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
Well said. Even though this issue has politics riven through it, let's all try to leave the snarkiness at the door so as to encourage more lurkers to join in the discussion. Some of them may not realize the history some of us old-timers have here and not understand some of the digs we make in good fun.
I'm with you. It doesn't match the comments from people in Greater Cincinnati on radio either. I'll have to see real numbers from a trustable source.
>detested it when it was the economic policy of Ronald Reagan.
There's been a lot of that going on for the last 6 months. Things that used to be awful and reported with whine, well, they just aren't mentioned now that the current admin is doing them.
>Though C4C reminds me of friends that have gotten caught up in Cocaine.
A few weeks from now the same people with be "chasing the dragon" for that original thrill when the program first started
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
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.
Sure, if all the stars lined up for me, I would take advantage of the $4500. That would not make it fair to those who's stars didn't align for them. I don't like selective rebates or tax incentives.
I know this is all about helping the car industry, but haven't we done enough. I see this as the government trying to get at least some consumers on their side, while they give more money to the car industry.
Cash for Clunkers Delivers July Sales Spike -- But Now What? (AutoObserver)
Yes, yes, yes, it is trickle down economics. Many of your posts have said exactly that. The fat cat dealers get $4500 for NOTHING. They pass a little to the salesman you, the parts guy, and the fellow driving the shuttle van. He stops at McDonalds for a Big Mac and the trickle affect is reaching to the lowest paid in the food chain.
What you are conveniently leaving out is the auto makers already have their money for the cars on the lots. This C4C is just clearing out inventory. Even with an additional $2 Billion very little will end up in the auto makers pot. This will NOT create any significant jobs or kick start the auto industry in the USA. Our economy will not be bolstered. It is just going to make a few people happy that got rid of an old POC vehicle. It will probably alienate an equal amount that find their POC gets too good a mileage. Or those that find all the cars they wanted are sold out or the dealers have raised the price to where the $4500 is meaningless.
Keep telling yourself it is a great program. You are not convincing anyone here that was not pro C4C to start with.
When C4C does end, all those packed dealerships will be ghost towns. All those people who would have bought a car next year already have one. This program is going to have a bad after taste.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., held a press conference late Monday afternoon to say the program should be funded without delay and that the Senate should vote for the extension the House passed overwhelmingly on Friday."
Key Senators Endorse Extension of 'Cash for Clunkers' (FoxNews)
July 2009 Market share
GM 18.9% Import 55.7%
Toyota 17.6 Domestic 44.3
Ford 16.5
Honda 11.5
Chrysler 8.9
Hyundai/Kia 7.5
Nissan 7.2
Lawmakers are talking about pulling the $2 billion from an energy loan fund in the stimulus package, but the three senators who backed the extension Monday said the funding source might have to be changed.
Feinstein said the money should be taken from another source within the stimulus. Collins suggested it be taken from bailout money already set aside for the auto industry.
Despite backing the extension, Collins said she was still disappointed it did not allow people to trade in "clunkers" for used fuel-efficient vehicles. She said some constituents still can't afford new fuel-efficient vehicles even with the government vouchers.
"With credit being tight this is a real problem for lower-income consumers," she said. "I do believe that's a flaw in the current law."
Collins is right. It would have a much wider affect if all the little used car dealers got a shot at the C4C money. Then it would be spread around to a lot more people than just the fat cat car dealers.
One last time folks: Nobody could have anticipated the response to this program. 6 weeks ago 99.9% of the populace had not heard of C4C and now most of the country knows about it and many people are thinking about a new car again. I spent half my career in the auto industry and like what I'm seeing from a Tier One supplier's point of view.
While I didn't agree with the GM bail-out, this program is a winner so let's keep it open with an extra $2 billion.
Trickle down economics turned out to be, in reality, something like-- "we, the few, eat a huge banquet until we are stuffed...then we roll up what we haven't eaten into the tablecloths and carry that out. Whatever spills out onto the floor is all yours".
C4C is, to my mind, more like "have yourself a seat at the table please. Open invitation to all, for a limited time only. Please observe good table manners."
As the late great (?) LBJ once said: "Nobody, but nobody, shoots Santa Claus".
Speaking of Santa, another detrimental aspect of Trickle Down economics was that, as it took effect, it required parents to explain to children of that era why Scrooge was the bad guy in "The Christmas Carol". :P
(I just made that last part up)
Ie - This year, it's 18mpg. Then it goes up to 19mpg next year and so on until everything that isn't a classic and gets less than 25mpg is off the road.(new vehciles would also have to be the same amount better than the new target numbers of course)
Sure it might cost 10-15 billion a year, but in a decade we'd be using half the fuel for vehicles. That's worth a lot in terms of security, because as it is, OPEC and the other cartels have us by the curlies and they're just being nice to us. For now.
EDIT: If you think 10-15 billion a year is a lot, consider the fact that with half the oil requirements, the U.S. wouldn't need to be fighting wars overseas for oil. Shoot, ten years of that program wouldn't cost as much as even a fraction of the smallest "bailout" that was passed.
We'll have to wait until the end of year to see if that 10% boost you talk about ever materializes. IMO, all that's happening is that clunker-eligible people who were going to buy in May or June postponed their purchase until July 24, and those that were planning on buying later in the year just moved their decision forward in time.
I think the time to buy, particularly if you don't have a clunker to get rid of (which I don't, even though 2 of my cars are 17 and 22 years old), is going to be in the fall or late this year when the dealerships are really hungry again.
I did, and I think that was the right call. I'm not a McCain supporter by any means, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get it right sometimes. It's mission has been OBE'd, and it's skyrocketing costs made it unaffordable, or at least not a good use of a 361 million dollars each (Wikipedia).
BTW, my company had a stake in the F-22 so it's going to be a small hit to our bottom line but, hey, that's life.
Of the 85,000 cars that were sold as part of the C4C program, how many were GM, how many were Toyota, etc? Just because Ford's increase was 2% and Toyota's decrease was 11% (from last year), that doesn't necessarily mean that Ford sold more vehicles through the C4C program than did Toyota, does it?
Agreed.
If it's the idea that money is getting to the little guy, I'll take my check from the government to PO Box 2934, Free Money, Ohio, 45245. It will help mitigate the huge amount of taxes I pay to subsidize everyone else's wants from the gov't.
If it's the idea that this is going to save lots of gasoline, there's the question of whether the cars being traded in actually were being driven much or have been sitting somewhat unused and other cars in the family were being driven. The local rag, Dayton Daily News editorial quoting from Edmunds (grin) analysts says "clunker owners are either not looking for an increased car payment or cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle." That is my opinion of many who are actually _driving_ their clunker because they have no other choices. The article goes on to suggest lots of those buying have not been driving. That also would suggest some poster's anecdotal evidence that the buyers have been cash buyers is a marker of the different group having been benefited by the clunker cash subsidy. But selling the cars for the US makers at least stimulates building more cars. As for local businesses having benefitted from the clunker cash payouts, well, I don't believe that.
If it's the idea that the recession, which is 1.75 years old, has worked its way through and is starting up and that this will help stimulate the economy actually in the US by having US plants employ people and start building, that's great. That was supposed to the be the idea of a stimulus.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Hardly open for all.
That was a point in the editorial. The people who are struggling for income and just getting by who have low mileage cars they must drive daily and that would have qualified, are struggling to make their current payments. The cash part of clunkers would have helped qualify them for a loan. But in turn they may not want to take on the extra loan for a new car. And if they do, a little change in their hours at work or loss of one of the jobs where there are multiple incomes in the family means that they can't make the payments for the NEW car the $4C allowed them to qualify for. I was somewhat criticized when I pointed that out in an earlier post where I paralleled it to the changing of rules to qualify for mortgages in the past that some congressfolk enacted and which led to the huge number of defaults recently.
I suggest that those who are cash buyers, if there were a preponderance of cash buyers using this program, are those who really weren't polluting and using all that foreign gasoline with their 12 mpg Explorer.
I just drove by a car along a residential street today with $1800 for sale on it. A nice dark blue full length Caddy from ???1995???. That person could have gotten $3500-$4500 trade in value and bought a new car.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think it is a matter of perspective. If what one of our resident salesmen are telling US is true. The people taking advantage of this program are in the Elite minority. I think the figures quoted were $33,000 to $100,000 per month income for the average C4C buyer. I know that sends me to the poverty level. Which would make this trickle down program even less advantageous to those in the lower middle class. My take is this program is best suited to the opportunist buyer. I know I would fit in that category. I don't buy unless there is a fire sale at the auto dealers. This is kind of a reverse fire sale with the tax payer picking up the difference. It mainly stuffs the cash into the pockets of the fat cat car dealers. You know the ones that Obama let keep their agencies.
In reality what many have posted is probably true. If you wait till the slump in sales returns you will be able to buy that same car using the same clunker as a trade without all the anxiety this program has caused.
IIRC those figures were from one person at their store in that poster's opinion. I doubt that is countrywide.
>you wait till the slump in sales returns you will be able to buy that same car using the same clunker as a trade
If buying a new car, the slump was January and February. I suspect the next one will be a couple months from now if $4C is not renewed. I recall what happened after the huge incentives by US car makers after 9-11 drained all the buyers by pulling from the future. Then came the slump.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's a welfare program plain and simple. While it is nice to see the Mother and children nestled into a vehicle with new brakes and tolerances and safety features, I am NOT okay with individuals that have finances that could have accommodated the replacement of their clunker - that money, out of my pocket (the taxpayer) has gone to a somewhat nefarious personal bank account and gain - a loss to the greater good like infrastructure.
You remember the infrastructure right? The cars need roads and road repair but as always we look at the shiny metal knobs on the dashboard as we flip-off the road repair crew. How dare they slow us down in our brand new car!
This is simply transfer of wealth by an out of control government, we're going to have to wait to see the incredible disaster unfold (I give it right about the year 2012) and of course, I hope I'm wrong.
Once again, has anybody asked "What happens when Cash for Clunkers ends?", a very good question for the automakers.
Can't the gov't better predict what their horrificly flawed plans will do? Why did it have to be so much money (4,500 is a ridiculously high amount of money).
Why did it have to exclude so many? The program is simply one of the worst ideas ever thought of, invented, and implemented.
Tax payer money being wasted, and guess what, we all have to pay for it.... it won't be long before middle class tax brackets are increased tremendously to pay for this retarded C4C program.
That's laughable, truly. The points of the C4C were to: take gas guzzlers off of the road & boost the economy. President Obama's stimuls package includes billions and billions of dollars to go to help those who do not work, do not pay taxes, do not contribute. This program is not that and is truly a win-win. I would not normally buy a new car. I do not feel it is a necessity. I'd prefer to put my money elsewhere. BUT, if the incentive is there, I would buy a new car. This money is being used by hard working Americans to help hard working Americans (regardless of what type of car you buy). Plain and simple!
Not quite nobody - a Hyundai salesperson I talked to on 7/20 predicted the money would be gone in 72 hours. (I thought I was being a bit reckless when I predicted the money would run out on Aug. 10).
steve_, "Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?" #1762, 20 Jul 2009 9:33 am
I think I'm going to call him back and ask for some stock tips.
So much for those who falsely claim the public supports this program.
People understand it benefits the few, and costs everyone, and is not an efficient program to stimulate economic growth.
The fatal flaw of this program for me is that many drivers of the largest guzzlers were locked into buying another one that guzzled just as much, or were allowed to buy one that guzzled almost as much.
Nippon's proposed program would allow anyone to participate whose car was older than 15 years, regardless of mileage (to get the old smog polluters off the road), but would ramp up the mileage requirement for vehicles younger than that. Start with a max of 20 mpg, gradually head up towards 25 over a period of 5-10 years. And make the new vehicle do at least 5 mpg better than the trade, regardless of "type" or "category". Continue the current rule that buying a new vehicle that gets at least 10 mpg better than the old gets you an extra $1000.
Another beneficial effect of this program would be encouraging automakers to design and sell vehicles with higher fuel efficiency, because consumers would be shooting for the 10 mpg bump to get the extra $1000.
I was chatting with a coworker today who was hoping to take advantage of C4C to finally get rid of her '86 Corolla. Of course, I had to let her down gently: that car is rated 29 mpg combined. She looked at me and said "my goodness, 29? No way! I am lucky to get 20 mpg in that thing." IMO cars like that should be included. I shudder to think of the
- smog-producing emissions
- fuel consumption, AND
- safety hazard to everyone on the road she poses with that car.
But without the incentive she will continue to drive it, according to what she said as she left my office. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The dealers get to move vehicles which employs more people and generates additional state tax revenue and requires the use of more suppliers from printing companies to aftermarket companies. This is the ground level where business needs to be stimulated.
Yes this certainly does clean out the lots no question. But the overriding statistic is that if the plan brings 250,000 additional buyers into the market per $1 Billion in incentives then when all is said and done at the end of the program there will have been a 10% boost in sales. This is the primary goal of the program as designed by the industry. Looking at it from one week or one month or even on the first tranche of funding is too narrow. It's a 'forest and trees' perspective.
Wait until it's over and see if there was a 10+% boost in sales. If there was then the program succeeded from the bottom up.
It doesn't matter if one group or another is alienated, certain groups won't be happy with any program at any time....'dark-clouders'. But even these will have to reenter the auto market at some time in the future.
The goal of all sales is making clients satisfied and happy, willing to come back, to promote your product and your location to friends, family and church members. If this occurs then this is a raging success.
If the dealers don't get $4,500, why do dealers have to pay income tax on that "money"?
WOW ! Her Corolla is even older than mine, a 89 one owner Corolla LE I sold last week. She's a beauty. Wish it qualified for the clunker dough.
I'm in no way poor. Just frugal. There are plenty of older cars in my mid-upper class neighborhood . Come to think of it, one in three household has an old car. A second car or kid's car. I expect them to go for the clunker program so the kid can have a reliable commuter to college. Hello Civic, Corollas, top cars sold under the clunker program as stated in previous post.
Making the program permanent I think is a good idea. And it can be finance by new car taxes on the gas guzzlers.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99S6M481&show_article=1
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"LaHood said in an interview Sunday he would make the electronic records available. "I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't do it," he said. "
More black helicopter reporters seems to me.
Hey, where's my reward for saving gas for 30 years? :P
Was your source saying that the average income of the last batch of C4C buyers was between $400,000 and $1.2 million a year?
That's pretty hard to believe. That's the top 1.5% of all households in the USA!! "Households" means more than one wage earner.
In the bank?
Perhaps a more effective instrument for encouraging fuel conservation would be a gas tax hike. But this bill wasn't created for that purpose--it is merely a side benefit. The purpose was to sell more cars and thus stimulate demand for steel, rubber, electronics, etc. It has done so, in the short run--but we shall see whether it lasts.
"If you are a participating new car dealer, you will apply a credit, reducing the price of the new vehicle at the time of purchase or lease, provided the vehicle you sell or lease and the vehicle traded in meet the program requirements. You will then obtain reimbursement from the government."
Reimbursement for what? Either $3,500 or $4,500. Sure sounds like money to me.
I'm pretty fed up with all these bills getting rushed through.
You could either record the sale of 20K at the time of sale or record the 15,500 at the time of sale and then the 4,500 at the time of gov't receipt. Either way it's going to total 20K.
Forget a gas tax hike, get rid ot the SUV/truck exemption on the gas guzzler tax!
Forget a gas tax hike, get rid ot the SUV/truck exemption on the gas guzzler tax!
That would be an interesting idea--when diesels are more widely available for "light trucks."
////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
You might want to call kdhspyder as well. He made the same call back in June!
I re-read some June '09 posts to this thread last night. I was initially against the C4C program but am now a believer.
This is a great opportunity and a rousing success for all involved. Sure there have been many hiccups but the end result has been more than worthwhile.
Get out the message, "Two more billion....two more billion....two more billion!"