Cash for Clunkers!

[joe_padavano]

White House reviewing 'cash for clunkers' program - Yahoo! Finance

It's not over yet, but the program is becomming a victim of it's own success. If you're planning on using it, better jump on it soon!

Members of congress are already pushing for more handout money. Let's see, one BILLION dollars spent in about two weeks. By the government's own figures, that should mean about a quarter million new cars either sold or on order. Anyone think we're even close to that number? Maybe we need some accounting before throwing good money after bad.

Of course, that money would likely have just gone to AIG bonuses otherwise...

[Restorer32]

We are talking about the price a salvage yard would get for an engine block, which today would be about $12-20 if iron, maybe $75 if aluminum, far less than what you could sell a used engine for. Your point was that there is no incentive to divert these engines from the salvage stream when in fact there is a substantial monetary incentive. I will bet you that many, if not most, of these engines will be kept and resold with other, unrebuildable, engines being substituted. I agree that the program has some merit but once again, being run by the government, the results will not necessarily be what was intended. I detest the arrogance of a government that assumes it knows what is "right" for free enterprise and the American people. Is an inspector going to be on site to verify that every one of these engines is actually melted down? Reality is, this program is going to put people who couldn't afford more expensive cars in the first place behind the wheel of newer cars they can afford even less.

[Dave@Moon]

I detest the arrogance of a government that assumes it knows what is "right" for free enterprise and the American people.

Then I assume you hate the DEA. I assume that toddlers with $2.80 can buy as many bottles of Boones Farm Wine as they want. I assume that your local cocaine dealers should be well within his rights to taken on the guy on the next block with a bazooka. I assume you had your own fireworks on July 4. I assume you're in Bernie Madoff's will. Etc. Etc. Etc. (i.e. I assume it's O.K. by you that people sell ruined engine blocks for reuse!)

We're spending ourselves into oblivion. There is a real, scientifically-proven danger of destroying the planet's ability to support our grandchildren, not to mention national security issues with oil importation.

In short there are some things more important than free enterprise, and our society limits it thusly via elected government by "the people". The system has been set up that way since the Magna Carta. This is nothing new.

We are talking about the price a salvage yard would get for an engine block...

And no, we're talking about a commercial dismantler/scrap yard and the price it would get for a large conglomeration of engine blocks. Salvage yards get paid a price for a few blocks at a time by the scrap yard. The scrap yard gets a much higher price for the trouble of consolidating them. In this program they're already consolidated, and scrap metal engine blocks are being accumulated in commerical quantities already, almost certainly by the scrap yards themselves in their dismantler operations.

The links I posted are for commercial buyers of scrap metal. It's what these engine blocks will sell for if the cars are dismantled in anything like commerical operations. Maybe in rural Montana there won't be enough vehicles taken in under this program to trigger commercial operations, but in most of the country there will be.

It may be that some crook might try to pawn one of these bad engines off as good. If "most" of these 1/4 million+ engine blocks are going to make their way into the marketplace i find highly doubtful. If so I guess that's "free enterprise".

[Dave@Moon]

By the government's own figures, that should mean about a quarter million new cars either sold or on order. Anyone think we're even close to that number?

Actually, that's about spot-on.

Congress trying to save 'cash for clunkers' sales - Yahoo! News

Like I said, the program is becomming a victim of it's own success. It's thought that the last of the current money for it will run out today.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[LINC400]

What do you mean "when"? They all are "built in multiple plants"/countries now. The highest domestic parts content of any U.S. assembled car is 90% (Ford Taurus), and only 11 cars have a content over 80% (including 4 Toyotas and a Honda). In terms of overall domestic content (including assembly costs) the most "American made" car in existence for 2009 is.....

....are you ready for this?.....

...the Toyota Camry!

That's right. In 2009 if you want to keep your money inside this country the most responsible car you can purchase to that effect is a Toyota. Not even the (now) second place F150 is as "American" as a Camry.

( The Cars.com American-Made Index - Cars.com )

And that's the unimportant reason why the government didn't restrict this program to "American" cars (if you can call the fact that there aren't any true "American" cars any more unimportant). The fact of the matter is using this program to aid only domestic manufacturers would run 100% against the stated purpose of the legislation, which is to raise the average fuel economy of vehicles on American roads.

I would agree that the stated purpose and the primary intended effect are not likely the same, and that car sales are what people are really looking for here. However until what's left of the "Big 3" catch up to the other manufacturers in quality, fuel-efficient cars, it would be an obvious contradiction in terms and a political nightmare to try and restrict programs like this to "Big 3" products.....even if there was a meaningful difference (or a specified difference) in domestic content for eligible cars.

That is nice that Toyota is built here and contains U.S. made parts. However, it is not an American car.

If Toyota needed financial aid, who would be bailing them out? The U.S. or Japan?

If there was ever a war again like WWII, would Toyota stop car production to build stuff for the U.S. military like Chrysler, GM, and Ford did? What if Japan is not on our side in whatever conflict?

GM, Ford, and Chrysler all made donations for the 9/11 tragedy. Where was Toyota's donation?

Before you say it is unlikely that Toyota will ever need help or we will never be in another war like WWII a few things.

Toyotas were piling up at the port this year. Something that never happened before. Also no one would have predicted that GM would need a bailout to keep from going under.

No one that fought in WWII would have ever guessed that we would be on good terms with Japan and Germany, and would be buying their products instead of ours. Also I don't think anyone expected the 9/11 tragedy to happen.

Since we have bailed out GM and Chrysler, it makes no sense that people can trade in their American car for a foreign one and get this incentive. Your gas mileage rational makes no sense. You have to get better gas mileage to receive the incentive whether you are buying an American or foreign car. So limiting it to American cars would make no difference as far as gas mileage. Also there are restrictions on what cars can be traded in, so I see no reason why it cannot be limited to only certain American models. It should be for American cars not based on any foreign car. It does not matter if a Chrysler 300 is made here or in Canada. The benefit is for Chrysler here. Toyota and other foriegn manufacturers build cars here because it is to their financial benefit to do so. If that changed for any reason, they would pull out immediately.

Edited July 31, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

:DApparently some people weren't ready.:rolleyes:

[Guest bkazmer]

I hope it won't offend you to extend your point - if you want the parent to be US -based (and I'm not sure Chrysler can still meet that criterion) for the reasons you state, then shouldn't it also be important that the final assembly plant be employing US workers? A vehicle made for an American OEM in an American plant (while still acknowledging the earlier point about part source content) has a greater economic benefit than one made elsewhere, as well as supporting the manufacturing capability you mention.

I don't think a Chevy made in Mexico is necessarily more "domestic" than a Toyota made in Kentucky, or a Suzuki imported with a GM badge.

[Dave@Moon]

GM, Ford, and Chrysler all made donations for the 9/11 tragedy. Where was Toyota's donation?

See snopes.com: Automaker 9/11 Contributions

Edited July 31, 2009 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[LINC400]

I hope it won't offend you to extend your point - if you want the parent to be US -based (and I'm not sure Chrysler can still meet that criterion) for the reasons you state, then shouldn't it also be important that the final assembly plant be employing US workers? A vehicle made for an American OEM in an American plant (while still acknowledging the earlier point about part source content) has a greater economic benefit than one made elsewhere, as well as supporting the manufacturing capability you mention.

I don't think a Chevy made in Mexico is necessarily more "domestic" than a Toyota made in Kentucky, or a Suzuki imported with a GM badge.

A factory of course benefits whatever city it is located in. However, that does not mean that one or two plants in a country is the same as the company being from that country. If GM for example were to close its Canadian plant, they would not build cars in Japan instead. They are still based here, and would use factories they have here. If there was some war in Mexico, GM would not be on Mexico's side. They would be on ours. Nowadays factories generally produce certain models, not all of the company's products like they did in the old days. If the models built in that plant are not selling or discontinued, they can just close the plant and use their other assembly plants. So just the location of a plant is not the same as being from that country.

So yes, a Chevy made in Mexico is therefore more domestic than a Toyota built in Kentucky. A Suzuki rebadged as a GM, however, is still a Suzuki.

[Guest Siegfried]

Today is Friday the 31st. and after less then 1 week the 'CASH FOR CLUNKERS' program is BANKRUPT!!! or almost so... according to the AM national news.

Doggone, apparently another boondoggle for our country/economy..

YEE HAW...

[LINC400]

See snopes.com: Automaker 9/11 Contributions

Ok, so perhaps the original article I read was incorrect. However, over the past 80-100 years, I would say that Ford, GM, and Chrysler have contributed a lot more to this country than Toyota has.

[joe_padavano]

That is nice that Toyota is built here and contains U.S. made parts. However, it is not an American car.

This is probably getting further off topic, but I'm still looking for an analysis to determine whether it's better to buy a "foreign" car built in the US by US workers and using US-sourced parts, or an "American" car built outside the US by non-US workers. Which one contributes more to the US economy? I don't have an answer, I'd just like to read a rational discussion of it.

I haven't been able to find the article now, but the Washington Post recently published an article about North American content similar to the one Dave cited. Note that I said North American content, not domestic (US-sourced) content. According to that article, the vehicle with the highest North American content was the Crown Vic, with something north of 90%. Of course, the Crown Vic is built in Canada.

Again, according to this article, the vehicle with the greatest North American content that was actually assembled in the US was the Toyota Sienna minivan.

[R W Burgess]

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

<!-- google_ad_section_start -->More debate over the clunker bill, as 2 Billion more is rushed through..........dealers having severe problems getting paperwork processed by the government.........

"There are a lot of questions about how the administration administered this program. If they can't handle something as simple as this, how would we handle health care?" the Ohio Republican told The Associated Press.

House approves $2B more for 'cash for clunkers' - Yahoo! News

Wayne<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

[Guest bkazmer]

Joe P your question is I think a good one and not well served by a superficial jingoistic answer. Consider:

some of your money goes to the dealer and his employees.

Some of that money goes as franchise fees to the OEM, I think - others here have better info on this than I

some goes to the final assembly plant workers

some goes to the part and material suppliers, direct and indirect

some pays for the R&D, marketing, HQ, etc of the OEM, and profit

The supplier and OEM spend some of their money at both US and foreign locations. For example, when I deal with GM, sometimes it involves Warren, MI, sometimes PATAC in Shanghai. Sometimes Toyota works through the Ann Arbor, MI tech center, sometimes Japan, sometimes California. Volkswagen work may go through Puebla, MX, Wolfsburg, Germany, or soon Chattanooga, TN.

Now when you ask what is "better" I guess it means for what? The US content probably relates most to the workers employed. The nameplate relates to the headquarters supported. As to business ethics supported, that's another factor pretty well represented by the supplier polls.

This may sound hopeless, but I only mean to say that if you want to use your purchase as a "vote" on some of these things, look beyond the superficial.

[MCHinson]

Since this one is already a wide ranging discussion, I guess one more tirade won't hurt much...

From my limited reading on this issue, I think that like many other federal programs, way too much of the amount allocated for this program went to administer the program. I don't think it was a good idea, but the White House and the Congress did not ask for my opinion, nor do I think they are going to be asking me for advice anytime soon.

As far as the discussion about foreign versus domestic, for me personally, If I ever purchase a new vehicle again, I will do my best to make sure that it suits my needs, is as efficient as practical while meeting my needs, makes me happy, is fairly reasonably priced (I know this is a pipe dream), has a name plate on it that I recognize as an American brand, has a final assembly point in North America... and if at all possible, is actually assembled in the United States of America.

That is my opinion of the best contribution to my country's welfare that I can make as a Patriotic American.

[Dave@Moon]

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

<!-- google_ad_section_start -->More debate over the clunker bill, as 2 Billion more is rushed through..........dealers having severe problems getting paperwork processed by the government.........

"There are a lot of questions about how the administration administered this program. If they can't handle something as simple as this, how would we handle health care?" the Ohio Republican told The Associated Press.

House approves $2B more for 'cash for clunkers' - Yahoo! News

Wayne<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

What was that about politics and this forum again?:D:D

[keiser31]

What was that about politics and this forum again?:D:D

Some people just can't help themselves from incorporating it, I guess. I actually don't read most of it when it gets like that. I just skim over it. Since politics are not my forte, I don't add it to threads.

[Dave@Moon]

JThis may sound hopeless, but I only mean to say that if you want to use your purchase as a "vote" on some of these things, look beyond the superficial.

This isn't a "vote" mentality, it's a subsidy mentality. Nobody buys a car (or should buy a car) as an act of charity.

I go out of my way to buy locally made products myself, but not to my own detriment. My lastest car was made in Japan, with about a 1% domestic content. Even the Good Year tires (the last major American-owned tire brand by the way) said "Made in Japan". I bought it becuase it reliably answered all of my needs at a good price, and answered to my practical desire to help this earth be a better place for my kids. If the same thing was available locally I'd have bought that, but I'm not going to put up with less for my money just to support one company over another because it's closer.

And neither will most people. And the more people appeal to them to do so, the more they unintentionally reinforce the image of an inferior product from a failing company.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Dave@Moon
added word "major" (see edit history)

[ghostymosty]

This program was not meant to help the manufacturers, just to help the dealers who have been having a hard time selling more than 4 or 5 cars in a month. It helps keep the dealership employees working instead of getting laid off. The manufacturers already got their bailout and that is all they are going to get. The dealerships sell cars regardless of where they are built so the program didn't differentiate between makes of vehicles.

Would I take advantage of the program? You betcha! I've got $4000 in my 91 Mercury Grand Marquis after just getting it roadworthy for, hopefully, the next 4 years. If I tried to sell it to some private party I would be hard pressed to get $2500 for it even though it only has 74,000 miles on it, if the government is willing to give me $4500 for it and I could stand driving in a Kia Rio type vehicle it would be a great deal for me. Financially, I can't afford to be concerned about what someone else can afford, just me; unfortunately I am still laid off and can't take advantage of the program during the time it is going to be around.

[Guest Bob Call]

David in Riverside

It's nice that you think this government interference in private business is good and you would like to take advantage of it but you have been laid off. I was recently forced into retirement by a layoff, due to government interference in the industry I worked in, and now live on social security, a small retirement of $300 per month, and unemployment insurance.

I am tickled to death that I can support this government program by paying income taxes on my unemployment, retirement and part of my social security because the unemployment and retirement puts me in the income bracket where I have to pay income tax on the social security. I'm going to be really thrilled when I start sharing in the cost of providing inferior government medical care to illegal aliens!

___________________________________________

We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up and eatin' that rainbow stew.

Merle Haggard 1981

CMT : Videos : Merle Haggard : Rainbow Stew

[Peter Gariepy]

Here is what SEMA has to say:

"The $1 billion vehicle scrappage program authorized under the “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act” (CARS) began on July 24. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a rule on how the program will operate. Although it proved impossible to stop, SEMA worked with lawmakers to minimize the harm the program would needlessly impose on thousands of independent repair shops, auto restorers, customizers and hobbyists across the country. SEMA persuaded Congress to spare cars 25-years and older from the scrappage heap and expand parts recycling opportunities under the new law.

Consumers will receive a $3,500 voucher if they buy a new passenger car that was rated at 4 mpg higher than the older vehicle, or a new pickup/SUV that was at least 2 mpg higher than the old truck (1 mpg for heavy-duty trucks/vans). They will receive a $4,500 if the passenger car was at least 10 mpg higher and the truck/SUV was at least 5 mpg higher (2 mpg for heavy-duty trucks/vans). The new vehicle must have a manufacturer's suggested retail price of less than $45,000.

Lawmakers authorized $1 billion worth of vouchers towards the new car purchases made between July 1–November 1, 2009. Lawmakers may seek to authorize another $3 billion later this summer to extend the program into 2010. The NHTSA is hiring 30 staffers to implement the four-month program and another 200 contract employees to process registration forms and issue vouchers.

SEMA helped convince lawmakers to permit most parts to be recycled, including the drive train if the transmission, drive shaft or rear end are sold as separate parts. Dealers are required to disable the engines before sending them off for scrappage. The dealers must drain the oil and replace it with a sodium silicate solution, then run the engine until it locks-up.

The NHTSA has established a website to answer questions about the program: CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Home - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”. "

[Peter Gariepy]

Here are the rules as stated on CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Home - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”

* Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date

* Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify

* Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)

* Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in

* You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase

* Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.

* The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

[MarkV]

This is a disgusting program, it almost makes me cry to think that they are murdering perfect cars, by poisoning them! This is a terrible program from a terrible congress and President, both parties included. I hope that they fail, we need a 3rd party or better quality human beings for both parties

[ghostymosty]

Bob, it's nice that you actually qualified for unemployment insurance, I didn't. It's nice that you have a pension and can actually retire but I am looking at having to work for the rest of my life because MY tax dollars supported YOUR Social Security check but won't be there for me in about 20 years. YOU are not supporting this CARS program, your great grandchildren will be paying for it after you're gone.

And FYI, your tax dollars are already paying inflated hospital emergency room prices for illegal alien medical care.

I don't qualify for unemployment checks because I did what a good American is supposed to do. I went back to school and cut work down to part time. I bought and did the maintenance on a car that would last me about 4 years, didn't qualify for student aid because I had been making just a little over the limit at my formerly full time job. All my plans would have been fine except for the GREEDY AMERICAN BUSINESSES AND INVESTORS who jacked up the price of oil in the name of quick profit and made it too expensive to drive to school, crashed the economy and made it impossible to go back to full time at my job and eventually cost me my job in a place that has some of the worst unemployment in the nation.

Any wonder I don't care if business has to run around a little more government interference?

David in Riverside

It's nice that you think this government interference in private business is good and you would like to take advantage of it but you have been laid off. I was recently forced into retirement by a layoff, due to government interference in the industry I worked in, and now live on social security, a small retirement of $300 per month, and unemployment insurance.

I am tickled to death that I can support this government program by paying income taxes on my unemployment, retirement and part of my social security because the unemployment and retirement puts me in the income bracket where I have to pay income tax on the social security. I'm going to be really thrilled when I start sharing in the cost of providing inferior government medical care to illegal aliens!

___________________________________________

We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up and eatin' that rainbow stew.

Merle Haggard 1981

CMT : Videos : Merle Haggard : Rainbow Stew

[Dave@Moon]

This is a disgusting program, it almost makes me cry to think that they are murdering perfect cars, by poisoning them!

According to NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration), The top 5 "cars" traded in under the C.A.R.S. program (thus far) are:

1. Ford Explorer

2. Jeep Cherokee

3. Jeep Grand Cherokee

4. Ford Windstar

5. Dodge Caravan.

All are either SUVs or older minivans. At a maximum worth of $4500 (unless the owners are foolish), I doubt any are "perfect". None are "cars".

The top 5 cars purchased under the program thus far are:

1. Ford Focus

2. Honda Civic

3. Toyota Corolla

4. Toyota Prius

5. Ford Escape.

All but the Prius are U.S. built cars of high domestic content. Prius assembly here is expected within a few years (currently delayed due to economic downturn).

Also stated by them, people are trading in their gas guzzlers for the highest mileage cars (and thus qualifying for the $4500.00 maximum trade in) by a factor of 2:1.

Watch video: NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast- msnbc.com (see "Cash for Clunkers in High Gear", 8/1/09)

I wonder how much people would be complaining if this program failed in any way?:confused:

Edited August 2, 2009 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[Guest Hinckley]

I am having some serious issues with this program. Here is one of the trucks taken in trade by a local dealer. It runs as nice as it looks but the engine will be destoryed next week.

When I checked Friday evening they were working on a deal that would result in a 1989 Cherokee in even better condition being added to the fast growing collection of vehicles scheduled for destruction.

I will be adding more photos on my blog - ROUTE 66 CHRONICLES

[MarkV]

According to NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration), The top 5 "cars" traded in under the C.A.R.S. program (thus far) are:

1. Ford Explorer

2. Jeep Cherokee

3. Jeep Grand Cherokee

4. Ford Windstar

5. Dodge Caravan.

Well, guess what Dave, most of the cars I have seen on the news have been early 1990's lesabres, Some of these that you listed, some older passenger cars, etc. All cars, which people with not a lot of money would love to have regardless of use of gas. This program, benefits the government by raising funds for the auto industry. It benefits the rich, those who can afford new cars. This hurts the poor, who would have bought these vehicles for a couple grand and driven their families in them. Democrats claim to be for the 'working man' yet they pull stuff like this and the bailouts.

[Guest Dean_H.]

The program is disgusting. What a waste! I read that DeMint of NC is attempting to stop this outrage. I hope he succeeds.

[MarkV]

In addition Dave, I always find it funny, when someone who is anti-big business like yourself, comes out and supports this kind of thing, just because a Democrat did it. Lets not forget government is big business, and they are getting bigger, with the addition of car dealers, health insurance, etc.

[Dave@Moon]

Well, guess what Dave, most of the cars I have seen on the news have been early 1990's lesabres,

Interesting, since no LeSabre except the 1984 & 1985 models qualify for the program. I think your "news" may be a little skewed.

In addition Dave, I always find it funny, when someone who is anti-big business like yourself, comes out and supports this kind of thing, just because a Democrat did it. Lets not forget government is big business, and they are getting bigger, with the addition of car dealers, health insurance, etc.

Who said anything about being for or against 'big business"? Unlike many people (some here), there is a contingent among Americans who are concerned for the best interests of the country and not any one political party or philosophy. It's obvious that all opposition to this program, and I mean all, is pure partisanship. It's working, doing exactly what it was supposed to do at a spectacular level, and the guy some people voted for didn't get credit for it. Boo-hoo.

Also, if you quit pretending to care about "poor people", you'll notice that this program is a net zero gain to the available pool of used cars now and in the future. You'll then notice that the only effect is to effectively provide a newer and more fuel-efficient pool of cars to used car shoppers in the short-term future.:cool: The program may very well slightly accelerate the depreciation of some used cars simply by making a 10 year old car "older" to the marketplace than it was last month. It's a small effect, and that too will pass.

Blind, unreasoning partisanship probably never will pass, nor will it ever be kept out of here (apparently).

[Dave@Moon]

It benefits the rich, those who can afford new cars.

If you trade in an eligible car (or most likely an SUV) on the #1 purchased vehicle on the list (Ford Focus), and pay list price for the car (which is likely the case now that supplies of fuel-efficient cars are becomming strained by the popularity of this program), you're buying a brand new car for about $11,000. For a truly inexpensive car like the Hyundai Accent you're talking about $7,500, again paying list price for the car. Most buyers will fincance those purchases over 5 years, which @ todays average interest rate of 6% results in a car payment of $212.66 and $145.00 respectively.

These are rich people?:confused:

Edited August 2, 2009 by Dave@Moon
added "eligible" and "(or most likely an SUV)" (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

The program is disgusting. What a waste! I read that DeMint of NC is attempting to stop this outrage. I hope he succeeds.

If it wasn't for the changes to the program made at SEMA's request (no car over 25 years old, salvageable parts retained), I would agree. However that's not what's going on, and to oppose a non-reality isn't productive.

I think SEMA is to be praised heartily for their efforts at making this progam a success without permitting it to be a disaster at the same time!:cool:

[MarkV]

Dave- Your response is partisan and I think I got your panties in a knot! LOL! . How is this in the best interests of the country? This will not even put a dent into your greenhouse gas bunk, talk to china, india, and the rest, see if they are willing to reduce...

"It's obvious that all opposition to this program, and I mean all, is pure partisanship"

You cannot say that Dave, you know its funny how you and your ilk are repeating Bush-era tactics. Any opposition to him at first was 'pure partisanship' and now the same goes for this failed administration, see a pattern? How anyone who questions or opposes is immediatly labeled as partisan.

"doing exactly what it was supposed to do at a spectacular level"

Tell that to the dealers who are fronting the money and may or may not be paid

"Interesting, since no LeSabre except the 1984 & 1985 models qualify for the program. I think your "news" may be a little skewed"

I meant a park avenue : Cash for Clunkers Rebate Program - Fuel Efficient Vehicle Voucher | GM

if you look at the lesabre and park avenue they look the same! And I was watching CNN, and yes they are skewed!

"You'll then notice that the only effect is to effectively provide a newer and more fuel-efficient pool of cars to used car shoppers in the short-term future."

And much more expensive, how much does a 1988 Astro Van sell for compared to a 2003? Same vehicle more $$$. This is ending the era when you can buy an $800 car and instead have to buy a $5000 used car

"Also, if you quit pretending to care about "poor people","

Exactly what I have been saying about your party for years! And I do care about the poor, I find it interesting how you stoop to the same ad-hominim attacks that Limbaugh does. In addition I have a middle aged friend who is poor cannot afford anything, she has a 9 year old and has a late 1990's Lumina, which, because of the obama cash for clunkers, she would have not been able to buy this car for $800. So, who does this benefit? Those who can afford new cars, government and the car companies, financing companies, and the list goes on eventually this will have newer used cars on the market and she will not be able to afford one, even used!.... THIS HURTS THE POOR!!!!!!!

"Blind, unreasoning partisanship probably never will pass, nor will it ever be kept out of here (apparently)"

What I say everytime I see your posts!

Just word to the wise, you can trade in your 1998 Corvette or 2009 Lucerne under the cash for clunkers!

Cash for Clunkers Rebate Program - Fuel Efficient Vehicle Voucher | GM

By the way I am a registered INDEPENDENT and I have voted for both parties!

[Dave@Moon]

Just word to the wise, you can trade in your 1998 Corvette or 2009 Lucerne under the cash for clunkers!

That's good, because unless your Park Avenue was supercharged (and d@mn few were) it doesn't qualify for the program either! Check the real sources for information: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsCat3OrOther.shtml.

I'm through debating the irrational now. Thanks.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[MarkV]

"If you trade in an eligible car (or most likely an SUV) on the #1 purchased vehicle on the list (Ford Focus), and pay list price for the car (which is likely the case now that supplies of fuel-efficient cars are becomming strained by the popularity of this program), you're buying a brand new car for about $11,000. For a truly inexpensive car like the Hyundai Accent you're talking about $7,500, again paying list price for the car. Most buyers will fincance those purchases over 5 years, which @ todays average interest rate of 6% results in a car payment of $212.66 and $145.00 respectively.

These are rich people?"

Some CANNOT AFFORD THAT! But, now you are admitting that this has the possibility of hurting the poor through your statement. Shall we do the math Dave?

$10.25 an hour x 8 hrs daily x 5 days a week x 4 weeks in a month= $1640 a month

now with rent being around $1000-$1200 here in CA

$1100 + $ 200 (food) + $60 (car insurance) + $100 (gas) + $100 (utilities)= $1560 with $80 left over for clothes, etc. Now Dave, how much do we need for a payment? hmmm $145 min. now as far as I know $80 does not equal $145. My friend with the kid and 1998 Lumina makes this.....

[MarkV]

Dave go to the GM website:

Cash for Clunkers Rebate Program - Fuel Efficient Vehicle Voucher | GM

And that one obviously was!

"I through debating the irrational now. Thanks."

Now, now Dave, I through? LOL! I am through debating illiterate liberals and conservatives who are brainwashed by their parties, and are not willing to listen to anyone else, and would rather just label them as 'partisan' or whatever. Instead of coming up with an intelligent debate not based on politics, but people

[MarkV]

In addition you didnt argue about the lucerne or the vette BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE PARK AVENUE ARE ON THERE! By the way, notice how slow and lame looking the gov't website is? Isnt it Ironic that such a lame program would have such a terrible website!

[Dave@Moon]

Hopefully people will have avoided some of the misinformation in a few of the posts here. Be cautioned that if you're debating whether your vehicle qualifies for the C.A.R.S. program, the only web site that can tell you that accurately is the US-DOE's site: CARS - Car Allowance Rebate System .

Do not trust other (often dated and fallible) sources. If you trade a car in to a dealer as incorectly eligible for the C.A.R.S. program, whether it's your mistake, the manufacturer's mistake, or the dealer's, you will likely be responsible for making up the difference to the dealer.

(Also, if anyone's dumb enough to trade in a good 2009 Lucerne or 1998 'Vette for $4500, please consider contacting me first!)

[MarkV]

I went to the official website and the 09 Lucerne and the 98 vette do qualify. Now, if you cared so much about the environment why would you want anyone to hit you up if they had these? Kind of Al Gore-ish hypocrisy dave! Have you also not thought, that the people who have the money for a new car would have taken care of their old one and now we will not have good quality older vehicles to buy, which have not been traded into this program? What about non-profits who thrive on donation of cars, these more well off trade ins will not be donated and will now instead be scrapped. What about the value of these vehicles? Non profits will be hurt by that. As for not having up to date info, the GM website is up to date and uses the gov't website as it's reference.

"Do not trust other (often dated and fallible) sources"

And the gov't isnt?

[MarkV]

Look here:

Do I have to pay State or local sales tax on the amount of the CARS program credit?

The question of whether a consumer must pay State or local sales tax on the amount of the CARS program credit would depend on the sales tax law of each State or locality.

HAHHAHAHA! win win for the government!