1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

One Billion Dollars....Gone

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Mike Bertelson, Jul 31, 2009.

  1. Aug 1, 2009 #81 of 173
    Matt9876

    Matt9876 Hall Of Fame

    1,006
    0
    Oct 11, 2007
    If you really own a clunker and can afford the new car payments why not go online and see if you qualify,It's good for the environment and your safety.:)
     
  2. Aug 2, 2009 #82 of 173
    Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008

    I think it has more to do with why should my tax dollars help you buy a car because you have an old car but I just purchased 2 new cars in the last 2 years but I didn't get anything other then what I qualified for based on my credit.

    However this is gettnig political so we'll see what happens. It really doesn't surprise me that it ran out that quick and I'd be surprised if they didn't find more money to throw at this but perhaps in smaller amounts.
     
  3. Aug 2, 2009 #83 of 173
    BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    8,969
    1
    Nov 13, 2007
    In most cases, this is false.
     
  4. Aug 2, 2009 #84 of 173
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I don't know about that. I remember reading that cars older then 1994 make up about one quarter of the miles driven but account for about two thirds of the auto emissions.

    This would seem to indicate that taking these cars off the road would be beneficial. Even if it isn’t getting that much more in MPG, it certainly will produce less in the way of emissions.

    How much of an impact a potential half a million cars will have...well that’s the question.

    Mike
     
  5. Aug 2, 2009 #85 of 173
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    I guess many people have misperceptions on this program.

    The 3 main purposes behind it are:

    1) Reduce the number of non-efficient vehicles out on the roads
    2) Leverage an economic stimulous to the auto industry as a motivation to produce more fuel efficient vehicles
    3) Leverage any economic stimulous to the auto industry to also assist in the 300+ auto-related major businesses that employ millions of workers

    Now...people can certainly debate how necessary this is, if it's the right approach, and if its the best use of tax dollars.....but as of now, the program is meeting its goals well so far.
     
  6. Aug 2, 2009 #86 of 173
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I've always felt that it was mostly about the economic issues with the auto industry.

    Everything else is ancillary. Everything else is also good PR and marketing.

    Mike
     
  7. Aug 2, 2009 #87 of 173
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Actually....there are more jobs in jeopardy for companies that supply the auto industry directly or indirectly that the auto industry itself, so that part is anything but ancillary. Yes, it's mostly about economic issues.
     
  8. Aug 2, 2009 #88 of 173
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    That is part of the auto industry. By aiding the auto makers that aides the industry as a whole...i.e. parts manufacturers/suppliers. I don’t consider that ancillary at all.

    I was trying to imply, badly, that the environmental impact is ancillary to the economic stimulus.

    Mike
     
  9. Aug 2, 2009 #89 of 173
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Yup...in the big picture....its a small part. Correctamundo. :D
     
  10. Aug 3, 2009 #90 of 173
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    I find it interesting that the government was totally off base on their projections of the program and the ultimate demand to use the program. I guess that it just shows, as has been shown with property taxes here in Florida, if a person has the opportunity to stick his hand in his neighbor's pocket and pull out a wad of money they will do it every time. Now, take the projections made by those who are ever so wise and have to make decisions for the common man that they are not smart enough to make and extrapolate those same projections into national health care. The "success" of this program alone is a reason to avoid passing national health care. And, this is coming from a person who just got his insurance bill of $2,630 for the quarter. Financially, I'd love to see it, ethically I can't support it. If I were to have a vote on the subject, ethics would have to win out.
     
  11. Aug 3, 2009 #91 of 173
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    That is likely attributable to pent up demand, more than anything else, It is then bolstered by the "something for nothing" presentation of Clunkers for Cash.

    Put them together, and you have the formula for "rush out and seize the moment" hysteria.
     
  12. Aug 3, 2009 #92 of 173
    BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    8,969
    1
    Nov 13, 2007
    Yet, as has been pointed out here, and even shown on TV (without anyone actually talking about it), in a lot of cases, the new car is barely more efficient than the old one. I've seen several stories on TV, and all of the examples were of people trading in cars and mini-vans for SUVs and crossovers. The government would like you to believe that people are trading in old 70's Buicks for Ford Focuses and Priuses, but that's not what's going on. The Big 3 made sure that their popular and high-margin vehicles (read: trucks, SUVs, and crossovers) qualified for the Clunker program.

    In the end, this is what it always is: wealth redistribution. A few people got to reach into the pockets of the taxpayers and get free money. That's all that's really happening here.
     
  13. Aug 3, 2009 #93 of 173
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Certainly there is some truth to that - does it represent the mainstream execution - hardly.

    I know of 4 people (families) personally who have used this program, and all migrated from older, larger cars and/or (1) older SUV into more fuel efficient smaller vehicles - the main goal of the program.

    Anytime you have money of that magnitude put into play, there will surely be "abuses". But its the exception and not the rule - which is also fodder for the media to hype upon.
     
  14. Aug 3, 2009 #94 of 173
    Matt9876

    Matt9876 Hall Of Fame

    1,006
    0
    Oct 11, 2007
    This is the end results of my CFC deal,$4,500 off a $18,000 price tag and one 1993 death trap off the road also new ride gets a 12 MPG savings.:)


    [​IMG]
     
  15. Aug 3, 2009 #95 of 173
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    It seems that the facts contradict the naysayers here....this was just reported to Congress today:

    Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased through the program is 9.6 miles per gallon (4 kilometers per liter) higher than for the vehicles traded in for scrap. Buyers of new cars and trucks that get 10 mpg (4 kpl) better than their trade-ins get the $4,500 rebate. People whose cars get between 4 mpg (1.7 kpl) and 10 mpg (4 kpl) better fuel efficiency qualify for a smaller $3,500 rebate.

    LaHood said some 80 percent of the traded-in vehicles are pickup trucks or sports utility vehicles, meaning many gas-guzzlers are being taken off the road. The Ford Focus is a leading replacement vehicle.
     
  16. Aug 3, 2009 #96 of 173
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Congrats on the new vehicle. I tried to slap your hand out of my pocket, but you were just too persistent. ;) Enjoy the ride.
     
  17. Aug 4, 2009 #97 of 173
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,012
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    This is not a criticism of anyone taking advantage of the deal. If I had wanted a new car, I'd been at my dealer early this week. With that said, I'm troubled by what I've read about the program.

    AutoNation is the largest U.S. dealership chain by sales operating 264 dealerships in 15 states and sold more than 3,000 new cars in the week. AutoNation's President and Chief Operating Officer Mike Maroone commented in the company's recent earnings call:
    Am I just a nit-picker in that I see some policy disconnects here?:confused:
     
  18. Aug 4, 2009 #98 of 173
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    With cross ownership and cross manufacturing, I don't think there's much distinction between import and domestic anymore.
     
  19. Aug 4, 2009 #99 of 173
    SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,078
    32
    Jan 20, 2003
    Exactly. Its shameful to be dependant on others when you are able bodied.
     
  20. Aug 4, 2009 #100 of 173
    Matt9876

    Matt9876 Hall Of Fame

    1,006
    0
    Oct 11, 2007

    Many able bodied hard working citizens are finding themselves either unemployed or severely underemployed at this moment in time,having reliable transportation will aid many in traveling to and from their next job.
     

Share This Page