boatin

I'm shocked by popularity of this program. I'm on board with it, I think getting crap of the road and getting people to buy better MPG cars is fine. I think there's an argument to be made for creation of jobs in the auto biz, blah blah blah.

My problem is the bipartisan support of this. This seems to be ideologically against the "less government, fiscally responsible" crap that conservatives are supposedly in favor of. It seems to be different if their constituents want to buy a car. Americans and their cars... that makes it different?

It feels the same as raising the deficit for a war is fine, but raising a deficit is a problem for gambling on fixing the economy. Can anyone explain how this isn't hypocrisy of the most obvious sort?

Mojo_PeiPei

I don't know if this speaks to your point. But actual conservatism is dead in the Republican party, has been for years.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

I think this has been a brilliant part of the stimulus. It creates a lot of jobs with very little investment from the government while helping make our auto fleet greener. What is brilliant about this is that it gets the people paying to stimulate the economy from their own pocket.

My only fears are that certain people will submit fraudulent claims to steal money and that others may take a loan when financially they can't afford a loan.

Bear Cub

Another ridiculous, poorly planned, and even more poorly executed part of our "stimulus", now setting us an even further $2 billion in the hole. What jobs exactly are being generated by this? What's the environmental impact of the disposal of these cars? What happens when all these people who could only afford to drive junkers, run off and finance a new vehicle just because their $200 in scrap is now worth $4500?

__________________
Living in the United Socialist States of America.

robot_parade

The $2 billion is coming from other stimulus funds, so there's no net change. I'm guessing you're not a fan of the stimulus program.

It was more successful than congress initially anticipated. So they put some more into it. Doesn't seem particularly poor planning to me.

Increased demand for new cars. That means, car companies have to make more. To make more, they hire more people to make the cars.

Good question about the environmental impact. Cars are mostly made of metal, and metal is pretty recyclable. Not counting the used parts market (they have to disable the engine, but there are plenty of other used parts on a car.

With regards to the people buying more car than they can afford thing....hello, personal responsibility?

Bear Cub

We see where "personal responsibility" got us with the housing lenders.

As for the increased demand for new cars, not really. It's just helping dealers move the shit that had been sitting on their lots as it is, not to mention most of these new cars are not manufactured domestically to begin with.

__________________
Living in the United Socialist States of America.

Frosstbyte

My parents just took advantage of this today. They were in the market anyway, so it was just a perk for them to get a $4500 trade in on a car worth nothing but scrap.

Basically my feelings mirror Bear Cub's. I'm sure that auto dealers and manufacturers (and their lobbies) are loving it, but I don't really see how this is going to help the environment or the economy.

I'll be blunt: NOTHING that encourages the use of more credit is going to help us get out of current economic situation. People getting loans that were beyond their means and banks unscrupulously getting people to sign up for them is what got us here in the first place (or at least what caused the immediate crash). We need to be creating new jobs. We need to get people spending responsibly. Encouraging expensive, credit-based purchases props up a suffering industry and has a great PR environmental benefit and, as far as I can tell, not much else.

I wonder seriously, though, if they have any plans for dealing with all of these clunkers that are leaving the streets in a frenzy?

scout

one thing for sure is junk prices will bottom out, leaving the rural poor who depend on junk/scrap metal as an income supplement a little worse off than they were before.

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

highthief

I wish we had this in Canada - the US, UK, Germany and other nations got such a program, but we did not. And I have a 1997 Ford Escort sitting in my driveway, dammit!

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

desal75

Sorry highthief, the Escort wouldn't qualify under the US guidelines.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

Derwood

how is having a few hundred thousand people sign up to buy a new car (in a week, no less) bad for the economy again?

and why the assumption that everyone buying a new car is incapable of handling the loan?

talk about grasping at straws.....there are plenty of crappy parts of the stimulus plan, this isn't one of them

parahy

Apparently this is taxable income.

So you get taxed on incentives that are funded by your taxdollars...

__________________
50 % of statistics are made up; including this one.

Derwood

par for the course. you're double taxes on just about everything

QuasiMondo

If it means thieves will stop stealing up the copper grounding plates on my cell sites then I'm all for it.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

Bear Cub

Its an artificial boost of the economy at best. There will be the mad influx at the very beginning as we're seeing. After that, all the road-going clunkers that meet the requirements are gone, and these spectacular sales rates as the result of it disappear.

Look at the logistics of buying the new cars. You've got people driving beaters trading them in for new vehicles. Sure, not everyone will have trouble with the financing, but if the $4500 will make or break you being able to buy a new car, should you be financing to begin with?

Does encouraging people to finance the second biggest expense most people have besides a mortgage during a time period in which poor spending and lending practices were largely responsible for economic downturn REALLY seem like a good idea? If you think so, more power to you, I'm just glad you don't have my vote. Its nothing more than a continuing pattern of government interfering with businesses that should have been left on their own to survive or fail, but with another bullshit "eco-friendly" guise.

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------


Copper theft will increase if steel prices diminish and there is less legitimate scrap for them to cash in on. We have 24 hour security at our job sites accordingly.

__________________
Living in the United Socialist States of America.

Derwood

I think it's more likely that you're going to have people who were nervous about buying a new car (in this economy) go for it now that they have the $4500 incentive

samcol

I'm trying to figure out how there is a net gain for our economy as a whole? The government is taking perfectly good money from taxpayers that could be used to purchase things that they want/need and giving it to people to a specific market of people who are looking for new cars. Furthermore they are artificially placing a $4,500 price tag on something that almost has little to no real value (the clunker).

Actually, I'm surprised the government isn't forcing people to buy Government Motors cars only with this plan.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Rekna

wrong, the consumer is not being taxed. The dealer has to pay taxes on it because for they are getting the money as part of a purchase, aka taxable.

This would be no different than offering a $4500 tax credit to the individual who then went and spent it on a car. The dealer would have to pay taxes on that part of the purchase.

Seaver

Rekna beat me to it. This is not taxable income for the consumer, it's treated the same as if the dealer gave $4,500 off the car on sale. They still pay the taxes on the sale and you pay the % on the sale, but the $4,500 is not counted.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

blktour

it is not a tax YET!

I am sure we will all pay for this in the years to come.

loquitur

doesn't it bother anyone that the government is using tax money to subsidize sales by businesses in which it owns a substantial or majority interest? Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here?

genuinegirly

2 friends have done this - one exchanged his ancient Ford truck that was on its last leg for a Hyundai sonata. The other exchanged his gass-guzzling camaro for a Hyundai elantra.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

Cimarron29414

As well as the fact that Americans are using other Americans' money to buy the car. You should be ashamed of yourself for embracing this program. How much will you steal from your fellow man, even if it is through the government?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

flstf

Just got $4500 for our 1990 Montero and traded for a new Subaru Forester. Didn't need another car but this was too good to pass up. We were going to junk the Montero before winter anyway. Chrysler is doubling the amount so one can get $9000 off. We need a Four or All wheel drive and wanted something more reliable than a Jeep.

Also the $4500 is not taxed and the sales tax is deductible.

kutulu

Overwhelming success is panned by the right wing. I'm shocked. The wharrgarbl over this is ridiculous.

Cynthetiq

I am not panning the success, I just do not get how it is sustainable and "fixes" the situation for the Big 3 since people had choices to purchase any car, foreign or domestic. If sales for Ford in 2006 were 2M units for the year, 250,000 vehicles spread out amongst all automakers in 1 month, isn't any reason to jump for joy or even a success in my book.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Cimarron29414

The purpose of this program is to eliminate "undesirable" vehicles from the road. It is a systematic extermination of certain vehicles which plays on the "something for nothing" mentality of the American populace. It is not the purpose of this program to pull the failing American auto industry out of its union-inspired tailspin. Instead, it is a move to get the unwanted green vehicles onto the road. These vehicles are not being sold on their own merits, so the government steals from its populace and doles out a reward for behaving in the manner it determines is proper behavior.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

Taxation isn't theft. We don't live in an Ayn Rand novel

Cimarron29414

Taxation without representation is theft. Every one of these programs is opposed in polling by the general populace, yet they are still passed by our Reps in Congress. If you oppose the program, your Representative passes it against the will of the people, and then threatens you will confiscation of your property in order to pay for the thing which you opposed: yep, that's theft.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

not according to the Constitution

FuglyStick

oh dear God

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Rekna

Taxation without representation....

Wow I didn't realize our government wasn't elected! Holy crap this is a major scandal! We aren't being represented because we didn't get to vote for these guys! How in the hell did they put memories into my head, i swear that I remember voting... I guess they can put memories into our heads now. I better go get a tinfoil hat to make sure the memory waves don't go into my head again.

Derwood

no no no. Every member of congress should poll their constituency before every decision they make. That will surely increase the efficiency of the government

Rekna

Why don't we just set up online polls and run our government that way!

kutulu

Did you have the same outrage back in 2002-ish when Bush gave out massive incentives business to buy gigantic SUVs?

Your post is made up of nonsensical talking points. It isn't as if the only cars eligible for the program are hybrids and smart cars. For a passenger car all that is needed is that teh consumer buys a car with a minimum combined 22 mpg that nets a 4 mpg gain over the old vehicle. For SUVs and trucks you only need to add 2 mpg and get a new one that gets better than 18 mpg.

If the car you bring in qualifies for the program, just about any car on the market can be purchased. Your comment that the cars people would have to buy are unwanted is pretty much bullshit.

The only thing that you are correct about is that the program is more about removing gas guzzlers from service than economic stimulus. Trade-ins are scrapped and as a result, the customer doesn't get a trade-in credit other than what the program provides.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

There are enough people on facebook. Maybe instead of electing officials we can just legislate via facebook polls.

sapiens

I don't have a source other than NPR, but my impression is that most people who are taking advantage of the program are buying cars that are very near the minimum mpg improvement required. If the goal of the program is environmental, it will take a long time to recoup the "carbon footprints" of all these new cars. Plus, many of the cars and trucks eligible don't meet mpg standards that will become effective in a couple of years.

$4500 a car is a lot of money. I'd prefer the funds to be used to improve public transit or something similar.

highthief

Yeah, it would in the UK though.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

FuglyStick

The "green" element is only a small part of what the program is designed to address. It's main purpose is to get money moving again.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

scout

So was the 700 trillion dollar stimulus plan.

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

Derwood

most of which hasn't been distributed yet.

but the money is coming. tons of construction projects going on in Ohio with "Paid for by the US Reinvestment Plan" (or whatever) signs on them