cash for clunkers
 

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?

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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

Apparently this is taxable income.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

it is not a tax YET!

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

not according to the Constitution

oh dear God :rolleyes:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Yeah, it would in the UK though.

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.

So was the 700 trillion dollar stimulus plan.

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

??? Yes, that's what a "stimulus plan" is...

wait, $700 TRILLION?

Oh, snap, I completely glazed over that one...

SEVEN HUNDRED GADZILLION!!!!!!!!!

700 trillion...700 billion... either way its a huge amount of money. but just to set it straight ..700 billion... there ya all feel better now?

That really depends on what you think a Democratic Republic is. If the purpose of the representatives is to represent the will of their constituents, then we have taxation without representation because the will of the people (as a majority) has been against every one of these programs. However, any opposing view in the Tilted Politics forum gets a "tinfoil hat", so you guys just keep telling each other how much smarter you are than everyone else.

---------- Post added at 09:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------

I don't suppose you see the irony in bringing up the Constitution as a defence of an unconstitutional entitlement program?

---------- Post added at 09:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

Right. And I suppose it's a grand idea that all of these cars are needlessly destroyed rather than giving them to people who don't have cars so that those people could have more freedoms and employment options. Not to mention the massive amounts of energy used to needlessly destroy them and the massive amounts of energy used to create the new car. Then there is the personal debt the buyer incurs, the risk the bank incurs, the debt the government incurs...

Hey, but all of that is offset by a mere 2 MPG improvement. What a GRAND program, just what I would expect from the federal government.

First, all the polls I have seen shows the majority of Americans are in support of health care reform. Second, we are a republic not a democracy for a reason, to avoid a tyranny of the majority. No good government would function solely on what is best for the majority. Third why do you think these are unconstitutional? Specifically what part of the constitution does it violate?

First, "Health care reform" does not equal "Government controlled healthcare." The fact that Americans want change does not mean they want the government to run it. This is seen in the other polls that you don't cite.

Second, I agree. However, these guys are having their doors beat down by their constituents telling them not to do these things, yet they are still doing them. Case in point, Lindsey Graham voting for Sotomayor. I can assure you he did not follow the will of his constituents or uphold the platform under which he ran by voting for her (whether you agree with the platform or not.)

Third, it isn't IN the Constitution which is exactly the point. If the power is not explicitly listed in the Constitution, then that power is given only to the individual states. While this is your queue to cite "benefit the general good", spare me. There is no way 250,000 cars being destroyed at the expense of the taxpayer is for the general welfare of the people.

Sorry this is completely constitutional and it does fall under promoting the general welfare. Now if the government were forcing individuals to do this you would have a very strong case but in this case people get to choose if they want trade in their old cars.

Also what you see at the few town halls is not indicative of how the entire population feels. In fact what you are seeing at a few town halls is an organized effort to make it look like there is a strong public opposition. The plans from these organizations were leaked and it gave specific instructions how to make it look like there is a strong opposition to health care reform.

Let's face it, our health care system is broken. It has been broken by corporate greed. And those of you that are afraid that having a public option which competes with the corporate options would somehow take away your ability to choose your treatments should check this out. Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment - cbs5.com. The insurance company already doesn't let you choose!

Ya, this program does indeed hurt the poor. They are destroying the market for the only vehicles that low income people can even afford. These clunkers are naturally going to raise in price due to this program.

Ron Paul sheds some common sense on the subject:

Correct:

Inside The Tea Partiers Anti-Health Care Organizing Campaign | TPMDC

Gallup polls seem to indicate there really is a significant disapproval for this.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...hs0o1dhmra.gif

Fuck Ron Paul

If they are getting $4,500 and buying a car then they are gaining at least 10 mpg. Since the car traded in had to get less than 18 mpg that means they increased the fuel economy by over 50%.

Why should a car manufactured today have to meet a standard that isn't in effect yet? Why is that an issue?

A 2 mpg improvement from 15 mpg is 13%. Conservatives have screamed bloody murder over mandates for similar fuel economy gains.

Exactly. They are making a lot of noise but the fact is that there aren't that many.

Bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. This isn't some sort of grass-roots campaign it is a corporate manipulation of the people. The GOP is up to their usual scare tactics routine. Fear, outrage, and intimidation. That's all the GOP has had since 9/11.

very constructive

yet completely true

Regardless, he does make a good point that destorying hundreds of thousands of low priced vehicles inaddvertantely affects the poor. Also that we are paying for this program with money we don't have.

I didn't know there was a huge market for selling barely drivable cars to the poor.


As for the second point, Paul beats that drum on a daily basis. No news there.

I found the story that I was referring to earlier. It's quite short.. It can be found here:Critics Say 'Clunkers' Program Isn't Very Green : NPR
I never said anything about car manufacturers. I just think that if we want to get low mileage cars off the road, if the program was supposed to have an environmental aspect to it, I would have liked to have seen higher standards for the cars that are eligible. From the article:
Maybe the environmental aspect doesn't matter. If that is the case, then nevermind. Personally, I'd like to be able to trade in my clunker sitting in the driveway and get a credit toward a nice bicycle.

Does anyone know what % sales tax a dealer generally pays on on a car sale?

Transparency:

Obama administration withholds data on program - Yahoo! News

What a poor choice of verbiage. First the article suggests they are withholding the data. Then the article goes on to say that it is going to be released but it is taking time to compile the data. So essentially Obama isn't withholding the data and instead is working on producing the data but that takes time.....

...and I am certain he will have the data ready one day after we commit another $2B in taxpayer money to his entitlement program.

After seeing such a video, why destroy such a roadworthy vehicle????


http://jalopnik.com/5327580/video-ho...r-clunkers-car

Because it is an ill-conceived program?

I'm not sure the program is going to cost as much money as people think.

Let's look at it from a tax perspective.

The cost of each fully subsidized purchase is $4500
There is no money generated from sales tax because that tax is deductible.
The business has to pay income/revenue type taxes on that purchase.
In addition, most consumers must pay around 2% of the cars value every year in property taxes/auto mobile fees.

For the sake of argument let's say that the average cost of the cars purchases is $25,000 and businesses pay 5% income tax.

In this case the initial purchase of the car costs and generates the following money:

subsidy ($4,500)
Business tax $1250
Yearly Property Tax $500

Thus after the first year the program is already recouped 40% of the cost and this excludes any taxes generated by income tax due to increased demand on automobiles.

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

I don't necessarily feel we should be destroying the vehicles traded in but I think they are forcing the destruction to help prevent fraud by dealers who would then take those cars and resell them. Part of the aim of this program is to get these cars off the road. If they didn't destroy these cars we would have an equal number of people complaining about the US destroying the used car market and hurting used car dealers....

Actually I think very capable vehicles are getting destroyed. The clunkers have to be drivable, registered AND insured for the entire year to be eligible. This seems strange to not accept vehicles that don't run and aren't registered/insured, yet they will take perfectly good cars and totally destroy them. A total waste of perfectly good capital and drivable car that could have been sold to someone who can't afford a new vehicle.

...or we could just not have the program, let the cars live out their days as dependable vehicles, save the tax payers $3B, let the new cars get sold in a truly free market as the demand naturally exists, and leave the government out of it. You know, either way.

BTW, property tax is a county/state tax. It does not reimburse the federal taxpayer in any way. Also, since the new car has higher property taxes than the old car, the purchaser now pays for his own $4500 in federal income taxes(ultimately) and he pays more local property tax. Oh, and then there's the interest on the loan for the vehicle. The taxes for the warranty on the vehicle which is now guaranteed by the federal government. The taxes on the "we'll pay your car payment for 9 months if you lose your job" guarantee by the federal government. The taxes on the bureaucracy of federal managment of the program (beyond the $3B), The lost productivity in the government entities which now have to manage this program as well....

I think you missed a few o the taxes there.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

Please stop muddying the water with sound reason.

I find it funny that the government has to subsidize all sides of this equation in order to get new cars to sell. I think it really shows what an unfortunate state the economy is really in. They have to subsidize the loans because the banks messed up, they have to subsidize GM because they are too big to fail (the supply), and now they have to subsidize the actual sale of the car as well (the demand side).

This does not sound like a very sound economic plan to me.

I wouldnt characterize it as an economic plan, but rather a shot-term stop-gap measure to keep credit flowing and money circulating in the economy.

Damnit, man! Will you quit making sense?!

never mind--

If they allowed uninsured undrivable cars to be traded in everyone would go to the junkyard and buy some scrap to trade in. Though I do think the program is allowing some vehicles that are a bit to night be to traded in.

---------- Post added at 07:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

I think it is funny that all conservatives every clamor for is tax credits and tax breaks. This is essentially a tax credit which needs to be used in a very specific way. Do you complain about how much the tax credits pushed by the conservatives will cost?

This is essentially a tax credit that people can CHOOSE to participate in. If someone is wants to take advantage of this program than they have to live with the consequences of it (higher taxes, car loan, etc). The fact is they CHOSE to participate in it. The reason I like this program is that it provides incentive for the public to spend in order to help get the economy moving again. What happened to the rights trickle down theories that they have been pushing for years????

In my opinion subsidizing purchases for the consumer is a lot better than subsidizing bonuses for the bankers and insurance companies....

*sigh* ...and while we are talking about hypocrisy, why don't we point out how all of a sudden the liberals want to stimulate the economy by issuing a tax credit!

I have never had a problem with tax credits as long as they are a credit for a specific behavior you want to encourage. I think these work great for encouraging a specific behavior (like weatherizing a home). What I don't like is when they just give money back and don't encourage anyone to spend it.

Here is the thing, if people are nervous about spending and you give them $1000 they will take that money and save it. However, if you give them $1000 only if they spend it on X then they will spend that money. Right now having the consumer save all their money is not going to help the economy. We need to encourage them to spend their money and gain confidence in the market (which really appears that it has turned... DJIA is around 9300!)

First, who the fuck is the government to TELL me how to spend my money? I'm a grown man and I already have a mom. Second of all, they aren't "giving me money", they are returning my money back to me. It isn't their money! The consumers save their money right now because it is the right thing to do. Those of us who see the writing on the wall see and end to huge sectors of private industry, massive government taxation, and the real potential for job loss.

Unlike the government, we choose to be fiscally responsible and pay our own way through the difficult times. If the government did something that showed any once of faith in a true free market, then spending would increase.

Part of the governments constitutional duty is to provide for the general wellfare. It is no secret that the individual rarely looks out for anyone besides their-self. The government is providing incentive for people to upgrade to better technologies in order to provide for the general welfare by reducing pollution and helping maintain the automakers (who are in trouble). If the automakers were to suddenly close down the US would be plunged into a depression comparable to the great depression (again the general welfare).

The government is trying to make decisions that improve society on the whole that would not be made by the individual because in the end most individuals say "it's not my problem" despite the fact that it is or will be soon.

Oh dear God


Abandon all hope ye who enter this thread...

I gave up on this many posts ago

From a simple investment perspective, it disheartens me that people are being encouraged to buy brand new cars. It's hard for me to understand the grand-scale mindset behind encouraging your populace - which is currently hurting pretty badly for money, to purchase one of the most expensive things that the average person will purchase in their lifetime - and item that loses a signficant portion of it's value immediately after purchase and is one of the fastest depreciating assets one will ever own.

Call me crazy, but when I was growing up most folks bought used cars unless they were doing pretty well financially - New cars were a luxury item...

When this originally came out (last year?) it was called an Air-Check. Same rules, perhaps same program now - dunno.

I had an older car, POS, and thought what the hell. So I called and qualified and got my aircheck (more than $4500 tho, then).

With that guvmunt check in hand I looked around. It became apparant that this is a scam. Not intended to be a scam I'm sure, but like alot of government help programs it wasn't exactly well thought out.

See, if you use your aircheck you have to give the carlot your clunker for free to be crushed. They apply the $4500 against the price and aren't very interested in haggling down the price.
Or...
Just trade in your clunker which no respectable car lot wants and they crush it. They've inflated their price to cover your car and they'll give you (if you haggle) $4500 trade-in for your car.

Same same only one is free money to the car lot from taxpayers and one is old fashioned car business. You the poor consumer are still gong to pay the same for the car either way and your country's national debt continues to rise and rise....

I've heard zero reports that car dealerships are inflating their car prices $4500 to offset the CFC rebate. Why would they?

The good thing about a new car vs. a used car is that you are more likely to make it through the 5 year loan without spending very much on repairs and maintenance. If you look at Honda, Toyota, and Nissan there isn't a huge difference in retail price between a car that is two years old w/ 25k miles and a new car. You can save some more if you go another couple of years but there is definite risk in buying a car with more than 60k miles on it.

New cars are already inflated, so they can 'give YOU a deal' and 'let' you talk them down as well as covering the cost of buying the trade-in. It's a double tap, your trade-in is then sold and they recoup the money they lost when combined with the 'talked-down' inflated price.
The air-check takes that trade-in and 'talked down' price out of the equation and they make the air-check as complete profit on top of whatever profit they can talk you out of on the purchase price.

I've been thinking more about this program, and my question is if it works so well in this industry, then why not incorporate the program in other industries?

I work construction and have received a HUGE slowdown in work as of the last few months. Why not destroy perfectly good homes and commercial buildings (ie unefficient in the heating/cooling/insulating department) and allow the government to subsidize 1/4 of the cost of a new one like in the cash for clunkers program.

Wouldn't this really stimulate the economy as well? It would sure help out my industry...

that's a great point samcol. EVERYONE needs housing, not everyone needs a car. Since I see vehicles as luxury, I'm all for a Cash for Housing subsidy. Especially when it has to be also done in rich neighborhoods as well as poor.

What about the boating industry? It has really been hurt. Why don't we give everyone a yacht. Think of the reduction in stress that we would all have sailing each weekend. Undoubtedly, health would improve and healthcare expenses would decrease.

Ooo, Ooo, and the plane industry! If we all had our own plane, imagine the efficiency. Right now, we all have to take connector flights instead of flying directly to our destination. Oh, the pollution it causes! Direct flights are WAY greener! Let's make sure everyone has their own plane too!

...and I want a puppy too.

I think that planes and boats are luxuries. Housing is not, and in some areas of the nation, vehicles are not a luxury but quite needed, so a basic Trabant like vehicle is needed.

So let's list out the problems.

It takes away vehicles that the poor can afford.

The govt is subsidizing the purchase of vehicles and if someone buys GM, they benefit.

It rewards people who bought stupid low fuel efficiency vehicles in the first place. My Integra, 33-35 mpg. My Subaru, 25 mpg. I didn't buy crapola low efficiency vehicles so I don't get rewarded.

It encourages more financing and more lending.

Vehicles are a depreciable asset. They lose value.

Why only vehicles? My 10 year old Integra with 130k miles is in great shape. How about credit for a new washer/dryer, or a new tv. Shit, I have been looking at home speakers in the 1,000 to 1500 range for a year. I'll take a credit for that, and I will still be listening to them 20 years from now.

I love this kind of post.

To summarize: "Government hand outs are bad, and I'm pissed I didn't get one."

I shouldn't take this post seriously but it isn't necessary to demolish a house in order to improve efficiencies. Furthermore, there are already credits, tax breaks, etc. for upgrading insulation, HVAC, etc.

You can say the same thing for cars, you can get the same kind of efficiencies by buying a slightly used japanese engine to retrofit into any vehicle for much less than the $4,500.

Sometimes it is much more costly to upgrade the house than to tear it down. It's quite common in the Northeast and Southwest. Actually it's common in places where density is high and people want to live in desirable locations. Hingham, MA is an area where it was much more feasible for teardowns and still be in commuting distance to Boston. I know because the house my wife grew up in was one of those kinds of homes. It was definitely not worth doing all those upgrades as I was interested in the property at one point in time.

Many homes cannot just have HVAC systems installed since there is no crawlspaces in between floors.

In my area, a friend of mine just bought a Huyndai. He turned his car in and got $4500 off and the dealership matched that $4500. So he got $9000 off his car. That sure does sound like care dealerships are inflating their prices.

Here's another example of the unintended consequences when the government meddles in the free market.

You can read the rest of the article here

You, like 80% of people who participated in cash for clunkers, bought an import. The only difference between you and the 80% is that you traded in an import, not a domestic vehicle. Of the top five cars sold under the program, only the Ford Focus was a domestic. Great stimullus for the industry there. :rolleyes:


If you are a constitutional scholar, please point out to me the portions that describe how the federal government can choose to let Bear Stearns go down the tubes, but bail out AIG. Or where it specifies that the president chooses and fires CEOs. Oh, wait, that's all "promoting the general welfare," isn't it? By your definition, NOTHING is beyond the scope of his powers. George Bush was a different story, though. He allowed three people to have water poured up their noses, and although that saved lives, he should have been impeached.


They're way ahead of you, sort of. Just quit paying your mortgage--the government won't let your lender foreclose! I didn't see that one in the constitution, either.

I think Mitsubishi was 50% owned by Chrysler when we bought it. I live on a private country road with no snow removal and need a 4 wheel or all wheel drive car in the winter. When I looked at domestic SUVs I couldn't find one to qualify with my trade in (improve milleage by at least 5 mpg). My other car is a Dodge Ram (made in Mexico).

Even if the manufacturer is owned by a foreign company the car was still built in the US sold by a US dealer which created many jobs in the US. Sure some of the profits go to another country but the majority of the money spent goes right back int our economy.

I believe all Subarus (the car we bought) are built in Japan.

Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks at least some of the Subaru's are manufactured in Indiana.

---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 AM ----------

Honda Assembly plants:

List of Honda assembly plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4 in the US

Toyota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toyota has 5 major plants in the US.


The fact is even if the company is not in the US much of the labor and parts are in the US.

---------- Post added at 12:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 AM ----------

And just because it is pertinent to the discussion here is a paper on vehicle production costs:

http://msl1.mit.edu/classes/esd123/vyas.pdf

I don't have time to go through this right now and see what % of a cars purchase price goes back into US hands but maybe someone else can.

I don't particularly care if the autos bought through this program were made in the US or abroad....that wasn't really the point....it was to get people to the dealerships and to get inefficient autos off the road. Besides, it would be pretty iffy if the program were for US auto companies only