Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
It's flawed only in your mind because you don't understand it. This law was not created by the politicians. It may have been written by the pols since that's their job but it was created by the auto industry itself. The industry wanted a stimulus package specifically tailored for itself. It got the one that it wanted.
I think from your superficial postings that you are more interested in the politics of the issue than the benefits that it will bring to wide sections of the auto industry. If you were in the industry you would see how much positive expectation there is for this program. The fact that it can take guzzlers off the road is an added benefit.
Rant on about the politics of the issue and you will simply continue to appear out of touch with the real world.
With all the vehicles flooding the dealer lots, it is the Auto Industry that is out of touch with reality. Just because the auto industry writes the legislation does not make it good for America. Personally I think you are way over estimating the impact on the defunct auto industry and its importance to the American people. If $30 billion to GM and C has had NO visible affect on the auto industry with more and more layoffs. How will one lousy billion help anyone but a few dealers and folks lucky enough to have a vehicle that fits the plan the auto industry laid out? Just more liberal corporate welfare BS.
And I don't think pols ever write legislation - lobbyists do.
//////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
It won't help much but the free advertising will help a bunch. It's called marketing.
I happen to agree with this one. Artificially increase the cost of something, then let the market do its thing.
As far as this being unfair to folks who live in rural areas, that's really a double standard. Rural folks don't seem to care that part of my telephone bill is to subsidize the higher cost of providing phone service to those in the boonies. The same goes for cost of postal service (stamps).
I just listed two - telephone and postal service. I can probably come up with a couple of more.
On that we agree. But, to be effective, it has to be extremely progressive.
Sorry this is illogical. The $30 Billion GM and C received had an ENORMOUS visible effect on the auto industry. Without those investments both companies would be out of business today and every worker there would be out of work. That's just at the manufacturer level. From the supplier level all the way down the line to the cleanup person at the dealership, all these workers would also be laid off. Right now hundreds of thousands of jobs are still in existence BECAUSE of the $30 Billion investment.
That's only at the direct level. Imagaine the effect today of these hundreds of thousands of jobs no longer supporting the economy with the former workers now having to live off the states' unemployment rolls. Is this what you'd prefer?
The auto industry created this bill to get buyers out of their homes and to go shopping for vehicles again. That is the only primary purpose. The legislation is very smartly written to bring in other diverse supporters to create secondary benefits. Only those like the prior poster who refuse to see the benefits from the industry perspective continue to be against it mainly for political reasons.
It'll work simply because people like good deals. Getting $4500 for a $500 poc is almost irresistable.
Isn't it rather strange that people are unsure and unclear about the goal(s) of this program? If Edmunds readers are puzzled, can you imagine others?
A trillion dollars would give 1 million people each 1 million dollars.
Think about that when paying for all those trillions being spent
In the end with 250,000 new sales per quarter generated along with buyers beginning to shop again the various levels of understanding in the general population will not be that critical. What will be important is that by the end of the program new sales were generated that wouldn't have been made otherwise.
No doubt that there will be people in the population that have no interest in the subject at all. No member of my immediate family, 60+ people and 3 generations deep, has any interest in participating in this program. None of our vehicles qualify.
Rural electrification projects and electric rates (I think in general rural residents are not paying the real cost of whatever utilities they have) and agricultural subsidies. Isn't there a new subsidy aimed at getting high speed internet service in rural areas too?
In many area rural residents get police services from the county sheriff, while others pay for both the sheriff (from whom they get very little) and their own local police force.
In my area there are special reduced property tax rates for agricultural land.
I just happen to believe the free market is a better solution to a recession than government meddling. We just have a different philosophy on economics. It is very likely that FDR did the same thing and prolonged the great depression. You know little things like canceling all the USPS air mail contracts and handing it over the the Army Air Corps to totally botch it up. The auto industry bailouts & takeover will only prolong the agony of failed auto makers. That includes the pittance allocated for C4C. I understand your being for the program as the Japanese car makers will get the bulk of the money.
You knew someone would jockey to be first:
Berlin Dealership to Make First "Cash for Clunker" Sale (WCAX)
"A Toyota Prius, which gets 51 mpg, will be the first "Cash for Clunker" purchase."
I have to wonder is this is just a PR gimmick and that no one knows who'll be first.
Wrong!.
"Obama needs to back off and retreat from these inane ideas. Admit you were wrong and stop the madness."
As it relates specifically to the CforC program, I agree. However, it won't happen.
On the flip side of that though, with higher density and more congestion, upgrades to the infrastructure are needed. Bigger sewers and water mains, higher-capacity electrical systems, etc. Bigger and wider roads. Sidewalks. I'm out in what used to be a fairly rural area, but it's grown over the years. The road got paved in the 1950's I think (whenever, it was before my time). Water first came through in the 1950's. Sewer in 1978. Part of the road got widened in 1999, along with sidewalk. And now there's a police sub-station less than a mile away.
However, before the water main, everybody did just fine on well water. I'd imagine the water's contaminated by now though. Ditto the sewer. There were so few houses around here, we all did fine with just septic tanks. The road used to have so little traffic that at one time, a gravel road was all that was needed. And then macadam or whatever they call that stuff that's essentially just a mix of rocks and tar. And the road didn't get widened and sidewalk put in until a housing development, school, and park went in up the street. And once upon a time, we didn't NEED a police station. There weren't enough people around for crime to be all that rampant.
So I don't really look at it as us being subsidized. However, as the population grows, it does put a strain on the infrastructure, to the point that newer residents are a greater burden than the original residents.
Where I live, part of your property taxes are based on how much front footage you have to the road. So I pay much more for the 271 feet I have, compared to my neighbor behind me who actually has nothing, other than a 12 foot easement across the property in front of her. But, who ever said life was fair?
But we're digressing a bit far from Cash for Clunkers, so I won't get into how septic systems are often better (greener) than sewer systems....
"Chip Perry, President and CEO, AutoTrader.com, is a bit more optimistic. He says his car shopping site is getting about a million more unique visitors a month than six months ago, which tells him there’s pent-up new-car fever. He thinks these people just “need something -- a piece of good economic news, an extra incentive, something -- to turn them from a car shopper into a car buyer. “ And he thinks cash for clunkers may be just the ticket.
“The cash for clunkers legislation definitely won’t cure the auto industry’s problems or get us back to 15 million new cars sold annually” but if it gets even an extra 25,000 a month for the four months, “that can have a powerful ripple effect on the economy,” says Perry."
USA Today
http://www.edmunds.com/industry-car-news/cash-for-clunkers-eligible-vehicles.htm- l
and here:
http://www.edmunds.com/industry-car-news/cash-for-clunkers-eligible-vehicles.htm- l
but I cannot find if it is eligible.
Have a 1995 Ford Taurus SHO that could be a good candidate for this program. Where can I find it's mileage and whether it qualifies?
Mr Shiftright -- I discussed car with you at "repair it or junk it" forum. I did repair it using the moonlighters. Very happy with work. Put $1000 into it, and it now may be worth $3500!!
I didn't know you could get that generation of SHO with an automatic, until I saw the EPA listing for it.
it's a bill to help the D3 sell cars. End of story.
The problem with criticizing Obama or defending him is that you can't know the alternative outcome. Would the D3 have gone down the tubes without government intervention.
If they did go down the tubes, what would have happened exactly?
My impression is that it would have been a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Not only do we lose the jobs, but we lose the suppliers, and we lose the infrastructure.
Unacceptable alternative IMO.
The REAL argument, I believe, is not whether Obama did the right thing in attempting to "save" the D3, but whether plans like this will WORK, right?
My personal opinion is that anyone who suggests that the D3 be allowed to fall into a heap of steaming manure is simply not yet thinking clearly enough on the consequences of such an outcome.
I think that is what is called an oxymoron
Could you perhaps site just one example of mass transit that is at least revenue neutral and not a drain on the taxpayer?
If CFC is such a boon to our economy then taken to it's logical extreme just give us all a new car voucher. Because after all, tax dollars come from the tooth fairy.
This may not still be the case, but I've heard that the stretch of Amtrak that goes from DC to New York is highly profitable, and the only part of Amtrak that actually turns a profit. Overall though, Amtrak is subsidized.
I think you missed the point. Police and fire departments, and roads themselves are not "revenue neutral" either. They are things we spend tax dollars for because they provide a benefit for society as a whole, even if we never have to make use of them as individuals.
Want to see such a benefit? Visit a major city with a pretty comprehensive mass transit network (DC, Boston, NYC) during a transit strike, and you'll see what real traffic looks like without mass transit.
That used to be common around here also, but not anymore. You can look back on some of the plats from the area that go back 150 or more years and see the effects of that kind of taxation - lots that are only 20 feet wide but go back two or three hundred feet.
Nowadays, the property taxes are based on the assessed value of your property, including improvements.
I've been on the DC Metro on occasion, and I find that its biggest benefit is not having to worry about parking when I get downtown. FWIW, I can probably drive to most places in DC quicker than the Metro could get me there. But then comes the fun part...finding parking. I used to drive down to the Convention Center for the DC auto show, but available parking gradually went away, as parking lots gave way to high-rises. So then I had to park further out. Back in 2006, I think it was, I ended up parking pretty far out, in a spot that didn't look TOO bad. As long as the sun was up, I discovered. Getting back to the truck that night was an adventure, between hearing a random gunshot, one drunk hollering about where his mo' fo' ho's at, etc. In 2007 I parked someplace that I knew was safer, near a friend's house. However, it was probably a half-mile walk. And again at night, some spots looked a bit iffy for walking back. So starting in 2008 we just learned to take the Metro in for the DC show. It drops you off right at the convention center.
I wonder if some forms of mass transit, however, might cause more harm than good? For example, metro buses. They take off slow and add to congestion. When they stop to pick up or discharge passengers, they usually block a travel lane. They belch smoke and fumes almost constantly (although some of the newer ones are hybrid or natural gas). Overall, I wonder if the congestion they help create actually offsets the congestion theoretically relieved by the cars they take off the road?
Also, a lot of the people who ride buses can't afford a car anyway. So if there was no bus, it's not like they'd run out and get a car. Chances are, they'd have to move someplace to where there is a bus line, or get a job they can walk to.
In this case you would simply flush these hundreds of thousands of jobs down the toilet and let 'the free market' find them at some time in the future floating in the sewer. Easy for you to say. You are far removed from any of the immediate effects.
This position is understandable since you have only yourself and your family to watch out over. You don't have the responsibility of watching out for all the citizens of the country. You don't have the responsibility of keeping the entire country afloat.
Yeah, now that Joe Biden's not riding that one anymore that's a big loss of revenue....
On the flip side though, if you get someone out of a 13 mpg vehicle and into a 16 mpg vehicle, then over the course of 100,000 miles, you will have saved about 1442 gallons (6,250 gallons used versus 7,692) That's a pretty substantial savings.
In contrast, if you go from a car that gets 18 mpg combined to one that gets 28 combined, that's saving 1985 gallons 3,571 gallons versus 5,556). Now true, that's an even bigger savings. However, to get that, you essentially have to go from a Crown Vic to a Civic. No midsize car is going to get 28 mpg or more combined, unless you go hybrid. And even the Civic is only rated 29.
People are going to buy trucks and SUV's, no matter what. At least something like this might give them the incentive to move into something more fuel-efficient, rather than just wearing out one 13 mpg vehicle and replacing it with another used 13 mpg (or worse) vehicle.
I agree, public transportation is a basic quality of life utility like police, fire and trash removal. Driving on the other hand, is a privilege, not a right.
2010 Fusion S EPA combined = 27 mpg. Close enough for you?
Close enough for me. However, if you want the full $4500 credit you have to get into a car that gets at least 10 mpg better. So now instead of that 18 mpg Crown Vic, Caprice, '85 LeSabre, some Intrepids with the 3.5/autostick, etc, you need to give up a car that gets 17 combined or worse. Now you're limited to a Gran Fury/Diplomat/5th Ave M-body, a copcar Caprice or Crown Vic, or maybe a Caprice, Roadmaster, or Fleetwood/Brougham with the TBI 350 (but not the LT-1 350 of 1994-96 fame).
Still, that's pretty impressive that they got 27 combined out of the Fusion S. Wonder what they did to it to get that?
I would consider trading in my 1999 Ford Ranger FFV EPA rated 18 MPG. 2009 Ford Ranger V6 automatic is rated 18 MPG. I don't want no stinking compact econobox. It will be interesting as to how many really do get to trade in their old clunkers.
The Misunderstood Renault LeCar
Yugo. Are they the worst car of all time?
Don't forget the early VW Rabbits either.
True clunkers know no national boundaries.
Mass transit is continually foisted on us by politicos as a safer, eco friendly, cheaper alternative to those evil automobiles. I don't buy it. If it was true the private sector would be all over it and without asking for huge taxpayer subsidies. I just don't see why those who don't use the service because it either does not suit there needs or they simply prefer a car should have to foot the bill.
If only one section of the Amtrack system is profitable I say shut down the rest of the system or raise fares on those areas until they are profitable. When you reinforce bad behavior (subsidize failure) you get more bad behavior (more failures to subsidize).
Without getting into a long discussion about mass transit, take 10 minutes and try to think beyond "your world" and realize that not everyone has the same situation as you. Also recognize that the US is not simply a "free market" society but one with a great sense of community. It's not always about dollars and cents.
you may be a compassionate person but it sure does not come out in your posts.
Back to "Cash for Clunkers": this bill evolved from the environmental groups and was initially designed to get SUVs and pickups off the road and more people into hybrids. This explains why the 18 mpg was chosen. Most pickups and SUVs, esp. those form the 90s, get 18 mpg or less. Most cars don't fit this criteria unless it is a high performance vehicle. this bill has been around for several months. here's a link to article talking about the House version that was approved on June 9th: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31183767/
Specifically, it mentions:
Supporters pushed for the measure to stimulate car sales and increase the fleet of fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation's highways. The auto industry has sought the incentives after months of poor auto sales.
You can argue whether the government should be meddling in the auto industry. But as you form your argument, remember our current economic situation; how we truly got to this situation; the uncertainty we still face and the consequences of inaction. Unique times call for unique solutions. I'm not a fan of this bill either for other reasons. It may not be the right solution, only time will tell. But at least the government is trying. I do think this bill may bring some other unintended results that may help the auto industry. I'll wait and comment later. I have to read more posts to learn some more.
Get those flags out for the 4th of July weekend. Beer can chicken, yum yum :shades:
I never read that in the history books.
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) also continues to raise fares, cut service, get bailouts from State Capital. And, the impeached former Gov Blagovich had somehow put in provision that required CTA to give free rides to seniors 65 and over. How stupid is that.
I too see buses at times on rural and suburban roads with 1, 2, 3 passengers.
I also agree with kcflyer; no federal subsidies. The government should not be involved in supporting how you or I get transport. It can collect $ and provide the infrastructure, regulations and even workers, but each should be self-funded by the users. Drivers and truck-transport should pay to support the roads. Train riders pay for their subway system. Businesses shipping by rail should pay towards the long-distance rail-system. And fliers pay for the airports, security and FAA.
It's no co-incidence that General Motors purchased all the Los Angeles commuter trains and dumped them in the ocean, and substituted GM buses, which carried fewer people much more slowly. They were charged and indicted for monopolistic practices, and fined a grand total of $5000.
So instead of a modern, European-style, inter-urban high speed rail line, L.A. has a few buses that run once an hour and go nowhere.
(I bet you thought I'd never be able to connect mass transit with GM, did you?
Didn't GM make locomotives in the past?
What world do you live in? Mine is called earth.
"compassion" Got it in spades, if mass transit = compassion then we are in agreement that mass transit if not self supporting = welfare.
If so then lets call it what it is and stop pretending it is about efficiency, safety, etc. BTW, if the NYC mass transit system is so awesome why does it need subsidies? I say raise fares and make it self sustaining. Then if you want to hand out subsidized passes to the disabled, elderly, etc just get the voters to approve it. I for one would do so.