Quote :

"mrfrog: This is a give away to people who already own cars and trucks that are too big and for people who live beyond their means. Cars that are, if you will, big beyond the driver's means. If this bill ever accidentally made someone use less oil, that minuscule amount will be canceled out by people trying to own more wasteful stuff in hopes that the government will do this kind of bonehead thing again."

I sincerely doubt anybody is going to go out and buy an SUV with the hopes that forty years from now, the economy will tank again and the government will dole out some more incentives.

I mean, all this business about the government rewarding stupidity (in this instance) is silly. This is not going to encourage bad decision making. Right now, I don't think any average Joes feel like they can count on the government. They're not going to make decisions based on the off chance that an institution (which they perceive is largely impotent) might give them a bail out of some sort.

8/2/2009 7:30:03 PM

its a stupid program promoted by stupid people

it takes more energy to create the new car than the savings in emmisions.

it will create another downturn in the auto industry as anyone who needs/ wants a new car will have bought one now

it will cause people to make car payments, rather than spend that money in the rest of the economy.

hell, it doesnt even make fiscal sense to buy a new car in the first place, why is the government pushing bad fiscal decisions? guess that one is self explanitory

8/2/2009 7:36:39 PM

8/2/2009 7:44:43 PM

Quote :

"I sincerely doubt anybody is going to go out and buy an SUV with the hopes that forty years from now, the economy will tank again and the government will dole out some more incentives."

No one is going to buy an SUV thinking this. History won't repeat itself in the exact same way. But the point is that the government is going out of its way to protect the 'American lifestyle' so that people feel more comfortable in current consumption habits and it's more profitable to pursue them. I'm talking about the propensity to engage in all unsustainable consumption with the idea that the government is there for us.

I assure you, there are many more ways to make the argument that this program is nuts.

http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5627

Quote :

"I doubt that the efficiency upgrade will really be 9mpg, but lets assume that is right. I doubt the average odometer of all tradeins will be 140,000 but lets assume that too is correct. Lets assume that the program averages $4,000 which is 1,000,000 new cars on the road. Assuming they too eventually drive 140,000 miles, we have just extended our dependence on gasoline/oil transport by 140 billion miles which at 25 mpg (irrespective of the efficiency gain), is 5.60 billion gallons of gasoline. When we import 70% and rising of our oil and pay for it with a currency that doesn't inspire quite the confidence it once did, this gimmick goes in the wrong direction."

Oh right, buying new cars commits one to use that car until the end of its life. By the time these cars being bought today get scrapped, domestic oil production will have decreased by another 20, 30% at least. So, really, subsidizing a 5% gain is not encouraging an improvement, it's worsening the situation drastically.

And like ^^ points out, this the energy of making the cars has yet to be factored in. This isn't good for the environment. This is a screw-the-environment bonanza party hosted by Uncle Sam.

[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 7:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/2/2009 7:51:43 PM

Quote :

"its a stupid program promoted by stupid people"

Speaking of

Quote :

"it takes more energy to create the new car than the savings in emmisions. "

It isn't like these people are buying the cars for a novelty item. Many of them were or were soon going to be in the market for a new car as it was. Those that weren't exactly in the market for a new car might be replacing the one they had sooner than needed, but in this economy we can assume that is a small number of people. So this is just a dumb dumb argument.

Quote :

"it will create another downturn in the auto industry as anyone who needs/ wants a new car will have bought one now"

This is somehow a worse alternative than just staying in the downturn we're in? Automakers aren't stupid, they aren't going to replace all the inventory they just moved with the expectation the sales blip will continue, especially with all the workers that are currently on summer break. Did you think that one up yourself?

Quote :

"it will cause people to make car payments, rather than spend that money in the rest of the economy. "

What in the hell are you talking about? Theoretically, the dealership will get the money loaned from the bank, they'll turn around and spend it into the economy on something. It's possible they'll just use it to pay off debts, but there isn't any sort of proof that these people would spend this money into the economy in some other way.

Quote :

"hell, it doesnt even make fiscal sense to buy a new car in the first place, why is the government pushing bad fiscal decisions? guess that one is self explanitory"

Hmmm, lemme sell my clunker for 800 or lemme get that 4500.

8/2/2009 9:39:12 PM

Quote :

"Hmmm, lemme sell my clunker for 800 or lemme get that 4500."

Well, a real poor person doesn't just face the decision of whether to take 800 or 4500.

The choice is: get $800 for your clunker, and buy a $2,000 used car.....or get $4500 for your clunker, and buy a $15,000 car.

The illusion of good return on buying a new car from this program influences a lot of people to buy new cars when they have no business doing so. It's the wrong move for them, and it's the wrong move for the economy as a whole.

The poor are the ones really getting screwed on this. First, you entice them to go into unjustified debt because of some extra cash for their clunker. Then, you seal their choice by ridding the used car market of cheap, good cars they could use as an alternative.

Granted, I'm a stick in the mud, but the vast majority of people currently driving new cars are stupid. Just stupid. And this only makes the problem worse. This is the same as the rest of the stimulus bill - the problems caused by overspending and overborrowing can be solved by more spending and borrowing.

8/2/2009 10:08:34 PM

Quote :

"The poor are the ones really getting screwed on this. First, you entice them to go into unjustified debt because of some extra cash for their clunker. Then, you seal their choice by ridding the used car market of cheap, good cars they could use as an alternative."

So much wrong in such a short statement.

#1 I don't know what your definition of poor is, but mine doesn't include people that a bank will loan 15k+ to for a new car
#2 Jesus Christ, it isn't like we are ridding the entire US of cheap good cars.

Quote :

"Granted, I'm a stick in the mud, but the vast majority of people currently driving new cars are stupid. Just stupid."

Generally, yes. But have you been out there looking for a car these days? The incentives are retarded, and tack on another 4500 to a ~18,000 dollar car being sold at cost just to get it off the books with a fresh full warranty (as opposed to a year and 15000 miles down, which is what you non new car advocated would get) and people would be stupid NOT to take this deal.

8/2/2009 10:17:06 PM

Quote :

"Hmmm, lemme sell my clunker for 800 or lemme get that 4500"

Speaking of poor people... sure sucks to be that person who can't afford the $4500 price floor but could have afforded $800, huh?

Hurray for unintended consequences!

Quote :

"#2 Jesus Christ, it isn't like we are ridding the entire US of cheap good cars."

No, you're just putting an artificial price floor on used cars. You've now bought up a whole lot of them at a price far above the market-clearing level. Let's think, now what do you suppose this will do to the price of the rest of the used cars?

[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason : Hm...]

8/2/2009 10:19:39 PM

Quote :

"Speaking of poor people... sure sucks to be that person who can't afford the $4500 price floor but could have afforded $800, huh? "

Yes, like was just pointed out, we're removing ALL the old clunkers across the entire country

Quote :

"No, you're just putting an artificial price floor on used cars. You've now bought up a whole lot of them at a price far above the market-clearing level. Let's think, now what do you suppose this will do to the price of the rest of the used cars?"

You're gonna have to show some numbers of how many cars are going to be destroyed and how many will be left before anyone is going to care about this argument. Oh noes...THE PRICE WENT FROM $1000 to $1050 THE POOR ARE FUCKED.

Did you miss the past 5-10 years when so much easy credit flowed and so much production and car purchasing was pulled forward driving down the price of used cars everwhere? Crushing a few 10 thousand of them will do nothing but help restore the equilibrium.

8/2/2009 10:25:16 PM

You're right, crushing perfectly good used cars is an awesome idea. Let's pay people far above market price to destroy perfectly good cars while other people who can't benefit pay more.

Next, let's hire vandals to break windows to stimulate the glazier industry!

Another tradermark FAIL(tm) brought to you by Fail Boat

[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2009 10:33:54 PM

I'll do some math for you. $3 billion at 20k per car average is 150k cars. You do realize in the past 3 years in the US, light vehicle sales we're nearly 50 million vehicles.

So we're taking out .3% of the past 3 years of sales. How many years back do you want to include? How many of those cars that will get traded were destined for scrap anyway?

8/2/2009 10:36:50 PM

Ergo, we pay thousands of dollars above their market-clearing price to do something that, according to you, they were going to do anyways.

It's so brilliant! How could it possibly go wrong!

8/2/2009 10:38:29 PM

Oh, what happened, you're argument for the poor went up in flames so you switch to a different argument DrSteveHerring?

NEWS FLASH FOR THE THICK OF SKULL

I HAVEN'T ONCE ARGUED THAT THIS IS A FISCALLY PRUDENT PROGRAM YOU APE

8/2/2009 10:39:39 PM

Hey, Failtard, let's try this one: it's bad for multiple reasons. Including those I posted before you decided to stroll in.

But perhaps you could refresh my econ knowledge, since it's obviously deficient - paying artificially high prices for used vehicles and taking them off the market - that'll make the price go down, right? I'm sure of it.

[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2009 10:53:06 PM

Quote :

"#1 I don't know what your definition of poor is, but mine doesn't include people that a bank will loan 15k+ to for a new car"

There are LOADS of people who would qualify for a 15k loan, but would be fools to consider doing it.

In fact, it's probably the majority of the middle class.

New cars are bad financial decisions. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter who you are, they are a net negative on you. Now, some folks are wealthy enough so that the negative financial aspect of it is negligible compared to their other assets, and so if they want to buy then that's cool by me.

People get so caught up in "deals" and rebates and what not, while losing sight of the fact that $15k is a lot of money. It doesn't matter if the price used to be 20k. And it doesn't matter if the financing is 0%. Nobody should buy one of these if they could not pay cash for it if they wished. If they have the means to pay cash, but just want the 0% sweetness, then that's cool. But this whole discussion involves people buying things they can't afford.

How do I know they can't afford it? They need a loan. And if you need a loan in order to purchase the car, you're an idiot for buying it. Borrowing money for an asset that is guaranteed to plummet in value, when the loan total is 1/5 to 1/2 of your annual income....well, I have a hard time believing there's actually anybody who would defend that. And yet banks enable middle-class people to live far above their means like this every day.

8/2/2009 11:00:20 PM

Wait, I'm lost. Did the bill put any stipulations on how someone has to finance the new car purchase?

8/2/2009 11:19:50 PM

^No, but it's a pretty safe assumption that the vast majority of people who were driving clunkers worth under $4500 do not have $15k on hand for a new car. If they did, they probably already would have wasted that money on a new one before now.

8/2/2009 11:26:39 PM

This might end up being the Fannie Mae of car-loan schemes.

8/3/2009 1:06:06 AM

Quote :

"Hey, Failtard, let's try this one: it's bad for multiple reasons. Including those I posted before you decided to stroll in. "

Before I decided to stroll in? I replied to Mrs. Grace. You're the one that quoted me and offered up your red herring in the absence of a real argument.

Quote :

"But perhaps you could refresh my econ knowledge, since it's obviously deficient - paying artificially high prices for used vehicles and taking them off the market - that'll make the price go down, right?"

If I give you 50c for one of your quarters, and you have more of them at the moment than you want to count, will that drive the price up of all your other quarters? Thats kinda what removing 150k cars on top of 17 million a year for the past 5-10 years is like.

Quote :

"In fact, it's probably the majority of the middle class. "

Now the majority of the middle class is poor?

Quote :

"New cars are bad financial decisions. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter who you are, they are a net negative on you."

Not with 9000 in incentives (Chyrslers recent program + government). I already fucking agreed with you that in general its mostly wiser to let someone else take the depreciation hit. I agreed with that IN GENERAL. And here you are pigheadedly making the argument again as if the current state of the economy is the general one.

Quote :

"How do I know they can't afford it? They need a loan. And if you need a loan in order to purchase the car, you're an idiot for buying it."

hahahhahahahahah

wait, lemme read it again

ok, yeah, hahahahhahhahahahaha

8/3/2009 8:27:36 AM

The real losers with this shit are people who had to buy a new car in may or june that would have qualified or those who bought old responsible "greener" cars to begin with.

8/3/2009 9:06:54 AM

Generalizations are true most of the time.

[/irony]

8/3/2009 10:11:14 AM

Because clearly, the government giving away 3 billion to stimulate the economy is "most of the time".

[/reality]

8/3/2009 10:18:11 AM

Quote :

"Now the majority of the middle class is poor?"

Actually, yes. They just don't know it. They may have middle-class incomes, but they have nothing in the bank, nothing for retirement, debt up to their eyeballs, and a lot of money tied up in depreciating assets. If, collectively, they found out how poor they were, it would be a start to getting us back on track.

8/3/2009 10:22:59 AM

rofl

8/3/2009 12:01:30 PM

8/3/2009 12:26:02 PM

I bought a new (to me) car in December. One year old, 4800 miles on the odometer, and it was $13,000 less than if I'd bought a brand new one. It still has the factory warranty, and I was able to extend it to 100k miles for another $1200.

If I bought a (similar) brand new car under the CARS program there's no way I'd come close to saving $13,000.

Basically, even if you actually need a new (to you) car to replace your "clunker" you should still buy used. Only independently wealthy people can afford the depreciation hit.

8/3/2009 1:09:56 PM

Yes, because clearly an S2000 is a typical car

8/3/2009 1:33:57 PM

it's an example you ass, of buying a car that is lightly used instead of brand new. Strong reply though, or rather lack thereof.

[Edited on August 3, 2009 at 1:38 PM. Reason : k]

8/3/2009 1:38:19 PM

You used your outlier anecdote as evidence for everyone else. Only a boob would think that makes sense.

8/3/2009 1:42:59 PM

America: We do the smart thing when we're subsidized to.

8/3/2009 1:52:06 PM

Quote :

"America: We do the smart thing when we're subsidized to."

No, we do the dumb thing whether it's subsidized or not. This subsidy only adds to our collective desire to be dumb with money.

Subsidizing the smart thing would be subsidizing used cars. That shouldn't happen either, but it wouldn't be as bad.

8/3/2009 2:04:01 PM

^^^really? You don't think anyone else buys 1-2 year old cars with low mileage to avoid taking a depreciation hit?

I didn't realize I was that special!

8/3/2009 3:30:00 PM

Man, you're dense.

8/3/2009 3:56:22 PM

You could always explain why I'm wrong. But instead you just like calling people names. Hence why nobody listens to you.

8/3/2009 4:00:10 PM

Quote :

"explain why I'm wrong."

I never said you were wrong about anything.

You said this:

Quote :

"You don't think anyone else"

In reply to me pointing out your outlier anecdote. It's an outlier because an S2000 or any lower volume car in a unique segment isn't going to behave as predictably like a Camry or an Accord regarding depreciation and resale. It's not surprising to me at all that you got a screaming deal on a LUXURY vehicle in a shitty economy.

I said nothing of the sort of not thinking anyone else does this.

In fact I already admitted once that it IS smart to let someone else take the appreciation hit

Quote :

"Generally, yes."

I later acknowledged the admission as a reminder

Quote :

"I already fucking agreed with you that in general its mostly wiser to let someone else take the depreciation hit. I agreed with that IN GENERAL."

So why in the hell do you think pointing out your ANECDOTE (you know what that is, right?) is me somehow implying that other people don't do this? Can you comprehend what you read? I end up resorting to name calling because I get tired of brain dead thinking. I do it myself, and if someone calls me an idiot, I thank them for taking the time to educate me.

The debate is about whether buying a new car now with (in some instances like Chyrsler) multiple incentives on the line is such a fiscally terrible decision. All I'm getting is...it is, end of argument.

No hypothetical about maybe the prices are jacked up, no discussion about if they are selling them at cost or slightly below, no discussion on what resale will be in one year. Nothing. Just..."end of story", as Tiplvr put it.

[Edited on August 3, 2009 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2009 4:11:27 PM

My dad priced a Hyundai Accent with a dealer, including his Cash for Clunkers trade in (old ass Isuzu Trooper), for $7200 You really can't beat that for a brand new car that is guaranteed to last at least 10 years (warranty).

8/3/2009 4:39:32 PM

I drove over 250 miles in my new Civic already and the gas tank still has like, a lot of bars left before it runs out. Thanks for the money Americaaaaa. I FINALLY GOT A PIECE OF THAT OBAMA MONEY!!!

[Edited on August 3, 2009 at 5:03 PM. Reason : l]

8/3/2009 5:03:19 PM

socialist

8/3/2009 6:02:16 PM

wonder if lahood would concur with most of his conservative brethren were he still a legislator...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/04/cash_for_clunkers_means_ca-ching_for_detroit_97753.html

good read. at least depending on your view of the program

some highlights:

Cash for clunkers could be the least glamorous stimulus program ever devised -- and among the best designed. It is Temporary (lasts until Nov. 1 or when the money is gone), Targeted (helps Detroit and, with it, the industrial heartland) and Timely (the stampede to the showrooms was immediate). Extra bonus: By helping people trade gas guzzlers in for more fuel-efficient vehicles, the program helps the environment.

The possibility that this popular program will make Obama's economic policies look good has put many Republicans (though not Michigan's) in a bad mood. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., characterized it as "stupidity coming out of Washington right now." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., threatened to filibuster efforts to put $2 billion(!!) more into the program.

On the other hand, Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., wrote, "This is simply the most stimulative $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn." She added that "the federal government must come up with more money, immediately, to keep this program going."

One last point: All this finger-wagging over the cost of this program is ludicrous. The federal government spends more than $3 billion in half a day. This program is actually doing something for both the economy and for ordinary Americans.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 2:53 AM. Reason : highlights]

8/4/2009 2:36:02 AM

Wait, I thought that (1) people didn't have any money and (2) that they couldn't get credit. I guess that was all just bullshit.

8/4/2009 3:30:42 AM

^your number 1 is bullshit.

8/4/2009 3:41:40 AM

Cash for Clunkers is like Feeding the Hungry in 3rd world Africa.

While you may have a feel good moment handing a bowl of rice to a starving child; what we are really doing is delaying the inevitable.
What happens to the auto industry when the program ends, everyone has their new cars, and we are left back where we began?
Without treating the causes behind the auto industry crash and just throwing money at it just delays the problem to tomorrow.

This is even neglecting the point that we are encouraging people to forfeit potentially perfectly good automobiles to take on
unnecessary debt (part of the reason behind our current situation) for marginal gas efficiency increases.

Fuck GM and Ford.

I will never buy their garbage.

[Edited on August 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM. Reason : s]

8/4/2009 8:59:06 AM

why are they just continuing to help the autos only?

Cut taxes and let people spend thier money on other things besides cars. Of course that would require cutting spending which appears to be harder than returning the ring to mordor.

This program should be called, "our cash for your clunker."

8/4/2009 9:34:55 AM

They should give people rebates to replace their old heating and air conditioning systems. Those waste a lot of energy. And then, why not extend it to large appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, washer/dryers, etc.

8/4/2009 12:13:57 PM

I agree, but it would be better for them to "give" people thier own money so they can buy or use it whatever way the people who actually earned it think.

8/4/2009 12:18:41 PM

I agree, but it would be better for them to "give" people thier own money so they can buy or use it whatever way the people who actually earned it think.

8/4/2009 12:18:41 PM

^^^

Tax Credits for Energy Efficient Air Conditioning In Your Home

Quote :

"As part of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act 2005, homeowners are entitled to claim tax credits on use of a few energy saving items. They include the use of energy saving windows, doors, roofing, furnace and boiler, water heater and air conditioner."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Tax-Credits-for-Energy-Efficient-Air-Conditioning-In-Your-Home&id=290231

8/4/2009 3:51:08 PM

my dad got some kind of rebate or tax credit or something like that when he replaced his water heater. i don't recall the specifics.

8/4/2009 3:54:08 PM

Why not provide a small progressive subsidy (or tax) based on mileage for all new vehicles?

8/4/2009 3:56:59 PM

^^I've been aware of something similiar to that in NYC for a few years now (for replacing AC units).

^I'd actually be in favor of taxing vehicles based on their weight (mind you, not an additional tax but rather in lieu of other "road use" taxes).

8/4/2009 4:02:10 PM