Underfunded, Government considering scrapping Cash for Clunkers

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Engineer
I have not heard this but I agree with you. Double your mileage from a good car to a great car vs the extra 2 from shitty SUV to almost shitty SUV....you get Jack Squat. I guess I can also complain that only first time home buyers get the credit and I don't...shit, I'm pissed! :|

Or, you could look at the facts I already posted - instead of the worst case you mention, that IIRC the average mileage increase was 69%.

No, you misunderstood what I'm talking about. I know full well that there are some substantial gains in the MPG for some of the cars being traded. My point was is that I can't take a good car (24mpg for example) and go to a great car (40mpg Fusion for example) and get a credit. Of course, the whole idea is to get rid of the clunkers from the highway and a 24mpg car would not be a clunker. That's all.

Gotcha. I haven't heard the 'other side' of the argument why they don't allow that, but you make a good point IMO deserving consideration.

One thing I will say is that I've heard the 'clunkers' - not the better cars - put out *huge* amounts of pollution disproprtionate to any gas mileage issue, as in off the top of my head one clunker can pollute more than 100 times as much as other cars, so 1% of cars are causing a huge percent of all the pollution, so that this may be not just about gas mileage but about reducing the pollution from those clunkers.

Also with limited funds, they have to prioritize.

 

[sandorski]

Obviously this Program had a mish-mash of Intentions and wasn't purely a Pollution/Fuel Consumption program. Which is why there was such a Limited focus on what was eligible. It seems to also be designed to Cost no more than some pre-determined Amount.

 

[jpeyton]

Many of you are too narrow-minded for your own good.

"Mileage" alone isn't the only standard we have to pay attention to. Just as important are a vehicle's emissions. For example, a Honda Pilot has marginally better mileage than a 20 year old Chevy, but is a ULEV (it burns a lot cleaner).

 

[JSt0rm]

the point of this program was to sell cars with a sprinkle of fuel mileage thrown in. Also the original bill was for 3billion but the republicans stone walled it until it was dropped to 1billion. The title of this thread is retarded at best.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Gotcha. I haven't heard the 'other side' of the argument why they don't allow that, but you make a good point IMO deserving consideration.

One thing I will say is that I've heard the 'clunkers' - not the better cars - put out *huge* amounts of pollution disproprtionate to any gas mileage issue, as in off the top of my head one clunker can pollute more than 100 times as much as other cars, so 1% of cars are causing a huge percent of all the pollution, so that this may be not just about gas mileage but about reducing the pollution from those clunkers.

Also with limited funds, they have to prioritize.

Unfortunately most of those cars are disqualified because they are too old.

 

[ZeGermans]

Cash for clunkers would have been great for me if they didn't give an arbitrary maximum MPG cutoff for the trade in instead pay based on increase in mileage. I'd have bought a new car to replace my 97 taurus but it gets 18 instead of the maximum 17 mpg limit for a trade in.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Engineer
I have not heard this but I agree with you. Double your mileage from a good car to a great car vs the extra 2 from shitty SUV to almost shitty SUV....you get Jack Squat. I guess I can also complain that only first time home buyers get the credit and I don't...shit, I'm pissed! :|

Or, you could look at the facts I already posted - instead of the worst case you mention, that IIRC the average mileage increase was 69%.

No, you misunderstood what I'm talking about. I know full well that there are some substantial gains in the MPG for some of the cars being traded. My point was is that I can't take a good car (24mpg for example) and go to a great car (40mpg Fusion for example) and get a credit. Of course, the whole idea is to get rid of the clunkers from the highway and a 24mpg car would not be a clunker. That's all.

Gotcha. I haven't heard the 'other side' of the argument why they don't allow that, but you make a good point IMO deserving consideration.

One thing I will say is that I've heard the 'clunkers' - not the better cars - put out *huge* amounts of pollution disproprtionate to any gas mileage issue, as in off the top of my head one clunker can pollute more than 100 times as much as other cars, so 1% of cars are causing a huge percent of all the pollution, so that this may be not just about gas mileage but about reducing the pollution from those clunkers.

Also with limited funds, they have to prioritize.

I don't believe they thought the program would be so popular and as a result didn't use such stringent requirements for mpg. I really wish they would up those requirements if they end up extending it. Also anything newer than 10 years old is really pushing the definition of clunker unless it has been run to the ground.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Many of you are too narrow-minded for your own good.

"Mileage" alone isn't the only standard we have to pay attention to. Just as important are a vehicle's emissions. For example, a Honda Pilot has marginally better mileage than a 20 year old Chevy, but is a ULEV (it burns a lot cleaner).

Mpg is the main focus for those of us that want to be off of middle eastern oil. But you are correct, emissions also play a role, though they don't include C02 output which is directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Cash for clunkers would have been great for me if they didn't give an arbitrary maximum MPG cutoff for the trade in instead pay based on increase in mileage. I'd have bought a new car to replace my 97 taurus but it gets 18 instead of the maximum 17 mpg limit for a trade in.

For situations like this there should be a X% clause, the number would have to be decided. If you upgrade mileage by X% you qualify.

 

[TruePaige]

Man I want some perks too...I never qualify for any of these government programs.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Man I want some perks too...I never qualify for any of these government programs.

LOL, neither do I.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
I don't believe they thought the program would be so popular and as a result didn't use such stringent requirements for mpg. I really wish they would up those requirements if they end up extending it. Also anything newer than 10 years old is really pushing the definition of clunker unless it has been run to the ground.

Only congress would think that giving away free money would not be a popular idea!

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
I don't believe they thought the program would be so popular and as a result didn't use such stringent requirements for mpg. I really wish they would up those requirements if they end up extending it. Also anything newer than 10 years old is really pushing the definition of clunker unless it has been run to the ground.

Only congress would think that giving away free money would not be a popular idea!

Well, this did require that people to purchase a new vehicle which is a hard decision in a bad economy. On average they are still probably going 12 - 15k out of pocket / in debt for their purchase.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
I don't believe they thought the program would be so popular and as a result didn't use such stringent requirements for mpg. I really wish they would up those requirements if they end up extending it. Also anything newer than 10 years old is really pushing the definition of clunker unless it has been run to the ground.

Only congress would think that giving away free money would not be a popular idea!

Well, this did require that people to purchase a new vehicle which is a hard decision in a bad economy. On average they are still probably going 12 - 15k out of pocket / in debt for their purchase.

Yep. It wasnt free money. It was a reduction in the debt people might not otherwise gotten themselves into. Bad program, IMHO.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Man I want some perks too...I never qualify for any of these government programs.

LOL, neither do I.

I want them to start the "You are an alright fella who handles his business. Here is a check!" program.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
I don't believe they thought the program would be so popular and as a result didn't use such stringent requirements for mpg. I really wish they would up those requirements if they end up extending it. Also anything newer than 10 years old is really pushing the definition of clunker unless it has been run to the ground.

Only congress would think that giving away free money would not be a popular idea!

Well, this did require that people to purchase a new vehicle which is a hard decision in a bad economy. On average they are still probably going 12 - 15k out of pocket / in debt for their purchase.

Yep. It wasnt free money. It was a reduction in the debt people might not otherwise gotten themselves into. Bad program, IMHO.

Considering even in this down year, 8 or 9 million cars are going to be sold, this was free money being given away.