“trickle down economics” does have merit. rich people tend to live in big houses on top of hills. if we give them lots of money, some of it is bound to fall out of they’re pockets and roll down the hills to us. (that was a joke by the way.)
Success or not is in a person’s perspective. The reality is the point you made, the program will end. When it does showrooms will be empty again for awhile. Any big sale takes buyers out of the market after they have made their purchase. At some point the program must end and there is a lack of business for a month or two.
If the demand is to keep it going then it moves from a stimulus program to an entitlement program. We certainly don’t need another social security program only this one is for the auto industry!
In general I’m an Obama supporter. I think this program is OK, but when will it end? That I’m concerned about, it has to have an endpoint.
No we shouldn?t re-fund the cash of clunkers program, we shouldn?t have done the program in the first place.
If I walked up to you with a gun and said ?Give me $4,500 so I can go out and buy a new car?, you?d call the cops. But that?s what the government did; they took money from you by force, (all taxes are taken by force) and gave it to someone else to buy a car.
So how much of someone else?s new car do you want to pay for? Why not say instead turn in a 20+ year old car and will give you a $15,000 car, wouldn?t that even take more cars off the road and help out the car companies even more?
There are better places to spend our tax dollars.
My opinions are subject to change with new facts.
Everett Dirksen is credited with saying that - in the early 1960s. Someone sat next to him on a plane and asked wheter he said it or not. Dirksen aid no, he was misquoted in the newspaper. But it sounded so good he let it ride. There is no record of him actually saying those words according to the Dirksen Congressional Center.
“There are better places to spend our tax dollars.”
Where?? Agreed, we can’t be doing this stuff everyday, but once every 50 years, why not?
We spent 2 billion a pop for the B-2 bombers. So $4 billion will buy 2 new bombers.
Or it will stimulate 100,000 new high efficiency new car sales…
Two useless bombers or 100,000 new cars. What’s the problem??
because once those “100,000 new cars” get sold, nobody would need a new car. again!
another (glaring) hole in the plan is that you can buy Mazdas, Toyotas, Nissans and the like with this money. last I checked, those a Japanese cars.
Those Japanese cars support American jobs, probably more more so than Chevy, Ford, or Chrysler. How many “Mazdas, Toyotas, Nissans and the like” sold in the USA are made here in the USA? A lot of them are. How many Chevys, Fords, and Chryslers sold in the USA are made in the USA? Not so many of them are.
I don’t see this as a glaring, or even a small hole. If our government starts enacting xenophobic policies, it will hurt our economy when people overseas stop buying GM’s and Ford’s vehicles overseas.
GM does a lot of business overseas. Enacting xenophobic policies will hurt GM more than it helps.
Its the governments good intentions that seems to reward bad behavior.
I think we all know where that road paved with good intentions leads to
CARS, like Communism, looks good on paper, but we all know how well Communism works in application.
According to the news shows ,the entire car is crushed.
Just like the Griswald’s “Family Truckster” in "Family Vacation"
The news crew showed them dumpstering cars that could be sold to Central America. Big business in the SW USA
First, this is not a permanent solution to the problem. Does anyone remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina? Literally, the instant the automakers stopped offering the incentives (zero-percent financing, etc.) the sales numbers replaced that zero (or close to it), because everyone who needed a new car…had a new car! This is simply borrowing sales from the future. What is really needed, of course, is to stimulate JOBS so people can afford new cars…but that is a lot more difficult than pouring sodium silicate into crankcases.
Second, the wrong cars are being destroyed here. There is an early 90’s Buick down the street. The only body panels that aren’t dented, rusted and/or faded are the two front fenders (they’re cracked, because that year they were made of plastic), the car smokes like it has a surgeon general’s warning on the back bumper, and the interior looks like it was rained in continuously for months. That’s because it was; the rear window was smashed in, and for a while the car had a piece of plastic somewhat covering the hole. Somewhat.
Is that car going to be traded in on the clunker bill? Not likely. The owner cannot afford anything else. But judging from the videos I’ve seen, a lot of actually pretty servicable cars are being destroyed–logically, cars owned by people that can afford a new car will be those that maintained their current car well–and now we are destroying cars that really don’t contribute all that much to the pollution of the planet.
My thought: Before destroying them, why not run the vehicles through an emissions test, and give the dealer the option of donating the ones that pass the test to a registered donation facilty, and give those that cannot afford a new car the option of having a cleaner, more reliable, better vehicle to drive than what they have now?
Nope the program should NOT be renewed. At least not immediately.
What happened to baby steps? Take a step, if you don’t fall down , take another one. If you are still standing upright after two maybe try a third. I think the program should be stopped, an evaluation of how many gallons of gas and pollutants we have saved over the first pass with the cars people traded in and determine if One Billion dolars was really worth it. If people in the EPA government agency decided it was worth it bring it back with more funding but make the payout smaller $2500/$3500 to allow more cars to be taken off the road. And have all dealers start the program at he same time… some of them jumped the gun.
Too much money (translate into governemnt debt) is being thrown at this economy we will pay for it soon. An economy can only be artificially sustained so long before it will start to turn South again.
The house passed another 2 billion today, the Senate still needs to ratify.
Our local paper showed a nice looking 96 Suburban being traded in. The car looked very good,too nice to crush.
Many have very well pointed out my main complaint,good cars that took resources to produce are being destroyed. I consider a guzzler not just to be its mpg rating but its emissions output. With cats. and F.I. and OBD2 controls these cars just don’t fit into what should be destroyed,they should be put to use.
As namesake pointed out getting unsafe cars off the road is also important. It should be the whole package that determines if the car is destroyed.
That being said I would still not be 100% for the program if the cars were still allowed to be ‘made available’ to others because I don’t like the credit promotion aspect. But I do realise that credit and fractional banking are here to stay and you can’t fight either situation.
What?s next, Cash for Seniors? The “CARS” program is complete nonsense, and an absolute waste of resources, not to mention time, and of course, money. The fact that the government has now decided to burn another 2 billion of our tax dollars on this ridiculous program has brought American politics to a disgusting new low, where the government?s only answer to stimulating the economy is to destroy what we already have.
The method of the current regime is to assume an ownership role of a manufacturing company and attempt to stimulate new production by removing alternatives from the market via government incentives under the guise of reducing dependency on foreign oil. Meanwhile, as we are doing everything we can to reduce our ?carbon footprint?, more cars are being put on the road through this program, and more energy is being wasted to scrap perfectly good running vehicles.
In other words, the ultimate outcome of the program will make thousands of tons of scrap out of perfectly good cars, only to put even more cars on the road. And no one desires to account for how much energy and resources are needed, and how much pollution is generated to produce a new car, as compared to keeping an existing one on the road. Meanwhile, the government is ordering dealers to pour sand into the engines of trade-in vehicles, have them run until they seize, and destroy what is left to prevent their future use as automobiles. You can go right to CARS.gov and read it yourself. You can also find videos online of this ?procedure? being ?performed? by dealerships on perfectly sound running cars that could otherwise be donated, parted out, or surely used in SOME constructive way. It?s almost like watching an animal being tortured to death.
From an economic standpoint, the program only benefits those whose financial status permits them to buy new cars, whereas those who aren?t as fortunate will be left out as usual. The result will be higher prices for used vehicles, higher repair costs as the number of recyclable vehicles will be reduced, and the consumer as a whole will be worse off. Having $3500 for $4500 off new vehicles until November will accomplish nothing at best in the long run, and the childish and wasteful nature of the program will destroy a lot of useful cars if it continues.
What?s the next program? It?s formally referred to as Universal Health Care.
Very well put.
The video below of a recent model Volvo being euthanized shows what a disgusting waste the “CARS” program is.
This bill needs to end now.
I understand more about a lot of things now-including this forum(really didnt have time to learn to navigate it properly).It occured to me that a lot of good old cars are going to the crusher,when they could have went to Jalopoes-Roadrunner made a very good point,it reminds of the time the govt destroyed all of those booster rockets rather then use them for research.
Tom&Ray you have to bear with me,I intend to offend no one.I have lost the link-but “Bubbas solution” is the one I like(If your gonna use fiat money-send it to Chrysler)-Kevin
What a stupid waste-what next turning in our pets?-Kevin
VERY well put.
That video… it made my heart stop. look at the volvo! it was in perfect condition! somebody could have used that!
Most political questions come down to $$$$$. If it’s a good idea, and serves it’s purpose, yes. I have a disagreement with those that think we shouldn’t commit ourselves to health…whether it be C for C indirectly or health care directly, but have no problem funding more efficient ways of outright killing people.
How long as a nation can we survive, spending as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. I’m all for national defense, but a drop to 40% of the worlds total outlay instead of 50% would go a long way to addressing domestic ills. And I include reduced taxes and incentives, not just govt. programs.
Do you all think that maybe, just maybe, this over reach has a negative impact on our ability to compete in other areas ?
A resounding yes for cash for clunkers…and let it be paid for by canceling just one more war ship.
Let’s see maybe replace the bridges that are falling down. Fixing the roads, maybe investing a little more money into the research of algae oil and help us become energy independent.
You don?t seem to understand that people who are buy cars under this program won?t be buying cars later so it?s costing us billions of dollars just to move the sale from the future to now. What?s going to happen over the next few years when those who would have bought a new car, don?t because they already bought it? You?re depressing future sale under this program, so before long GM,( Government Motors) will be crying that they aren?t selling enough cars because this program took their new cars away. PLEASE do it again or give us some money, after all it?s not our fault that this program kill sales.
?Two useless bombers or 100,000 new cars. What’s the problem???
Useless unless you under fire and wanting support, useless unless you don?t want to be able to defend this country, useless unless you want freedom. Those useless bombers help keep you free. Don?t you think that there are people who would love to take over this country?
But if you think this is a good idea, you don?t you just go out and give someone you don?t know $4,500?