Comments on: House passes “Cash for Clunkers”

By: jpruden

jpruden — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:47:24 +0000

@A4… for the clunker and $30K, they could have an A3…

By: Bg357

Bg357 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:13:15 +0000

Leftwingagenda,
Even if this program was exactly the same as whatever european program you’re talking about, which I’m sure it’s not, that doesn’t mean it would work here! We’re not Europeans, we don’t pay anywhere near what they pay for fuel, and we don’t drive the kind of cars they drive. Your argument is nonsense, just because something supposedly “works” in Europe doesn’t mean it will work here or should be implemented here.
They have horrific “universal” healthcare programs over there too, they’re bankrupting their countries while killing old people in the name of “efficiency”, and some politicos say that those programs work well too.

By: armstealer

armstealer — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:38:05 +0000

carstuff- you’re right, the numbers for the subaru are backwards on the first page I looked at, but here, explains it the right way http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp

By: leftwingagenda

leftwingagenda — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:34:58 +0000

bg357, this program has been proven effective in europe at stimulating car sales, so calling it idiotic in the face of actual evidence it works is in itself idiotic…your obviously not being objective about this, though, you have an axe to grind, that much is clear…but, in the end, i’m fairly sure your abhorrence will be proven quite misplaced…

By: Scarface03

Scarface03 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:46:51 +0000

I’m still fuzzy on some of the details, but based on what LLN has reported, the buyer is the one getting the voucher. The dealer probably has to certify the trade-in insurance, trade-in mpg and the new car mpg, but it seems like the dealer is out of the equation when the $3500 or $4500 changes hands, which, by the by, is the way it should be.

I’m sure the dealers aren’t pleased about certifying the scrapping of the trade-in car. It doesn’t seem like the dealer is getting any kind of reimbursement for scrapping (as opposed to re-selling) the trade-in, with the argument surely being that the dealer gets the benefit of a new-car sale that likely would not have hapened had it not been for the program. Still, the dealer, I’m sure, doesn’t appreciate having the expense forced on them, so I have a feeling those people with clunkers will find that the transaction price of the new vehicles they buy will be higher than the transaction price of the same car sold to people without vouchers.

By: A4

A4 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:20:53 +0000

lucidink… anyone that has the “scratch” and spends it on a $30k Venza doesn’t deserve to have “squat”.

By: shaver

shaver — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:17:39 +0000

This is good. Its going to sell a lot of cars. I’ll bet this gets 300K-400K gross poluters off the roads. And reduce our oil usage by millions of galllons a year. Hell it might even save some jobs. Is it the most efficient use of govt money, probably not, but its definately not a waste considering the way they blow money on useless crap with zero benefits. Sure some people will feel burned for just missing the quali or feeling like they are being punished for making a smarter decision in the 1st place. But just like the idiot who got into home he could not afford. They must be saved, simple fact is the govt let industries run rampant and now they our obligated to help the ignorant masses.

By: carstuff

carstuff — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:59:54 +0000

Arm, sure you got those numbers right? The newer mileage should be lower than the old specs.

By: DenverGuy217

DenverGuy217 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:31:44 +0000

Do illegal immigrant cars qualify for this? That would clean up about 1/3 of the Denver area. Oh wait. “has to have been insured at some point in the last year” Nevermind………………………….

By: armstealer

armstealer — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:22:47 +0000

Where are you reading that it has to have been insured for all of last year? I see this: “Trade-in cars must have been insured at some point during the last year ”

This is a SHI##Y way of regulating the program, by RATED fuel economy.
You think my 1992 Subaru still gets the 16/22 it was rated for? 180,000 miles ago?
How about the ’88 wrangler I had, with a weber carb conversion and all the emissions equipment literally ripped out? Environment MY ASS. This is for sales.

IN FACT, check out fueleconomy.gov, they have raised all the older EPA MPG estimates to “better” compare with the new standards… Since I read that website, all of a sudden my Subaru is getting 18/24, its great! Saves me all kinds of money just by shifting around a couple numbers!

Heck, that jeep is rated for 15/20. It burned something more like 10w-30.

By: crash1433

crash1433 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:39:35 +0000

I for one can’t wait to see how the government is going to fund the dealers on this. Are they expecting dealers to sit on these cars for an extended amount of time before they get their 3500 or 4500? When you take into account that none of the vehicles that I sell have 3500 in markup, how can we just give the car away and be expected to sit on 4500 for any length of time. With lots of other dealer strapped for cash, this kind of cash flow nightmare can’t be a positive even if it does move a couple of cars.

By: MercMark

MercMark — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:19:14 +0000

has been registered and in use for at least a year

By: livelyjay

livelyjay — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:38:46 +0000

Is that 18mpg city, hwy, or combined? And are we talking the old MPG ratings or the new ones? Htere’s a Grand Caravan up for sale right now for $850 with recent inspection, and it’s rated at 15/22 mpg.

By: MercMark

MercMark — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:00:59 +0000

Here are the specifics:
The government would send up to $4,500 to the selling dealer on your behalf, if you:

1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.

2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.

By: MercMark

MercMark — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:56:48 +0000

Carstuff, with intelligent ideas like that you have no future in politics.

By: carstuff

carstuff — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:32:36 +0000

Not sure what is different in this bill from the ones overseas but they have been very successful as far as getting new car sales. Perhaps the naysayers here can tell us what is different here?

2nd they should not crush nor shred, they should strip first and then make vehicle unusable by cutting in half. What a waist of money/parts/etc. to just shred. Very anti environmental.

By: Bg357

Bg357 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:12:29 +0000

Lucidink:

So you think that people who have a vehicle worth less than $4500 are going to be able to afford a brand new car?? And you think they’ll be able to get financing in the current economic climate? You think 4 billion dollars is next to nothing? I’m sure you bitched & moaned about every billion spent on Iraq, but you’re just fine with it wasted on this crap? Have you been drinkin’ the D.C. water too?

By: lucidink

lucidink — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:11:12 +0000

It gets POSs off the road… end of story.

By: lucidink

lucidink — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:09:04 +0000

But wait, there’s more… did you catch the catch??? It’s there, plain as day- the car HAS to have been insured over the past year…. which means everybody’s dream of scooping up the trash and turning it into gold is a pipe dream. It does NOTHING to market values cause cars worth less than $4500 have virtually no effect on the resale value of ‘newer’ cars. Car dealers can sell the crappy used cars to whomever wants a crappy used car… not everybody has the scratch to buy a $30k Venza.

By: lucidink

lucidink — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:04:50 +0000

Slow down aspiring dummies and listen up. This program is obviously NOT designed for people who have vehicles worth more $4500 (unless plagued by miserable mechanical problems that make it a sweet deal). Yeah, we could go out and buy a total POS 15 year-old Cherokee with 150,000 miles and a blown tranny for about $800, insure it, inspect it, license and yadyada… and finally cash it in… but guess what- most people are effing lazy. This program IS actually for the ‘clunkers’ eating up our oil and spewing tons of emmisions into our atmosphere. In the end it stimulates the auto industry (new purchases), takes polluters off the road, saves X barrels of oil and costs the country next to nothing, if anything at all considering the long term benefits of putting a healthy car on the road for 100k instead of an oil-burning 1993 Suburban with a shot catalytic converter. It helps the environment, it helps the economy and it’s one teensie, tiny step towards weaning ourselves off of politically dirty, filthy oil. (4 billion from the war coffers is a drop in the bucket considering we spend that much every 10 DAYS in Iraq -look it up, it’s 100% accurate-). Stop bashing the politicians when they do ANYTHING, yes Washington is a trainwreck, but this is a program that’s been going on in Europe for some time and it’s well received and much needed. Give it a rest and think it through… we’re all smart enough to get on board with obvious logic. If you want to rant, rant about something that is actually moronic- this is a good move.

By: Bg357

Bg357 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:06:55 +0000

Don’t any of you dopes even read the story before you start making ignorant comments? The idiotic program is limited to vehicles less than 25 yrs old. It won’t take a 1972 anything off the road or any VW microbuses either, not that VW buses were notorious gas guzzlers anyway.

By: A4

A4 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:02:04 +0000

what a mess you made of this congress

By: idriveafleetwood

idriveafleetwood — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:21:28 +0000

Not getting my fleetwood. 10 mpg and proud of it

By: HavanaRob

HavanaRob — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:28:58 +0000

HEyyyyyy!!!! Who’s trash-talkin’ about VW microbuses????

By: MyGodBeatsYourGod

MyGodBeatsYourGod — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:02:53 +0000

Voltus, we all feel the same about the 8 years prior.

That said, if it removes VW Microbuses and old Yank Tanks (looking at you 1972 Newport Brougham) off the road all the better!

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:59:40 +0000

This is good news. Anything to make the nation more fuel-efficient is a plus in my book.

By: anyclearer

anyclearer — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:53:58 +0000

every is quick to say this is dumb, but damn if your also not the first to take advantage of it……keep in mind your not getting cash……you have to buy a new vehicle.

By: The Stig

The Stig — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:11:07 +0000

Should be called “Cash for Guzzlers” instead. My whip is all f##ked up but doesn’t qualify under the MPG nonsense. Oh well…

By: Bg357

Bg357 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:08:38 +0000

6ix:

I think your piss is misplaced. You’d have to be really dumb to give away your “huge-ass SUV” for a $4500 voucher, when you could probably sell it or actually trade it in for twice that, if not more. Did you catch the part where the dealer HAS to crush the trade-in vehicle?? Meaning, they’re not going to give you any trade-in value for it, you’re just going to be giving it away for the gov’t voucher. Stupid is right, but as usual, it’s congress that’s wins the stupidity contest.

By: Voltus

Voltus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:04:20 +0000

6ix

I feel the same way about the last election.

By: Bg357

Bg357 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:00:01 +0000

This is the dumbest bill, not surprisingly, from the numbskulls in Washington. It effectively eliminates any value you might have in your vehicle, because the dealer is required to crush or shred your car! The dealers aren’t going to give you anything for your “trade-in” because they can’t resell it. If your car is worth more than the $3500-4500 voucher, you’d be a fool to participate in this idiotic program.

Given their mindset, I can’t believe these politicians didn’t somehow limit the vouchers to Chrysler & GM purchases only

By: 6ix

6ix — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:52:17 +0000

If you were dumb enough to purchase a huge-ass SUV that got less than 20mpg, then you should pay for it. This is a stupid move and it pisses me off. People should learn to pay for their dumb decisions.

By: RaineMan

RaineMan — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:18:08 +0000

Actually… didn’t the senate already pass their version a few weeks ago?

By: bd394

bd394 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:17:20 +0000

Until funds run out???

I think they ran out a long time ago.

By: Icarus

Icarus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:08:09 +0000

“The measure will now move to President Barack Obama for his approval;”

Perhaps LeftLaneNews can go back and listen to some Schoolhouse Rock, specifically, I’m Just A Bill…

The measure hasn’t passed the Senate yet, where Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is holding up the measure because she doesn’t believe it meets environmental goals. Has to pass the Senate before it can move to Obama for his approval.

By: Mutant@DCX

Mutant@DCX — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:10:56 +0000

“YOU” MIGHT BE A REDNECK IF…

You ever cut your grass and found a car.

You own a home that is mobile and 5 cars that aren”t.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:07:26 +0000

Great, I’m haulin’ a Buick Electra 225 out of the junkyard, and having it dropped at the BMW dealer.