers that would normally be donated which are being scrapped.
Probably the same place domestic discounts have always come from: ridiculously bloated MSRPs and then sucker people in with "rebates" and discounts!Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Gov is not matching; the dealerships are. They call it a match but at least my local one said you can get that "match" even without a clunker. It's just another rebate or whatever that stealerships always do.Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Where is the profit? It's no wonder the big three are up there when you have, for example, Chrysler MATCHING the government rebate. I think this means the government pays you twice if you buy a Chrysler?Makes sense. This also takes out of the market 250,000 engines that could otherwise go into cars that people are not replacing, which interestingly would raise the costs of engines to poor people who need to replace them but cannot buy a new car.2) The charities are complaining about these clunkers that would normally be donated which are being scrapped.
I understand that the government is not directly matching. But given the fact that Chrysler has not exactly been the icon for profit over the last few years I have to wonder where that additional $4500/vehicle is coming from. If the bailout funds allowed them to have that money available then it's technically a double pay by the government... in my opinion.
Originally posted by: themusgrat
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: her209
Do they get the trade in value in addition to Cash for Clunkers credit? I don't know, but I wouldn't think they would. Reason being, the cars that are turned in are being destroyed and as far as I know, the federal government is only reimbursing the dealers the CfC credit.Originally posted by: wnied
From where I stand, it rewards people who purchased gas guzzling cars and trucks, to trade their rolling sh!tbox in for a newer car, while reaping the incentive of our tax dollars to the tune of $3500. - $4500. dollars plus their car/trucks trade in value.
Don't forget the $3,000 lost on each GM car sold.
And the answer to the question is a big NO
http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-13
You're seriously turning into an idiot. First off, the program was successful in doing exactly what it intended to do. That is, to get money out of the pockets of people who could afford, it, and into the hands of people who really needed it.
Secondly, it's better to get all these cars off the lot. If you have a company building computers for 200, normally selling for 400, and get a backlog, not selling much at all for 2 years? You'd be very wise to sell the computers for 180 each just to get them off your hands, losing a small percentage is better than losing 100%. Don't be stupid, and stop arguing here, this is nowhere near your supposed claim of dropping money from a blimp. Then again, I wouldn't mind that if it came by my house.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's going to be funny when the working poor are unable to afford a used card to get back and forth from work because we just destroyed several hundred thousand of them just to artificially pump up the top line revenue of mismanaged companies.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
FWIW NPR yesterday had a guy on who talked about the carbon footprint or CO2 emissions involved in replacing one of these old cars with a new one, with its creation, cost of transportation, etc. and he concluded that for the average car replaced in this program there were several years of normal driving required before breaking even and for the average truck it was more like eight years. So it's hardly a boon to the environment.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's going to be funny when the working poor are unable to afford a used card to get back and forth from work because we just destroyed several hundred thousand of them just to artificially pump up the top line revenue of mismanaged companies.
don't you know this is really the beginning of the big light rail/mass transit push?
Originally posted by: themusgrat
You're seriously turning into an idiot. First off, the program was successful in doing exactly what it intended to do. That is, to get money out of the pockets of people who could afford, it, and into the hands of people who really needed it.
Secondly, it's better to get all these cars off the lot. If you have a company building computers for 200, normally selling for 400, and get a backlog, not selling much at all for 2 years? You'd be very wise to sell the computers for 180 each just to get them off your hands, losing a small percentage is better than losing 100%. Don't be stupid, and stop arguing here, this is nowhere near your supposed claim of dropping money from a blimp. Then again, I wouldn't mind that if it came by my house.
Originally posted by: OCguy
Not only are the mental-giants in power playing a shell game with Borrowed/printed fiat currency, but they are now going to be taking in less gas tax revenue, in a time when they already have the biggest drop since 1932.
There is a perfect storm brewing here. 2010 cant happen fast enough.
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: OCguy
Not only are the mental-giants in power playing a shell game with Borrowed/printed fiat currency, but they are now going to be taking in less gas tax revenue, in a time when they already have the biggest drop since 1932.
There is a perfect storm brewing here. 2010 cant happen fast enough.
You can't have it both ways. Either we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and accept reduced tax revenue from it, or we leave the situation as it is and remain even more at the mercy of OPEC and a diminishing resource.
Originally posted by: tk149
Originally posted by: themusgrat
You're seriously turning into an idiot. First off, the program was successful in doing exactly what it intended to do. That is, to get money out of the pockets of people who could afford, it, and into the hands of people who really needed it.
Secondly, it's better to get all these cars off the lot. If you have a company building computers for 200, normally selling for 400, and get a backlog, not selling much at all for 2 years? You'd be very wise to sell the computers for 180 each just to get them off your hands, losing a small percentage is better than losing 100%. Don't be stupid, and stop arguing here, this is nowhere near your supposed claim of dropping money from a blimp. Then again, I wouldn't mind that if it came by my house.
Wrong. I can't afford a new car (not without financing a sizable chunk), but I'm not financially hurting. Are you telling me that people who are financially better off than me, and can afford a new car, really need a subsidy? Or are you arguing that the dumbass car companies really need it, on top of the bailout money they already got? Less than 50% of the new cars purchased under the CARS program were branded American. How much of that money went to Japan or Korea?
Sorry I'm not your typical poster on P&N. Unlike the rest of you, I don't make mid six figures per year. Where the hell is my government subsidy?
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: OCguy
Not only are the mental-giants in power playing a shell game with Borrowed/printed fiat currency, but they are now going to be taking in less gas tax revenue, in a time when they already have the biggest drop since 1932.
There is a perfect storm brewing here. 2010 cant happen fast enough.
You can't have it both ways. Either we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and accept reduced tax revenue from it, or we leave the situation as it is and remain even more at the mercy of OPEC and a diminishing resource.
We need to deal with the most immediate danger first, and right now, that is our drunken spending Government, and our defecit/debt. At some point we have to stop funding OPEC so that part of the world can go back to the irrelevance that it deserves. However, subsidizing a few vehicles wont even begin to make a dent.
Originally posted by: themusgrat
You're seriously turning into an idiot. First off, the program was successful in doing exactly what it intended to do. That is, to get money out of the pockets of people who could afford, it, and into the hands of people who really needed it.
The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate?or undercut?White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.
LaHood, for example, promotes the fact that the Ford Focus so far is at the top of the list of new cars purchased under the program. But the limited information released so far shows most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles, and six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai.
Originally posted by: Patranus
Obama administration withholds data on program
The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate?or undercut?White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.
LaHood, for example, promotes the fact that the Ford Focus so far is at the top of the list of new cars purchased under the program. But the limited information released so far shows most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles, and six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...9S6M481&show_article=1
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
We're in the grips of a deep recession. Nobody is spending their money. This program gives them an incentive to purchase a new vehicle with much better gas mileage. That could be a HUGE savings for some. Some are imagining some hypothetical other purchases the participants in the program could have made had they not participated, but that ignores the fact that nobody is being forced to participate and that they're presumably getting lots of value from their decision to participate. If the participants had a better use for their money, I think they would have opted for the better use, and not junked a perfectly useable vehicle for no reason.
The money came from the stimulus package. Many have objected that the stimulus would take a long time to kick in. This billion dollars kicked in right away (faster than expected). Many will also complain that the program is injecting uncertainty into the market, as if a market with two companies who just emerged from bankruptcy didn't have enough uncertainty before, and as if they would complain about more sales now.
As for opportunity cost, we've already seen that the alternate spending would be something less stimulative. For consumers, they don't appear to have been rushing to spend the last quarter. It might well cut into savings, granted, but that is what we need right now. The glitches in the system I read about involve it being more successful than expected, and the risk that the government wouldn't pay for clunkers already bought - which would be a problem if the government hadn't promised to make good on this. If they hadn't, then there would be a legitimate complaint. There's no satisfying some people. If the government figured out how to make it rain inflation-free $20 bills, they would complain about them clogging the sewers.
I am willing to bet that for 90% of people who used this program did NOT see a savings. Unless you dont count the extra car payment....this was a terrible program right now. People need to SAVING and CUTTING COSTS, not increasing debt.
Absolutely wrong. People need to get off the dime and spend some money, if you have any.
If everyone stops spending we will be in a worldwide depression. Those of you with money need to spend.
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
We're in the grips of a deep recession. Nobody is spending their money. This program gives them an incentive to purchase a new vehicle with much better gas mileage. That could be a HUGE savings for some. Some are imagining some hypothetical other purchases the participants in the program could have made had they not participated, but that ignores the fact that nobody is being forced to participate and that they're presumably getting lots of value from their decision to participate. If the participants had a better use for their money, I think they would have opted for the better use, and not junked a perfectly useable vehicle for no reason.
The money came from the stimulus package. Many have objected that the stimulus would take a long time to kick in. This billion dollars kicked in right away (faster than expected). Many will also complain that the program is injecting uncertainty into the market, as if a market with two companies who just emerged from bankruptcy didn't have enough uncertainty before, and as if they would complain about more sales now.
As for opportunity cost, we've already seen that the alternate spending would be something less stimulative. For consumers, they don't appear to have been rushing to spend the last quarter. It might well cut into savings, granted, but that is what we need right now. The glitches in the system I read about involve it being more successful than expected, and the risk that the government wouldn't pay for clunkers already bought - which would be a problem if the government hadn't promised to make good on this. If they hadn't, then there would be a legitimate complaint. There's no satisfying some people. If the government figured out how to make it rain inflation-free $20 bills, they would complain about them clogging the sewers.
I am willing to bet that for 90% of people who used this program did NOT see a savings. Unless you dont count the extra car payment....this was a terrible program right now. People need to SAVING and CUTTING COSTS, not increasing debt.
Absolutely wrong. People need to get off the dime and spend some money, if you have any.
If everyone stops spending we will be in a worldwide depression. Those of you with money need to spend.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's going to be funny when the working poor are unable to afford a used card to get back and forth from work because we just destroyed several hundred thousand of them just to artificially pump up the top line revenue of mismanaged companies.
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's going to be funny when the working poor are unable to afford a used card to get back and forth from work because we just destroyed several hundred thousand of them just to artificially pump up the top line revenue of mismanaged companies.
[deleted]
Just those that are hell bent against this plan no matter how successful it appears all happen to be on the right leaning side of the political spectrum. Only quoting your original post because it brought up the working poor. Opponents of this plan aren't exactly historically champions of that demographic. Or even working class for that matter.
---------------------------------------------
Flaming on both sides was removed to allow a decent post to survive
Senrior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's going to be funny when the working poor are unable to afford a used card to get back and forth from work because we just destroyed several hundred thousand of them just to artificially pump up the top line revenue of mismanaged companies.
[deleted]
Just those that are hell bent against this plan no matter how successful it appears all happen to be on the right leaning side of the political spectrum. Only quoting your original post because it brought up the working poor. Opponents of this plan aren't exactly historically champions of that demographic. Or even working class for that matter.
---------------------------------------------
Flaming on both sides was removed to allow a decent post to survive
Senrior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
So providing subsidies to Asian auto manufacturers is considered a success in your book?