"What would I want to get rid of it for?" - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Palangi · #1 08-02-2009, 11:45 PM

Nothing new here.

Just another program to use the taxpayers money to buy votes.....

Brian Carlton · #2 08-02-2009, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

You miss the fact that most people that own older cars and are of the "turn the key" variety rather than a car brand fanatic, probably CAN'T AFFORD a new car and thats why they have the old car. So now they get shoved into a new car payment, higher insurance, possibly a lower quality car that won't last as long as the one they have... and so on. And lets not forget the fact that this country got into trouble by buying things IT COULD NOT AFFORD, now the government is pushing us in that direction.

And the premise of doing this for the environment is a joke, why else are 25+ year old cars excluded? These would be the biggest polluters of all. And lets not forget the negative economic impact to the dismantler industry.

Bottom line, its political BS with no positive gains outside that arena.

A payment of $300. per month for a new vehicle is probably within the reach of many. For those that cannot afford the new vehicle.........the program is obviously not for them, and basically not relevant to the discussion.

Bottom line is that it will generate some sales in a time of serious recession and eliminate some highly fuel efficient vehicles from the roads.

It's unfortunate that folks like yourself criticize a perfectly valid attempt to stimulate the economy a bit while simultaneously providing no alternatives.

cscmc1 · #3 08-03-2009, 12:09 PM

Brian -- I think a lot of folks don't feel the program's "valid" at all; I'd be one of them. Some of us just have a harder time explaining our positions w/o sounding like stubborn jerks (too often, myself included).

I just don't see how a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded program that encourages yet more debt is a step in the right direction. If we want to increase the fuel efficiency of cars on American roads, get the Feds to wise-up and bring us some of the nifty diesels Europe gets. Ford's got a great Mondeo wagon with a TD engine and 6 speed manual transmission that I'd die for here, but we don't get it.

If the idea is to get more money into the economy, aren't there better ways of doing that? Like maybe put those billions back into taxpayers' hands in the first place? Or, at the very least, don't use it to buy cars that you immediately destroy. It seems utterly ludicrous to take cars with healthy motors and intentionally destroy them, especially when they're being traded in for cars may get incrementally better mileage. Why not allow them to be parted out intact? Make them salvage-only, at least, and let those cars continue to earn a little money. Surely that could be accomplished.

I sure can get frustrated at the problems our Saab can exhibit, but then I remind myself that the $300 I spend on a turbo core one time is about what we'd be paying monthly for a new car. We have one debt -- our home, which we hope to have paid off in 10 years or so -- and I intent to keep it that way as long as I can. I can acknowledge that there are certainly cars being traded in under this program that are on the wrong side of the "point of diminishing returns" scale, but all (or even most) of them? And is it a wise use of billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy all those engines and encourage further personal debt?

That's the angle many of us are taking. I can acknowledge the points you offer, and I hope you can appreciate the argument I'm making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

A payment of $300. per month for a new vehicle is probably within the reach of many. For those that cannot afford the new vehicle.........the program is obviously not for them, and basically not relevant to the discussion.

Bottom line is that it will generate some sales in a time of serious recession and eliminate some highly fuel efficient vehicles from the roads.

It's unfortunate that folks like yourself criticize a perfectly valid attempt to stimulate the economy a bit while simultaneously providing no alternatives.

Brian Carlton · #4 08-03-2009, 12:29 PM

We could argue the best way to utilize monetary subsidies from the government until we're both 90 years of age and there would be no consensus. My opinion regarding the validity of the program is completely separate from the discussion of whether the money is best utilized elsewhere. I simply believe the program will generate the benefits that were intended............nothing more.

At the present time, the economy could use a boost with regard to auto sales. The program gives a push to those who have an old vehicle and could not otherwise afford a new vehicle without the assistance. Sooner or later, their old vehicle requires replacement anyway...........assistance or not. This benefit allows them to acquire a new vehicle rather than another older vehicle. The program won't work for everybody and the fact that it doesn't work for everybody has no affect on it's validity.

The program will increase the overall fuel economy for the vehicles on the road by an insignificant, incremental amount. However, any benefit is worthwhile, IMHO.

The vehicles that are traded in under the program have their engines disabled. The remainder of the vehicle can be salvaged, AFAIK. I also agree that the multitude of parts from these vehicles should be salvaged. The intent of the program, apparently, is to prevent the use of the engine in another vehicle. I don't see any downside to that.

You, like most others on the thread, are a capable fellow and can fix your own vehicle. Unfortunately, most people can't. You take a condescending attitude to those who are unable or unwilling to fix their own vehicle and, in a pompous way, tell them that they are not all that smart to purchase a new vehicle.

Unfortunately, you're incorrect because you fail to see the issue from their perspective.

Will I take part in the program............of course not. Will many others who need reliable transportation take part............definitely............and they should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

Brian -- I think a lot of folks don't feel the program's "valid" at all; I'd be one of them. Some of us just have a harder time explaining our positions w/o sounding like stubborn jerks (too often, myself included).

I just don't see how a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded program that encourages yet more debt is a step in the right direction. If we want to increase the fuel efficiency of cars on American roads, get the Feds to wise-up and bring us some of the nifty diesels Europe gets. Ford's got a great Mondeo wagon with a TD engine and 6 speed manual transmission that I'd die for here, but we don't get it.

If the idea is to get more money into the economy, aren't there better ways of doing that? Like maybe put those billions back into taxpayers' hands in the first place? Or, at the very least, don't use it to buy cars that you immediately destroy. It seems utterly ludicrous to take cars with healthy motors and intentionally destroy them, especially when they're being traded in for cars may get incrementally better mileage. Why not allow them to be parted out intact? Make them salvage-only, at least, and let those cars continue to earn a little money. Surely that could be accomplished.

I sure can get frustrated at the problems our Saab can exhibit, but then I remind myself that the $300 I spend on a turbo core one time is about what we'd be paying monthly for a new car. We have one debt -- our home, which we hope to have paid off in 10 years or so -- and I intent to keep it that way as long as I can. I can acknowledge that there are certainly cars being traded in under this program that are on the wrong side of the "point of diminishing returns" scale, but all (or even most) of them? And is it a wise use of billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy all those engines and encourage further personal debt?

That's the angle many of us are taking. I can acknowledge the points you offer, and I hope you can appreciate the argument I'm making.

mgburg · #5 08-03-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

A payment of $300. per month for a new vehicle is probably within the reach of many. For those that cannot afford the new vehicle.........the program is obviously not for them, and basically not relevant to the discussion. ... Bottom line is that it will generate some sales in a time of serious recession and eliminate some highly fuel efficient vehicles from the roads. ... It's unfortunate that folks like yourself criticize a perfectly valid attempt to stimulate the economy a bit while simultaneously providing no alternatives.

But, that's the problem...a $300.00/month payment where they didn't have one to begin with.

My tax dollars are going to a program that is stimulating...what? Everyone? Nope, just the automotive industry and its inefficient system that's still in place...and the program is being overseen by an even-more inefficient system...our own gubment. Anyone need a $300.00 valve-stem cap?

Generated sales are one thing...artificially generated sales are a whole different matter. Why are we taking something that's still perfectly good and trashing it out? And all of this is based on junk-science and backed-up by arm-chair experts that have text-book knowledge but little, or no, real-world experience with any of it.

This is another example of "Chicken Little" screaming that the sky if falling and no one is TAKING THE TIME AND COMMON SENSE to correct a serious problem...

Throw money at it...it will get better...

BS!

That's my money! (And for those of you that haven't figured it out yet...it's your money, too! (

)

Spend it right or lose your job!

tbomachines · #6 08-02-2009, 04:26 PM

I saw a news report today on the cash for clunkers program...they were in a lot full of clunkers, and they were well over 50% jeep grand cherokees and ford explorers. The rest were mainly domestics too...go figure.

Edward Wyatt · #7 08-02-2009, 04:37 PM

Unfortunatly most people look at automobiles as an appliance, nothing more than transportation from point to point.

With the low level of driver interaction and poor quality of most mass produced cars people just don't get into it like they used to.

pawoSD · #8 08-02-2009, 05:04 PM

As I said in one of the many other of these threads here on the forum.....people are going to be dumping mostly domestic SUV's and pickups.....and picking up foreign vehicles like toyotas, hyundais, kias, hondas, nissans, vw's, etc etc.... so the domestic auto makers will likely lose even more of their existing customer base (even if it was just selling replacement parts to people with those cars)....plus, they will lose the new sale on a replacement car. I forsee a shift of about 70%-80% of the cars "clunked" being domestics, and 70+% of their replacements being foreign autos. Just watch. In fact, all but one of every person I have seen or known that has recently bought a new car, went from a foreign to another new foreign, or domestic to foreign. Only one stayed domestic.

Hatterasguy · #9 08-02-2009, 06:19 PM

It does create a lot of jobs. Someone has to scrap and sell off those cars, and that makes work.

Junk yards are probably loving this.

450slcguy · #10 08-02-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Junk yards are probably loving this.

And I suspect many of us will be more than happy to ravage the clunkers to maintain our vintage non-clunker MB's.

The few negatives of the clunkers program will soon turn into a bonanza for all of us and our cars. Not only in spare parts, but also in the resale values of our newly restored vintage cars.

People really need to stop focusing on the negatives, and realize this program is good in many ways for everyone. For a measly few billion dollars, we'll help save an industry, help revitalize the economy, reduce unemployment, increase mpg, and reduce pollution.

It's a brillant plan anyway you look at it.

BodhiBenz1987 · #11 08-02-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

For a measly few billion dollars, we'll help save an industry, help revitalize the economy, reduce unemployment, increase mpg, and reduce pollution.

Well, I hope you're right. But that sounds like a far-fetched result from a few people buying new cars on a one-time basis.

I'll ask it again: How do they sell the next batch of new cars?

Also the reduction of pollution is patchy ... could be, could be inconsequential ... another change to this plan I would have like to have seen would be higher standards on what new car you have to buy. I.e., trading in your truck that gets 14 mpg for one that gets 16 mpg doesn't get me all excited. Trading in a car that get 14 for one that gets 35? A good move environmentally and economically.

450slcguy · #12 08-02-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodhiBenz1987

Well, I hope you're right. But that sounds like a far-fetched result from a few people buying new cars on a one-time basis. .

Far more than a few, easily in the 10's of thousands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodhiBenz1987

I'll ask it again: How do they sell the next batch of new cars?.

Hopefully the economy will recover someday. There are no guarentees on that however. We've really dug a deep, deep hole this time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodhiBenz1987

Also the reduction of pollution is patchy ... could be, could be inconsequential ... another change to this plan I would have like to have seen would be higher standards on what new car you have to buy. I.e., trading in your truck that gets 14 mpg for one that gets 16 mpg doesn't get me all excited. Trading in a car that get 14 for one that gets 35? A good move environmentally and economically.

In most cases, the reduction in pollution will be positive. Not overwhelming, but positive. Same with MPG, 14mpg to 16mpg is a 15% savaings. And 14mpg to 18+ is more realistic in this program.

BodhiBenz1987 · #13 08-02-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Far more than a few, easily in the 10's of thousands.

10s of thousands is a few in the big picture. It was based on a fleeting motivator, so what's going to make people buy the next 10s of thousands?

Quote:

In most cases, the reduction in pollution will be positive. Not overwhelming, but positive. Same with MPG, 14mpg to 16mpg is a 15% savaings. And 14mpg to 18+ is more realistic in this program.

Agreed but if the environment were the real motivation, they could have aimed higher. Aiming higher might have helped the U.S. auto industry avoid this in the first place ... but that's obviously speculation.

Fulcrum525 · #14 08-02-2009, 07:22 PM

I'm kinda on both sides of the fence on this one... On the one hand I agree that its not really helping the economy (I think they shot themselves in the foot by not making the program be open to only new American made cars...)

But on the other I can see that the program can make sense under the right circumstances. We might be getting rid of our van for a VW TDI even though we are more then capable in fixing it ourselves. It simplly comes down to the fact that my mom wanted a new car anyways and the van has a few expensive mechanical problems that will need attention soon (New axles.....) Also we don't need something that big any longer. So if it was on its way out anyways....

E150GT · #15 08-02-2009, 08:27 PM

I am probably going to take advantage of this deal. I know I've said before that I dont like debt and all. But If I can trade in my car and get 4500 for it, which is way more than its worth, and buy a cheap new car, I will do it. Sure it doesn't have the road presence of a w126 and its not going to be paid for right away, but it will be reliable for the next five years which is way more than I can say for my benz. I am currently looking at a Mazda 3 base model which has everything I need in a car and has just as many options as my car considering most of them are broken. With the rebate from the gov. and additional rebates, I can finance 12000 and have it paid off in less than 2 years.