Cash For Clunkers

[GREENBACK]

Sure, Greenback, let's let the guys running GM and Chrysler on taxpayer money handle it....

Did you forget already they went BANKRUPT?

Of course it's a short term program. It's intent is to stimulate demand, and it's obviously successful. Car sales went down 50%, from about 18 million to 9 million a year. This program will cover a few hundred thousand vehicles- a drop in the bucket. But it will help keep the lights until the economy recovers.

Down take me the wrong way. I'm not saying that the fools who ran Chrysler or GM into the ground should be handling this problem.

My argument with this program is that it's very wasteful. It's well documented that they're destroying very nice, serviceable vehicles. People who think they're getting a wonderful deal are taking on car payments when they could have held on to very good and paid for vehicles.

This administration has claimed that they want to be "green". What's green about scrapping good used vehicles. It takes a fair amount of energy to recycle all those good cars. I also don't like the idea of giving my money away to people who don't need a new vehicle.

Of course it's successful. If you give away money you are always going to be successful. The economy is going to recover whether this program exists or not. As you stated, it's "a drop in the bucket". It's also temporary and unsustainable. In addition, it doesn't address the core problem with automakers which is strategies for the future.

I'm just giving my perspective; perhaps I'm wrong. I believe they're trying to re-kindle a consumerist mentality that,as we've observed, isn't going to play well for the future of America.

[GREENBACK]

I heard on the news this AM that the cash for clunkers program is being blamed for a rise in used car prices. That's just great.

How could it not. Supply and demand at work here. We not only get to pay for people who want a new car but those of us who want a quality used vehicle will pay more. This program stinks to high hell.

[am_vanquish]

Sure, Greenback, let's let the guys running GM and Chrysler on taxpayer money handle it....

Did you forget already they went BANKRUPT?

Of course it's a short term program. It's intent is to stimulate demand, and it's obviously successful. Car sales went down 50%, from about 18 million to 9 million a year. This program will cover a few hundred thousand vehicles- a drop in the bucket. But it will help keep the lights until the economy recovers.

I doubt that this program will have any affect on annual numbers. Let's be honest here, the only thing that this program has "accomplished" (I use that term loosely) is shifting sales from late in the year to now. It has probably generated very few "new" sales. As soon as the program runs out of money, everyone who was considering buying a new car will have taken advantage of the program. Anyone who thinks sales in the last quarter of the year will be on pace with the sales before this program started is a fool.

As far as I'm concerned, the US government is doing the same thing that it just got done "punishing" the big banks for. The banks were handing out mortgages to those that couldn't afford it and wound up with "toxic assets." Now the US gov't is supporting the exact same behavior by promoting the purchase of new cars even if you can't afford them. Now my tax dollars get to pay off another set of toxic assets.

[disneysteve]

I believe they're trying to re-kindle a consumerist mentality

Of course. That's what drives the economy - consumer spending.

I doubt that this program will have any affect on annual numbers. Let's be honest here, the only thing that this program has "accomplished" (I use that term loosely) is shifting sales from late in the year to now.

True. A lot of people mistakenly believe that this program was designed to help customers. That's false. It was designed to help the car companies sell cars. It really isn't helping anyone who needs to replace their car but can't afford to. If someone is driving a beater and wants to get a better car, odds are they aren't out looking for a brand new vehicle. Those folks are looking for an affordable used car in good shape.

A rebate toward the purchase of a used car would help a lot more people, but it wouldn't help the car makers much.

[GREENBACK]

Of course. That's what drives the economy - consumer spending.

I know this has been discussed before but I really believe that consumer spending should no longer be the principle catalyst for economic growth if it's based on borrowing money. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a prime component but if we want a stable, long lasting, economy that doesn't experience the big nosedives we've seen the past few years I think people need to get away from the idea of buy/borrow today and pay tommorow(programs like cash for clunkers seem to encourage this). This financial attitude is , obviously, the reason we are where we are.

Sorry to go off topic here.

[disneysteve]

I know this has been discussed before but I really believe that consumer spending should no longer be the principle catalyst for economic growth if it's based on borrowing money. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a prime component but if we want a stable, long lasting, economy that doesn't experience the big nosedives we've seen the past few years I think people need to get away from the idea of buy/borrow today and pay tommorow(programs like cash for clunkers seem to encourage this). This financial attitude is , obviously, the reason we are where we are.

Sorry to go off topic here.

I don't think that's off topic at all. We're talking about the government encouraging, in fact incentivizing, people to go out and spend money they don't have. Since I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of purchases are not made with cash, most buyers under CARS are borrowing money to make the purchase. I don't know what percentage are taking loans, but I'll bet it is high, like 80% or more.

[Scanner]

I know this has been discussed before but I really believe that consumer spending should no longer be the principle catalyst for economic growth if it's based on borrowing money. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a prime component but if we want a stable, long lasting, economy that doesn't experience the big nosedives we've seen the past few years I think people need to get away from the idea of buy/borrow today and pay tommorow(programs like cash for clunkers seem to encourage this). This financial attitude is , obviously, the reason we are where we are.

Sorry to go off topic here.

I agree and have said the same thing. We are a post-consumeristic world and all economic policy should be geared towards creating value vs. encouraging raw consumption.

It may be "new-agey" but like Oprah says, we need to all start living simple lives.

[Scanner]

As sort of a related question - it seems most here are oppposed to this cash for clunkers idea.

Are most people opposed to the idea that NJ does, which gives huge tax incentives for investing in solar technology for your home or business? What if the government gave out $5000 for solar panels?

I mean, we are going to have to start somewhere as a country to make this green conversion. The problem is, if we wait until oil is $200/barrel, we may be in for a real catastrophe and unable to just "switch" to grassoline, hydrogen, etc.

I am not saying the private markets can't drive some of this but I think the gov't has to be co-piloting this conversion.

[am_vanquish]

As sort of a related question - it seems most here are oppposed to this cash for clunkers idea.

Are most people opposed to the idea that NJ does, which gives huge tax incentives for investing in solar technology for your home or business? What if the government gave out $5000 for solar panels?

I mean, we are going to have to start somewhere as a country to make this green conversion. The problem is, if we wait until oil is $200/barrel, we may be in for a real catastrophe and unable to just "switch" to grassoline, hydrogen, etc.

I am not saying the private markets can't drive some of this but I think the gov't has to be co-piloting this conversion.

Good example, but not comparable to the CARS program. No one on this board complains regularly about the tax incentives of energy-efficient home improvements (water heaters, A/C units, windows, etc.) I would love an excuse to by solar panels But it's not like I'd be replacing a ton of half-used batteries that are toxic to the environment by doing this. That's the difference between solar panels & the CARS program.

[GREENBACK]

As sort of a related question - it seems most here are oppposed to this cash for clunkers idea.

Are most people opposed to the idea that NJ does, which gives huge tax incentives for investing in solar technology for your home or business? What if the government gave out $5000 for solar panels?

I mean, we are going to have to start somewhere as a country to make this green conversion. The problem is, if we wait until oil is $200/barrel, we may be in for a real catastrophe and unable to just "switch" to grassoline, hydrogen, etc.

I am not saying the private markets can't drive some of this but I think the gov't has to be co-piloting this conversion.

I'm ok with the goverment giving incentives for solar technology or geothermal or nuclear or you name it. The current reality is that we need to stay in the game which is currently petroleum. This will not disappear very soon as there are many, many products we utilize that are dependent on petroleum. It goes well beyond the gas you put in your car. Think of anything you use made of plastic! We will be in the oil game for many years whether we like it or not. Who out there,with a brain, doesn't get this.

"Change you can believe in" was a popular slogan that this administration preached. It is now time to step up to the plate and show what you mean. I'm a progressive person and am very willing to accept- positive -changes. Technolgy is great and should be pursued with the utmost fervor. At the same time lets take care of buisness and ensure that we keep the wheels rolling while we pursue the future. It sometimes seems like our leaders focus on what's politically popular or expedient versus what's right.

It really isn't all that hard to do the right thing.

[maat55]

That's the one thing I hate about driving a compact, but the fact of the matter is that large, inefficient vehicles are no longer sustainable. Heck, I'm not even so sure it's sustainable long-term for each person to have their own vehicle, no matter how small or what it's run on.

Hogwash, what is not sustainable is taking your family across country in a compact car.

There is plenty of oil to get us through to the next new power source. It is crazy that we are not drilling for oil here in order to create jobs and not fund our enemies.

[shultice24]

Hogwash, what is not sustainable is taking your family across country in a compact car.

There is plenty of oil to get us through to the next new power source. It is crazy that we are not drilling for oil here in order to create jobs and not fund our enemies.

Hogwash??? Sounds to me like someone is a bit attached to their gluttonous, inefficient vehicle(s). I believe the days of everyone being able to drive their own 4,000 pound behemoth are numbered. Enjoy it while you can.


What will get us through to the next power source is to quit using so much oil in the first place. America is so inefficient it's hideous. We don't need to rely on drilling for more oil; we need to reexamine our selfish and wasteful ways and make changes.

IMHO, the domestic drilling argument is like arguing to put a band aid on a severed limb. It's extremely delusional and short-sighted, especially since it diverts focus from REAL solutions.

[GREENBACK]

Hogwash??? Sounds to me like someone is a bit attached to their gluttonous, inefficient vehicle(s). I believe the days of everyone being able to drive their own 4,000 pound behemoth are numbered. Enjoy it while you can.


What will get us through to the next power source is to quit using so much oil in the first place. America is so inefficient it's hideous. We don't need to rely on drilling for more oil; we need to reexamine our selfish and wasteful ways and make changes.

IMHO, the domestic drilling argument is like arguing to put a band aid on a severed limb. It's extremely delusional and short-sighted, especially since it diverts focus from REAL solutions.

So if I trade in my 2003 F-150 and my '98 Sierra(both are big inefficient 4wd's with extended cabs) for a nice little fuel efficient compact I'll still be able to haul wood and tow trailers and boats and drive in the knee high snow we get around here that usually doesn't get plowed for days? Sorry, that ain't happening soon. Last winter I pulled 3 compact cars out of snowbanks. They were probably happy to see my "hideous" vehicle out on the road.

We do need to drill as well as looking to the future. OPEC controls us way more than they should . We also still have to deal with idiots like Huego Chavez because we refuse to explore our resources at home. We need to take control of our personal destiny so that we can progress into the future.

What's short sighted and delusional are things like cash for clunkers and cap and trade. These are in no way the "real solutions" you're alluding to. As I stated earlier, it's ludicrous to think we'll get away from petroleum dependance for a very long time. That's just a fact. It's a worldwide economy and we have to stay competitive.

[shultice24]

So if I trade in my 2003 F-150 and my '98 Sierra(both are big inefficient 4wd's with extended cabs) for a nice little fuel efficient compact I'll still be able to haul wood and tow trailers and boats and drive in the knee high snow we get around here that usually doesn't get plowed for days? Sorry, that ain't happening soon. Last winter I pulled 3 compact cars out of snowbanks. They were probably happy to see my "hideous" vehicle out on the road.

We do need to drill as well as looking to the future. OPEC controls us way more than they should . We also still have to deal with idiots like Huego Chavez because we refuse to explore our resources at home. We need to take control of our personal destiny so that we can progress into the future.

What's short sighted and delusional are things like cash for clunkers and cap and trade. These are in no way the "real solutions" you're alluding to. As I stated earlier, it's ludicrous to think we'll get away from petroleum dependance for a very long time. That's just a fact. It's a worldwide economy and we have to stay competitive.

Hey Greenback,

I think you misunderstood me in a few ways, but I could have made myself clearer:

I definitely don't think it's hideous to haul wood, pull cars out of the ditch, and do normal things in your truck. I live out in the country; we do the same thing, and I'm not about to suggest to my folks that they get rid of the old GMC. Gosh hopefully I didn't come across as a truck-hating hippie.

What I was referring to was people who buy Hummers and F150's simply as a status symbol and the thing never leaves the roadway. It goes from the office back to suburbia, and to soccer games on the weekend. That's what disgusts me, the fact that people drive a v8, get 12 mpg, for no practical purpose (and they're probably the first to complain when gas prices climb). I'm guessing you can agree with that better-explained logic?

I in no way referred to the cap and trade bill and Cash for Clunkers as the real solutions. Many of the real solutions come from individuals as well as from the business world. Most government 'solutions' are anything but.

Off topic I know, but I saw a funny saying that said: "Government: You think our problems our scary? Wait til you see our solutions." haha


Drilling can help, but I'm afraid that we can't drill without losing urgency and realizing it's only a tiny, tiny part of the bigger picture. Let's go ahead and do it, but not forget that fact. Also, the biggest reason why we're hooked on OPEC isn't because we don't use our own resources; it's because of all our wasteful ways. Obama mentioned once that, if all Americans would simply keep their tire pressures inflated correctly, we would save more oil than would be produced by offshore drilling (or was it ANWR?). In either case, that makes you think.

A concrete example to back my thinking (I hope). Since oil reserves are becoming scarce, Exxon is investing billions upon billions of dollars into tapping natural gas reserves, which are much cleaner than oil. If we approved offshore drilling, then by necessity they would probably have to cut back on natural gas investment to spend more creating new rigs. In the long term, I would argue that this would create more problems than it solves.

I'm feeling a sense of deja-vu. Have we discussed this before?

[maat55]

Hogwash??? Sounds to me like someone is a bit attached to their gluttonous, inefficient vehicle(s). I believe the days of everyone being able to drive their own 4,000 pound behemoth are numbered. Enjoy it while you can.


What will get us through to the next power source is to quit using so much oil in the first place. America is so inefficient it's hideous. We don't need to rely on drilling for more oil; we need to reexamine our selfish and wasteful ways and make changes.

IMHO, the domestic drilling argument is like arguing to put a band aid on a severed limb. It's extremely delusional and short-sighted, especially since it diverts focus from REAL solutions.

Be real, it is not reasonable to expect people to load up a family with suitcases into compact cars.

You can't pull boats with golf carts. You can't haul sheetrock or other building materials with out power and size.

This is america, just drill.