Cash for Clunkers - Saying Goodbye
- Thread starter DavidV
- Start date
Discoweb is pissed at Dave and I don't get it. Seems like a very logical move he made.
I dig the cube too.
The politics behind the cash for clunkers is all fucked up for sure. I believe it should have been much more environmentally strict, like originally intended. But I think it's clear now that selling cars was considered far more important, than the environmental aspect.
Here is some science on the carbon impact of a building a new car vs maintaining an old one if interested. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/cashforclunkers
I dig the cube too.
The politics behind the cash for clunkers is all fucked up for sure. I believe it should have been much more environmentally strict, like originally intended. But I think it's clear now that selling cars was considered far more important, than the environmental aspect.
Here is some science on the carbon impact of a building a new car vs maintaining an old one if interested. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/cashforclunkers
DavidV said:
I agree with you there! We built our house in 2004, but it was our first and started as a spec house so we didn't make any major changes to the plan (or price). I would love to add solar panels to the roof since we have no trees directly competing for sunlight near the house, but I'm afraid it would cost us quite a bundle to install and retrofit everything at this point. Our house was pre-wired for cable and electric and phone, why not green energy?
Last edited:
nosivad_bor said:
He made the right move for his family and lifestyle, true.
But you know no one here wants to see a pretty little stock Disco get killed!
DavidV said:
I don't think that would be fair across the board. People who can't afford to run out and buy the newest fad in hybridized, mini-cars would be taxed for driving what they could afford. Around here at least, you've got a lot of farmers who are barely making it and probably still drive their 1989 trucks (ford/dodge/chevy) for work. Why should they be penalized? The first portion of your example might work though--like getting the tax credits for buying new and improved appliances and energy saving home improvements. Not to mention, the people getting worse gas mileage in their paid-off vehicles are paying more in gasoline costs and tax anyway...which is good for "Big Oil."
Good point, cars/trucks are a bit more tricky although I guess you could help offset the penalty by sweetening the income tax deduction for work vehicles. Of course, there is no getting around the fact that people with large families that can't rely on smaller/more efficient cars to get around are going to be dinged disproportionally, unless there were also some escape clause based on the number of dependents and/or special needs exceptions.Roverlady said:
-- DavidV
Probably so, but in what time frame? See, there's this little thing called "demand forward" that economists like to talk about. It can have disastrous effects on the curve and is at best, a stopgap.
The question is, when cars go back to selling at <10M units/year, how many more billions will they allocate?
This is one of the most poorly thought out tactical reactions out there right now.
noee said:
now we're getting somewhere....
In addition to getting people to hit the dealerships and buy a car now that they might have held off on, this bullshit program also got a lot of people into the dealerships to buy a car they didn't even know they wanted or needed before they learned about the program. It's the allure of supposed "free money" that draws morons like moths to the flame.
So now the car companies, even the terminally ill American "Big 3", will have a really great looking 3rd quarter. Big deal, everyone knows it's fake. It will be back to the death throes next month with another $3B of taxpayer money thrown on top of the funeral pyre.
Along the lines of Peter's response to DavidV's attempts to rationalize a "fair" tax/credit solution, how about the damn government just sticks to governing and gets the hell out of our businesses.
Correct. Especially guilty is Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep for claiming they moved a lot of vehicles - but only by offering $9k off through matching the government's C4C funds.Blue said:
How are they going to be able to sell a Jeep Patriot next year, for example, when the perceived value to the consumer is now $8k, not $17k. One can argue that it was incentive and discount programs (along with an over reliance on fleet sales) that killed the big three in the first place. Now, the solution to getting them back to profitability is deeper discounts and incentives? Doesn't make sense. All it does is cheapen the brands further and make it less likely that consumers will buy anywhere close to retail price in the future.
The Hondas and Toyotas of the world don't have to sweat this as much because they didn't over-rely on incentive programs and fleet sales to remain profitable. The domestics - well, we can expect to see them sweating bullets next year (not so great news for the U.S.taxpayers - now that we are the proud owners of GM).
-- DavidV
Exactly....ever gone to a store only to find out that they had the item on a super sale just last week? It's like they are saying to you, "Last week we sold this TV for $1,000 but the sale is over and you're a schmuck so you'll pay $1,500." My response is always, "If you could sell it for $1,000 last week you can do the same this week." The auto companies are going to get the same attitude, especially Chrysler and GM since everyone is so in tune with the fact that they are flopping on the deck like those junk fish that come up in the crab pots on Deadliest Catch.
I am a veritable treasure trove of similes today for some reason.
I am a veritable treasure trove of similes today for some reason.
Has anybody found the explicitly granted power for the federal government to do this in the Constitution?
DavidV said:Correct. Especially guilty is Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep for claiming they moved a lot of vehicles - but only by offering $9k off through matching the government's C4C funds.
<snip>
-- DavidV
Not sure what you mean by this.
You can get these kinds of discounts prior to C4C, just read the papers. Mfg were offering 5-20k off vehicle prices before C4C. I have seen it in the Sunday papers for months. They have been offering prices so low that used auto classifieds would have a hard time competing in may cases (at lease the "wanted" price in the classifieds"). Especially on Wrangers and top of the line Rams. I know because I coule really use one of the Rams, so I watch them.
In general people that are doing C4C that do not have disposable income to burn on a new auto are not making a good decision... people that sell a clucker for 4k to finance a 30k fuel efficient vehicle are not helping themselves, they are helping the mfg and banks... IMO, it is a very stupid decision, but then again... I CHOOSE to own a 1993 RRC rather than a 2009 RRS.
Blue said:
Yep and if you are willing to walk out empty handed a couple of times during negotiations, you can likely get it for under $1000. Done it on Cars, Watches, TVs, Stereos, you name it.
Go to some Asian countries for haggling training... it'd do everyone in the US a world of good.
For sure auto's are cheaper in the US than most places, but the dealers are willing to sell them well under invoice... at least right now they are. You could also just call someone that works at a manufacturer and ask for the employee discount... to start.
bri said:
LOL....I love the dejected face of the salesman when you just walk out the door. Then the look of shear joy when you walk back in 5 minutes later, then the look of dejection when you say, "Where is the men's room?" Then the joy when you come back the next day, then the opposite when you walk out empty handed again. When you get the look of "let's just sell you this item and be done with it" you know you've won.
Wait until they crush all cars older than 5 years old.
This is how it starts and we are happily paying for it.
This is how it starts and we are happily paying for it.
Thing is, when one needs a car, craigslist is right there.
When one wants a car but doesn't need it, it is so simple.
"I have X dollars here in my fist, and they are yours if the car is mine."
No haggling necessary. Don't tell me what car it is, because I already know.
The problem is with Joe Q Public - he wants a car and tries to talk himself into thinking he needs it. And here's Uncle Sam with the $4500 in hand...
If our friend DavidV here needed a family hauler, he'd gone out and bought a 5-year old Odissey minivan from the 'list. But being a self-proclaimed automotive expert, he needs to test new wheels every once in a while and report his findings to the public... Mind it, I don't even question his choice of junking the Disco (it's a disaster like a typical surfer dude special) - just lame attempts to rationalize it.
When one wants a car but doesn't need it, it is so simple.
"I have X dollars here in my fist, and they are yours if the car is mine."
No haggling necessary. Don't tell me what car it is, because I already know.
The problem is with Joe Q Public - he wants a car and tries to talk himself into thinking he needs it. And here's Uncle Sam with the $4500 in hand...
If our friend DavidV here needed a family hauler, he'd gone out and bought a 5-year old Odissey minivan from the 'list. But being a self-proclaimed automotive expert, he needs to test new wheels every once in a while and report his findings to the public... Mind it, I don't even question his choice of junking the Disco (it's a disaster like a typical surfer dude special) - just lame attempts to rationalize it.