Oppose the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation proposed

[Roadrunner]

Read:

http://www.hotrod.com/whereitbegan/hrdp_08...gram/index.html

 

The House and Senate started discussions on a "cash for clunkers" program where you trade your 13 year old+ car for up to $4,500 in cash --- and they crush the car.

 

I can see a purpose for destroying old SUVs, but can't you see how many classics will get caught in the loop by the hayseeds who need the money? How about all of those original Tauruses, older Crown Vics and other metal?

 

And remember -- older cars are a walking advertisement for a brand. We don't need the American highway landscape to have even more foreign cars on it --- "Oh, all you see on the roads are Toyotas and Hondas so I will drive one too" some people might think. Believe me, people are dumber than you think.

 

The idea is to stimulate the economy and get people to buy new cars, but the people trading in for $4,500 won't have nearly enough to buy a new one anyway. They will likely buy used.

 

Also, it is estimated this four-year plan will cost the government $10 million.

 

Your thoughts?

Edited January 16, 2009 by Roadrunner

[armadamaster]

Texas is already doing this at $3500 a pop. I oppose using tax payer $$$ for this as well. But the greenies will get their way, they always do.

[Roadrunner]

I oppose it on the basis we're going to lose a lot of classics, The idea is noble, but the consequence is clear that people will readily toss their LTDs and Caprices.

 

SUVs can get smashed as nobody has massive reminisce about their Explorers (maybe so, but I can't see it) -- although I'd hate to see a Grand Wagoneer get junked.

 

I'm hoping the general public doesn't run to this as I'm a fan of average sedans that are square in the target sights.

[fordxer]

I oppose it on the basis we're going to lose a lot of classics, The idea is noble, but the consequence is clear that people will readily toss their LTDs and Caprices.

 

SUVs can get smashed as nobody has massive reminisce about their Explorers (maybe so, but I can't see it) -- although I'd hate to see a Grand Wagoneer get junked.

 

I'm hoping the general public doesn't run to this as I'm a fan of average sedans that are square in the target sights.

 

So. Do tell. What is the difference between an old LTD/Caprice and an SUV? Did you have an Explorer run over your foot? Is that why you mentioned it? To me that is Auto profiling.

[NickF1011]

So. Do tell. What is the difference between an old LTD/Caprice and an SUV? Did you have an Explorer run over your foot? Is that why you mentioned it? To me that is Auto profiling.

 

I think I'd rather have an old Explorer than an LTD or Caprice. But hey, that's just one man's opinion... Honestly though, I think they're all throw-aways. :shrug:

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Police have the powers to crush cars whatever the cars age is in the UK. If the owner is using his car without the correct insurance, road tax or or yearly MOT annual roadworthy test certificate.

 

Police in the city of Manchester England crushed 10,000 cars in their area in 2007 for folk not having the correct documentation.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...rush_10000_cars

[kpc655]

Read:

http://www.hotrod.com/whereitbegan/hrdp_08...gram/index.html

 

The House and Senate started discussions on a "cash for clunkers" program where you trade your 13 year old+ car for up to $4,500 in cash --- and they crush the car.

 

I can see a purpose for destroying old SUVs, but can't you see how many classics will get caught in the loop by the hayseeds who need the money? How about all of those original Tauruses, older Crown Vics and other metal?

 

And remember -- older cars are a walking advertisement for a brand. We don't need the American highway landscape to have even more foreign cars on it --- "Oh, all you see on the roads are Toyotas and Hondas so I will drive one too" some people might think. Believe me, people are dumber than you think.

 

The idea is to stimulate the economy and get people to buy new cars, but the people trading in for $4,500 won't have nearly enough to buy a new one anyway. They will likely buy used.

 

Also, it is estimated this four-year plan will cost the government $10 million.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Poor use of taxpayer dollars to influence a private market. Bad idea

 

So here's the plan i guess..

-force companies to make car's no one wants

-bail out the companies when no-one buys them

-force people to buy them

[Ron W.]

Police have the powers to crush cars whatever the cars age is in the UK. If the owner is using his car without the correct insurance, road tax or or yearly MOT annual roadworthy test certificate.

 

Police in the city of Manchester England crushed 10,000 cars in their area in 2007 for folk not having the correct documentation.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...rush_10000_cars

 

Around here the police can under some circumstances impound your car, but then they will sell it at auction. Seems a lot smarter to get a return on your investment than turning the vehicle into scrap metal.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Ron W.

[the_spaniard]

Drama over nothing.

 

If someone wants to get rid of an old clunker, doesn't want to sell it, and the government provides the opportunity to do so for quick cash, so be it. Just so long as it's not a requirement that they do so. Sounds like someone exercising their freedoms to me.

 

One man's junk is treasure to another. I get it. But if you want it so badly, show up at the drop-off point and give them a better offer. I would wager the majority of these cars aren't completely restored masterpieces. You have to remember that many people will drive vehicles until the wheels fall off of them. They become old, unsafe, and pollute. Good riddance.

 

 

While some great old cars may get canned, it's completely up to the owners.

[RaZor]

Late this afternoon, the GF needed to run into the CVS to get some things so I dropped her off at the door and swung around in the parking lot. As I was pulling in to a parking space, I noticed this old junker.

 

The red paint was totally oxidized and obviously the bumper covers had received significant "rubs & dings" over the years - and the owner tried to match up the paint - with what looked like house paint (with a brush). Maybe he took some part into Lowes and got them to try and match it?

 

It had the attendant duct tape on the front right fender closing up, most likely gaping rust holes, as you could see numerous rust holes on several places around the car. There wasn't a single identifying mark/logo on the car. Just before the GF came out, the owner came out and got into the red-bomb and started it up (which caused a large plume of blue/grey smoke) and then he "eased"/p p p p puttered out of the parking lot.

 

I wasn't real sure just what the hell that turd-bomb was - so being of a curious nature, and after seeing this thread, I did a little scan and found it:

 

1992 Camry - what it prolly looked like - when it was new

 

There is not just American iron out there that need to be crushed -but I do know what you mean.

[RangerM]

Adding to Razor's point, $4,500 isn't likely going to get the decent older cars. (although the original poster did say "up to" $4,500)

 

As a daily driver of a 1993 Ranger, I can say the truck to me (mechanically) is worth more to me, because I don't know that I could replace it with anything of equal shape for the same money.

 

It'll likely get the worst of the worst; the true junk, and the better (ie less polluting) older cars/trucks will be spared. At least until they begin taxing older cars/trucks at higher rates (I think I read they do this in Japan, making older cars too expensive to own)

[Roadrunner]

So. Do tell. What is the difference between an old LTD/Caprice and an SUV? Did you have an Explorer run over your foot? Is that why you mentioned it? To me that is Auto profiling.

 

I think it's partially because I don't get excited by Explorers and Grand Cherokees like I do Crown Vics. I see an SUV as a utility vehicle, and a sedan as aesthetically pleasing.

 

Of course, this is off on my own biases. I can see plenty of people who loved their SUVs too.

[Joe771476]

I keep my cars for 12 to 20 years. I don't beat them so I don't have to pay that much for repairs. I don't race up to red lights and floor it at green ones. I get 20 percent better gas mileage than the mfr. says I should and 120,000 miles on my brakes. I don't come close to the recommended intervals for oil changes, and yet my cars still last a long long time. Proud to say they've been all Ford vehicles. Also my yearly property tax for 75 percent of the car's final years is around $30 a year and my insurance is equally petty. In fact, I've only bought one NEW car in my lifetime. It's the worst investment you can make. Also, any attempt to confiscate one's car borders on communism. And here's something the mfrs. don't want to hear: I look around and see hundreds of new leftovers and used cars on so many lots, that the mfrs. could stop making cars for at least five years starting today and there would still be enough cars to fill the public's needs.

[mettech]

Well Joe... it's good to know you are doing your part in supporting the economy... :shades:

[Bored of Pisteon]

I keep my cars for 12 to 20 years. I don't beat them so I don't have to pay that much for repairs. I don't race up to red lights and floor it at green ones. I get 20 percent better gas mileage than the mfr. says I should and 120,000 miles on my brakes. I don't come close to the recommended intervals for oil changes, and yet my cars still last a long long time. Proud to say they've been all Ford vehicles. Also my yearly property tax for 75 percent of the car's final years is around $30 a year and my insurance is equally petty. In fact, I've only bought one NEW car in my lifetime. It's the worst investment you can make. Also, any attempt to confiscate one's car borders on communism. And here's something the mfrs. don't want to hear: I look around and see hundreds of new leftovers and used cars on so many lots, that the mfrs. could stop making cars for at least five years starting today and there would still be enough cars to fill the public's needs.

 

I think I'll go out and buy a whole bunch of $500 cars and save them and when these assholes want to give me a lot more money for 'em. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

 

But seriously. This should be opposed on all fronts. Because the poor, welfare check collecting types will definitely jump on this because they can't take care of their cars to begin with. THAT'S WHAT IT IS ANYWAY.

[Paul Selby]

While the government is handing out money they don't have why not extend this program to include washers, dryers, A/C units, hot water tanks, refrigerators, storm doors, windows, light bulbs, tv's, computers, toasters, stoves, microwave ovens, garage door openers, etc.

[jpd80]

How the legislation would work:

LINK

Eligible drivers would receive a reimbursement voucher for the purchase of a new or used vehicle with a fuel economy rating that exceeds the CAFE target for that class of vehicle by at least 25 percent. The bill also requires that the voucher be used towards the purchase of a vehicle that has an MSRP of less than $45,000, is model year 2004 or later, and meets or exceeds federal emissions standards. Vouchers could also be redeemed for transit fares for participating local public transportation agencies.

 

Drivers who apply for the program must ensure that their vehicles turned in for scrapping match the following criteria:

 

- Vehicles must be in drivable condition;

 

- Be currently registered in the U.S.; and

 

- Have a when-new fuel economy rating of less than 18 miles per gallon (as reported by the original manufacturer for purposes of CAFE compliance).

 

The bill specifies that during the first year of the program, vouchers will be issued for the following amounts:

 

For traded-in vehicles that are model year 2002 and later, drivers would receive a voucher for:

 

- The purchase of a new vehicle: $4,500

 

- The purchase of a used vehicle: $3,000

 

- Transit fare credit: $3,000

 

For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1999 - 2001, drivers would receive a voucher for:

 

- The purchase of a new vehicle: $3,000

 

- The purchase of a used vehicle: $2,000

 

- Transit fare credit: $2,000

 

For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1998 and earlier, drivers would receive a voucher for:

 

- The purchase of a new vehicle: $2,000

 

- The purchase of a used vehicle: $1,500

 

- Transit fare credit: $1,500

 

In each subsequent year (2010, 2011, and 2012), the model years would be advanced by one year. Vouchers would be eligible for redemption for up to two years after the date of issuance, and no individual would be eligible to obtain more than one voucher in any three-year period. Dealers, dismantlers and scrap recycling facilities would also be eligible for a payment of $50 per vehicle, or an alternative amount to be specified by the Department of Energy

[RaZor]

<snip>

It's the worst investment you can make. Also, any attempt to confiscate one's car borders on communism.

 

I guess it's indicative of the mindset of some that would even attempt to equate buying a new vehicle . . . as an investment. You're kidding, of course?

 

Who said anything about confiscation? You do realize that there is a huge difference between "confiscate" and "incentives", don't you? I actually can see the benefits of the program to offer an "incentive" (monetary) that may help those who need assistance to be able to afford purchasing a new, more more efficient . . . and less polluting clunkers/vehicle (see previous post about the hugely polluting Camry - that POS that spewed a large cloud of poison). I am all for helping that guy afford getting a new American (manuf) car and eliminate that cloud that follows him everywhere he goes.

 

Good lawd, not everything is a communist plot!!

 

I do applaud your choice of manufacturer though and would add that my automotive experience is just the opposite yours . . . in that most of the vehicles that I have purchased have been new. From my first (new car), a 1966 Fairlane 500, it was basically every three years . . . with a few exceptions in that I bought a '69 Mach I (which I kept until a few years ago) and then a '71 Mach I -- which I sold in 1975 with 175k miles on it because, due to the fuel crisis, the 1974 Capri 2800 was just more sensible. Hell, most gas stations had a $10 maximum purchase (and you had to wait in long lines to even get that) and that didn't go very far towards filling up the 351 Mach I . . . and I really only needed one - and I obviously loved the '69 (more).

 

However, by far, Ford has been the most reliable and best vehicles I've owned - going back all the way to my first -- a '57 Chebby (which was used - and was the poster child for road cancer/sheet metal perforation).

 

I will only add that as long as one keeps their "older" vehicles up (esp emission wise) and not let them deteriorate into being a clunker, I have no problem with 'antique cars' and once I can get a larger garage/facility, I just may go back to doing restorations again. Always in the past, I kept to the restoration concept, in that the ideal was to re-transform a vehicle back to original showroom condition, however, this time I might be more likely to use modern crate engines and other upgrades (suspension, brakes etc) to make a classic - up-to-date technology-wise. Now that . . . can be an investment if done correctly. In the past there have been several cars that I made a profit on, even including all personal expenditures for personal usage.

[xr7g428]

The supposed purpose of the legislation is to stimulate the economy, in particular to help sell new cars. I doubt that that many on this board would question those intentions as being desirable. Regreatbly, once again, rather than focus on the goal: save the US auto industry, we get a confused response.

 

Here is what is wrong with this proposal:

 

For many, at the bottom, they now have to out bid the US government to buy a used car. How would you like to be 16 trying to buy your first car when all of the sudden, any used car just went up to $1500 or more. I thought the Democrat party was for the little guy?

 

The cars they are going to get were probably on the way to the scarp yard already, only now they have $1500 taxpayer dollars int the trunk.

 

Increasing the value of used cars, doesn't decrease the cost of new cars, it just increases the cost of used cars.

 

This will do as much or more for Korean and Japanese manufacturing as US manufacturing. Are we trying to stimulate their sales too?

 

Why not cut through the BS and give new car buyers a $2000 tax credit when they buy a car with at least 75% USA content?

 

It would cut straight to the point, be fair to the transplants, and pull business through the entire automotive food chain right down to state and local taxes.

[Roadrunner]

Why not cut through the BS and give new car buyers a $2000 tax credit when they buy a car with at least 75% USA content?

 

See, that I could support.

 

I would especially support having the cars be mothballed by the government -- <b>not crushed</b>.

[NickF1011]

See, that I could support.

 

I would especially support having the cars be mothballed by the government -- <b>not crushed</b>.

 

We could store them in Yucca Mountain, since the democrats keep preventing us from using it for what it was meant for. :shades:

[Bored of Pisteon]

We could store them in Yucca Mountain, since the democrats keep preventing us from using it for what it was meant for. :shades:

 

Well I do see a use for Yucca Mountain. The future retirement home for all these asshole Democrats who keep coming up with such asinine legislation like this!