He told me today he doesn’t get the new truck until the paper work goes through for the C4C deal.
Ford did not ask for or receive any TARP or Stimulus money. Instead, their lobbyists wrote the Cash for Clunkers bill and convinced Obama to sign it. A BRILLIANT move in a competitive market…The Ford Focus is the #1 car being sold in the program. Ford was READY. Everyone else is just flopping around on the beach…
No Congress should not, it does nothing for me or others in my social group. The ones that do might possibly put them in a bind down the road. Then will congress bail them out like the finance and auto industry? This is only helping auto industry without regaurds to the financial situation of some that might be in the lower middle class and below.
This is the mindset I am refering too. Stimulus money is being spent on infrasctucture, new energy projects, etc. My social group does not directly benefit from this either, but I’m not going to complain because it is still helping someone, somewhere.
$4 billion will also buy 2 new weather satellites and operate them for up to 15 years. They will provide severe storm information, including hurricanes and tornadoes as well as the usual rain and snow data. Of course, that’s a significant part of the NASA and NOAA budget. But we need cars more. I think not.
NO. The gov should stay out of it. Before the cash for clunkers (CFC) program started, the dealers & manufacturers were offering great deals & discounts to “all of us” so they could clear inventory. Now that’s mostly gone since Pres B. is offering the CFC program to those who qualify. I have a 2003 Pontiac Gran Prix that gets 17/19 mpg and always has. The gov rates it at 26 mpg so it doesn’t qualify. Go figure. We have our eye on a vehicle that gets 24 mpg, but no “cash for clunker” deal for us. Besides, the tax payers shouldn’t have to provide $ for those deals. Let people trade in their vehicle just I have to do.
It is official. President Obama signed the extra 2 Billion extension for the “clunkers” program.
on a seperate note, heres how the “clunkers” are destroyed.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14943311&ch=4226713&src=news
I read today that it takes an estimated 6.7 tons of carbon production to make a new car. So if a person with a perfectly good vehicle trades it for one that gets, say, 10 mpg better, how long is the breakeven point?
How much carbon is produced destroying the tradeins?
Monitarily it makes no sense. It’s just providing a very temporary boost to and ailing industry by stealing from immediate-future sales.
If destroying these trade-ins continues driving up the cost of used cars to where those driving real beaters that would have traded them for newer more efficient cars are now continuing to drive them (yes, this is happening) then what’s the impact of that on the environment?
I read today that manufactureres have to ramp up production of some of their more popular CARS replacement models. These are manufacturers that have been painfully trimming back production to create healthy companies. What happens when the CARS money runs out? More layoffs? More lots full of excess inventory?
There is still a 4th billion dollars in the program that has yet to be approved for appropriation. Let’s hope it does not. Let’s hope the pain is limited to $3B.
Remember last year when a billion dollars was considered a lot of money?
My answer to T&R’s question is “NO”.
However I just now realized how much of a success the programs really is.
It’s goal was never to improve the auto industry, provide economic stimulus, or reduce emissions or dependence on foreign oil, as we’ve all been assuming. By any of these measures the program is a failure.
It’s goal was to provide a ratings boost for Team Obama. And as long as the mainsteam press sings his praises and never points out all the problems and illusions discussed in this forum thread, than the program will be cinsidered a wild success.
It is not the stuff of economics. trade, or the environment. It’s the stuff of campaigns, pure and simple.
No. All this program does is benefit people dumb enough to buy gas guzzling cars. I have a late '80s model which is on its last legs, but does not qualify for this program because its gas mileage isn’t bad enough. You also have to buy a NEW car and don’t think for a moment car dealers won’t figure out a way to add the rebate back into the price.
You know, I’m tired of all this. I pay my taxes and bills on time. I live in a modest house, make my payments on time and include a little extra to pay my loan off early. I live within my means. Thanks to the idiots on Wall Street, I lost a bunch of money through my retirement program. The money I have in savings is earning next to nothing. And what’s this administration doing for people like me? They want us to go into debt and spend, spend, spend while they bail out the greedy and the stupid. God save us all, it’s time for a revolution.
Although this is still needless destruction of fully functioning cars (the rules state the car must be in running condition).
it’s like buying a bag of Cheeto’s, putting them on a shelf for a week, and throwing them away because they’re a week old. wouldn’t it be better to donate your Cheetos to the food pantry, then to throw them away?
I agree.
Definitely NOT !
That first $1,000,000,000.00 could have purchased ca. one million hydrogen conversion kits for vehicles… at ca. $1,000.00 each. Older vehicles are even easier to convert to hydrogen than newer vehicles so the prices would have been even less (less electronics to overcome), even with paying a mechanic to install the kits. The more simple the old time gas guzzler the better ! Nothing could have more space and simplicity in its conversion than an old pickup truck or suburban that most people call a gas guzzler.
The people who are purchasing new cars are not the people who are now homeless or becoming homeless. They are not the people without working transportation. If their car was completely useless, they still would not be able to purchase a new car even with the $4500.00 because of the restrictions that limit the purchase to an expensive new vehicle… !
This could have created a financial start for clean energy manufacturing machinists and material suppliers, and installation mechanics of actual clean energy equipment and for poor home hobby/energy enthusiasts who are never going to purchase a new car anyway. The people who are purchasing new cars in this Cash For Clunkers would still benifit from the new equipment because they could use their current automobiles longer or they could sell them with the market for used cars full of people then looking for their favorite used automobiles which they would never shop for before because they thought that such a vehicle would be too costly to fuel up.
Now President Obama has destroyed the hopes of people like me who one day wanted to restore old BMW 750ils and other large vehicles by converting their beautiful engines to cleaner fuels use. He is actually requiring people to destroy works of art potential!
It is better to create than to destroy. We do not need to destroy anything. The metals,glass,and plastics of old cars could spur new technologies to be developed for restoration and manufacturing techniques if left in tact. Where are we going to find that old car to work on ? I do not want to restore PLASTIC ONLY CARS !!! :
“Gee son, I had been planning to work with you some day on those gorgeous old Cadillacs, BMWs, Jaguars and Mercedes from the 60s,70s,80s,90s … when cars actually contained a little steel… I guess we’ll just have to get some Elmer’s glue to put this plastic thing back together.”
Even old tires can be recycled. Even currently toxic chemicals can be broken down and used for new innovations. Reusing things just takes a little thought. President Obama is destroying thousands of works of art when he could be using that same money to put many more dollars into the hands of the lowest rung of our citizens while fixing the filthy air problems at the same time to a much greater degree than will happen now. Most of us will be forced to keep driving on petroleum now.
Just half of that $4,500.00 Cash For Clunkers money could convert most vehicles to at least a simple hydrogen generating and combustion system. There is nothing wrong with these internal combustion engines. What is wrong is our insistence, laziness or corruption … in filling our cars with petroleum.
The Hindenburg did not necessarily become a horrible inferno of death because of hydrogen inside of its body. It contained both iron oxide and aluminium-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate - a sealant coating on the **outside ** which kept burning and subsequently may have passed on the combustion to additional hydrogen containing bags throughout the 16 hydrogen compartmented structure. Hydrogen burns quickly,cleanly, and without much heat - certainly not much sustained,burning heat.
Any vehicle’s combustion engine can use simple room temperature and atmospheric pressured hydrogen. And if added internal combustion is desired we can chill it into liquid to create density just before spraying it into a cylinder to then vaporize it en masse into a cylinder. It readily vaporizes for combustion.
Hydrogen:
- It is easily created from electrical charge - even at 12 volts and a few amps;
- It keeps metal surfaces clean - inside the engines injectors/cylinders;
- It would be safer in accidents - from a trapped accident victim’s point of view;
- It creates no carbon exhaust - clean air.
Safety:
If tanks are created with bellows, numerous purge valves or electrically …porousable… materials to release hydrogen before or upon impact (proximity sensors’ use !) hydrogen can be dissipated upwards quickly during accidents. Even if you get caught in hydrogen combustion… you may be hurt by force but you will not be fleshly burning as with petroleum.
We do not even need to carry around hydrogen itself in a vehicle accept in a tiny amount just before combustion. We can create it just moments before using it. We can carry simple water in our tanks.
The only reason that the so called clean city buses carry large tanks of hydrogen is so that someone can still carry a monopolizing contract with the cities so as to keep a daily “Cash Cow” … feeding off of the tax payers system running. Vehicles can readily convert water to hydrogen at the simple time of need.
Money direction:
Cash for Clunkers simply puts money back into the hands of planned obsolescence-minded auto executives. Gas guzzling cars are only gas guzzling machines if you feed them gasoline! Cash For Clunkers does not even permit people who have used cars that only used to have good fuel milage but now are poluters. A worn out honda CRX SI can get less than 18 miles to the gallon if a person has had to purchase cheap fuel for an extended period ! - Yet, not qualify for the government program.
Equipment useful:
- Install a more efficient brushless - diode rectified generator(alternator);
- Install an additional battery ;
- Make sure that you use one way valves and hosing and hosing of good quality.
- Electronic monitor/chip/circuit - for fuel injected/computer
monitored/compensating systems - compensate for the computer no longer reading
carbons in exhaust. - Install water/stainless steel plates tank and filter/distiller.
- Install hydrogen holding tank or bellows to keep oxygen away from hydrogen.
!!! OH, THE HUMANITY !!!
We should not be damaging any mechanical works of art. By destroying objects we damage the ability of a poor person to make use of that object after we are through with it. I am too poor to purchase any new vehicle.
Now Sir Obama is destroying my hopes of ever restoring all of those old cars that I had hoped to have access to in my future !! I used to love that man’s ideas. But since he actually promotes the destruction of things instead of investing money into the creation of actual hydrogen conversion equipment itself / kits that everyone could use to convert their already owned automobiles, I no longer appreciate his “compromising with industry executives” attitude.
That billion or two could have helped to convert two or three times more vehicles to clean hydrogen. Now people like me are left completely out of the clean energy movement. I am simply too out of work to improve my car at all. Now I will not be able to purchase any better a used car… because they will all be destroyed.
MURDERER !!! MURDERER OF AAARRRRTTTTT !!!
WHERE IS THE HUMANTY !!!
OH, LORDY !! WHERE IS THAT HEART THAT OUR WHITE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE ???
PLEASE SIR OBAMA !!! PLEASE HAVE A HEART !!! SAVE ME A BEEMER 700 SERIES !!! PLEASE
I never got to install that manual 5 speed into a BMW 750IL !! PLEASE DON’T KILL THEM ALL !!!
"OH, THE HUMANITY ! "
Did you forget to put your tinfoil hat back on?
Wow!you said a mouthful.Anyway dont forget conversion efficiency,yes I agree H2 would be safer then gasoline-Kevin
This is a very onerous bill–putting more debt on my children’s shouders while rewarding someone who had been driving a gas-guzzler for at least a year!
Not to mention the total waste of resources used to build the vehicle in the first place–what if the vehicle scrapped had another 10 years of life left on it?
Why not reward those of us who are already driving fuel efficient cars? Now that would be fair! I guess I’m sore because I do not qualify for this unconstitutional, socialist, piece-of-crap legislation!
Who the hell voted for these people, anyway? You should be ashamed of yourselves and the burden they are laying on our children!
great great great great grandchildren you mean
I own a 2000 Mercury Grand Marquis which qualifies as a “clunker” despite the fact that it has only 42k miles on it and is in pristine condition. I cannot, in good conscience, participate in a program that would destroy a perfectly good vehicle and also give me other peoples’ money (taxes) to purchase a new car, which I am well able to do without any financial assistance, other than from a private lending institution I would select. When this program ends (if it ever does) how will the auto market respond? Likely with a huge decrease in sales. These government programs only interfere with the natural workings of the marketplace and exacerbate the problem long-term.
Well stated.
However those that do take advantage of it should do so with a clear conscience, including yourself if you decide to. You didn’t write the legislation, you’d only be accessing a benefit made available to you by our elected representatives in Washington. There’s nothing wrong with that. I disagree with the program, and would vote against it if given the chance, but since it was in fact approved by those allegedly representing us I’d feel comfortable using it of appropriate for my needs.
Kudos, however, for your integrity. I respect your being willing to forego something like this based on philosophical grounds.
When this program ends (if it ever does) how will the auto market respond? Likely with a huge decrease in sales.
I’ve already put my prediction in another thread or 2. But my prediction is that within 5 years, we’ll see a glut of small shoebox cars being traded in for larger vehicles, regardless of fuel mileage. I can’t see someone who is used to driving an Explorer liking driving a Focus for very long
First off, I’m a little annoyed by my original post apparently being deleted after a few days. I didn’t think it was controversial, nor did it include anything inflammatory. Shame on the miserable soul that censored it if this is the case.
I’ve watched videos on YouTube of vehicles only a few years old being willfully destroyed. It is affecting to anyone that loves cars and actually gave me some bad dreams the day after watching some of these. Is this the true American way? Use something and throw it away after you’re done with it, regardless of how much life is left in it? I do think the CFC program has done good for the crippled economy, so I suppose I can forgive this. But I think revisions are in order:
How about:
-Instead of destroying all the vehicles, only destroy the worst. Offer the ones close to the cut-off, and in the best shape to underprivileged people for a low price, sell them for export, SOMETHING!
-Instead of just having MPG be the cutoff, how about vehicle condition—offer incentive to get vehicles in poor repair of the road–get that oil-burning econobox that leaks several kinds of fluids and has a cracked windshield, and will never meet emissions standards off the road, even though it still manages to get 30 MPG.
-Offer people a lesser incentive, perhaps $1500-2500 to trade in their piece o’ crap for a USED vehicle that is in better repair and gets better mileage. This will still benefit the economy, but won’t leave the used-car dealers out in the cold, nor the repair industry.