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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
If they really are mostly sold out of some models it wouldn't' surprise me if the reduced incentives.
First off, 80% of the clunkers turned in are SUVs and Pickups
Secondly, the average increase in MPG by the new car purchases is nearly 10 mpg.
Thirdly, the car chosen most often as a substitute is the Ford Focus
So, based on data that's come in so far, the program does seem in fact to be encouraging fuel conservation, and is benefitting domestic automakers, and is getting rid of gas eaters.
As for "destroying the car", that is also misinformation, is it not?---only the motor is destroyed, as would befit any program design to get rid of gas hogs. The rest of the car is recycled.
So again, what's not to like here once the misconceptions are swept away?
Possibly two--- one, the government welfare angle--that's certainly a fair objection---and two, that there is no need to rush to re-invest the program with cash without taking a hard look at the data----but the rest of the objections just aren't based on any factual data. This includes objections on both sides---such as Feinstein's worry that C4C wasn't environmental enough. Seems like it is D.
Why on earth would McCain filibuster a bi-partisan program that is wildly popular with a broad swath of voters? Does he really want to commit political suicide all overe again? He'd best sit on his hands on that one, or at least just insist on a light pressure on the brake pedal before re-funding C4C.
The people this is wildly popular are those who BENEFIT from it. Who benefits from it:
1) those who have a clunker and have the means to buy a new vehicle.
2) those dealers who have vehicles that are both economical and in-stock.
3) Manufacturers who get a very short-term blip in business.
4) Politicians who can take credit for doing-something that looks positive, and spin the positive side (better mpg, economic activity) while ignoring the negatives ($ going to foreign makes and D3 foreign assembly plants, resources used to produce new vehicles, added debt, artificially creating sales).
If like most of the 300M people in the country, YOU don't benefit from C4C, how does this help you. C4C and programs like this actually hurt most people as it makes a tax increase to pay for these give-aways more likely! It gets me about as excited as giving subsidies to farmers, or giving a few billion in foreign aid.
These are not the 'unworthy poor'. Another living under a cloud of impending doom.
1. That automaker employee who might not get laid off now might not be in a position to someday take YOUR job.
2. According to a news story I read on 8-3-2008, the average MPG increase is 53%, which bodes well for future conservation, cleaner air, and a positive move away from oil addiction.
3. More available recycled steel might mean a reduction in steel prices.
4. More available recycled auto parts might mean a better deal for parts hunters, allowing them to put more money into the economy in other areas.
There are direct and indirect benefits from this program.
Only time will tell (and only time CAN POSSIBLY tell) if it was a good idea.
That declaration cannot be made right now.
However, now go downstream to the people who benefit indirectly by the increased revenues flowing to the greater auto industry; i.e. restaurants, printing companies, vacation rental owners, and all the suppliers to the dealers and to the auto makers. Everyone of them either benefits directly or at a secondary or tertiary level by an increased level of business. That's how the rest of the 300 million citizens benefit.
If you are against increasing business in the US then you are simply living in the wrong place at the wrong time. A solitary ranch in Montana in the mid 1800's may have suited you better.
It won't matter. 10% of people shop for a new car any given year. Which means, this year, maybe half of them 5% at best, are shopping right now for $4C. Of those, maybe half, at best, have cars that qualify, or shop for cars that qualify. And how many of those are likely voters in off year elections? Half, maybe 1/3? So maybe, total, that's 1% of the electorate, but probably less.
Now compare those to people who are on record disliking government spending. That would be somewhere around 35%+- of likely voters. Number of those who pay attention to politics? Considering they are likely voters, over 80%. Number of those who know about $4C? Probably 75%, more now that such a small gov't program has gotten so much attention. Number who will make comparisons with $600 hammers? Probably all of them, which means hard core opposition to the program could run as high as 20% of the electorate.
That's a lot of ticked off voters for a relatively small program, and deficit hawkishness has some bipartisan appeal, especially in an era of $2 trillion deficits, so there is a good 5+ points worth of swing voters than can go from one candidate to another in a congressional election, and that should make a lot of candidates in swing districts cringe.
* Ford Focus top selling under 'clunker' program
* Senate would take up measure Tuesday at earliest.
Nearly half the vehicles sold under the U.S. government's "Cash for Clunkers" incentive program were made by General Motors Co, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler, according to preliminary data provided by an Obama administration official on Monday."
Nearly half of 'clunker' sales from U.S. carmakers (Reuters)
Please. Just, please. Who is spreading misinformation here? Is a functioning car rendered nonfunctional, or not? Yes or no, answer the question. Can someone else buy that car and drive it? No. So the car has been destroyed. Stop spinning.
How about the consumer having less money (either from paying cash for a vehicle or payments) that is available to spend on other industries and businesses?
Granted, the auto industry is an important part of our economy. But, that have already received billions. Enough is enough!
They are not the only business hurting, and the gov't cheese gives them an unfair advantage in the quest for limited consumer $$,
///////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
This is 100% correct. Millions of people just found out about C4C last week when the media coverage went full tilt.
Many of these people are now gathering the resources needed to get in on the program this month.
If additional funding is not provided within 72 hours, hundreds of thousands of people will miss this boat. I'd like to see them get in. I'm not using C4C but am 100% in favor of additional funding.
///////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Only the engine and transmission must be scrapped and even the engine/transmission can be recycled as scrap metal. All other usable parts can be salvaged and re-used as is.
The program is creating thousands of spin off jobs outside the auto industry as we speak. It's a good way to spend a very tiny percentage of our budget. Our economy needs help now and this helps. Plain and simple.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-mccaskill-oppose-more-clunker-funding- -2009-08-01.html
McCain is a deficit hawk, and a true believer in reducing the deficit. He gave the Bush Admin fits opposing Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, so opposing a Dem program isn't that much of a stretch. I don't know enough about McCaskill, but that's a D, and an R, both willing to oppose the bill, and one willing to filibuster it, and Harry Reid has 4 days to get the bill passed, AND confirm Sotomayor to the supreme court, which will take at least one full day of Senate time, if not two.
McCain probably couldn't do it himself, but he wouldn't need all that much help to kill it outright, simply by talking it to death.
One Free Used Volvo + $100 a month (minimum) to maintain safely + $600/yr insurance + $1200 yr in gasoline = $3000/yr. minimum upkeep. USA poverty guideline for 1 person, 2009 is $ 10,830."
I agree that this '00 TS80 with 90,000 in an inappropriate car for a poor person. However, I looked up Edmunds TMV value on it, as a private sale, and the value for one in average condition is $4,923; in rough condition, $4,066. The wholesale prices are less, of course, but I think picking the mid-point price between dealer price and wholesale is reasonable for this discussion. I'll admit that this these prices seem somewhat high, but one must assume that this is approximately what someone, hopefully not poor, would be willing to pay for such a car. You and I wouldn't, but somebody would. Maybe that weak transmission had already been replaced, and someone could enjoy 30,000 - 60,000 more miles, and several years, out of it. One must also consider that the price usually discounts many of the car's weaknesses. If it were a desirable, bulletproof luxury car, instead of a not-so-popular one with vulnerabilities, it would most likely sell for considerably more. Scrapping it is like destroying $4,923 or $4,066, depending on the condition of that Volvo. At least that's how I see it.
They could hang around DC another week and maybe even work more than 3 days a week. Delay their "fact finding" junkets to the Far East a few days. Do they need to take the whole month of August off?
Oh wait, what am I thinking - this is Congress we're talking about. :P
Feinstein seems much shrewder than McCain...she's backpedaling so that she can tweak the voucher system. This makes a great deal more sense as it has appeal for both supporters and opponents.
A car with a scrapped engine is no more destroyed than a house with a bad gas furnace.
Many of these clunkers are worth MORE as parts than as an entire car.
Besides, there is no used car shortage in America. Any person who wants ANY used car, of ANY year make or model need go no further than a) the internet and b) his checkbook.
These aren't ming vases we're junking here.
The most valuable part of this car IS the motor!! That is what makes the car worth what it is:
4.6 3 bolt starter Town Car/Crown Vic/Marquis $900
5.4 Ford $1800.00
3.8 supercharged GM $1200
3.8 n/a gm $850
1998-99 Volvo S70 Series '98 w/turbo, 2.3 Cpe & Conv B5234T3 engine $2895.00
1987 - 95 Pathfinder 3.0 $695.00
These are all engines destroyed. An enormous amount of value, capital, wrecked. And you don't have a problem with this?
A car with a scrapped engine is no more destroyed than a house with a bad gas furnace
Er, not quite. You don't spend a few years at Club Fed for installing a gas furnace.
I tried my best to talk the daughter of a co-worker out of buying a used S-80 a few years ago. She just fell in love with it and she insisted it was the car for her.
I ran into her a couple of years later and, like an idiot, I asked her if she still had it.
I knew better but I still asked. She went on for fifteen minutes how she had lost thousands of dollars on thea miserable car before she finally dumped it.
I don't think she will even talk to me now.
So, how much would be enough in your eyes? Would the extra 2 bil be enough or if that goes quickly come back for more?
I along with most American's would have more faith and trust in a new company upstart than in GM or Chrysler.
Could the reliability get any worse, I don't think so. The new upstart has no where to go but UP.
Wholesale that car is 4,000 dollars tops if it is in perfect condition with chubby tires and good brakes. If they guy dumped it on a C4C and got $4,500 don't you think it wasn't in perfect condition? It probably needed tires and probably needed brakes maybe it had a bad carfax from an accident. Hell maybe the whole back end was chewed up we can't see the rear of the car from the video.
That transmission is a couple thousand dollar repair and it probably needed a trans too. The owner knows the car better then anyone else and if he thought it was better to get the $4,500, or maybe $3,500 cause we don't know what he traded it in on, then trying to sell it on his own don't you think he was probably right.
All McCain is doing is campaigning and doing a political posturing dance. He's not addressing the issue, he's only beating the same old dead horses politicians beat day in and day out to get a rise out of confused angry people.
You or I could go on any streetcorner and yell
STOP GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!
MAKE AMERICA STRONG!!!
FIGHT SPECIAL INTERESTS!!!
LET"S HAVE A NEW AMERICA!!!
We'd have a small mob in minutes. And if we had access to radio or TV, a larger mob. But alas, still a mob, not a thinking audience.
It's all...so....so....meaningless, this political language, don't you think?
People need jobs. People need confidence. We are all Americans in the same boat. Rhetoric at a time like this is so unproductive, IMO.
C4C is a "doing"; it's not a "talking". Let's not vote anymore for the "Party of NO" whomever it might be, okay?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
RE: Destroying engines --- umm.....this is the WHOLE IDEA of the program...you destroy the engine so that the same gas eater doesn't get put back on the road. What point would there be in selling the old engines to go back into cars that were no longer running?
You don't want to see your Volvo junked?---fine, don't trade it in to C4C. Keep it. Drive it. Nobody cares. You need a Volvo engine for your car that just threw a rod? Great, go buy one...plenty to be had.
But don't get mad at the government if you lament the loss of a volvo engine--get mad at the owner who traded it in. He's your scapegoat. He "sold out" for $4500 bucks. :shades:
4.6 3 bolt starter Town Car/Crown Vic/Marquis $900
5.4 Ford $1800.00
3.8 supercharged GM $1200
3.8 n/a gm $850
1998-99 Volvo S70 Series '98 w/turbo, 2.3 Cpe & Conv B5234T3 engine $2895.00
1987 - 95 Pathfinder 3.0 $695.00
These are all engines destroyed. An enormous amount of value, capital, wrecked. And you don't have a problem with this?
Ok first off you can't just post prices like that without getting a source in. Where did you get those prices? Are those retail or wholesale? New or used? Rebuilt or re-manufactured, just a note there is a big differance between the two, or are those warranty figures?
1998-99 Volvo S70 Series '98 w/turbo, 2.3 Cpe & Conv B5234T3 engine $2895.00
No, one has clunked a S70 in this program as every S70 gets over 18 mpg combined. Even the AWD S70s get better mileage.
The only S80 that works is the 2000 S80 T6. That is the only model and the only year that gets 18 mpg combined.
One last note Volvo hates giving up on an engine architecture/platform. The 2.4 liter five cylinder that they use today in their base S40s and V50s is based on the old Five cylinder they used in the 850s back in the 90s. The 2.5T version of that engine is also based on that engine.
The 3.2 inline six in the large car Volvo Platform(S80, XC90, XC70, XC60, V70) is an entirely new engine. The new single Turbo T6 is based on that engine. I don't think there is really anything left of the old T6 and old 2.9 liter inline six in any of those engines.
Do you think Volvo would give up on an engine platform unless there was a good reason to? The new single T6 design is radically different then the old twin turbo T6. They junked it because it was well junk.
Volvo doesn't give up on stuff that works. That is why they have used the same platform for the S60 since 2000 and a stretched version of that platform for the XC90 since 2003. The S80 ran on a stretched version of that platform till 2006. When something doesn't work or is truly worn out the dump it for something very new and very different.
Government spending is out of control. WAY out of control. Personally, I'm thankful that people like McCain at least try to put a brake on some spending.
Oh heavens, that the PEOPLE get something once in a while. Horrors! Save us from runaway spending suddenly in August 2009! Horse is gone, close the barn door. Lavishing $4500 on someone who's been working like a dog all his life. We MUST economize and forbid such things! :P
McCain reminds me so much of that creepy voodoo economics of the 80s that it's scary.
The S80s with the 2.9 liter non-turbo inline six are ok cars but not really outstanding. The later S80s that had the 2.5T motor from the S60 that was based on the old S70/850 architecture are outstanding. The FWD S80 2.5T will give you high 20s on the highway, they are rated 18/27/22 with the dumbed down EPA numbers, and a light footed driver will hit 30 for long trips under the right conditions. The old EPA numbers were 21/30/24. What other full sized nice comfortable car will give you 30 mpg on the highway?
That engine is good for 200,000 easy as long as you do the timing belts on them at 70,000 or 105,000 depending on what year it is. Keep the oil changed with high quality oil of the right viscosity, preferably synthetic, and they will hit 200,000 and not have any problems with their turbos.
I have three different customers with over 250,000 miles using that engine. Two are turbo models and one is a non-turbo. The non-turbo has 320,000 miles. These aren't BS numbers either where the car has 250,000 but the engine was replaced at 180,000 or the head was done at 200,000 or the trans was done at 150,000. None of those engines has ever been opened up for anything more then a valve cover or oil pan gasket.
The A6 would be much more troublesome then almost any Volvo I can think. The older Audis are much, much worse then any older Volvo. Volvo never had an oil sludge problem like Audi did on most of the 1.8T motors. Volvo didn't have grenading CVT transmissions either. The grenading trans in the T6 S80 is a GM unit that was put in because it was the only transmission that would fit and supposedly, according to its GM specs, handle the massive torque put out by that twin turbo six cylinder. I think those specs were padded a little or Volvo underrated that engine considerably.
The thing is at some point the spending has to get under control. Both parties are very guilty of runaway spending. However, what happened in the past is no longer relevent other than to learn from it. We can only change things going forward.
You never answered my question. Is 2 more billion enough or after that is gone should there be more?
Personally, I don't want to see the bill renewed right now. They need time to see what went right and what went wrong. I think a lot of dealer stock is down and people would be paying more than they would in a couple of months. IMO the bill should be re-written to have a mininum 24 MPG overall. I don't see the logic in giving people money to trade in a gas-guzzler SUV for another one.
Despite the presence of some 'anti' feelings herein there is broad support in every district throughout the country since C4C kicked into gear. In some cities there are blocks and blocks of people rejoicing to see committed buyers coming back into the market. Listening to a Ford dealer sales manager tonight on NPR who said that the Senate would be crazy not to satisfy wishes the local businesses ( dealers ) who've seen a welcomed boost in sales.
This then flows down multiple levels to other local businesses; then to intermediate companies - and their suppliers; then to the auto makers - and their suppliers.
It eventually involves millions of workers all along the supply chain.
To soothe your tender sensibilities you can rest assured that vehicles will travel over bridges made of the steel beams that will be made from these clunker engines when the scrap is recycled and remelted in electric arc furnaces. These beams will be in use for another 50 to 100 years.
Having already participated earlier in the program myself on July 25th (and getting that $4500 gift from Uncle Sap when the getting was good!), I'd hate to be in the market right now that's for sure. I would imagine those dealers are just sitting there with attitudes beyond measure. Supply and demand. If the customers keep coming and continue to keep buying, you go right ahead and sit there Mr. & Mrs. So-and-So and continue to make faces holding out for the best price. Whoops! Someone just bought your car! We've only got a few left...
Ugly picture being the buyer there. They've got ya over a barrel. Wait too long and the Give-away-Goose might keel over and die never to lay another golden egg. Buy today and pay robbery fees cuz the dealers KNOW they have ya.
Point well made. Maaaaaybe we oughtta slooooow down and take a good look-see at what has happened to date. Hmmm...might be some wisdom in that.
The reason it was scaled back to 250,000 units and $1 Billion was to bring more people into the fold...and probably to see how things went. There was a lot of discussion herein and elsewhere about the program being a failure. By limiting it to a cost of $1 Billion and 90 days it fit nicely into the rest of this fiscal year. Next fiscal year begins in the fall....that's when you can expect the remainder of $3 Billion to be authorized.
Now that the public has voiced its support that mid-fall date might have to be advanced.
I am all for your suggestion to increase the minimum standard to 24 mpg. This however might have tough sledding to get by the Michigan delegation. In regards to the minimal increases on SUVs and trucks that certainly was put in the bill from the beginning by the D3. They still have huge capabilities to sell hugely profitable SUVs. It was Detroit's bill.
You can rest easy though. Almost no one in our +/-120 clunker trades has opted for another SUV. Navigators and Explorers for Highlanders and RAVs yes.....and a ton of Corollas and Prius'.
It is interesting to note that some people are against the bill because it is not limited to US cars, and some are against it because it is not green enough. There is a conflict here: the Detroit cars simply are not as green, and Detroit still wants to sell SUV's. This bill is a bipartisan compromise, as well as a compromise between helping US makers and improving our energy independence. Given all the arguments on all sides, maybe this is a great bill since so many are unhappy for opposite reasons
No I don't see this at all as some kind of "permanent" handout, but rather a good way to get EVERYONE who was "on the fence" to jump over it. I would think one more good healthy round should gather up all the fence-sitters.
It's been very amusing to listen to some senators and reps giving us their "Rip Van Winkle" story (or Ripina Van Winkle if you will) about waking up one day in the Senate with long gray beards (or crone warts?) and discovering, to their dismay, that all the money was gone!!!
How do they decry the C4C 2 billion without bursting out laughing?
That takes a brass set that would make any con man proud.
I guess blushing is out now in DC ?? :P
Again, oh, puhleeze. I don't even like McCain, and your disdain was transparent. Your idea that he is doing it just to posture is also, in light of other little digs you've made, pretty transparent, and just as wrong. Did you know he voted to kill the F-22? I thought he was wrong on that, but given his past, and his dislike for gov't programs he considers wasteful, completely in line with his character. He wants to kill $4C because it is a horrific waste of government money. Yes, it is a small program, but it doesn't make it any less wasteful.
.....this is the WHOLE IDEA of the program...
That is simply the most egregious example of why the program is so horrifically bad. We are spending $4000 of our tax dollars to destroy a valuable asset. So that volvo, let's say it was worth $3000. We spent $4000 to destroy a $3000 vehicle. In CT, that vehicle could have been sold and earned $180 in sales tax, and about $50/year in property tax. Of course, had it been parted out instead of shredded, it probably would have earned maybe an additional $1000 in sales taxes, the pulling of the parts probably would have earned someone an additional $1000 in wages(and the feds $200 in income and Soc. Sec taxes), etc.
But don't get mad at the government if you lament the loss of a volvo engine--get mad at the owner who traded it in. He's your scapegoat. He "sold out" for $4500 bucks
No, the government is the villain here. This is the automotive equivalent of government cheese.
Me, I think they saw a good deal and jumped on it. Anybody else around here calling it that way? I bet some of you do.
A clapped out high mileage Volvo, to my mind, is valuable mostly as a reef for fish. Not sure why you want to put lipstick on a pig here, but it's an interesting point of view nonetheless. Of course, you'd have to argue with the owner of the car who gleefully junked it and tell him why he's wrong. Count me in as an eavesdropper. What would you tell him?
All I see in McCain in his C4C position is his usual "class warfare" mentality. Nothing new here, and no surprise that he'd want that $4500 back.
He's a hair-trigger type, reflex type, he doesn't think things out IMO. The McCain-Feingold Act rather proves the point...it turned out to be nothing more than McCain shooting himself in the foot when trying to finance his own election. His opponents easily outfoxed him because they saw an America he cannot see.
Ditto C4C---he's behind the curve on this one, too.
Seriously how many times do I have to say this.
I think it's one of those rare, rare moments in my long life, since the equally fine GI Bill and Roth/IRA at least, that I actually witnessed the government cutting the average US citizen a nice no-strings break without making him practically crawl through shards of broken glass for it.
I'm lovin' this.
I like the program too, but to me it has more in common with Medicare (accounting nightmares, some apparent lacunae in the rules for implementing a fundamentally correct principle) than with the GI Bill or the Roth IRA. It's a rough draft of a great idea.
I think this program has legs. Not only do I think that the Senate will pass the additional $2 billion funding this week, I bet that next fall, while the whole program will get Feinsteined a bit and the voucher amount cut, it'll get re-enacted in some form. We'll be talking about clunker vouchers a year from now.
If so, I hope there will have been some changes, such as:
1. Basing the payment on the mileage differential, plain and simple. Say $400 per mpg improvement. None of this nonsense about vehicle classification. People who need trucks will still buy trucks. People who don't will see an incentive to buy only as much vehicle as they really need.
2. Improved accounting and prompt payment to dealers, on the assumption that this is not a "rush job" but an ongoing feature of the economy.
3. Better plans for disposal, including a provision for reconditioning and reusing clunker parts.
4. A clarification of what lapses in insurance and/or registration may be regarded as "acceptable."
5. More timely and consistent communication with the customers and the dealer base.
No I don't see this at all as some kind of "permanent" handout, but rather a good way to get EVERYONE who was "on the fence" to jump over it. I would think one more good healthy round should gather up all the fence-sitters.
Yes , agreed. What I'm seeing is once-in-a-decade buyers moving quickly .. because they can.
I had a discussion with my sister who is not at all involved in the auto industry and cannot participate but she's aware of current events. Three recent cases...
1. The NYC banks begin faltering and $350 Billion are pumped into their vaults. It sits there and makes them look prettier. Net benefit to the average citizen?
2. The B2 dump themselves at the doorstep of the Bush Administration and beg for food and a dry place to sleep. $50 Billion is pumped into them. Net benefit to the average citizen?
3. $1 Billion is handed out on street corners - literally - and the average citizen rushes down to get his or her fair share. This gets the average citizen's attention. This works - today.
Seriously how many times do I have to say this.
I swear if I hear about that Stinking Volvo one more time I will Scream. :shades:
My 99 Ranger is an XLT extended cab with V6 FFV and AT. It has 113k miles and is gutless. I was hoping to trade for a new Ranger 4.0 V6. Same 17 MPG rating. You are right. On Craigslist it would be close to $4500 right now. The body is perfect. I only put about 3000 miles per year on it, so not really smart to buy a new one.
It looks to me like the extension is more held up by where the money should come from. Kind of like the GM/C bailout money under GW. No one wants to give up their pot of gold. I don't think the House even considered that aspect. So should it come from the bailout to GM, the BO Stimulus or the alternative energy pot?
It is a perfect example of trickle down economics. Yet you detested it when it was the economic policy of Ronald Reagan. I am not sure why McCain would go to any trouble to block the program. Though C4C reminds me of friends that have gotten caught up in Cocaine. Will the subsequent high ever attain the level of last week? $2 billion more and by the end of August the dealers will be back in the doldrums. With the dealers screaming for another fix.
I also do not believe the WH spin that 50% of the vehicles sold were D3. Plus if only 80-85k are all that have been processed there should be a healthy chunk of the original $billion still in the pot.
A big plus for me is the Ford stock I bought at $1.76 is the best segment of my 401K. So for me C4C is good. I am still opposed, but enjoying the show. It has been a great boon for Edmund's with all the new posters. I hope they stick with us. A lot of good input.
The other two situations noted by my sister were 'trickle down' events... pumping up the banks and pumping life into the two B2 corpses.
This is just the opposite. The auto makers in the end get the benefit of increased sales after the public gets the first direct benefit. This is actually putting money in the hands of those that can use it to stimulate other businesses. Instead of putting the money into a few well-connected repositories where the benefits would trickle down eventually this money was literally handed out on every street corner where an auto store is located.
All at a tiny fraction of the cost of the other two.