Cash for Clunkers...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by brett636, Aug 16, 2009.

  1. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I must say, this program is crap no matter how you look at it. Economically its a failure, environmentally its a failure, and from a pure fiscal responsibility standpoint its definitely a failure. I am a carguy at heart, and perusing all the car forums I frequent its almost painful to see some of these cars get destroyed for absolutely no benefit. Case in point:

    Here is a GMC Syclone that was traded in under C4C's. This truck may look like an ordinary early 90s S10, but in fact it has a turbo V6 with AWD and the bluebook value is north of $8k. Now its headed for the scrap heap. Sad for such a rare vehicle. Just goes to show that some people do not truly know what they own.


    This was a good 1994 Chevy Caprice with the LT1 V8 engine. Sure its not pretty, but it would have been a cheap car for a poor family to get around with, or something large and safe for a new driver to tool around in. (Language Warning) For those of you who want to claim this will have no impact in used car prices, there was a car just like this one for sale in my local craigslist and they were asking $4500 for it due to the C4C program. Normally it would only pull something in the neighborhood of $1.5k-$2k.


    There was a good video of a nice early 2000ish Jeep Grand Cherokee that was nicer than anything I drive being destroyed for this BS program, but that video is unavailable now.

    I know not everything being traded in was worthy of being resold, but a lot of good used cars are meeting an unnecessary early demise. Perhaps even some future collectors like the Syclone I posted about are going to be destroyed making parts harder to come by and or completely unavailable. I just cannot understand how anybody can support or defend this pointless program when in reality it has accomplished nothing other than blowing through a crapload of taxpayer dollars in a couple weeks. Sad really. :(
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2009
  2. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    Its a typical program that liberals dream up. It will waste a lot of tax dollars and not make any difference. I have never seen the government run any kind of program well. It makes me mad as a taxpayer to watch my money being wasted like this. This was originally designed to help the domestic car industry, but 60% of the new cars purchased are from foreign manufacturers.
  3. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Careful, Scratch. The Libs will now label you a Nazi and anti-American. You will probably be reported to the White House snitch line, and go on Obamas enemy list.
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I thought "cash for clunkers" is what you get anytime you pay a tax to gov't!

  5. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Didn't Congress recently ask for, and get, additional funding for this program? If they can't even manage this right then how the hell are they going to manage a universal health care system?
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Just like with the clunker program, just go back to Congress and appropiate more of our money, oppps sorry, I mean the Federal Reserve's magic money and throw that at the whole thing!


    Good point BTW!
  7. 1989

    1989 Well-Known Member

    Good or bad program. it is the first stimulus that is well defined (cars) It reduces the inventories on both new and old cars. Reducing inventory helps the bottom line and keeps Obama motors running.
  8. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    What is interesting about that is most of the cars being purchased are foreign, and the Obama Motors car companies who just got out of bankruptcy had reduced inventories to begin with because their production halted while they were in bankruptcy. So now they are playing catchup while Ford, Toyota, Honda, and the rest of their competition eat their lunch.
  9. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    C4C has actually hurt other areas of the economy, such as retail sales. WalMart reported their first quarterly loss. Combine this with the debt created by purchasing the new vehicles and it will take that much longer for the economy to recover.
  10. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Another issues I have with it is that it encourages people to go take out another loan (more debt!) on a brand new car which is stupid also. As soon as you drive the car off the lot it loses value. Why not save and pay cash for a reliable used car. It's broken in and doesn't require a monthly payment for five years. I guess every since I discovered Dave Ramsey's get out of debt plans (and completed them) I just look at finances with a little more logic.
  11. 1989

    1989 Well-Known Member

    I think you are mistaken, WalMart saw same store sales down 1.2% and revenue down 1.4%. But posted a profit of .88 a share last quarter.
  12. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    "Why not save cash and buy a reliable used car" I agree, but the cost of them just went up, thats what smart, and poor people do, now there wont be as many as you saw from the original posters pics, good cars, being trashed.
  13. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Yep. Another unintended side affect of government intervention. I guess people like me will have to start car shopping at "Lemon Lots." Maybe even Ebay.
  14. soberups

    soberups Pees in the brown Koolaid

    A better solution;

    1. $3 per gallon "deficit reduction tax" on petroleum-based auto fuel (gasoline and diesel).

    2. No tax on domestically-produced renewable fuels (biodiesel and ethanol.)

    3. One-time tax credit of $2500 applied toward the purchase of any American-made car or truck, regardless of its EPA mileage rating.

    I dont believe in mandating what level of fuel economy our cars and trucks should be required to have. Instead, we should tax the fuel so that its true cost is paid at the pump by the end user.

    Let the free market decide how much fuel economy each vehicle should have. You want a Hummer? Go ahead and buy one...just be willing to pay $300 to fill it up. If you dont want to pay that much for your fuel? Buy a vehicle that gets 40MPG...or one that uses biodiesel...or an electric vehicle.

    Economics 101 = supply and demand. The best way to create a supply of super-efficient to create a demand for them on a free market.

    This would also provide a huge boost to the domestic renewable fuel industry, as well as creating a demand for vehicles that can use such fuels. Money spent on domestic fuels=money that stays in our economy instead of being sent overseas.

    I think it is idiotic to crush otherwise servicable vehicles that still have value. Instead, focus on the fuel, and let the free market decide what vehicles are produced.
  15. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    While you have good intentions for your ideas, you contradict yourself when you speak of government sin taxes on gasoline then claim you wish for the free market to decide what vehicles we purchase. Gasoline will get more expensive over time. Last summer I was ready to buy an electric car just so I didn't have to spend all my money on $4/gal. gas. Its not the government's place to tax fuel to high levels, its the free market's place to determine a fair value for that fuel. When that fair value becomes too much for the average consumer to stomach they will buy higher mileage or alternative fuel vehicles. As oil and gasoline become more expensive new industry's involved in alternative fuels will take center stage as the world's premier transportation energy source. It just takes patience is all.
  16. soberups

    soberups Pees in the brown Koolaid

    If we had a truly "free market"...then the cost of the invasion/occupation of Iraq and our continued military presence in the Middle East would be paid at the pump by the end user of the fuel instead of being passed on to our grandchildren in the form debt. Gas wouldnt be $2.79 a gallon, it would be more like $5 or $6.

    We currently borrow money from China to buy a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia. We then burn that barrel of oil in our Suburbans and Hummers, with no real concept of how we are ever going to pay that money back. That isnt free market economics.

    We have subsidized cheap fuel for too long in the form of tax breaks for oil companies, cheap credit, and a bloated military. Its time to start paying as we go.
  17. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Wouldn't that be considered a loss? (I wasn't talking about their stock.)
  18. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    Been there done that.
  19. 1989

    1989 Well-Known Member

    No, an .88 quarterly profit is not a loss. They earned a penny more than the same quarter last year when the stimulus checks came out. Soon cost cutting won't help the bottom line of companies. You can only cost cut so much.

  20. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Nope. A loss is when you actually lose money. Revenue declined a little, but they still made a profit.

    edit- 1989 beat me to it.