Man where do I line up for this "free money"? I'll bring a 53 foot trailer and they can fill it up.
Cash for Clunkers - Saying Goodbye
- Thread starter DavidV
- Start date
now go do that with your cube you fuckstick!DavidV said:I was also the guy that led K&N's support for the Drive Around the World (Longitude) program - an initiative that took DII Discos around the world to help raise awareness (not to mention funding) for Parkinson's Research.
http://knfilters.com/world/site/
http://davidv.smugmug.com/photos/117687769_caGjy-O.jpg
-- DavidV
If you want a real good example of how much of an epic fail this program is, take a look at the video on youtube of the "clunker" Volvo someone turned in. Thing looks practically new. I feel so much better about the world now that this clunker is destroyed. Volvos have such a poor reputation for being unsafe, fuel sucking, short lived vehicles right? The folks that turned that in must really needed that credit to afford a new car. I'm so glad my tax dollars could help. What a fucking joke. I don't mind folks junking their POS, but seeing stuff like this and knowing America is going to pay for it boils my blood. 2nd vid from the top:
http://bahnstorm.com/cashforclunkerssucks.html
http://bahnstorm.com/cashforclunkerssucks.html
You must have had a special Disco...mine certainly doesn't have "CV boots"
haha
Well, thanks for admitting that it was too over your head to repair (ps replacement rotors for the front are $40 each. Pads can be bought for $45 at any autozone. Parts = $125 and about an hour of your time. Aftermarket fuel pump = $180).
That Cube certainly matches the design of your new house much better than the Disco did. Not to mention it looks like it wouldn't have fit in your 'stacker' garage arrangement. It's just a shame you put a little into it (ignition/driveline work) but wouldn't go so far to do the basics and would rather see it scrapped.
Stick with the cars and enjoy your life! :victory:
haha
Well, thanks for admitting that it was too over your head to repair (ps replacement rotors for the front are $40 each. Pads can be bought for $45 at any autozone. Parts = $125 and about an hour of your time. Aftermarket fuel pump = $180).
That Cube certainly matches the design of your new house much better than the Disco did. Not to mention it looks like it wouldn't have fit in your 'stacker' garage arrangement. It's just a shame you put a little into it (ignition/driveline work) but wouldn't go so far to do the basics and would rather see it scrapped.
Stick with the cars and enjoy your life! :victory:
Many dealers in this area are 150K or more in the hole because buckwheat hasn't coughed up the promised "free money"MarkP said:
agbuckle98 said:
I bet a lot of dealers will be taking it in the shorts for trade-ins they can't get money for. I smell lawsuits and maybe one or two BK car dealers over this.
Bahnstorm said:
I've been watching the news and cars they show in the back lots. There are some good cars there that still have a lot of life and many usable parts. They should have either set the MPG lower or allowed old junkers in backyards to get $2500.
Wow....after watching this cash for clunkers debacle develop over the past week I must admit that I'm ashamed, as an American, to be associated with this program. Think of how we must look to the rest of the world....ignorant fat fuck Americans paying themselves to destroy perfectly good cars. All in the name of "saving the environment". It's such a transparent sham, it's truly embarassing.
How is this program helping poor people with old clunkers? How is abusing and destroying a perfectly good late model car and spewing clouds of smoke and oil and other engine fluids on the ground helping the environment? (and the morons are even laughing while they do it)
DavidV, I can understand why you wanted to "take advantage" of this program but I have absolutely no respect for people like you.
How is this program helping poor people with old clunkers? How is abusing and destroying a perfectly good late model car and spewing clouds of smoke and oil and other engine fluids on the ground helping the environment? (and the morons are even laughing while they do it)
DavidV, I can understand why you wanted to "take advantage" of this program but I have absolutely no respect for people like you.
Blue said:
Absolutely spot on. A travesty.
The intentional disabling / destruction of engines is what gets me...
Blue said:
I am in the automotive industry by trade, so for me, participating in the program was as much about learning how it worked - the good, bad and ugly - as it was getting a car.
Although you don't respect me, which is fine, if you haven't figured it out, I am just as critical of the program as you are.
I already posted about how I thought it was ridiculous that the cars couldn't be exported as humanitarian aid to poor countries that could use them or be used to train people in automotive services related fields right here at home.
I also think it is entirely disingenuous to call this program "green" when, in terms of the consumption of resources, the greenest practice is to keep old cars on the road as long as possible (provided they are passing basic emissions tests).
On top of that, and the biggest moral shortcoming of C4C of all, I think the program is like the mortgage bail out - a way to reward people for irresponsible and poorly considered purchases - in this case, buying cars/trucks that guzzled gas and depreciated like crazy and then having buyers remorse when the fuel consumption, repair costs, and associated depreciation made long term ownership undesirable and ensured that the cars depreciated to less than $4,500 even in perfectly serviceable form.
What about the person who didn't take on an adjustable rate arm loan on a house that they couldn't afford and instead, bought within their budget and paid their mortgage on time every time - they get nothing. How is that fair?
By the same token, if my wife had bought a Scion or Civic back in the day, she would get no reward for buying the right car to meet her needs (freeway commuting). Instead, like a lot of Americans, she went with the popular trend and bought an SUV and drove it up and down freeways to and from work, not once taking it off road or in the snow. Why? Because that's what Americans do. They buy more car than they need, more McMansion than they need, and feel like they have done their part to keep up with the Joneses.
As a result of this not-so-brilliant move some years ago, she (and as a result, I), along with tens of thousands of Americans get a $4,500 credit for buying a Disco/Exploder/Grand Cherokee/F150 when she really should have bought something else.
And the folks that bought efficient cars at the height of the SUV craze - they get nothing.
Matter of fact, under this program, if I had a car today that got 20mpg, and wanted to upgrade to a car that got 40mpg, I would be SOL. Yet, someone could get $3,500 for going from a dismal 14mpg (like our Discos) to an equally pathetic 18mpg - basically, trading one over-sized fuel hog for another. Yet the person that wants to truly double or triple their mileage gets zilch, nada, nothing.
How does that make any sense?
So you see - you and I are not that far apart in being critical of the program.
But guess what - I still took the money. Why? Because although I came to love and respect the Discovery for what it was -I also had enough sense to see that it was ill suited for our needs (a daily driver for hauling baby around on sunny California freeways).
If I were President, I would first reward people who were responsible before there was any incentive to do so - because they deserve to get a break for being smart enough and caring enough to make a difference before there was a financial incentive to do so.
But this is America. We don't reward people for making smart or responsible choices. We reward them for being irresponsible and short sighted.
So here's the fascinating part.
If you had said to me - David, I don't respect you one bit, not because you traded in the Disco under C4C, but because you had no business buying one in the first place if you didn't need the Disco to do what a Disco does best - traverse off road where few others can - you'd be 100% right and I (well, my wife anyway) would be guilty as charged.
But instead, you lay the blame on the act of turning the Disco in for the car that arguably she should have bought in the first place - an efficient little appliance that goes up and down paved freeways using minimal gas while offering maximum space.
That's the part I don't get.
If you feel strongly about C4C, and you clearly do, by all means lobby and rally against the administration. I'd be right there with you. Maybe you could help ensure that the next time they implement a program like this, it is thought through a hell of a lot better than this one - starting with rewarding people for doing the right thing before a carrot was dangled for them to do it.
If you did that, I would respect you. If all you are going to do is point fingers at "people like me" at least try to understand that even people taking advantage of the program don't necessarily agree with the premise behind it.
FYI - we also got a credit for our solar panels (30% off the price) on our new home. If you were an early adopter of solar and have been using it for years - including paying premium prices back when the technology was new, you get nothing.
If you ask me, it should be the other way around. Every new home built after 2008 should have some mandatory clean solar/geothermal/wind power built into it. By code, they should at least require that the homes be pre-wired for solar with all the conduits and hook-ups ready to go. If you don't, there should be a 30% bonehead penalty like a gas guzzler tax for home builders/ new homeowners.
Am I to be faulted for taking the 30% solar credit? I sure hope not. At the same time, do I think its the best way to get people into green homes? Hell no.
Here's another one. We also got a $10k credit for building a new home. Great. Happy to get it. But why should I get $10k just to stimulate the home building industry, when someone doing a green remodel on an existing home gets nothing? At a minimum, shouldn't the $10k only be offered if the home passes some form of LEED certification to show that it was built responsibly?
-- DavidV
Everything all of you guys are talking about is exactly why the gov't simply can not and should not be involved micro-managing the economy. They are fucking useless and clueless.
The fact that a Rover is getting chopped isn't what offends me; it's the fact that you've taken part in a bullshit program. What's even worse is that you've clearly stated that you know it's bullshit in your rather lengthy self-justification treatise above.
Back in 2000 we had a somewhat similar financial fiasco here in AZ called the alt fuels program:
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14196
We ended up with all these chumps in huge Suburbans with litte propane tanks peeking out from under the rear bumpers. The vast majority of these chumps had no idea what propane was; they just knew that they could take advantage of the system so they did.
Back in 2000 we had a somewhat similar financial fiasco here in AZ called the alt fuels program:
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14196
We ended up with all these chumps in huge Suburbans with litte propane tanks peeking out from under the rear bumpers. The vast majority of these chumps had no idea what propane was; they just knew that they could take advantage of the system so they did.
David, try this:
Thom (Muskyman) corrected my take on your pesonality from "flake" to "fake" - and by doing so once again proved a better judge of a person's character than me.
You claim to being reasonable and honest is just as true as your claim to be an automotive expert (yet unable to perform basic maintenance on a very simple vehicle).
Thom (Muskyman) corrected my take on your pesonality from "flake" to "fake" - and by doing so once again proved a better judge of a person's character than me.
You claim to being reasonable and honest is just as true as your claim to be an automotive expert (yet unable to perform basic maintenance on a very simple vehicle).
national news is reporting that the cash for clunkers program has now showed a dramatic trend of people turning in american cars and trucks and being replaced with small imports.
the top selling 6 cars are all imports.
the top selling 6 cars are all imports.
I needed two trucks for my employees. A z71 didn't fit the criteria but the f150 did. I kept the rover and traded in my 2 92 f150s for two 09 f150. Still have my rover though fate keeps her with me.
MUSKYMAN said:
Looks to me like the Ford Focus is #1 and Ford Escape is #6:
http://jalopnik.com/5329973/ten-most-traded+in-and-purchased-cash-for-clunkers-cars-updated/gallery/
The Ten Most Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus
2. Toyota Corolla
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyundai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt
-- DavidV
I know it's bullshit in that it, like the mortgage bailout, rewards consumers for bad decisions and does nothing to reward consumers that have been doing the right thing all along.Blue said:
Playing devil's advocate here - For this program to make any sense morally, it should say, for example:
The government will send every American a check for some dollar amount for every vehicle they currently own or purchase that exceeds the 2010 cafe standards of 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg for light trucks. On the flipside, for every car or light truck you own below that standard you'll face an annual consumption tax of a similar amount.
That would be fair and that would, more quickly than anything, nudge people into more efficient cars without requiring that any serviceable vehicles be crushed.
The thing is - C4C is not about doing the right thing and getting people to be responsible consumers. It is about coercing people to buy cars now that they otherwise wouldn't buy. In that sense, I was a "good consumer" and did what I was asked - bought a new car I would have otherwise held off on buying.
Your beef seems to be not that I did what the government was asking me to do, but with what the government chose to ask for (and use tax payer dollars to subsidize).
-- DavidV
Last edited: