Good point. I am sure there are some real beaters in the bunch, but I also just read an article in the local rag about the program wherein a young couple said they were going to trade in a minivan with 53K miles on it. "Nothing wrong with it" was the quote, but the trade-in was less than what the program was giving them, so off it goes, to have it's 53K mile engine (and possibly transmission?) destroyed purposely.

Why such modest demands for increased mileage, then? Why not just shake up the Fed regs and let some of those nice Euro diesels over here? Let folks see what REAL economy looks like.

That's a moral relativity argument that I disagree with, but I obviously have to concede that we waste far too much money in this country. I just don't think that justifies a poorly thought out Cash for Clunkers program.

Well, if the door is hitting me on the way out, it's hitting my wallet that still has cash in it and I'm sure that I'm going the right direction from inside the burning building and out where I have a chance to survive...economically. Thanks for the "ass-warning" - I like that advice when it's given in the right circumstances! :thumbup1:

As for the "...your (you're) to (too) narrow minded..." crack... ( :rolleyes: ) see if anyone can explain to us "thinned-gray-mattered folks" where the "Cash For Clunkers" cash is actually coming from?

The "Green Tree" down the street?

Little Miss Muffett's tuffet?

That pot at the end of the rainbow?

Johnny: OH!!!!! I KNOW!!!!! I KNOW!!!!! PICK ME!!!!! PICK ME!!!!
Teacher: OK! Johnny? Where is the "Cash For Clunker" cash coming from?
Johnny: It's coming right from your @**!!!!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Oh, did we happen to forget that little part?

What comes from the Gubment was already taken from us (or will be by the 15th of next April) and we won't be getting 100% of it back...either.

So, enjoy the "free cash" before you open your eyes folks...it might seem a slightly different color when you really realize where you're heading...again...in your financial future...

I avoided it the first time (Except in the 401(k) area! :eek: :rolleyes:), but I'm not steering myself anywhere near this branch in the logic road...it's a dead end street and there's nothing but bankers waiting at the end of it to pick u'all clean...

Enjoy that ride...again...but this time, take a little snowball with you...it might help cool you down as you go rollin' down...whereever... :rolleyes:

Let's go with that estimate, which is not unreasonable -- that's about $100/month for maintenance. For me, that's far preferable to a car payment that could be triple that figure, plus added insurance costs and dealer maintenance (to maintain the validity of the warranty). I won't even go into the economics of depreciation on a new car.

I just don't think this new program is encouraging sound financial decision-making. Quite the opposite, it's encouraging debt spending when folks ought to be looking at conservation instead. But, there I go again with the personal preference thing; sorry. My real beef is that we're all funding this wastefulness with our tax money.

Anyway, no ill-will intended to anyone (particularly BC, who I replied to frequently). I do indeed appreciate your points, but just find too many of the details of this program too distasteful.

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!

If people were smart, they'd start to demand that all the middle management jobs that are in the big 3 be scaled back drastically.... That excess baggage causes more costs than the wages they consume. They'd be wise to get rid of all of that, and reduce the price of the vehicles.... The big 3 will lose sales to companies that have done something like this...
They don't need to cut assembly staff, just the middle management....

All of your points are quite valid. However, we need to distinguish between the two groups of people:

1) Those that really want a new car...........if they can afford it.

2) Those that see the very apparent fact that a new vehicle costs significantly more than an old one...........even when $2500 per year is factored in for repairs.

Those in the former group are going to buy that vehicle, if they possibly can. The government is simply facilitating that behavior. Like it or not, if everyone in the US behaved fiscally conservative, every single new car dealer would be out of business. The fact that this does not occur will clearly tell you that there is a very good business in new cars (despite the current recession). Consider it in the category of "you can't take it with you".

Those in the latter group see the significantly greater expense for a new vehicle and can't justify it.

Let's restrict all our comments on the thread to the former group...........and we can also agree that the latter group is absolutely correct............but, it's OT for the purposes of this discussion.

Therefore, your argument is restricted to the fact that the government is paying for those in the first group to gain access to a new vehicle. It's a valid argument and I certainly don't disagree with it. I do see the program as stimulating some auto sales at a time when the economy desperately needs a push............and that can't be a bad thing............considering the minimal expense involved.

Just a random thought...

A friend of mine has driven 289k miles in a '89 Nissan Pathfinder, he bought it new. It runs like great, and it doesn't use any oil.

I just helped him diagnose why it wouldn't rev past 3000rpm. The Nissan only shop he took it to first told him to junk it, and them gave him a quote of $1500 for new T.B.I. injectors.

It turns out the throttle body was fine, and the reason one injector was dead(it went into fail-safe mode to protect itself, ergo the rpm limit of 3k) was because the computer was bad and wasn't groung out one injector. $50.00 and a phone call to a junkyard later it was running like a top again.


My theory is that once a car gets past a certain mileage point and is running well, it will last almost forever.

For as much as people poke fun at Jaguars, I have a '90 Vanden Plas with 190k miles and it runs great. Yes, all the electric goodies still work.