"What would I want to get rid of it for?"
 

I work at a newspaper and have had to read our extensive -- and painfully ignorant -- coverage of Cash For Clunkers. It has made me so angry and depressed I can barely see straight. Packed with quotes to the effect of "I'm getting $4,500! How could I pass up this deal?" (Ummm ... you're getting $4,500 to lose $15,000) and, from a car salesman, "We're selling cars like candy today!" (Awesome, the economy is saved, really.) Finally in today's paper, at the very end of the article, our reporter talked to a couple people who weren't biting. The last one actually made me grin. I'd like to meet this guy and shake his hand:

"Wesley Smith, of Bear, also is holding on to his 1990 BMW. Its paint looks bad and it gets 16 to 18 mpg, but it's still running great with 408,000 miles.
"What would I want to get rid of it for?" he said."

Sounds like a kindred soul, Mercedes or not.:) Right before this guy they talked to a man with a 250,000 Tahoe who said he wouldn't consider junking it ... it runs like new. It was kind of nice to know these people are floating around amidst the madness. Of course we need people to buy new cars to keep the economy going ... but that can happen without forcing people to waste and trash things prematurely (especially since they do that naturally ... why push them?). The industry has a circle of life. Some people seem to get it; others don't.

No one is forced to participate. Dodge dealers are offering to match the g'ment rebate and other makers will likely need to follow. In my opinion it's the quickest way, so far, to get cash down to the local level. Sure beats giving a bank president a huge bonus.

The local Chebby dealer is also matching the rebate.


Hehe, this question begs to ask the question... What would you get rid of your car for?

You don't get it.

You get it.

Yep...I get it...

Here's what I have already:

I have a car that's 100% paid for...the only thing I need to provide ANY OUTLAY FOR is some maintenance...

HOWEVER...If I'm drawn in by the Sirens' Songs of the Government Waste Machine...I can get the following...

1. - A new car, where if the rebate is matched, it MIGHT just about cover the depreciation I get when I stick the key in the ignition, turn it and drive off the dealers' lot...

2. - A new car, that now requires a higher insurance premium...my older unit didn't need to carry all of that other crap...but hey...I'm now sticking money that I could have used for other items into some insurance monkey's pocket...Oh! Joy!

3. - A new car, that despite its newness, will still require the same type and amount of REGULAR maintenance...and since I've always been a little skeptical of maintenance intervals in the newer models...I'll still stick to the same tried and true methods that have allowed me to keep my current stock of vehicles long after everyone else has trashed theirs...

4. - And I also get to watch a carefully maintained, wonderful piece of road-worthy history get unceremoniously raped and destroyed by earthers that couldn't care less about quality, let alone appreciate anything but their short-sighted and ill-gotten gains.

Yah...I get it...If I "buy" into the Government's plan of removing "junkers/clunkers" from our highways...I'm getting it alright...right up the ol' Hershey Highway...Shift column, shift column boot and transmission too.

Short-term thinking for short-term solutions...and the bankers still get money stuck into their pockets...

Remember the term NEW CAR PAYMENTS????

:rolleyes:

Somebody wake the bus driver up...there's a chance we might crash. Oh! Wait! Never mind...I'll just get off this lemmings' express... :rolleyes:

It a better deal than the trillions we are spending in Iraq.

I have to ask...WTF does "Cluckers For Cash" have to do w/Iraq?

Slow day at the keyboard? :rolleyes:

The g'ment is spending money on a project you disagree with. But I have yet to read you disagree with invading Iraq-a much, much larger expense.

Just like you, I have my pet "faves" - This thread is not about one of them...therefore, I comment in the negative...

I'm assuming you would comment in the negative, about a money-pit hole like Iraq, likewise...

Therefore, we agree to disagree...

Now, if we could pack a few pounds of uranium in a neat little package, wrap a "clunker" 1990 Chrysler Mini-van around it, then fly it over to the Afgan border and drop a few on top of OBL, then you and I could be a little closer to some common ground as to what our Government might be doing that would qualify it for a pat on the back...

But, until then... :rolleyes:

I believe that you and others on this thread look at the program from the position of person who is capable of diagnosing and repairing an older vehicle.

This is the fundamental point that is missed by those that decry the program. If you own a vehicle that gets 18 mpg, but can maintain it at relatively low expense (read: do your own labor), there is an economic disincentive to get a trade-in value of only $4500. and assume a car payment on a new vehicle.

However, if you are like the vast majority of the population and understand that all a vehicle requires is for you to turn the key to "start", the program makes very good sense if you happen to own one of these older vehicles. You certainly need to seriously consider selling or trading this old vehicle anyway..........and, nobody is going to give you anywhere near $4,500. for it. So, if the government gives $4500. and the dealer gives $4500, you're $9000. closer to a brand new vehicle that gets significantly better fuel economy. If you decide to do the deal, which makes very good economic sense for you, you get a vehicle without the need for any repairs for the next five years at a cost of approximately $300. per month.

The folks who cannot see the benefits of this program are simply blind to the fact that most of the people in this country are incapable of repairing an older vehicle at a reasonable cost.

Brian, you missed the other parts of what I typed...

More money is needed for insurance...even WI. is starting (FINALLY) to require everyone to carry insurance in 2010...new or old...the insurance companies are going to require higher premiums for folks that have the newer cars...what part of not-affordable are we missing here?

Maintenance will still be required...or in five years (or less), that "new car" is going to be puking out more carbon than what it replaced...and the people less likely to do REGULAR MAINTENANCE are the same schmucks that got suckered into trashing out their older vehicles...nothings changed, just the the wheels...the same idiots are driving around in shinier cans...that's all...

And you're right...they'll have $300.00/month to pay to....whom? The bankers...the people that were at the top of the food chain when the collapse started...they'll be back up at the top...still raking in the dough and the folks at the bottom will still be paying them when their new POS finally puke out because they couldn't afford to maintain the unit, insure the unit, let alone put gas/diesel/WVO into it...but the bankers still get paid first...

Makes sense to me to keep the bankers out of my pocket altogether...

But, some people love playing (and living) as a masochist... :eek: :rolleyes:

Don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out.

In the mean time, our national and local economies are getting a big boost from this program and many people will keep their jobs because of it. But obviously your to narrow minded to see the bigger picture here and what this program will actually accomplish.

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.

I get more than you think I get. Throwing cash back into a failed infrastructure doesn't fix the problem. A debt-drenched economy will fail; it cannot sustain itself indefinitely. It has failed already and taking taxpayers' money and throwing it out there to entice the consumer base to go back to it's irresponsible spending habits of a glorious yesteryear does no good. Want people to buy stuff? Find a way to get them to produce stuff. I'm not against people buying new cars, by any means ... obviously when people buy new cars, the auto industry is able to maintain more jobs, keeping more people employed, giving those people money to put back into the economy, etc. But people need to buy cars with money they've earned, not with debt or a handout, and they need to buy them responsibly. The clunkers piled up at dealerships are an example of the irresponsibility of automakers and consumers that worked for a few years but helped sink the industry -- and of the mentality that helped sink the entire country. The program designed to get rid of them is more of the same.

I'm not ignorant to capitalism and economy. I'm not saying that everyone should drive their car for 500,000 miles ... clearly that would render the industry dead and would take away some of the romance of car ownership (buying a car is in a way a right of passage). People have been buying new cars for decades. They have been driving, selling, parting out, and eventually crushing, cars, too ... I have no objection to this. But wastefulness and lack of foresight created a situation in which the system stopped working ... in addition to that, the American mentality that you "deserve" to retire when you're 50 as well as a manufacturing base that has moved out of our country and into China and Mexico added fuel to the fire. It didn't stop working because a few people got shy about spending money and just need a little cutesy push.

I thought it was cool that the BMW owner had some sentimentality and a sense of "why throw it away if it works?" Maybe it's the way I was raised. There's a time to retire an item and purchase a new one, or a nice used one if you like, whether it's a car, a TV or a pair of pants. You don't throw away a good pair of jeans because they're a year old and you "deserve" a newer, more stylish pair of jeans. That mentality has worked for me as far as financial stability. When something craps out, or really becomes inadequate, I'll go out and buy a quality item from a quality store (I'll pay more to buy it from a reputable, helpful store rather than buy it from some vague cyber discount bin). I never expect the government to pay me to do it.

Sorry if my post came off as implying that everyone who doesn't drive their car to 500k is an idiot. That wasn't my point. I know enough about capitalism to know that wouldn't work.

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.

I guess you're right. I still the the program was poorly executed and slapdash. Even if it does work out for the people who participated in it, what's the long-term benefit? What happens when all the clunkers are gone, or at least all the ones people want to trade in?

I'll admit that my perspective is skewed by the fact that I am very sentimental about cars, even crappy ones. And I am very touchy about abject waste. My tune would be much different if they were parting these vehicles out or donating them to charity. But I do not see how giving people a fleeting incentive to rush into purchasing a vehicle while throwing away a reasonable machine is going to help a deeply damaged industry and economy over the long term. The automakers will get a temporary boost, then fill the lots back up with more new cars that will just sit there as they have the past few months.

the way that car technology is going this program will fail simply because the bottom line is cars are becoming more and more complex making repairing them harder and harder for a lot of people who dont have the knowledge or tools to repair them. More electric vehicles, hybrids will be the future of cars. There will be petrol cars out there but not too many. SO when these hybirds and electric vehicles start needing repairs they will tommorows clunkers since we all know anything complete electronic breaks and is expensive to repair.

These "new cars" will need repair and most people will chose to buy a new car instead a fix a good running car thats mor suited for them. Today a car is a no different than a appliance in most people minds: why fix it when I can buy something new.

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.

This is program is not about you or me. It's about an economy that nearly collapsed and has of yet to recover. You can hide your head in the sand and let it collapse, as was done in the great depression, or you can offer loans and incentives to help save, stimulate and grow it.

The people who are able to take advantage of this program are not the ones who are in foreclousure, unemployed, or on welfare. If you applying for a car loan nowadays, your gonna need real good credit. Few if any banks are giving loans to people who can't afford them.

From what I've seen and read so far, the vast majority of qualifying cars in this program are past their practical lifespan in terms of mechanical reliability and/or fuel economy. Sure many could squeeze another year or two out of their old car, but in the end they'll be worthless and will need to be replaced.

Just like 80% of the cars in our sigs.:rolleyes:

The people who take advantage of this program might not be on welfare, but they are still taking a handout from the taxpayer just the same.

I haven't seen a car blown up on youtube that looked like a real clunker, in fact, most of them are nicer than many of our old clunker MB's.

Yet.

Yes, your emotions are skewing your logic.

Your local junkyard will be overflowing with parts car in the next year.

Most of the "machines" being traded are at the end or near the end of their lifespan. High mileage, low fuel efficency clunkers.

As for the damged industry, Americans build and sell more car than anyone in the world. Most "foreign cars" including Toyota's, Honda, Nissan's, Subaru's are built in the USA with many domestic parts.

Every video that I have seen was of a junker, most were heading to the scrap yard anyway. I mean come on how much life does an 85 Jeep thats beat with 330k miles on it have left? If the car is worth more than $4,500 thier not going to take advantage of the program, they will trade it.

I don't give a damn about taking some junk off the road early, what bothers me is they are taking my $4,500 to do it, when I don't have a new car myself.

Unless you're real keen on unemployment, recession and possible depression, consider it the best investment the government can make for the recovery of our national economy.

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.

Well, this probably varies by area. A lot of the ones I'm looking at or reading about are nice cars. I mean, nice cars. Even the dealerships were saying amazed they were at how nice some of them were. Some of the cars had near zero purpose, but CFC made little distinction between worthless hunks of metal and a smoothly running Infiniti I30 with perfect leather (one that got turned in around here). Even if you're getting a gas-guzzler off the road, why are you throwing away perfect leather? Strip the parts and generate business for parts stores and repair facilities.

I agree with what you say as far as this being about the economy, but I said as much in my long reply to your first post about my not getting it. It is about the economy. My opinion, and it is an opinion, is that this is a poor answer that at best will just have no lasting effect on the automotive industry. It sold a few cars, but what did it do for the underlying problem? I guarantee you it won't get the Chrysler and GM plants that just closed near me up and running again. It really was almost a liquidation rather than a stimulus ... it cleared out a lot of inventory, which will be replaced. How are they going to sell the next batch when there aren't any clunkers left to be traded in? What's the permanent fix in this?

And it is, in a very small way, about you and I ... and everyone else who pays taxes. Anyone who pays taxes and votes has the right to laud or $^%& about any government program. My problems with the program are two-fold: I think it does nothing for the economy, and that is a legitimate complaint on my part. My other problem is just a personal rant: I'm bitter that my hard-earned money is going to reward people who bought inefficient cars, and the automakers that made them. If I thought it would help the economy at all, I could easily live with the second part.

I may be incorrect, but I believe dealerships and junkyards are prohibited from selling any part on the car ... all of it must be destroyed.

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.

And for whatever it's worth, while emotions can be dangerous when used entirely in place of logic, I don't see much point in a life without any sentiment at all. I don't think my rantings are entirely without logic. I am an intelligent, and not entirely crazy (yet), person who has a different opinion than yours ... and I do know some less-emotionally bound people who share my perspective, or a similar one. For that matter I know several people who disagree with my opinion on the matter, but respect it.

So I admit to being a sentimental soul, but I don't think my thoughts should be written off.

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.

Just the engine.

Everything else is up for grabs. I'll be thrilled to see a fine selection of newly junked MB's ready to be parted out.

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


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

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.

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?

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.

Well, that's a big improvement ... I had been told nothing could be removed for resale or salvage. Maybe that stipulation was aimed only at the dealerships, not the junkyards.

I still think the junked cars are a marvelous monument to the pathetic shortsightedness, greed and idiocy that got our country in trouble ... and that approach to life hasn't faded one bit. Getting rid of the cars won't get rid of the mind-set. We're deeply entrenched in that flawed culture. It will take a long time, and a lot of compromise, to get out of it.

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....

Wow, I am impressed, did Obama tell you that?

Oh, my mistake, I suppose the auto makers can't give rebates or discounts without a socialist program that some claim to be an investment.

Who wins here? The dealer who pockets $3500 or $4500? or the consumer, who gets shafted by crooked dealers who inflate the price of automobiles in order to pocket the money?

I guess both do, because each gets a handout from the taxpayers.

What's next? Handouts for digital tv converter boxes? Oh wait, we already did that, and it was a drop in the bucket compared to the money the greedy and crooked auto industry is milking from the taxpayers.

Quite right. Why should all of us help pay for someone else's new car? I have read the official gov't documents, and this program is nothing more than a scam.

People forget that the cars being "clunkered" have some sort of value, they could be traded in or sold by the owner to someone else. But that means work, and that is a four letter word these days.

I suppose it's, better to let Obama and his minions haul your clunker away(via this program) and give the dealer a direct deposit of $3500 or $4500 of taxpayer's hard earned money. The dealer keeps rebates and incentives that he could have used along with the trade in value or down payment(with proceeds from a private sale) in order to sell the car at the same price without the C.A.R.S. program.

Though, I guess by the looks of it on youboob, if you are a immature gopher at a dealership you get to have lot's of fun destroying a nicer car than you probably own.

No. I researched the issue and weighed the positives and negatives. Something you haven't done for yourself.

Your forgiven. If you haven't noticed, rebates and discounts have been abundant for several years. This is not a socialist program. It's a temprary stimulus incentive to revitialize the economy which nearly collapsed less than a year ago.


Everyone wins here.

The dealer does not pocket the money, it comes off the price of the car.

If you get shafted by the dealer your probably a complete idiot. One only needs to do 15 minutes of research to know the fair price for a car.

That's not the way it works, You obviously have no clue of what your talking about.

All the discounts, rebates and incentives get taken off the MSRP of the car. The dealer get nothing extra out of the program except the additional car sales and perhaps a small salvage price for the clunker car.

Let's do some simple math on a typical car with a rebate, stay with me here:

$20,000 car
-4,500 incentive
-1,500 mfg.rebate
-1,500 +/- estimated dealer discount by an informed buyer
$12,500 net cost to consumer before tax/title/reg = Sweet deal on a 20k car.

You probably haven't noticed, but most new car dealers and manufacturers are barely keeping their heads above water right now, if that.

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.

I'd say you are the narrow minded one throwing out insults like that. You are near the top of the list of insulters for no reason here on SF. How much energy is spent designing the new car? How much energy is spent getting the raw materials for the new car? How much energy is spent transforming the materials into the car shape? How much energy is spent building the new car? How much energy is spent shipping the new car? How much energy is spent marketing the new car? No study has been done on this yet everyone seems to claim this is better for the planet. I cannot think of one example of destroying something that works perfectly in order to have a newer one that shows that's the right thing to do, or better for the planet.
McCain's got it right: we don't need to give money to the big three since we own one of them.

I don't know about all of the envireonmental consequenses of this program and I really dont care, but I have been feeling a need to rid myself of my mercedes for the past year. I seem to hang on and it lets me down. Its had a good run and I really like the car, but I am looking to stay out from underneath a car for a while. If this program doesnt stick thats cool, Ill get a used car. Either way the benz was gonna go anyway.What doesnt go to the big three goes to phil, mbusa and my mechanic.

Who is actually doing the checking that the engines are actually disabled?
Seems to me that is the most valueable part of the car. Sort of like destroying confiscated firearms instead of selling them or returning them to their once-rightful owners. Feel-good legislation that doesn't really accomplish anything except waste resources.

Agreed. It almost seems a spiteful ceremonial gesture. It may be the case for most of the engines that recycling the metals is the most effective use, but they're making it seem like they're tearing down the Berlin Wall.:rolleyes:

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.

Participation in the CARS program is strictly voluntary. Anyone wishing to hang onto their clunker can do so without even giving a reason. No one is pushing anyone. Where did you ever get that idea?

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.

Government attempts to stimulate the economy are generally a bad idea. You can't tax your way to prosperity.

I don't like Cash for Clunkers, but I'm not getting too mad about it. Most of the cars I really like are safe. (Over 25 years old or get too good mileage)

They probably excluded cars after 25 years because there are so few of them on the road. Plus you start to get into classic cars that do have value, I mean who wants to see a so so 69 Mustang crushed for this program? Most of the cars that I have seen in the videos seem to be from the 90's, so just over 10 years old and getting past their prime. A lot of worthless old SUV's and vans that nobody can sell anymore.

Not to mention these days you have to actualy be able to afford the car to get a loan, its not like it was a few years ago.

Like I said before, this program targets a very narrow segment. Those people with older cars worth less than $4,500/$3,500, who can afford new cars, and do buy them. All its doing is pushing their purchasing time frame up a bit. If this program didn't exist they would have junked/traded their vehicals in on new or newer ones in the next few years anyway. All the government is doing is speeding the process a long. A nice side affect is that it forces people to trade in their SUV's on more sensible cars, a taste of $5 a gallon gas last year helps this along.

I dislike the program because I don't think my tax money should buy other people new cars. But the program is well designed none the less.