cash for clunckers program in 2010?

God I hope not. The first one didnt work as intended. Not to mention it cost taxpayers 24k per car

 

What a waste!

 

Gosh I hope so, it worked perfectly but it was too short.

 

I could imagine a round 2 of clunkers, especially since it has worked so well in other countries. The catch is, the replacement criteria would likely be tightened.
.

 

They'd better not.

I hope this isn't actually true. If it is, it's an outrage. It's bad enough that all of us had to subsidize others and automakers/finance outfits, but if this is what took place...

Ford F-150 Tops In Cash For Clunkers Swaps - PickupTrucks.com News

 

I totally agree.

I think C4C was one of the biggest and most blatant wastes of tax payer money that we've seen in a while. It was straight GIVING MONEY AWAY to people. Spreading the wealth.

 

I have to agree with John1701a on this one. C4C was the first government program that I have ever been involved with and I am usually against any type of government hand-out program.

I for one went from a 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 180,000 miles and a 15 MPG average to the Prius with the 50 MPG average.

I also saw in the final government report on C4C that somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of the vouchers were for $4500 which meant that 40% had at least a 10 MPG improvement. Of course, this means that 60% had less than 10 MPG improvement, which includes the trucks that are mentioned.

If there is a second round, they definitely need to tighten up the specs to get the kind of improvement that other countries have been able to obtain.

 

Who will advise on the program in 2010?

 

The $24k per car figure is based on the edmunds study, which assumed that most people would have bought a new car without the program. This assumption was not shared by many other analysts, including Goldman Sachs, IHS, and JD Power. Even if the assumption is correct, its use discards many benefits and distorts the analysis, as selling cars was not the sole purpose of the program.

Two professors from UD looked at actual costs and estimated environmental benefits, and concluded that the net cost per car was $2,000. (Summarized at Green Car Congress: Univ. of Delaware Researchers Conclude Cash for Clunkers Cost Exceeded Benefit)

Neither analysis looked at buyers who thought they were C4C eligible, but weren't, and ended up buying a car anyway, or other residual effects... Consider that even if someone was going to buy a car anyway, they got a discount through CARS, and therefore had $2,600 (on average) that they wouldn't have had without the program.

C4C was not 'straight giving money away to people', as it required a beneficial action to be taken. An example of a straight giveaway would be the $300 check from 2001 and the $600 check from 2008. I believe both kinds of stimulus have their benefits, and supported both programs.

Midpack - 8,300 deals is a small fraction of the program.. there were almost 700,000 deals made, so you're talking about 1.2%.

All that said, I would not support another C4C. I supported the original program, even though I understood the direct economic benefits were dubious. I think there are better ways to spend government money at this time (if it's to be spent at all).

 

Please don't use that article as a reference. The writer was and is a moron because he had no understanding about what really took place and he was severely deficit in math skills.

In fact ... the very situation that he wrote about is exactly what was good about the program. Need further explanation? Here's a hint: would it better for the US as a nation that an owner of a 2004 Camry trade up to a Prius or that an owner of a 1995 F150 trade up to a 2009 F150? Think about it.

 

Your wrong, but then you're not in the business and you haven't thought too deeply about it either. In fact you have no idea where the money went do you. I do. It's perfectly obvious if you understand the business side of autos.

 

Absolutely correct. That 'study' was done by one of the shallowist organizations in the auto world, Edmunds. I'm always calling them out on their site about one stupid analysis or another.

In the Spring ( of this year ) they come out with the following revelations; the Insight II is a better buy than the Prius!!!! ( the 2009 Prius )
When fuel prices were moving every quarter they published their SOTP analysis that the 'pay back' period for the Prius was 6 yrs; but sometimes it was 4 yrs; but sometimes it was 3 yrs. It varied so widely because they did the analysis wrong.

Edmunds is an internet site that generates profits by people clicking there to see what the big brouhaha is all about. It is in the business of generating traffic flow by generating controversy. That's the only way it makes money.

Actually it did 'give away money' directly to people. Every $ of the money went to the owners, employees and vendors of 25000 small businesses all across America in every Congressional district ( no wonder that it had such easy going in DC ).
In addition it benefitted the lenders to those businesses.
In addition it immediately puffed up the local and state tax coffers to the tune of ~$700 million!!!
In addition the Feds immediately got back a huge portion of the $3 Billion in the form of suddenly increased withholdings and quarterly tax revenues.

The UD study is a lot closer to the truth as you noted above.

 

Sorry, you're wrong. The program was good for you, but it sucked for the vast majority of Americans. Tell me how I, as a normal person, benefited from other Americans receiving $4,500 in handouts from the government to buy a new vehicle?

By the way, your argument of "I'm right, you're wrong. I know and you don't" is worthless.

C4C was by far one of the worst uses of taxpayers money we've seen in a long time. A complete waste of money.

 

The reason, the one that your narrow minded group always ignores, is that the entire country benefitted as auto sales spiked; dealers got a shot in the arm; lenders got a shot in the arm; vehicle makers were able to clear the decks for the next auto season -thus hire more workers - which ended up stimulating the economy.

When the entire country benefits, even a small benefit, that's better for us as a nation. I know that you and your groups would prefer to live on islands where you didn't have to live in a community. However as long as you continue to be an American citizen and you continue to hold that narrow-minded outlook then you will always be wrong. Every time. We're a society together, E Pluribus Unum. Whether you like it or not we have to look out for the greater good.

In this case stimulating the economy by putting $4500 into the hands of 25000 small businesses across the nation - in every Congressional district in the country - was the perfect way to do that. That's why the C4C program will be the model for any other similar stimuli. It put money where it would be spent immediately multiple times ( basic economics ).

Also a huge portion of that money was immediately returned to the local, state and federal tax bodies.

You continue to be held in less contempt than toilet scum for your prior post wishing death on the President.

 

I can't believe that someone actually thinks that it is a good idea for the tax paying public to yet again bail out the auto manufacturers with more of our money.

The American auto manufacturers completely ignored trends for oil prices and consumer needs and continued to build crap. Then when consumers stopped buying their crap, the tax payer paid to modernize their facilities and re-tool for the types of cars they should have been building 15 years ago. All while their CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars.

Then yet again the tax payer is hit with a bill to give $4500 to people who can't buy a car on their own like the rest of us who work, save and invest. So some asshat who was driving a 20 year old POS is now driving a new car which likely has car payments which will likely be unpaid at some point.

Maybe taxpayers should also pay for auto insurance for these people too?

This is nothing more than taking from those who have worked, saved and invested all of their lives to give to those who have not.

 

I think the federal tax credit toward the very fuel efficient vehicles is more effective and cost less. It goes through the same process of filing tax. Disposal or selling of the old car goes through the normal process.

 

You have to understand who were the participants of the program. This will really rev up your engine. But that's another story, ask if you're interested. In fact it was one of the unforeseen benefits of this program too.

I agree that paying the outdated American automakers this money would have been a bad idea. But here again one has to understand the flow of money and where it actually went. The auto makers got NONE of it. As in $Zero. There's a huge amount of disinformation and misinformation floating around about this program but I can give you a very very simple example if you're interested.

The economic powers in the world, that is every industrialized nation, decided last spring that every industrialized nation needed to stimulate their economy. This is what the discussions at the G20 Meetings were about. As such they trade ideas of what measures each is taking. The US copied the German program as did Japan and other countries. You can agree or disagree about the need to stimulate the economy or not to do so, but you'd be in the minority of economists and world leaders if you disagreed with the measures.


Eight key points..

1. none of the money went to the auto makers
2. the cost was far less than the allocated $3 Billion
3. the money was put 'on the street' where it could do the most good economically right away; it was not kept in some NYC bank vault.
4. the 'right' people were incentivized to get back into the market
5. it gave a boost to local and state tax revenues
6. it gave a boost to the lending industry
7. it directly assisted 25000 small business in every Congressional district in the US and millions of employees thereof
8. maybe most importantly it took 700,000 old clunkers off the roads forever

 

OK, so the point you are trying to make is if someone disagrees with you, they are narrow minded and scum. You are now irrelevant. I'm sure the people over at Priority would love to know how one of their representatives is talking on the internet. I sure would never buy a car from them after reading your posts.

 

If you maintain this position, then yes you are beneath toilet scum.