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
Barney Frank
As was mentioned C4C was the best this Congress could do. :sick:
From a GDP standpoint certainly looks like 2009 is getting better. We might end up flat for GDP for 2009 which would be great. GDP only ended up .4 percent for 2008 because of Q2 which sure looks like an outlier to me. I bet that gets revised back as more data becomes avaliable.
Towards the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 we were losing as much as 700,000 plus jobs a week. 400,000 jobs lost a week is a big improvement
http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/wkclaims/report.asp.
There was certainly no "balance" during the 94-06 Congress. The "crash" ball was rolling long before 2006. Any prosperity seen earlier in the decade was a blatant lie at best, and more like a con for the sheep.
It has nothing to do with "this" Congress, and everything to do with the mentality of the past few decades. I beg you to show me what any other Congress could do better. It's time for the whiners to put up or shut up. The divisive mentality constantly spewn by GOPers bitter over the incompetence of their own party in recent years is destructive and hurts both their future and the nation itself.
C4C, in relation to other federal expenditures, is a literal drop in the bucket, and provides more benefits for actual working people than virtually anything else the feds contrive.
"Claiming overwhelming success for the Cash for Clunkers program, the federal government is crowing about the 690,114 sales the program spurred, the fuel economy gains made, and the American jobs restored.
But there's the nagging fact that vehicle transaction prices actually rose during the program, as some manufacturers and dealers cut back on their own incentive offerings. Customers taking advantage of the program still got great deals -- just not as great as if they'd been able to simply tack the C4C rebate onto the market prices that existed before the program."
Feds Claim Clunkers Program Neared 700,000 Sales. Now What? (Edmunds Daily)
Instead of sending vehicles to the crusher wholesale, I think dealers should select the ones which will either the way they sit or with less than $1000 in repairs be functioning vehicles. This means that they will pass any safety checks (air bags and brakes, etc.) and emissions checks and that some amenities like AC and radios are functioning, plus they meet any state's cosmetic requirements. I know AC creates global warming but in states like Texas and Florida workplaces would be more pleasant if people came to work not sweating like hogs! These vehicles should be offered for sale for maybe $500 to $3000 based on a sliding scale of income, with people on unemployment or disability able to buy for the lowest amount. Since quite a few of the vehicles are trucks, they could be used by some lower-income people to start small businesses like delivery or landscaping, and definitely all of them would help people get to work. I saw at one dealership alone a V6 Camaro last generation, a Nissan 300ZX and a Jaguar Vanden Plas, so purchases should be limited to one per licensed driver so nobody starts a "clunker collection" at government expense.
I can hear the naysayers already--"This will put gas hogs back on the street...poor people should move to NYC so they can use public transit...what about global warming?" Well, I think that functioning vehicles used for transportation rather than scrap will bail out the present economy rather than depress it. And if people especially in the lower income group don't have cash, they can pay for it by additional withholding by the IRS. Dealers will be compensated maybe $200 per vehicle of which they can pay the salesman half. A lot of people will benefit.
The problem is no one knows how much oil is truly available. Even the best geologist are simply guessing. We could run out in 50 years, it could last 200 years. The real issue is running out of the easily accessible oil (i.e. cheap oil) which you alluded. This is one reason why many people think we need to allow drilling off our coast as one part of a comprehensive energy program (there are other reasons like national security but let's leave that out of this for now). It definitely won't get cheaper. Personally, I rather us find a renewable energy source to rely on.
This reminds me of the global warming debate. In my mind, there is no question the earth is warming. The melting glaciers are proof enough. The real question is whether the earth is warming on its own as part of its natural cycle or are we contributing to the warming? And can our actions slow or reverse the trend?
These topics are great for debating
The only real flaw in this idea is that in America 2009, you can't be "poor" (by Fed poverty guidelines) and even remotely afford to insure, repair and fuel an old car. Even in best case scenario, a car eats up a huge percentage of a "poverty level" income. (about 17% in the best case).
Insurance--$400 (if you have a good record)
Gas for 10,000 miles -- $2000
Repairs, Maintenance, Tires, etc. -- if you're lucky $1200 a year
So that's $3600 a year
Poverty level for family of 4 is $22,050. That leaves $18450 for rent, food, clothing, health care, school for a year for 4 people.
This isn't a gift, it's a burden IMO.
And we haven't even included the initial cost of the car, registration, parking tickets, blah blah.
Yeah, and I have a feeling insurance for most people would be a LOT more than $400 per year! The insurance on my 2000 Intrepid is about $500 per year. Now it's a bit more expensive because I still have full coverage. If I dropped that, I'd probably still be paying around $350 per year, so to me it's worth it. But then on the flip side, I get a few discounts, because I have three other cars on that policy, plus my homeowner's insurance is with the same company. And I have excellent credit. And have been continuously insured for over 22 years now.
Your typical poverty-level driver probably doesn't have stellar credit, and probably wouldn't be able to get a multi-policy discount. I hate the fact that they can base your insurance on your credit, as I feel it's none of their business. Bad credit might affect your ability to pay your insurance, but I don't see how it has any bearing on how bad of a driver you are. But alas, it's a sad fact of life. I'd also imagine your typical poverty-level driver also has had lapses in insurance. Also keep in mind that the poor often live in areas that are higher density, higher crime, higher accident rates, etc, and that's going to affect insurance rates. I wouldn't be surprised if the typical poverty-level driver doesn't get milked for a good $1500-2000 per year or more. Especially if they're male.
And I agree...for the most part, a car, even a FREE car, is going to be more of a burden than a boon to many poor people.
True. But someone with poor credit, or with cash flow problems, is more likely to neglect maintenance on the car, possibly leading to safety problems (bald tires, wornout brakes, etc.). And someone with poor credit may have a habit of inappropriately risky behavior. Sure, there are other reasons for people to have credit problems, but insurance is all about probability, and statistically speaking, individuals with poor credit have a greater probability of generating a loss that the insurance company will have to cover.
Which brings me back, ever so gently, toward the topic of C4C deals. Do you think part of the reason for requiring continuous insurance (aside from excluding parts cars and the like) may have come from the perception that people who maintain continuous insurance and registration are somehow more deserving--somehow more responsible, more morally upright? We've been told by one frequent poster that this was essentially the auto industry's bill, but how much influence did the auto insurance companies have?
Unlike clean air, food, shelter, safety from harm, etc. --- driving is not a right, merely a privilege.
Our military is literally farting out billions in expenses and equipment a month with no end in sight (right or wrong, good luck getting out in the next decade) and this actually did something good for well over a hundred thousand households.
I'd have kept it going and once the numbers started to trail off, I'd increase it by 1mpg. In a decade(say, 1mpg per year) you would see almost everything that didn't get 28 mpg off the road and converted to higher mpg vehicles.
The total cost might be 100 billion, but doubling our fuel economy in a decade(the same 10mpg better rules would apply for the maximum benefit) is a far better use than 1/7th of a bank bailout that just was flushed down the drain.
Shoot, printing 100 billion to fund this would make far less of an impact on our economy and the value of the dollar as modernizing our vehicles would help.
I think that was part of the reason; don't reward the "law-breakers."
I guess that makes people in WI and NH immoral since car insurance isn't required there. :shades:
Hadn't thought about the insurance lobby having a hand in, but that makes sense.
As far as the C4C, I think the requirement was put in place so people didn't take advantage of the program with cars that were just sitting around and not used. I believe every state has some minimum insurance that needs to be in place in order to drive a car on the road legally. By having the insurance requirement, it cut down on people receiving tax money who were breaking the law by driving without insurance.
- Better MPG numbers for the new vehicle.
- Vehicle must be assembled in the 50 US states with at least some minimal content of US made parts.
- Have the voucher come to the consumer instead of the dealer in the form of a tax credit or check, would take care of the paper work hassle
- More advance notice so the manufacturers could keep up with the demand, would lessen the chance of any perceived dealer gouging.
Anyone who has any kind of positive net worth and carries less than 500K liability insurance is reckless in my opinion. None of us are above making stupid mistakes now and then, and a medical lawsuit could easily wipe someone out without sufficient insurance.
I lived most of my life in either rural areas, southwest Texas, southwest VA and northwest CT or military bases so I get what you are saying. Lots of military bases have great availability of transport on the base but are many times in the middle of no where so getting off base is hard or just very time consuming. Now of course I think for the average just out of HS enlisted guy getting off base probably should be hard to keep them out of trouble.
I never really thought that far into it, but you have a good point there. I thought that the continuous insurance clause was just there to keep people from dragging something out of their backyard that hasn't been used in years.
Nah, that Dart's way too old. Plus, I don't think it would have run long enough to get to the dealership. Although the guy that bought it did get it to run for a few seconds by pouring some gas in the carb and jamming a screwdriver into the points. It actually sounded pretty good for the few seconds that it ran.
How about having a separate "qualifying station" where customers could go to have their clunkers cleared for the program. A voucher could then be issued electronically. Dealership personnel would not be responsible for verifying the insurance, registration, or other eligibility criteria, since it's clear that this has been a major weak link in C4C-1.
Dealers could verify the existence of the voucher and attach a claim to it electronically, much as they would obtain verification of funds when a customer pays by personal check.
Would that '89 Brougham qualify for antique insurance, such as through Hagerty? Normally they won't do newer sedans, but you treat your Brougham like an antique car anyway, just driving it on nice days, to car shows, etc, that they just might insure it...especially given the gorgeous condition it's in. They'd be able to tell from pictures that it's not just some old daily driver heap that you're trying to get cheap insurance on. You might want to look into it, as they only charge something like $50 per year for the liability portion, and then $6 per year for every $1000 of agreed value.
Considering where you live, and that you have full coverage on all three of those cars, $2200 doesn't sound so bad. My insurance is around $1400 for the regular policy ($500 for the Intrepid and $300 each for the Silverado and two NYers) and I think my antique policy is only around $200 per year for the LeMans, DeSoto, and Catalina...although I do have to update the values on those cars.
Even if you're heavily insured, your insurance has a cap, so you aren't out of jeopardy there.
I wonder if mass transportation will ever work well, considering how spread-out the United States is. Still, up until 1935 I would've been able to walk about 600 feet from my house, and catch the train to DC, Baltimore, or Annapolis. Nowadays I think the nearest bus station is about a mile away.
For the 1st time homebuyers credit, they don't require any documentation sent to the gov't. Just a 6 line form with your regular tax return to claim it. The 250K fine for fraud is enough that people make sure it's legit in case of a ramdom audit. Seems like they could do something similar w/ C4C.
I don't know, but my guess is now that it's over they aren't going to be near as picky as to what they reject.
Actually, it would be the same amount of work, but handled fairly and evenhandedly by trained personnel rather than haphazardly and incompetently by salespeople.
I'd listen to Steve. I live in NH and you absolutely don't need insurance, to either register a vehicle or get a driver's license.
You also don't need to wear a seatbelt if you're an adult and choose not to (I guess to make it equal to a motrocycle
By having the insurance requirement, it cut down on people receiving tax money who were breaking the law by driving without insurance.
I've always bought insurance, and my liability coverage in the 4 states I've lived in has coverage for Uninsured Motorists. Your own insurance company picks up your bills in case the other motorist isn't insured.
As far as Lemko's rates go, you must never have been to Philly or beyond the tourist district. When my brother lived there, you learned if you left $0.30 visible - you'd get a busted window.
Exactly which "trained personnel" are you going to find who will abandon a steady job for a crazy short-term 45-day gig with C4C?
The program is so short-term, I'm not sure they'd be truly trained and qualified before the program ever ended! The learning curve is surely longer than the length of C4C.
And these nuts, who will quite their day jobs, are more qualified than the professional dealer employees?
LOL I'll keep that in mind if I ever visit Philly! Guess that's a town I shouldn't drive around with the top down in, eh?
Here in Indiana there are seatbelt laws for cars but not trucks. For SUV's you can get either a truck plate or a car plate. If you have the car plate, you can be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt, but not if you have the truck plate. Makes sense, right?
Germany
Detroit
Torrance
NADA headquarters
Multiple large dealership groups ( AutoNation, CarMax, Longo, etc )
NSA / CIA
Pentagon
Multiple strategic think tanks
One of the key goals of certain of these groups is to get rid of the bad performers on our nation's roads, the bad performers that use too much fuel. It's covered under the name of 'energy security'.
Your idea will never fly with these groups. Ever since Bush's Energy Task Force made its report to him these strategic groups have been pushing to eliminate all the SUVs and old trucks from our society.
Some people would have you think it's Obama himself behind a computer reviewing claims and clicking on DENY, DENY, DENY!
However...the new petro-fuel is all located in very difficult-to-develop locations. IOW 'all the easy fruit has been picked'. As noted above some of the huge producers are on a downward slide in supply. They will never recover.
Before the economic crisis the curve of development all over the world..thus the curve of petro-fuel demand..was going to outstrip current supply in the next decade. The warnings were for ocassional spot shortages. This economic collapse may have bought us a couple of years of repreive.
Wow, thanks for the chuckle on that idiocy. If it's one thing I've learned in life is - don't be one of those people who see the law as something black-and-white to live your life by. There have and will be many laws that are immoral, outdated, subjectively enforced and defined, and simply bad. Ex. prohibition, segregation laws, religious laws spilling into the public laws ... And certainly the [non-permissible content removed], Soviets, and Taliban all had/have citizens that are law-abiding killers!
Anywho - NO to more government power and control. Let the individuals keep their $ and decide what to do with it; rather than giving it to the government and have them waste some before divvying some of the $ back to the people.
Us Hoosiers might be a little slow, but we get it eventually!
Let's just leave it at that...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator