|
Post by safetildecember on Sept 23, 2009 21:46:35 GMT -4
Anybody take advantage? If so, what did you trade in and what did you purchase? How about those Maryland Taxes? Any complaints from dealerships that are not getting their money? I am just curious.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 23, 2009 22:07:41 GMT -4
There is nothing good that I can say about that program. It was wrong on so many levels that I would lose an hour of the sleep that I'm on my way to now just explaining 1/2 of the reasons I have to dislike that program, the people who thought it up, and those who used it.
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Sept 23, 2009 22:25:07 GMT -4
There is nothing good that I can say about that program. It was wrong on so many levels that I would lose an hour of the sleep that I'm on my way to now just explaining 1/2 of the reasons I have to dislike that program, the people who thought it up, and those who used it. RobMoore - I think I would agree with you on this! I feel the same way about the thread I started about "HealthCare...Pick One Thing." I've enjoyed reading other member's responses however, I still have not been able to put ALL of my own thoughts into words...Sometimes it just seems like too much
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 24, 2009 6:53:35 GMT -4
And how does everyone continue to feel about the original TARP program launched in October 2008? Are we proud of the fact, that our tax dolars were used to bailout Bank Of America? Wells Fargo, and many, many more? Anyone seen any of that return on investment in their paychecks? Bank Accounts? Unemployment benefits? bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 24, 2009 7:11:03 GMT -4
And how does everyone continue to feel about the original TARP program launched in October 2008? Are we proud of the fact, that our tax dolars were used to bailout Bank Of America? Wells Fargo, and many, many more? Anyone seen any of that return on investment in their paychecks? Bank Accounts? Unemployment benefits? bailout.propublica.org/main/list/indexThe return on investment for most of us would be the continuation of our paychecks and bank accounts. Had those banks all failed, things would be much, much worse. The US Govt. is receiving returns on those investments as that page shows. Don't forget to visit the page that shows the banks that have completely paid back the bailout money and the income the US made off those investments. And while the "paid back" page is much shorter than the "still owe" page, take note of the disclaimer stating that banks that have only partially refunded the money or banks that have declared they will refund the money but have not yet are still listed on the "still owe" page.
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 24, 2009 7:33:20 GMT -4
Consumer Reports blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-final-sales-and-mpg-results-and-totals.html * 690,114 cars were purchased under the program; two-thirds of those bought by consumers were passenger cars * The average rebate was $4,170.18, for a total of $2.878 billion. The rest of the $3 billion budget will cover administrative expenses. * The average new car bought with the rebates got 9.2 mpg more than the average clunker traded in, for an annual average fuel savings per driver of 277 gallons of fuel or about $720. * The Department of Transportation credits the program with saving 42,000 jobs in the auto industry and says it expects those jobs will be sustainable, because automakers have ramped up production to meet the clunkers demand. * Notably, 690,114 older cars were taken off the road, including 450,778 SUVs and other light trucks that likely lacked electronic stability control and other modern safety equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that making ESC standard on new cars would save as many as 10,000 lives a year. This program has taken a significant step toward that goal.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 24, 2009 8:24:47 GMT -4
And how does everyone continue to feel about the original TARP program launched in October 2008? Are we proud of the fact, that our tax dolars were used to bailout Bank Of America? Wells Fargo, and many, many more? Anyone seen any of that return on investment in their paychecks? Bank Accounts? Unemployment benefits? bailout.propublica.org/main/list/indexThe return on investment for most of us would be the continuation of our paychecks and bank accounts. Had those banks all failed, things would be much, much worse. The US Govt. is receiving returns on those investments as that page shows. Don't forget to visit the page that shows the banks that have completely paid back the bailout money and the income the US made off those investments. And while the "paid back" page is much shorter than the "still owe" page, take note of the disclaimer stating that banks that have only partially refunded the money or banks that have declared they will refund the money but have not yet are still listed on the "still owe" page. Really now? And I'll assume that you are taking into account the massive losses to folks retirement accounts, and 401K'S? The banks gambled and lost big time, and yet older working Americans, as well as retired folks took the largest hit of this b.s. and what happened to them? In the last year, foreclosures have continued to soar and the country's unemployment rate currently sits at a 26-year high of 9.7 percent. Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money As Anniversary Nears, Lawmakers Told TARP May Not Expire at End of Year By MATTHEW JAFFE Sept. 24, 2009 abcnews.go.com/Business/government-watchdog-extremely-taxpayers-recoup-tarp-money/story?id=8654889"The risk of foreclosure continues to affect too many Americans; unemployment continues its rise to levels that Treasury has characterized as 'unacceptable'; the so-called 'toxic' assets that helped cause this crisis for the most part remain right where they were last fall -- on the banks' balance sheets; and it is becoming more and more clear that the commercial real estate market might be the next proverbial shoe to drop, threatening to increase the pressure on banks and small business alike yet again," Barofsky says.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 24, 2009 21:59:42 GMT -4
The spin from that consumer reports leaves me a little dizzy.
The fact of the matter is that 690,114 people traded in vehicles that were still working. Those vehicles are now scrap because the dealers were not allowed to resell them. This is a huge waste of resources.
Another fact, those 690,114 people may not have been in the best place financially to afford a new car payment, but who could pass up "that great deal"? How much increase in Repos do you think we will see in the next year? I bet consumer reports won't have those figures.
Stability Control doesn't make you a safer driver, better training does. That excuse for this program is as thin as government toilet paper (yeah, single ply). I've driven cars with stability control. It helps when you make a minor mistake, one that you could recover on your own if you knew how. When you mess up big, the kind of big that kills people, no computer is going to break the laws of physics and stop you from crashing.
How do they expect the ramp up in production to meet one unique summer's worth of vehicle demands to produce sustainable jobs? Did they fail economics?
Edit for more: d**n, I almost forgot my biggest reason for hating this program. The money. The government didn't GIVE ANYONE a rebate to buy a new car. They TOOK MONEY FROM US and REDISTRIBUTED IT as they saw fit. What happens when there is another Airline crisis? Are we going to be taxed to pay for cheap tickets on US flights? What happens to the loser of the Apple vs Microsoft war? Will we be taxed to pay for reduced cost computers of the brand that couldn't hack it? (no pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 24, 2009 22:15:13 GMT -4
The fact of the matter is that 690,114 people traded in vehicles that were still working. Those vehicles are now scrap because the dealers were not allowed to resell them. This is a huge waste of resources. That was the point of the program. To remove "clunkers" from the road. The resources involved will be recycled. With the changes in the loan business, one would expect those taking car loans would be worthy of repaying those loans. Time will tell on that one. Improvements in vehicle safety has and continues to save lives. The stats on basic life safety items added to cars over the years is quantifiable. This program put a lot of people to work, or allowed them to continue working, adding the repercussions of their employment on down the line in purchasing power, taxes paid, etc... EXACTLY what a stimulus is all about. Maybe the costs of having an industry as big as an automobile industry collapse would be FAR costlier. One must remember that the auto industry affects all walks of life and a tremendous number of suppliers and employees. Should the auto industry fail, those in the steel business, electronics, paint, plastics, oil, gasoline, rubber, etc industries would all be severely affected. Could we "afford" that?
|
|
|
Post by hale80 on Sept 24, 2009 23:59:56 GMT -4
The spin from that consumer reports leaves me a little dizzy. The fact of the matter is that 690,114 people traded in vehicles that were still working. Those vehicles are now scrap because the dealers were not allowed to resell them. This is a huge waste of resources. Another fact, those 690,114 people may not have been in the best place financially to afford a new car payment, but who could pass up "that great deal"? How much increase in Repos do you think we will see in the next year? I bet consumer reports won't have those figures. Stability Control doesn't make you a safer driver, better training does. That excuse for this program is as thin as government toilet paper (yeah, single ply). I've driven cars with stability control. It helps when you make a minor mistake, one that you could recover on your own if you knew how. When you mess up big, the kind of big that kills people, no computer is going to break the laws of physics and stop you from crashing. How do they expect the ramp up in production to meet one unique summer's worth of vehicle demands to produce sustainable jobs? Did they fail economics? Edit for more: d**n, I almost forgot my biggest reason for hating this program. The money. The government didn't GIVE ANYONE a rebate to buy a new car. They TOOK MONEY FROM US and REDISTRIBUTED IT as they saw fit. What happens when there is another Airline crisis? Are we going to be taxed to pay for cheap tickets on US flights? What happens to the loser of the Apple vs Microsoft war? Will we be taxed to pay for reduced cost computers of the brand that couldn't hack it? (no pun intended) Cound not say it better. Truth Hurts - man you need to chill out a while
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 25, 2009 6:39:33 GMT -4
Edit for more: d**n, I almost forgot my biggest reason for hating this program. The money. The government didn't GIVE ANYONE a rebate to buy a new car. They TOOK MONEY FROM US and REDISTRIBUTED IT as they saw fit. What happens when there is another Airline crisis? Are we going to be taxed to pay for cheap tickets on US flights? What happens to the loser of the Apple vs Microsoft war? Will we be taxed to pay for reduced cost computers of the brand that couldn't hack it? (no pun intended)
Absolutely correct!!!! Once again, our money, are tax dollars, are used to bail out an industry that was destroying itself, with absolutely no help, nor input by the Middle Class. Yet these industries, the car companies, the banks, Wall Street movers and shakers continue to give huge bonuses to their execs, while for millions of American families that struggle continues on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 25, 2009 6:40:30 GMT -4
Consumer Reports blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-final-sales-and-mpg-results-and-totals.html * 690,114 cars were purchased under the program; two-thirds of those bought by consumers were passenger cars * The average rebate was $4,170.18, for a total of $2.878 billion. The rest of the $3 billion budget will cover administrative expenses. * The average new car bought with the rebates got 9.2 mpg more than the average clunker traded in, for an annual average fuel savings per driver of 277 gallons of fuel or about $720. * The Department of Transportation credits the program with saving 42,000 jobs in the auto industry and says it expects those jobs will be sustainable, because automakers have ramped up production to meet the clunkers demand. * Notably, 690,114 older cars were taken off the road, including 450,778 SUVs and other light trucks that likely lacked electronic stability control and other modern safety equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that making ESC standard on new cars would save as many as 10,000 lives a year. This program has taken a significant step toward that goal. Ummmm..Did you already forget all the dealerships that were closed? Yeah..that saved jobs..
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 25, 2009 7:09:44 GMT -4
Ummmm..Did you already forget all the dealerships that were closed? Yeah..that saved jobs.. And So it seems your position is: if you can't save everyone, make sure the others drown too. Is that really what you want? Sure, a lot of people got hurt in the banking failure, but why hasten the failure of even more banks and losses to even more people? My 401K took a big hit too but maybe I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy when I feel thankful that I didn't lose any more than I did; had more banks failed I'm sure I would have. I feel for those who lost more than I did but not so much that I want to join them. Did some dealerships close and people lose their jobs? Of course they did. Did ALL dealerships close and ALL people lose their jobs? No. Realistically, it's not likely they all would have closed anyway but some might have. You don't have to like the way it was done or how it was funded (I don't) but the sale of 690,000 vehicles certainly put food on some tables and money back into the economy. So what would your solution have been? Taken the chance that more banks would have failed, looked to the FDIC to cover depositors funds, looked to the Govt. to cover what the FDIC could not, then proudly taken credit for an even worse recession/depression? Would that have been better? Or with the cash-for-clunkers, would it have been better if the $3B had been handed out in $300 checks which would not have saved anyone's job? Or would it have been better if that $3B had not been injected into the economy at all and more dealerships had closed and more people been put out of work? I don't like the Govt. giving away my money any more than the next guy. In fact, I probably like it a lot less than the next guy if the recent election is any indication. However, I don't want to see this country turned into an enormous Apprentice episode where we all wait to see who will get fired next.
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 25, 2009 7:17:30 GMT -4
Ummmm..Did you already forget all the dealerships that were closed? Yeah..that saved jobs.. That had nothing to do with the stimulus package. That was a business decision by the GM and Chrysler.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 25, 2009 8:37:15 GMT -4
So it seems your position is: if you can't save everyone, make sure the others drown too. Is that really what you want?
No I am not saying that. What I am saying is this. Like your point, and the Fed, was that these companies were too big to fail. So they were given billions, with no strings attached. Now what did several of these companies do with some of that money. They went out and bought other companies, making them what? Even bigger. Which makes me think, that given these billion dollar bailouts, they now know that you and your company can do the massive economic damage possible, bring yourself close to bankruptcy, and then turn around knowing, that the fed will bail them out once again. As far as the dealerships being closed, think the same thought as you made with the car companies. If they failed, and closed plants, it not only affects the employees of those plants, but 1000's of other employees in other industries. Shouldn't that apply to dealerships closing, and the neighborhoods and towns, and cities they were in? Domino effect?
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Sept 25, 2009 8:39:20 GMT -4
Anybody have any info on the type of cars purchased? A friend of mine traded his truck in for a Kia. $4500 credit on a $9,500 car. Not a bad car note, but does it help the American economy as much as if they limited the program to American built cars only? (Although it seems American cars are now built in Canada and Mexico and imports are built in South Carolina and Tennesee)
|
|
|
Post by truthhurts on Sept 25, 2009 8:46:26 GMT -4
Anybody have any info on the type of cars purchased? A friend of mine traded his truck in for a Kia. $4500 credit on a $9,500 car. Not a bad car note, but does it help the American economy as much as if they limited the program to American built cars only? (Although it seems American cars are now built in Canada and Mexico and imports are built in South Carolina and Tennesee) content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/08/68496267/1General Motors 18.7% Toyota 17.9% Ford Motor 16.0% Honda 11.6% Chrysler 10.6% Nissan 7.0% Hyundai 6.6% Kia 3.8% Mazda 2.3% Subaru 2.2% Volkswagen 1.9% Suzuki 0.4% Mini 0.3% Mitsubishi 0.3% Smart 0.2% Volvo 0.1%
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 25, 2009 9:23:33 GMT -4
Ummmm..Did you already forget all the dealerships that were closed? Yeah..that saved jobs.. That had nothing to do with the stimulus package. That was a business decision by the GM and Chrysler. Which was strongly encouraged by the Fed, as part of the agreement if they were to be given any bailout.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 25, 2009 9:24:26 GMT -4
Anybody have any info on the type of cars purchased? A friend of mine traded his truck in for a Kia. $4500 credit on a $9,500 car. Not a bad car note, but does it help the American economy as much as if they limited the program to American built cars only? (Although it seems American cars are now built in Canada and Mexico and imports are built in South Carolina and Tennesee) Exotic clunkers got crushed, too Posted Sep 24 2009, 12:15 PM by Des Toups Rating: Filed under: car models, cars, gas mileage Now that the government has finished writing the Cash for Clunkers checks, it’s released a final breakdown of the models sent to the crusher. Among the 700,000 or so vehicles removed from the roads were 39 cars barely a year old – six Dodge Avengers alone and 10 Mercury Grand Marquises alone. Lest you believe gas-sucking domestics were the only victims, 3,595 BMWs, 2,532 Lexuses and 5,342 Mercedes met their makers as well. But not a single Hummer was ditched. Among the more exotic machinery cast off in return for a voucher worth up to $4,500 blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/smartspending/?fpn=exotic%20clunkers%20got%20crushed%20too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 11:44:48 GMT -4
I'm under the impression that the turned in cars are not actually crushed. The engine is the only item that has to be junked (made inoperable) and all the other parts can be stripped and resold. That is also supposed to assist a segment of the economy too. Has anyone heard something different than this?
I cut and pasted this out of that link above.
____________________________________________________
The Ford Explorer – for several years during the high-flying 1990s the best-selling vehicle in America -- was the most popular clunker, with 69,887 turned in.
The top-selling new vehicles through the program were:
Toyota Corolla 29,488 Honda Civic 28,456 Toyota Camry 27,137 Ford Focus 22,388 Ford Escape 21,894 Honda CR-V 20,106 Hyundai Elantra 19,797 Chevrolet Silverado 16,330 Nissan Versa 16,300 Ford F-150 16,263 Honda Accord 15,922 Nissan Altima 15,426 Toyota RAV4 15,255 Toyota Prius 15,013 Ford Fusion 13,415 Chevrolet Cobalt 13,335 Honda Fit 12,361 Nissan Sentra 12,158 Chevrolet Aveo 11,557 Toyota Tacoma 10,692
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 25, 2009 13:13:01 GMT -4
That's what I thought, heard and seen too. Kill the engines, then onto the scrap yard, or recycled.
|
|
|
Post by island tech on Sept 25, 2009 13:44:52 GMT -4
We've been killing the engines all week! I have to tell you we're enjoying it! Drain the oil then put in whats called Clunker Killer "guarenteed to kill any engine" pull it outside and hold it to the floor. We had an Explorer engine basically die 3 times and keep on running. We also had a Jeep throw a rod out the oil pan. What can I say but a bunch of Technicians having some fun blowing stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 25, 2009 14:48:27 GMT -4
It is mind boggling how this is thought of as a good idea. Sounds like fun, IslandTech, but MAN what a waste. Not only is it wasting the car, but wasting your time having to kill a still valuable product that could be resold.
Would it not have been better to treat these as standard trade-in vehicles? #1 Consumer has a car that qualifies, and brings it to the dealer. #2 Dealer appraises car, gives consumer a trade-in value against the price of the new car #3 Government pays (I know, we collectively pay) $4500 of the new price after trade-in. #4 Consumer leaves with new car, having paid at most $4500 under retail, most likely much less after being credited the value of their trade-in. #5 Dealer turns around and sells trade-in for a profit to someone who couldn't afford a new car.
Now, I don't like the plan above, but it certainly gives me less headache and heartburn than the plan our benevolent leaders swindled us into this summer. Edit to Add: and my plan doesn't cost any more than the one they came up with, and puts more money in everyone's pocket.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 25, 2009 14:52:47 GMT -4
But I think the plan was kind of twofold. Getting older vehicles with high emissions output, as well as low mileage. Think the dealers who were part of the whole process were ordered to destroy the engines.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 25, 2009 15:05:09 GMT -4
I know they were ordered to, but I don't believe it was necessary.
Those old vehicles weren't suddenly doing significantly more harm than they had been doing for the past 20 years. They would have eventually been taken out of the mix by their old age. There was no need to rush them out of circulation. Climate change requires more influence than that. It won't be affected down to the millionth percentile by taking those high emissions vehicles off the road. It merely gives the impression of doing something for the environment.
|
|