Cash for Clunkers!

[MCHinson]

1948Lincoln,

I don't like this program either... but no matter how much it is discussed here, it is not going to change the program. If you want to see it changed, write your congressman. Only congress can change it.

Now, at the risk of sounding mean...

You are never going to convince Dave to change his mind on this issue and Dave is never going to convince you to change your mind on this issue.

Can we all please just agree to disagree and quit re-hashing it over and over again?

[keiser31]

THANKS, Matt....we needed that!

[Dave@Moon]

Can we all please just agree to disagree and quit re-hashing it over and over again?

Matt, we all can have differences of opinion, but when factually incorrect information is being spread using this site we all suffer. And a lot of people will go to extreme lengths to defend doing just that.

Wes has thus far made 5 posts on this thread since I stopped directly addressing anything he posted. My last post (in blue) is there to be sure no one is decieved into using incorrect information regarding the eligiibility of their vehicle, as it is up to the buyer to assure that the car qualifies. I honestly don't care about (and haven't read a lot of) the rest of his posts.

If Wes (or anyone else) wants to think that Hyundai Accent buyers are rich, or that the C.A.R.S. program is plot against our automotive legacy, that's fine by me. I don't agree and have posted as much (once), and haven't "re-hashed" anything. Unless he posts something else that is factually incorrect (and not just an opinion) I don't see any point in responding to him again either. But if and when someone comes on here and is told that their '91 Chrysler New Yorker is worth $4500 in this program when it isn't, they'll blame us for letting people like Wes use this site to spread false information.

That's not something to "agree to disagree" on. That's allowing a lie to circulate.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Dave@Moon
added (not just an opinion) (see edit history)

[MarkV]

"Wes has thus far made 5 posts on this thread since I stopped directly addressing anything he posted. My last post (in blue) is there to be sure no one is decieved into using incorrect information regarding the eligiibility of their vehicle, as it is up to the buyer to assure that the car qualifies. I honestly don't care about (and haven't read a lot of) the rest of his posts."

Typical liberal behavior, as well as Conservative, I used your source and GM's, which is now gov't owned. Oh, and thanks for your great community service educating all of 'us dummies' out there! We would never know about that crappy gov't website if it wasnt for you!

"Wes has thus far made 5 posts on this thread since I stopped directly addressing anything he posted."

Because you have no answers when the truth is put forth, you only respond with attacks

"But if and when someone comes on here and is told that their '91 Chrysler New Yorker is worth $4500 in this program when it isn't, they'll blame us for letting people like Wes use this site to spread false information."

Twisting the facts dave, I never said Chrysler New Yorker, funny how you and Obama like to re-write history, and twist people's words

"If Wes (or anyone else) wants to think that Hyundai Accent buyers are rich"

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE RICH, however, I used the example of my friend, who would be considered poor, who bought a Lumina for $800, a car that would be scrapped under Obama's program. This story you could not answer, I even used the facts of her income, she couldnt even afford an accent! You avoided the truth as usual Dave.

[MarkV]

"factually incorrect information "

Name one thing I said that was factually incorrect? ? ? BE SPECIFIC!

[Terry Bond]

According to a local newspaper columnist, this will end up like the housing mess - dealers want to move units so they'll sell - (credit is easy), the consumer is getting into car payments they can't afford just so they can get more for their clunkers, etc. I hear the repo man warming up his truck right now!

Terry

[Dave@Moon]

Terry,

I strongly disagree with you that it's easy to get credit on new cars these days. In this post-derivitive age credit is anything but easy. Even credit cards are harder to get now. Compared to this time last year qualifying for a car loan is many times more difficult. A credit rating that would get you a top-shelf loan in 2007 will leave you out in the cold in 2009.

The economic recovery has progressed from the pits of last autumn, but it hasn't come back that much yet.

[MarkV]

"Even credit cards are harder to get now"

Dave, haha, I am an unemployed college student and I get about 1 offer a week, I have nearly 50 grand in credit (not debt!) but credit from every card you can imagine!

"for a car loan is many times more difficult"

Very scientific, how much more Dave?

"The economic recovery has progressed from the pits of last autumn, but it hasn't come back that much yet"

Are people getting their jobs back? Are people getting any jobs? I think what you saw last autumn was politics plain and simple. The economy is as bad then as now, unemployment keeps going up and the billions of bailout have failed, and instead it was a pork bill. Things are getting worse not better

[Steve Moskowitz]

Easy guys, let's try and avoid personal attacks/

Terry, credit for cars easy now?? Farthest thing from the truth boss. It is still much more difficult since last fall. Notice the disclaimers in most national ads from manufacturers. Credit is still one of the biggest issues new car dealers are faced with today. Higher downpayments and higher scores needed.

[jdome]

Car financing is the easiest money to get right now. There is a local dealer that has just about every franchise (except the Chrysler franchise just canceled) who is running a generic ad that he has "46 new models that qualify for the clunker program starting at $5990 with a qualifying clunker trade." "Credit no problem. If you have a steady job we'll get 'ya financed".

I Was at a BBQ this weekend and there was someone there that works at a bank finance dept. The man talk got around to cars & clunker law. Many of these replacement cars list under $15,000. THe $4500 clunker rebate represents 1/3rd down. You might not get a 6 year loan on the balance but a 3 year will keep you ahead of the residual value if they have to take the car back. You can be on welfare today as long as you are not delinquent on any loans you can buy a $30,000 car if you have half down on trade &/or cash, but you might not get a $3000 wide screen TV financed. Thats because cars have a predicable residual value and a legal mechanism to get the car back and wholesale it to any number of dealers in town with just a phone call. The banks are happy as long as the loan is structured to keep the buyer ahead of the resale value. Real estate used to be that way but prices are no longer predictable and banks are already sitting on property they can't unload. What about whether or not the buyer can make payments? The banks job is to churn money, not plan household budgets.

[Steve Moskowitz]

jdome, sorry to disagree with you but what a dealer advertises and what all the trade journals are writing are two different things. Naturally a strong downpayment as I said in my first post helps a lot! However, according to all the published articles in Automotive News and the friends I still have in the business, credit is still tight. Maybe it is a matter of perspective or not an issue in certain communities but money from GMAC, Chrysler Credit or other captives is still not apparently flowing.

[Guest SwiftBuicks]

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?

What a crock. For starters, I own a Toyota 4-runner and pay more in insurance because it's a foreign label. That's crooked and as dirty as the word politics. Am I more likely to file a claim or get more money in one because it's foreign? NO!!!! Secondly, you can take all that garbage grease monkey patriotism and stick it into the Nuclear Arms program. Donations for 9/11? What hogwash. Have you ever had a loved one die in an air tragedy? I have. Sure there's plenty that want to throw a lot of money at grief, death and sorrow. Then they can look the other way and feel satisfied when they see the weeping. Get real. All brands are international ones and should be treated that way. I pay more in insurance because the sleezy Democrats bend over backwards for the UAW. In modern warfare in the age of terrorism, automobiles serve only one purpose, they can be loaded with explosives and turned into a suicidal bomb. The thinking behind singling out and supporting domestic manufacturers as part of any future war effort remains archaic and rather stupid. Since domesticly made autos need foriegn parts, even if they were necessary, all manufacture would cease without foriegn allies. Edited August 3, 2009 by Steve Moskowitz
offensive word (see edit history)

[MarkV]

I will not ever buy a Japanese car. If I have to, I will keep buying used American, oh, thats right cash for clunkers is scrapping them! LOL!

[LINC400]

What a crock. For starters, I own a Toyota 4-runner and pay more in insurance because it's a foreign label. Goddamn!!! That's crooked and as dirty as the word politics. Am I more likely to file a claim or get more money in one because it's foreign? NO!!!! Secondly, you can take all that garbage grease monkey patriotism and stick it into the Nuclear Arms program. Donations for 9/11? What hogwash. Have you ever had a loved one die in an air tragedy? I have. Sure there's plenty that want to throw a lot of money at grief, death and sorrow. Then they can look the other way and feel satisfied when they see the weeping. Get real. All brands are international ones and should be treated that way. I pay more in insurance because the sleezy Democrats bend over backwards for the UAW. In modern warfare in the age of terrorism, automobiles serve only one purpose, they can be loaded with explosives and turned into a suicidal bomb. The thinking behind singling out and supporting domestic manufacturers as part of any future war effort remains archaic and rather stupid. Since domesticly made autos need foriegn parts, even if they were necessary, all manufacture would cease without foriegn allies.

If you pay too much for insurance. Look for another insurance company.

I don't know anyone that was involved with 9/11, and I am sure nothing can take away the pain of their loss. But I think they would rather receive donations and aid than not.

No one made cars for WWII. They built tanks, marine and aircraft engines, etc. The only car type vehicle made was the Jeep. I don't know what or if they would ever be needed to produce for another war effort if one ever happened. But I would rather rely on GM, Ford, and Chrysler to come to our country's aid than hope that Japan would, that is assuming they are on our side at the time.

If all brands are international, why isn't Japan, China, or Germany bailing out GM and Chrysler? And should the U.S. bail out Toyota or Kia if they ever get in trouble? I don't think so.

Edited August 3, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest Dean_H.]

Checking out the government clunker site probably isn't good. If you agree to the terms, it may invite government snooping on your computer privacy. Have a look at this video for more info. The real reason behind the Cash for Clunkers program LewRockwell.com Blog

[Steve Moskowitz]

This thread is about to go poof, too many complaints. Not even sure why we are giving everyone a warning but this needs to be toned down.

[Reatta Man]

All,

A little different perspective here.

This may seem selfish, but after driving by two dealerships here and seeing what is being taken off the streets, I'm in favor of this.

Both dealerships were Toyota stores. One dealership is having to put his clunkers in a field. I don't know if he meant to make a spectacle of this, but it is easy to drive by and see them because the empty field is at the corner of I-410 South and I-35 South here in San Antonio. He easily has 100 cars there, possibly even 150 cars. They are some of the sorriest pieces of crap you have ever seen.

Why am I in favor of this? Because San Antonio drivers are notorious about driving with NO insurance! And, whether they are buying a cheap Kia or a loaded up high-end car, I know if they finance it, they are going to be FORCED to keep full coverage insurance on it! So the next time someone rear ends me, or runs a light and hits me, I won't be using my UM/UIM coverage because they didn't have any coverage.

And, looking at these clunker vehicles makes me wonder if their steering, brakes and other safety equipment was working. So, that means the next time someone slams on their brakes after realizing the light is red while they were sending a text message, maybe they will actually stop instead of sliding through the intersection into another car.

One more thing to consider. I'm not into this green movement or the global warming 'sky is falling' mentality. I think there is a lot of evidence to indicate these movements are just another money grab from special interests and the government. But I KNOW those clunkers are spewing a ton of pollution, even IF they still have their original emissions equipment in place (doubtful). Why is this important? San Antonio is just barely an EPA 'attainment' city, meaning our air is just barely under the standards that require very extensive annual emissions testing. So, if these clunkers being off the road keeps the air cleaner, and keeps my annual inspection at its' current price of $14.50, rather than about $60 the way I hear it is in Dallas and Houston, then great!

Joe

Edited August 3, 2009 by Reatta Man (see edit history)

[Barry Wolk]

This thread is about to go poof

What took you so long?

[Barry Wolk]

All,

A little different perspective here.

This may seem selfish, but after driving by two dealerships here and seeing what is being taken off the streets, I'm in favor of this.

Both dealerships were Toyota stores. One dealership is having to put his clunkers in a field. I don't know if he meant to make a spectacle of this, but it is easy to drive by and see them because the empty field is at the corner of I-410 South and I-35 South here in San Antonio. He easily has 100 cars there, possibly even 150 cars. They are some of the sorriest pieces of crap you have ever seen.

Why am I in favor of this? Because San Antonio drivers are notorious about driving with NO insurance! And, whether they are buying a cheap Kia or a loaded up high-end car, I know if they finance it, they are going to be FORCED to keep full coverage insurance on it! So the next time someone rear ends me, or runs a light and hits me, I won't be using my UM/UIM coverage because they didn't have any coverage.

And, looking at these clunker vehicles makes me wonder if their steering, brakes and other safety equipment was working. So, that means the next time someone slams on their brakes after realizing the light is red while they were sending a text message, maybe they will actually stop instead of sliding through the intersection into another car.

One more thing to consider. I'm not into this green movement or the global warming 'sky is falling' mentality. I think there is a lot of evidence to indicate these movements are just another money grab from special interests and the government. But I KNOW those clunkers are spewing a ton of pollution, even IF they still have their original emissions equipment in place (doubtful). Why is this important? San Antonio is just barely an EPA 'attainment' city, meaning our air is just barely under the standards that require very extensive annual emissions testing. So, if these clunkers being off the road keeps the air cleaner, and keeps my annual inspection at its' current price of $14.50, rather than about $60 the way I hear it is in Dallas and Houston, then great!

Joe

Well stated.

[Dave@Moon]

Checking out the government clunker site probably isn't good. If you agree to the terms, it may invite government snooping on your computer privacy. Have a look at this video for more info. The real reason behind the Cash for Clunkers program LewRockwell.com Blog

Dean, I have a vast array of anti-spyware and anti-malware programs on this computer. I did several searches for no reason on the DOT web site just now, and did not so much as aquire a single innocuous cookie, let alone any malware.

A single hit on your link to this blog on a right-wing web site gave me 5 tracking cookies.

Of the 2 web sites, only one can so much as identify who's accessing it. What Mr. Rockwell does with that information is anyone's guess.

[Guest kdodge]

You should look at the agreement page at the cash for clunkers page. It states that when you log on, your computer becomes the property of the US government and they can access everything in your computer.

[LINC400]

A club member ran across a very intersting article from 1966. It was about the WWII scrap drive and described how many rare and desireable cars were destroyed. It then went on to say how they were handbuilt, unique, like works of art. It ended by saying that none of the mass produced crap from the 1950's and 1960's would ever be collectible or worth anything. Very interesting.

If unsafe, junk cars are actually being taken off the road, I guess that is good. However, I would have to say that this probably won't accomplish much in the long run. It also removes decent, reliable transportation for people that can't afford new cars. Not everyone can drive a Kia. Not everyone can afford a car payment even if it is only $200 a month. There are lots of low income families that need the larger vehicles, or small contractors that need a work van, pick up, or SUV. Plus when this program ends, there will probably again be a big slump in new car sales because anyone that was thinking about buying a car in the future would have bought now if their clunker meets the criteria. As far as getting old gas guzzling cars off the street, How many cars from the 1960's and 1970's do you see on the street? I don't even see that many cars from the 1980's. So why spend all the money to get rid of 1984+ cars that will be gone in a few years anyway?

[Dave@Moon]

You should look at the agreement page at the cash for clunkers page. It states that when you log on, your computer becomes the property of the US government and they can access everything in your computer.

But they don't have the means to do it. Mr. Rockwell, however, knows who you are. That's the point.

I think what you're reading is actually there to give warning to hackers that if they try and add their Pinto to the qualified list then they can go after them.

[Reatta Man]

You should look at the agreement page at the cash for clunkers page. It states that when you log on, your computer becomes the property of the US government and they can access everything in your computer.

Most in here will tell you that I am more conservative than many of the members in this forum. So understand when I say this that I am not in the ultra-left group at all.

But, the fact is, when you go from the subject into conspiracy theories and alot of other sidelines that have nothing to do with the subject, that is what, as Steve said, can make a subject go "poof!"

Can we please get back on track and leave the black helicopters and grassy knoll theories for another day? The actual discussion about cash for clunkers is interesting to read, both those that may agree or disagree with me.

But the sideline issues get to sound like way too many commercials for miracle cures and wonder mops during a football game. Not wanted, not needed....

Joe

[MarkV]

Why? Are people honestly that weak? If they are complaining they can comment here. It is good to have debate and argument and disagreement. This is how this country has gone into the toilet, because everyone is 'offended' and do not comment.

[LINC400]

It would be a shame if every time an interesting topic is brought up, it has to be shut down because it is controversial. If people don't like or disagree with comments, don't read the topic or post your own comments. Going to a moderator and complaining seems a lot like running to mommy and crying.

On the other hand most people in this thread were able to discuss the topic without bashing Democrats or Republicans, Bush or Obama, or government conspiracy theories. It has been repeatedly stated that those comments have no place here. Go to a political forum if you want to do that. Yet some people still cannot follow that simple rule.

[MarkV]

Well, the thing is, is it directly has to do with Obama, therefore whatever fallout happens is his fault, and lets not forget OBAMA OWNS AUTO COMPANIES! So, he does fit in with the car thing! LOL!

[LINC400]

It is quite simple. You can discuss the pros and cons of the program without blasting or praising Obama or anything else to do with politics.

[West Peterson]

... And without blasting one another, as well.

[Guest Skyking]

Last night I was talking with a friend who's son just traded in a Pathfinder using the clunker progam. They were at a Chevy dealership buying a new Malibu. My friend asked where they park the clunkers. The dealer told him and he walked over to see just how many were there. He spoted an Olds 442 in nice condition and freaked out!! He offered the dealer $5000 for the car and was told it can't be sold. So maybe this program isn't all that it's hyped up to be................some very nice cars are going to get destroyed. Maybe that's what big brother wants.

[Dave@Moon]

He spoted an Olds 442 in nice condition and freaked out!! He offered the dealer $5000 for the car and was told it can't be sold. So maybe this program isn't all that it's hyped up to be................some very nice cars are going to get destroyed. Maybe that's what big brother wants.

Bob, that's absurd.

First of all the cars accepted are limited to 1984 and newer. The only 442 models built since that date have been trim options on Cutlass Calais or Salon models, of which most had the top option 307 cu. in. V8s in them. At that, the retail value of any of those cars in good condition is over $5000, with good ones going for over $9000 (see: 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon 442 2 Door Coupe price report at NADAguides.com ). There were also some 442 trim options on some front wheel drive Cutlass Supremes in the early 1990s, but they wouldn't be eligible for the C.A.R.S. program.

Only an idiot of a dealer would take the government's promise of $4500 or less for a car he could sell for more, especially that much more. If it was a one of the eligible 442s, it's auction value is clearly more than than it's clunker value.

"Big Brother" wants to get rid of the gas-hog 1997 Tahoes and Expeditions people bought foolishly in 2004 and are now stuck with because their value is almost nil now. "He" wants to do it in a manner that will stop us mortgaging our future to the Chinese in order to give our present to Middle-East oil shieks. And "he" wants to maybe make it possible for civilization to continue for a few more generations by stopping climate change as much as possible.

I don't know of any "Big Brother" who has it in for old Oldsmobiles.

=================

BTW, in all the coverage I've seen on the news regarding this program the only car of any collector interest I've seen myself that was traded in was a late 1980s Mercedes 380/450 sedan. It was probably restorable, but not valuable enough for that to happen.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

The only 442 models built since that date have been trim options on Cutlass Calais or Salon models, of which most had the top option 307 cu. in. V8s in them.

BTW, unless it has the 307 in it no Cutlass model qualifies for the program, even the rear wheel drive models. All the other drivetrains better the 18 mpg average required.

[Guest Skyking]

Dave, I'm only telling you what he told me..............he knows his cars. Some people here in RI have been proven to be idiots.

[LINC400]

Only an idiot of a dealer would take the government's promise of $4500 or less for a car he could sell for more, especially that much more. If it was a one of the eligible 442s, it's auction value is clearly more than than it's clunker value.

You are assuming that new car dealers are interested in collectible cars and know their value. Most car dealers can't even tell you very much about the cars they are selling aside from a few points listed in their sales notes, much less one from another manufacturer from 20 years ago. Probably a rwd Cutlass doesn't even show up on their value guides so they figure it is worthless. A 442 package isn't going to mean anything to someone that doesn't know what a 442 is.

[joe_padavano]

. A 442 package isn't going to mean anything to someone that doesn't know what a 442 is.

At the risk of getting off-topic, this brings to mind the time in 1985 when I walked into the Oldsmobile dealership in Torrance, CA and asked about a 442. The salesman responded that the biggest engine they sold was the 307... not a 442. :eek:

And to come back on topic, looks like the Senate will concur with spending ANOTHER $2 BILLION on this waste of taxpayer money. Let's all remember this when taxes go up.

And I also have to ask the question, if keeping these cars off the road is the goal, why does the engine need to be destroyed? Wouldn't simply destroying the VIN tag do the same thing? A used 50,000 motor out of one of these "clunkers" will probably emit less and get better mileage than the 210,000 mile motor currently in my truck. Also, while a 5.7 liter small block Chevy may get less than 18 MPG in a Suburban, the same LS-series motor gets more than that in a Camaro or Corvette. Why is the one in the Suburban the evildoer?

Yes, I am well aware that this is simply political and environmentalist theater.

[MarkV]

Hey dave, you trading in your '97 vette or '09 Lucerne for the cash for clunkers? We need every liberal to walk the walk and talk the talk! LOL!

[Guest Skyking]

And to come back on topic, looks like the Senate will concur with spending ANOTHER $2 BILLION on this waste of taxpayer money. Let's all remember this when taxes go up.

QUOTE]

The only thing that bothers me about this progam is my tax dollars are being spent on foreign cars. Why are we helping other countries sell cars? I know my question will be objective, but it's my money and I think I've earned the right to ask............

[Dave@Moon]

And I also have to ask the question, if keeping these cars off the road is the goal, why does the engine need to be destroyed? Wouldn't simply destroying the VIN tag do the same thing? A used 50,000 motor out of one of these "clunkers" will probably emit less and get better mileage than the 210,000 mile motor currently in my truck. Also, while a 5.7 liter small block Chevy may get less than 18 MPG in a Suburban, the same LS-series motor gets more than that in a Camaro or Corvette. Why is the one in the Suburban the evildoer?

The whole point of the program is to update the fleet average in the U.S., both in terms of MPG and age. The purpose for this was (and to major extent still is, saving auto companies not withstanding) to lower our dependence on foreign oil for environmental and national security reasons. This is important because we're in real danger of ending civilized life on earth via climate change, and because we're spending ourselves into the grave feeding fleets of giant trucks few need.

If the motors were salvaged it would have the effect of extending the lives of vehicles that'd otherwise (and now still will) expire naturally. Strictly in the narrow terms of running vehicles it can be interpreted as a waste. However in terms of what's best for our country and our wallets (yes, our wallets) it's clearly the best choice.

[Dave@Moon]

The only thing that bothers me about this progam is my tax dollars are being spent on foreign cars. Why are we helping other countries sell cars? I know my question will be objective, but it's my money and I think I've earned the right to ask............<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

47% of the cars being purchased under the C.A.R.S. program thus far are made by one of the "Big 3" brands. The concurrent overall sales rate for the "Big 3" is 45%. With 1/2 the purchases (at least) this week being C.A.R.S. purchases, the non-C.A.R.S. rate must be somewhere around 40-42%. ( Top Cash for Clunkers Trade-Ins and New Cars- Yahoo! Autos Article Page )

I wouldn't be too critical of C.A.R.S. buyers, at least as far as this aspect goes.:cool:

BTW, the article linked lists the latest figures for trade-ins and purchases under this program, in the former case broken down by model year. The top 8 trade-ins are SUVs (6 of them being differing model years of Ford Explorers!), followed by 2 older minivans. The program is clearly getting the vehicles for which it was targetted.

All of the top 10 purchases are 4 cylinder cars (only 2 of which even have 6 cylinder options, & both of which also have hybrid options). This aspect of the program is working exactly as planned as well.

[Dave@Moon]

You are assuming that new car dealers are interested in collectible cars and know their value.

They know. It's their business to know. They all know, and these days no dealer is going to walk past a pile of money the way this "442" scenario was described,