Cash for Clunkers: Yes? No? (in Debates)
August 4 2009 2:05 AM EDT
Cash for Clunkers: Yes or No?
Yes: Cash for Clunkers helps to take old, inefficient cars off of the road and replace them with greener, more efficient cars. This, in turn, helps save the environment, helps the US dependence on foreign oil, and also helps to stimulate the economy with people spending money on new cars. Furthermore, I hear Europe has been doing something similar for a while.
No: Cash for Clunkers will further bankrupt the US, who is basically only able to pay off the interest accrued from foreign loans.
clunkers? ha lol I saw a "clunker" a 8 year old Volvo S80 turbo well worth 8500 usd being turned into scrap metal because of the cash for clunkers idea.
The idea for this program is to get rid of really old cars like 15+ years.
Not cars that are under 10 years old.
Call me simple, but...
Are old, decrepit cars not going to disappear anyway? As in, they'll just stop working? (10 years might not be old enough to off most cars, but 15-20 probably is.)
It's so easy to buy a new car nowadays, in any case. Just buy off credit! Even people on welfare do it, so 10+ year old cars are going to become rarer and rarer. I can already see this on the roads.
August 4 2009 9:09 AM EDT
Borrowing more money to pay for this program is yet another example of how we are going to bankrupt the U.S.
As Henk stated, it was designed for very old cars. Instead another government program run amok. Ill conceived and poorly executed. Another example of government getting involved with disastrous results.
But we did need a stimulus for GM-Government Motors.
This crap never ends this crap.
If I wanted to live in a socialist state I would have moved to Venezuela.
The US programme (unlike the European versions) isn't about removing really old cars.
It's about fuel efficency;
"the United States Congress devised a scrappage scheme, commonly referred to as "cash for clunkers," as part of a general Automotive Stimulus package series; however, the voucher is only given when the newer car has a better fuel efficiency than the old car."
Where as the UK version, the car is uneligiable for the scheme if it is younger than 10 years old.
from cars.gov web site:
* 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.
August 4 2009 10:17 AM EDT
do what the Singapore govt do and tax the people with older cars =x the govt earns money and the people change their cars problem solve
August 4 2009 10:19 AM EDT
Let the free market decide.
When Cap and Trade becomes law and prices go up, including gas, people will have the desire to get a more fuel efficient auto.
But why should I have to subsidize yet another government program. Designed to help Government Motors.
This crap is getting very old. And we are only 6 months into Obamasan's term.
"But why should I have to subsidize yet another government program. Designed to help Government Motors."
likely for the same reason that we are still having to pay for a war started to stamp out elusive weapons of mass destruction.
August 4 2009 10:58 AM EDT
There has not been 1 attack on US soil since 9/11.
Al-Qaeda is in shambles.
N. Korea and Iran only recently unlocked nuclear technology.
And almost all democrats voted for the Iraq war, based on the information available at that time.
It is very easy to be a Monday Morning QB.
But with respect to the thread at hand, NO, this Cash for Clunkers stinks.
If people want a more fuel efficient car, let them buy it. Why should I have to go deeper in debt and likely get a nice tax hike to subsidize yet another government program that was ill conceived.
Less government, more free market enterprise.
I like how Monday the Gov't took a very specific clause off the disclaimer on the cars.gov website. Namely, that the government had the right to access data on the computer you were on, your home was property of the government, etc.
I agree with Ranger.
I don't see the point. I mean, I don't see it being effective, the way that it implemented. I think that the dealers realized this as well, which is why I've heard of dealers promising to match the government's voucher in cash back, so that you can save $7,000 or $9,000 instead of $3,500 or $4,500.
I mean, I don't know. I don't really have much experience with buying cars, and the transactions in which I've participated have involved relatively fuel-efficient vehicles. I suppose if you have a 1993 Ford Taurus that's getting 18 MPG, you can only sell it for $1,600 or so, so $4,500 to upgrade to a 2010 Honda Civic is a good deal... except that you still need to have $19,000 sitting around with which to purchase a new car. Compare that to selling your Taurus for $1,200 or so and buying a 2001 Civic for $6,000. Sure, it's not brand new, but you can get one in pretty good shape and it will probably last you at least 6 years if you take care of it.
I've heard that a new car's value depreciates 40% the second you drive it off the lot. On a $25,000 car, this means that you can get $4,500 in government vouchers, $4,500 in dealer credit, and still pay $1,000 more than anyone else would be willing to pay you for the same car in 10 minutes.
The way I see it, it's a better deal to buy an old car in good shape than to buy a new car in most cases. If you're getting a Corvette or a Ferrari, or even an Acura or Lexus, it makes sense to buy it new if you're going for shiny and impressive and displaying status, but if you're buying something as expensive as that, you didn't need $4,500 to make the difference between keeping your old car and scrapping it. Plus, sports cars tend not to get awesome mileage, so I doubt you could even get a voucher in a lot of cases.
Actually, I'm not even citing GM cars, so I'm kinda off point.
I'm looking at Yahoo Autos, and the only GM cars I can find under $20,000 MSRP are Chevy Aveo and Chevy Cobalt. Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger are between 20 and 21 thousand, but only get enough to get a $3,500 voucher unless you've been driving something that was getting less than 14 MPG.
So, you can get a new Aveo or Cobalt for $4,000 if the dealer matches the government voucher, or $8,500 if they don't. That's the only deal I see that is comparable to buying a car that's 5 years old and is well taken care of.
And I think the Aveo is manufactured in South Korea. I think buying stuff from international partners of a American companies doesn't quite help our economy as much as we would like.
"I like how Monday the Gov't took a very specific clause off the disclaimer on the cars.gov website. Namely, that the government had the right to access data on the computer you were on, your home was property of the government, etc."
ranger, i am unsure of your point regarding democrats being for the war. if you mean that no one stopped bush from doing it i guess you are correct in the same way that no one stopped obama from the bailouts or the cars program.
i was speaking on a more personal level though in response to you being very upset that you have to pay for this program. i was, and am, also very upset paying for a war that has shown no proof of links to terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
we had 8 years of bush and i disagreed with much that he did, you are now in the same boat. i guess you will deal with it the best you can and if calling our president obamasan helps you to deal with it then i hope it puts a little smile on your face every time ya type it! ; )
we bought a chevy hhr last summer, it gets like 34 mpg. buying american surprisingly enough got us a car made in mexico!
August 4 2009 1:06 PM EDT
Actually almost all Democrats voted for the Iraq war.
No house Republicans and only 3 senate Reps voted for the stimulus package.
And it seems Obama"san" is going to try to thrust his healthcare tornado through Congress without any Republican support.
A large difference than the Iraq war.
But your right. We typically have cycles like this. 12 years of Republicans who in the last 4 or so go wacko and try to push an ultra right wing agenda. Then we get 4-8 years of Democrats before people go back to Republicans.
With how the debt is piling up, and how many promises the current administration is breaking, we will be back to conservatism very shortly. Or our economy will fail. If it does not before then due to the massive debt we are piling up.
And this cash for clunkers is just adding more on top. A horrible program, truly horrible.
August 4 2009 1:08 PM EDT
"It's so easy to buy a new car nowadays, in any case. Just buy off credit! Even people on welfare do it, so... "
People shouldn't purchase things they cannot afford. Period. 'Might not be what you are referring to, but that's what it brought to mind.
"A large difference than the Iraq war."
yeppers, in one case the public and congress were lied to with claims of "ties to terrorism" that were later dropped and guarantees of "weapons of mass destruction" that were never found and in the current case you have an administration that is pushing through legislation because they can. didn't bush also enjoy that freedom during part of his first term as well?
did you look at the national debt growth under bush? if the country does go bankrupt it will not all be on one administration, unless you happen to have selective memory that is.
August 4 2009 1:48 PM EDT
The information at the time stated there were WMD in Iraq. At the time.
There are ties to terrorism from Iraq to Al Qaeda. Just not as strong as we were at the time suspecting.
But the debt under Obama so far is more than that of all the previous presidents put together.
And now another 1 Billion for this Clunker fiasco. And they want another 2 Billion?
Meanwhile dealers have little idea if they will get reimbursed, the websites were a mess, and people had poor information on what vehicles were included.
If the government cannot do this correct, what makes anyone think they can do more important things such as universal healthcare, running the auto industry etc....
Bush, during his first term has far more Democrats vote for his ideas than Obama has for his. In fact, hardly any Republicans are voting for the current legislation.
And when Republicans try to make a bipartisan attempt at healthcare, all their amendments get shot down.
"This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and is property of the United States government... users have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy."
"Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected and disclosed to authorized CARS, DOT and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign."
"By using this system, the user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion CARS or the DOT personnel."
From the cars.gov disclaimer.
marl, did you read the snopes article?
ranger, where do you get your debt numbers? linky please.
Yes, I did. Isn't it still weird even if it only affects the dealer?
"Namely, that the government had the right to access data on the computer you were on, your home was property of the government, etc."
is a far cry from being weird for the dealers. i truly have no basis for comparison with computer systems tying into others to judge how weird it might be and would wait until i compared some others before judging.
i do know alot about mmorpg's and if you read their agreements you pretty much give up all rights to data and privacy while on their system as well.
August 4 2009 2:23 PM EDT
August 4 2009 2:26 PM EDT
This specifically about the Obama > all other presidents combined.
From the Wall Street Journal:
August 4 2009 2:30 PM EDT
not that I claim to know all that much about US deficit spending, but I don't know that it is entirely fair to pin the massive debt on Obama.
1) Most developed nations have seen a sharp increase in deficit spending in the past 10months (Canada has gone from a surplus to a 50bil deficit).
2) The deficit spending for Iraq & Afghanistan that was started in Bush's term(s) is still on the books.
I will however grant that there seems to be way too much "throw money at it and see what sticks" problem solving going on.
... oh, and RE: Invading Iraq... if the information suggesting terror and WMDs was so good why did only Britain and the US go in among the NATO nations?
August 4 2009 2:37 PM EDT
"if the information suggesting terror and WMDs was so good why did only Britain and the US go in among the NATO nations? "
I think you mean go it alone.
Why? Because we are the only nations with the Kutzpah to do what is right for the long term stability of the region and world.
Remember these militants are just that, psychotic people who are bent upon destroying anyone who disagrees with their thinking.
One cannot reason with terrorists. There is a time and place for the use of force.
C'mon, do you really think the French would join a war? They would run away if you look at them wrong. They are very anti-American and go out of their way to go against our foreign policy if it differs from "sit and talk and hope and pray".
These terrorists are animals and have to be dealt with as such.
How many Iraqis have we saved from Saddam's dungeons, torture and gassings? The Iragis are much freer to live life than under Saddam.
Lest we forget Saddam was paying the homicide bombers in Israel and abroad for their "contributions" to their cause-the destruction of the US and Israel.
ranger, you stated:
"But the debt under Obama so far is more than that of all the previous presidents put together."
i see nowhere in those links where it states that the debt already incurred is is more than that of all previous presidents put together, but perhaps i misunderstood and you were referring to the projections going out to 2013?
i did find these facts though:
"As of today, itﾒs $10.8-trillion. The administration projects itﾒll climb to $14-trillion next year and in 2013 wind up at $17.1-trillion dollars"
"Until now, Mr. Bush ran up the biggest deficits and the largest amount of National Debt in U.S. history. The National Debt increased $4.9-trillion on his watch. The new budget plan shows the title of biggest spender will fall to Mr. Obama."
it would appear he inherited 10.8 trillion and if it pans out as forecasted will end up racking up another 6.3 trillion. bush increased it by 4.9 trillion during his watch. the economy was doing fairly well when bush came in compared to "needing rescue" when obama took office. while i don't agree with major deficit spending, painting the conservative replublicans as fiscally responsible is ridiculous given their past history. this is pretty much understood as the reason they lost the election.
desperate times do call for desperate measures and we will really have to wait and see how it all turns out.
August 4 2009 2:45 PM EDT
Read the WSJ article.
Here is the quote:
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined.
August 4 2009 2:46 PM EDT
I suggest you do some historical reading on the region...
The US pumped money into Saddam's regime for years and in the early 90s didn't feel that he was a threat after the Kuwait war...
Heck, even the current political situation of Iran is due in part to the meddling and greed of the Brits and Yanks.
Anyway, this is all rather off topic... my apologies to the OP
August 4 2009 2:51 PM EDT
I have read extensively on the region.
If you want to debate the middle east and Iran/Iraq, let us do a debate on it.
But Saddam was always a threat, evidenced by the UN sanctions that never relented from before Kuwait war.
The current situation in Iran is due to numerous factors, chiefly involving radical Islamists holding power.
"Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined."
that is the projection though (a blueprint is a plan), you stated that his debt so far is greater than all other presidents. it is still crazy, but it is not what you stated. furthermore, if it was 10.8 when bush left it and he added 4.9 trillion, then he was very close to accomplishing the same exact task but with no major economic disasters to avert. why weren't you raising your voice then?
August 4 2009 2:54 PM EDT
And where are you getting those numbers?
from the link you posted, the cbs news one.
August 4 2009 3:02 PM EDT
How are you getting Obama inherited 10.8T debt?
We are 6 months into his term and have had massive spending evidenced by the stimulus package, bailouts, downpayment on his universal healthcare and other "social" programs.
These however are the key points:
1) Until now, Mr. Bush ran up the biggest deficits and the largest amount of National Debt in U.S. history. The National Debt increased $4.9-trillion on his watch. The new budget plan shows the title of biggest spender will fall to Mr. Obama.
2) If his numbers prove true, the debt will have soared $6.3-trillion during his term. Double it if he wins a second term.
i quoted it above ranger, it is from the cbs article. it said todays deficit is 10.8 trillion. it was written in february, i forget exactly what day, but it was before any budget would have passed and therefore was the inherited debt.
as for forecasting what any budget would be during a second term, what exactly makes you think that it would just double what the first term was? the fact that he inherited an economic crisis the likes of which hasn't been seen for decades if even then would make me think that perhaps this budget might just be different from the next one.
here is a chart of the bigger picture that shows why most americans think that the republican party is not the party for fiscal responsibility.
there is also a pretty good write up about deficit spending during times such as these. if you add the graph on the cbs article to this one it shows a bit of a different picture than the somewhat out of context cbs one.
"Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in"
Yes. The Office of the President of the United States issued the order to turn off the stock market.
Your article's not quite got its facts straight, dude.
August 4 2009 3:44 PM EDT
Here's a fun fact from that crazy person called Glenn Beck "The interest paid on our national debt ($11 trillion) now stands at $26 billion a month, that's over $300 billion a year. With one monthly $26 billion interest payment we could fully fund the annual budgets of the CDC ($6.1 billion), Coast Guard ($8.7 billion) and the Department of the Interior ($11.1 billion). With our annual budget of over $300 billion, we could fully fund the annual budgets of the Departments of Commerce ($8.1 billion), Education ($68 billion), Homeland Securtiy (42.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($52.3 billion), Energy ($23.2 billion), Justice($25 billion), and Labor ($49.6 billion)...By 2019 the annual interest payments are projected to balloon to $806 billion." I know this doesn't actually provide a solution, but it does seem a little scary. I don't think we are going to just spend our way out of this one.
August 4 2009 3:57 PM EDT
Oh a btw the point of spending during a recession is to increase the aggregate demand. Or as the administration likes to put it "create jobs." This helps ease the pain of the recession by causing unemployment to not as drop quickly or as far. The problem with the "Stimulus" bill is that most of the plans don't actually happen till 2012. The president has said this himself when explaining why unemployment is still increasing. So, why would you spend $.7 trillion dollars to ease a recession that will already be easing by 2012. This just doesn't make sense to me.
August 4 2009 3:58 PM EDT
According to that graph, Carter was a great president. However, most historians agree he was one of the worst and most ineffective we have had this century.
Interest rates approached 20%, an ineffective foreign policy etc..
And that article is grossly wrong in a number of statements including:
"The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 or 20 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich)."
Sorry to say but the "rich" are the ones who spend.
See how many Starbucks are closing in your neighborhood. Why? All the "rich" people have less money due to the economy and the threat of more taxes. The "poor" and lower middle class do not spend 5 bucks for a coffee.
And this fine statement:
"Of course there's also the problem of the banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad banks. Once they're working they can be sold back to the private sector."
We all know once the government takes over something, it never goes back to the private sector. Again, if the government runs banks as well as they do Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, all the banks will be bankrupt in months.
That Zfacts site is nothing more than liberal propaganda, just like one states Fox is on the opposite pole.
I like to use something well known as the Wall Street Journal for an attempt as impartiality.
the graph is mainly what i was interested in and it has its facts straight.
as for carter, we weren't speaking of presidencies as a whole but rather deficit and budgets. i was merely trying to show a bigger picture regarding the chart that only showed obamas spending.
by the way, i never really saw you respond the question regarding why you weren't so vocal when bush did almost the exact same thing that you are so upset about obama doing without the economic issues that our current president has to deal with?
August 4 2009 4:18 PM EDT
I didn't play CB when Bush was president, well I did, but it was at the end of his career, and I thought it kind of spoke for itself.
this as well:
"that is the projection though (a blueprint is a plan), you stated that his debt so far is greater than all other presidents. it is still crazy, but it is not what you stated. furthermore, if it was 10.8 when bush left it and he added 4.9 trillion, then he was very close to accomplishing the same exact task but with no major economic disasters to avert. why weren't you raising your voice then?"
sorry art, it was ranger i was asking that of. ;)
August 4 2009 4:23 PM EDT
Ahh ok. But, like I said. Obama has done very little to avert the Economic crisis. The stimulus bill has done nothing, because like Obama said himself, it isn't suppose to do anything till 2012, which is dumbbbbbbbb.
August 4 2009 4:27 PM EDT
I was very concerned about the deficit Bush was accumulating.
However, I agreed with his policies, both domestic and foreign.
However, I cannot find a 10T deficit you quote except for that one article.
I have found this:
The deficit Obama has and proposes with his budget and future plans dwarfs anything by any president.
Do I get upset if I lose 50 bucks in a poker game? Yes.
Do I get really mad if I lose 500 bucks? Yes.
Bush <<<<< Obama.
is that your opinion art or do you have some facts to back that statement up as well? once again i would love to see the linkies! ; )
August 4 2009 4:30 PM EDT
August 4 2009 4:31 PM EDT
Link to what Art said.
From a reliable source, IMO of course. Unless you think CNN is slated to the right.
you posted the article ranger, i just pulled numbers from it.
as for art's statemenet, there is a big difference between people saying it will take a while for the stimulus package to have its full effect and saying that the stimulus package has done nothing for the economy.
i really don't give a darn about your beliefs, i am just trying to get you guys to state facts as facts and opinions as opinions. if they are facts, please give links to the data. if they are opinions, state them as such!
saying that something that has already happened hasn't had any effect on the present state of things can only ever be an opinion. unless you have a way of going back in time, keeping it from happening and then comparing the two results. this is why i often ask where you guys get your crystal balls. ; )
August 4 2009 4:43 PM EDT
Obama admitted himself in a interview that I watched that the stimulus package would do little till 2012. So, feel free to call him a liar. I'm trying to find the video right now, but I cannot. I've watched so many of his interviews, I don't remember which one it is.
"But the debt under Obama so far is more than that of all the previous presidents put together."
ranger, just to be clear are you still stating this as fact?
August 4 2009 4:48 PM EDT
I am sorry,
It is his budget that will more than increase the national debt by more than all previous presidents combined.
That I state is a fact.
And we have not yet touched upon his goal of nationalized healthcare.
August 4 2009 4:50 PM EDT
"But the debt under Obama so far is more than that of all the previous presidents put together."
This is a fact. No doubt about it. Well, I mean, it's really his budget, but you get my point. It's where you place the blame that makes it an opinion. IMHO, they've both (Bush and Obama) have a lot of blame.
August 4 2009 4:52 PM EDT
IMHO the blame lays heavily on them both (Bush and Obama)*
that is a forecast as well. we won't have the actual results for years.
unlike we do with the bush administration and he almost accomplished that same task (went from around 6 trillion to around 11 trillion) without an economic crisis.
artemis, he posted so far which would mean he already spent that much. that is quite different from he will during his administration. that is the point i was making. i just wanted to know if he had already spent that much or not as ranger originally stated.
August 4 2009 5:35 PM EDT
Yeah, I guess I should throw in the word "projected." Then we can call it a fact.
someone is at least keeping track of some data regarding the program and i think it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
August 4 2009 10:31 PM EDT
Back to the clunkers, I think this idea stinks.
August 5 2009 12:54 AM EDT
From a reliable source, IMO of course. Unless you think CNN is slated to the right.
I'm sure that means their weather forecast is perfect too.
That said, I do think the Cash for Clunkers program is quite a waste. It basically just throws money at consumers to get a slight increase in gas mileage. The increase in gas mileage for the price seems pretty marginal especially when you consider that people who trade in their vehicles will be saving on the order of 2k per year in gas anyway. I did read that the money for Cash for Clunkers was taken away from a renewable energy loan program; however, I can't find the source right now.
I really think the government is just propping up the auto industry in order to buy them time, when it is clear they should be downsizing and reorganizing. It's basically a way to directly hand cash to the auto industry, which I don't think it deserves.
If they wanted to fund the program with a tax on gasoline to reduce our dependence on oil, I'd be down with that, but they seem to have just taken money from more useful ventures.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002qDh">Cash for Clunkers: Yes? No?</a>