Underfunded, Government considering scrapping Cash for Clunkers

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RU482
at $4500 a head, that's 222,222 vehicles

2007 sales total was 16,000,000 vehicles

16,000,000 / 365 = 48,835 per day

I don't think it's too far out of line that the program ran out of money so quick. Wish I would have had a qualifying vehicle, but whatever. $1B is a drop in the bucket these days I just can't believe they thought it would last through Nov

They didn't. That was with the original $b funding, and that was an expiration date, it doesn't mean they thought it would last that long.

If the funds lasted through the expiration, we'd have people here saying the program didn't work because 'not enough people used the program to even use all the funds'.

Maybe if the last dollar were used the day the program ended, they'd be quiet. I doubt it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Me personally? I would have gone with Option 2 because I am totally opposed to the Government blatantly interfering with the free markets and using my taxdollars to do so. I've been against every "stimulus" and "bailout" plan from the beginning.

But, if I were forced to plan and budget a program like this, albeit against my wishes, I still would have done much better research and then set the backend of the system up to handle the expected high volume. I also would have implemented much more stringent requirements for participation in the program.

2 mpg improvements?! What a fucking joke.

I'm not attacking "Democrats" here. Unlike you, I'm not a partisan hack -- I despise all politicians equally. None of them "represent" me, and all of them are functionally retarded when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

I am blanghorst, and I approve of this message. :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
If every one of the 23,000 participating stores conducted the average number of trades (13) prior to the suspension of the program, then the entire program may have gone over budget by approximately 49,000 vehicles. Which means, using an average of $4000 per rebate, they might have gone over budget by roughly $196 million.

That's the U.S. Government at work folks.

Ya gotta love it...

Sounds like the program worked too well.

Obviously. But more importantly, to me, it demonstrates yet another complete failure by Congress to plan and budget a program appropriately.

I saw an ad for an item at a store and went to buy it and they were sold out before the sale ended.

It was yet another complete failure for the private sector to plan and budget a program appopriately.

Congress set a program up to provide a certain stimulus to the car industry while eliminating a certain number of cars. It was more popular than expected.

Let's see how YOU would have done it better.

Option 1: You're for a *bigger* government program. They should have spent more billions on this for more cars. That's not a failed program, but an undersized one.

Option 2: They shouldn't have had the program at all. Then, we'd save the billion, but not have stimulated the car industry and left the lower MPG cars on the road.

I don't see you having any point here, just blind attacking anything by Democrats.

The Democrats did a program that worked very well, meeting all its benefits, only being so popular it was used up too quickly.

Me personally? I would have gone with Option 2 because I am stronly opposed to the Government blatantly interfering with the free markets and using my tax dollars to do so. I've been against every "stimulus" and "bailout" plan from the start -- they're all shit.

But, if I were forced to plan and budget for a program like this, albeit against my wishes, I still would have done much better research and then set the backend of the system up to handle the expected high volume. I also would have implemented much more stringent requirements for participation in the program.

2 mpg improvements?! What a fucking joke.

I'm not attacking "Democrats" here. Unlike you, I'm not a partisan tool -- I despise all politicians equally. None of them "represent" me, and all of them are functionally retarded when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

People throw that around like the Program was designed around it. That's a worst case scenario. You should probably wait for the final tallies before making yourself look like a fool.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: her209
Don't know why it was reduced to $1 billion.

I Really Reckon it Reeked of Reckless Restrictions by the Record-setting Refuser Representatives.

(In fact, this is supported by the fact that Republicans Senator Gregg attempted to kill the program altogether from the bill.)

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Elfear
I'm actually surprised that so many people were able to qualify considering the somewhat backwards target demographic.

Me, too. Very surprised, although they still represent a fairly small percentage of vehicle purchases. 4% if they do the 250,000 vs how many cars are sold in a year.

Buyers save money in fuel savings. The worse the milage of their old car and the better the new one, the more they save.

Please illuminate a scenario in which me trading in a paid-off car worth $3k for one costing $30k saves me any money New cars are almost invarialy more expensive than old. That's why poor people drive used.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RU482

at $4500 a head, that's 222,222 vehicles

2007 sales total was 16,000,000 vehicles

16,000,000 / 365 = 48,835 per day

I don't think it's too far out of line that the program ran out of money so quick. Wish I would have had a qualifying vehicle, but whatever. $1B is a drop in the bucket these days I just can't believe they thought it would last through Nov

It was UP TO $4,500, depending on the model traded in and the difference between the milage of the old and new car, not $4,500 for every transaction.

 

[StageLeft]

From one of the links above.

Throughout our history, it has been auto sales that have pulled us out of recession. People are more likely to buy cars than houses. Not to be too Pollyannaish, but we're gettin' our mojo back. This could be the pivot" that begins an economic recovery.

Fvcking lulz. $1B incentive to start the recovery of a $14T economy? Hell, if that's true, this is the best thing ever.

We will insist than any extension of the program requires that the minimum fuel economy improvement for newly purchased vehicles be at least two miles per gallon higher than it is under the enacted Clunkers program. It is also important to include lower-income consumers who are disadvantaged under the current program

Haha, that's called being poor you stupid ass, they are always disadvantaged for things that require money. That's the point of being poor.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Me personally? I would have gone with Option 2 because I am totally opposed to the Government blatantly interfering with the free markets and using my taxdollars to do so. I've been against every "stimulus" and "bailout" plan from the beginning.

Yes, that's because you have an ideology that could care less about the good results of the program, so you are attacking a program you don't want at all for being not lasting longer.

But, if I were forced to plan and budget a program like this, albeit against my wishes, I still would have done much better research and then set the backend of the system up to handle the expected high volume. I also would have implemented much more stringent requirements for participation in the program.

2 mpg improvements?! What a fucking joke.

There's your version, and then there are the facts.

July 28 -- Early statistics from automotive dealers on the CARS Program, commonly known as Cash for Clunkers, show clunker consumers getting a 69% mile-per-gallon (mpg) improvement which saves them an average of $750 in gas bills a year by replacing their clunker with a new fuel efficient vehicle. "After gas and repair savings many consumers will spend less to drive a new car then they were spending to keep their clunker on the road," says Sharon O'Connell, the director of www.CashForClunkersInformation.org...

According to www.CashForClunkersInformation.org, 79% of clunkers being traded in so far are SUVs, trucks and vans with over 100,000 miles and most are being replaced with new passenger vehicles. The average age of a trade-in model is almost 13 years old, and the average odometer reading is approximately 138,000 miles. The most popular clunker trades are Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge and 84 percent of the new vehicles purchased are passenger cars.

I'm not attacking "Democrats" here. Unlike you, I'm not a partisan hack --

You sure like to get things backwards.

This post is the last in the exchange, though, given your behavior.

I understand, you're one of those 'non-partisans' who just happens to be a right-winger who disagrees with the Democrats on pretty much everything, but has noticed some of the corruption of the Republican party too. So you just pick the easy and ignorant ideology of the 'against all of em cynic'.

I despise all politicians equally. None of them "represent" me, and all of them are functionally retarded when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Ya, I got it pretty right. Too bad you can't see how wrong your own ideology is as well as you can understand some of the flaws in the two main parties.

It's funny how you see the same people that hate government for its being excessively influenced by big business, are the first to defend that same big business.

They'd apparently rather get screwed without lubricant directly than to have the government mitigate any of the pain, and place all th eblame on the government in a contradictory manner for not entirely protecting them - with the solution being to gut government protection altogether. As their 'reforms' lead to more and more abuse by the private interests unrestrained by government, they'll just keep bitching how it's all government's fault, the only song they can sing.

I note here how he says he'd not have done this program at all, but fails to say a word about the impact of that choice - the reduced auto sales, the polluters staying on the road.

He ignores the facts and just says it's because of his ideology, as if that's any actual argument for doing it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RU482

at $4500 a head, that's 222,222 vehicles

2007 sales total was 16,000,000 vehicles

16,000,000 / 365 = 48,835 per day

I don't think it's too far out of line that the program ran out of money so quick. Wish I would have had a qualifying vehicle, but whatever. $1B is a drop in the bucket these days I just can't believe they thought it would last through Nov

It was UP TO $4,500, depending on the model traded in and the difference between the milage of the old and new car, not $4,500 for every transaction.

Appears done on the quick math that I'd say most got the $4500.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

It was UP TO $4,500, depending on the model traded in and the difference between the milage of the old and new car, not $4,500 for every transaction.

Appears done on the quick math that I'd say most got the $4500.

[/quote]

From a sampling reported on cashforcluinkers.org, 64% were for $4500, 36% for $3500.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Buyers save money in fuel savings. The worse the milage of their old car and the better the new one, the more they save.

Please illuminate a scenario in which me trading in a paid-off car worth $3k for one costing $30k saves me any money New cars are almost invarialy more expensive than old. That's why poor people drive used.

Take an old clunker and compare over 10 years with buying, say, a Hyundai for $13K after incentives.

With the average reported fuel savings of $750 per year, that adds up to $7500.

Then compare the repair costs for the clunker over 10 years, versus a new car (that actually comes with a 10 year warranty).

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Buyers save money in fuel savings. The worse the milage of their old car and the better the new one, the more they save.

Please illuminate a scenario in which me trading in a paid-off car worth $3k for one costing $30k saves me any money New cars are almost invarialy more expensive than old. That's why poor people drive used.

Take an old clunker and compare over 10 years with buying, say, a Hyundai for $13K after incentives.

With the average reported fuel savings of $750 per year, that adds up to $7500.

Then compare the repair costs for the clunker over 10 years, versus a new car (that actually comes with a 10 year warranty).

OK, that is one

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Buyers save money in fuel savings. The worse the milage of their old car and the better the new one, the more they save.

Please illuminate a scenario in which me trading in a paid-off car worth $3k for one costing $30k saves me any money New cars are almost invarialy more expensive than old. That's why poor people drive used.

Take an old clunker and compare over 10 years with buying, say, a Hyundai for $13K after incentives.

With the average reported fuel savings of $750 per year, that adds up to $7500.

Then compare the repair costs for the clunker over 10 years, versus a new car (that actually comes with a 10 year warranty).

OK, that is one

need to wait to get demographics on who bought what...

1) poor people with clunkers probably didn't have insurance for the last year, so couldn't play...
2) poor people have a hard time getting credit even to do $99 a month and down payment for the cheapest car that yoou can buy...

this was the 'cash for clunkers for moonbeam and other people who have plenty of bucks but had a crappy old car that the kids drove' or the 'let some farmers trade in some old trucks' program...

it was just a silly little bill in a long line of silly bills...

but what happens when the healthcare thing gets a bit more used than they expect??? call it off, too???

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Elfear
I'm actually surprised that so many people were able to qualify considering the somewhat backwards target demographic.

What?

He means the program was meant to target the poor, I think.

Bingo. I don't personally know many people driving "clunkers" around that could afford to buy a new car, even with a $3500-4500 price reduction.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Elfear
I'm actually surprised that so many people were able to qualify considering the somewhat backwards target demographic.

What?

He means the program was meant to target the poor, I think.

Bingo. I don't personally know many people driving "clunkers" around that could afford to buy a new car, even with a $3500-4500 price reduction.

my parents were using it as an excuse to buy a new car... not that they couldn't afford a new car without it, but it was the push they needed to get rid of their falling-apart suv.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: cubeless
but what happens when the healthcare thing gets a bit more used than they expect??? call it off, too???

nah, they'll just tax the hell outta us. problem solved.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubeless

1) poor people with clunkers probably didn't have insurance for the last year, so couldn't play...

Link to the percent of 'poor people' who have insurance being under 50%?

For a program some here say is 4% of sales, how many poor peope have to not have insurance for the program to not fill?

2) poor people have a hard time getting credit even to do $99 a month and down payment for the cheapest car that yoou can buy...

this was the 'cash for clunkers for moonbeam and other people who have plenty of bucks but had a crappy old car that the kids drove' or the 'let some farmers trade in some old trucks' program...

it was just a silly little in a long line of silly bills...

but what happens when the healthcare thing gets a bit more used than they expect??? call it off, too???

Yes, the predictability of healthcare needs is just as unpredictable as the rate at which people will buy new cars under a unique government incentive program.

I particiapte in polls that ask me to say when I'm likely to buy my next car - to pick 'next month', '1 to 6 months', '60 to 12', '2 to 3 years', and so on type answers.

The fact is, I have no idea - I can guess, and be completely wrong. Much less what the wildcard of the incentive will do to the market.

Healthcare needs aren't quite the same.

 

[Carmen813]

My wife and I were probably some of these "poor" people you guys keep mentioning. I make $7.50 an hour, she makes $8.50 + commission. We were approved for a loan of up to $13,500. Our insurance would have increased $30 a month (that was adding collision/glass to the new car).

The car probably would have ended up at around $12500 after taxes/incentives/CARS, which seemed like a good deal to us. Figure about $240 a month for 60 months. We'd have saved the insurance cost increase on gas alone (18 to 28 mpg combined rating). Plus she would have been driving a "safe" car.

As is, we got kinda boned.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Elfear
I'm actually surprised that so many people were able to qualify considering the somewhat backwards target demographic.

What?

He means the program was meant to target the poor, I think.

Bingo. I don't personally know many people driving "clunkers" around that could afford to buy a new car, even with a $3500-4500 price reduction.

You'd be surprised. Check Carmen's post above this one for an example. But what do you mean 'target demographic', how was this *aimed* at the poor?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Car sales have been down if not stalled.

Looks like Americans opened their wallets.

So those still with jobs jumped on this to get a new car.

Looks like a success story much to the bane of Republicans.

 

[sportage]

but what happens when the healthcare thing gets a bit more used than they expect??? call it off, too???

Yes... CIGNA calls it denying coverage. So where have YOU been??? :roll:

 

[sportage]

And this...

Workers at one Central Iowa plant say it went from bad to worse. First their paychecks bounced, now they don't have health insurance. The U.S. Department of Labor is looking into complaints from workers at Midwest Manufacturing in Kellogg. Officials stopped short of saying the plant is under investigation for bouncing worker's paychecks, but they did say the department is working with the company to resolve the problems.

Steve Davis has a good paying job when he gets paid. His check is supposed to clear every Friday. That hasn't happened four times. "They want us to work overtime, schedule 10 hours a day over there, but yet our checks bounce," he says. In addition to his notice of insufficient funds this week, Davis learned that he and his wife's health insurance had been terminated as of July 1st. Yet all month, the company took more than $100 dollars out of his weekly check. "You cannot take money out of people's checks for health insurance and not pay the premiums," says Davis who is stuck with a $1,000 bill he thought his insurance would cover.
Lori Edwards says she keeps hearing that benefits will be reinstated tomorrow. Tomorrow, her 11 year old son's asthma medication runs out. "I went up at 3 o'clock today and asked if we had insurance yet and she said no," says Edwards. Calls to the plant went unanswered today. Two weeks ago when asked about the bounced checks, General Manager Henry Rouse said he had no comment.

Midwest Manufacturing is owned by the India based company, AMTEK. The plant in Kellogg has more than 50 employees and makes ring gears for the auto and tractor industries.

Add 50 more to the great current system we have. (or lack of)

(sorry for the topic jump, but since you made the healthcare connection)

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I'm sorry to see this program run into problems. The idea is sound. It saves money several ways:

No, it was never sound. It was just a way for the government to push sales for SUV's and trucks. A very few cars actually qualify for the program... In reality if the government REALLY wanted to have people go out and buy automobiles it should have been a strict 5 MPG increase over your old one for the $3500 and $4500 if you get 10 MPG or better. Got a 22 MPG rated car, trade it in for a 27 and get $3500. The truck 2-5 MPG increase is a joke and the class 3 truck rules are even more of a joke.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Not $950, the link I had said $96 million has been spent and just over 22k vehicles, so it's only spent 1/10th.

But with the backlog they want to ensure they haven't exceeded 250,000. It's pretty clear that demand has been higher than expected.

This.

It's painful to see the auto industry in the shape it's in but at least this help move some inventory.

They are coming up on the 2010 model year and some folks are still trying to move new 2008 models off their lots

 

[Genx87]

My sister is buying a car via this program. It sounds like a complete clusterfuck. Apparently the dealer is supposed to take immediate delivery of the clunker and blow glass through the engine to destroy it. Then crush the car. However if they do this before the money comes in from the govt it is possible the old car gets destroyed and the purchaser doesnt get a rebate.

The dealership my sister is buying the car from told her to keep the car until the funds come through. But good god can you imagine the lawsuits if cars are destroyed immediately then the govt backs out?