Re: Cash for Clunkers

Markwes Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:21 pm

LTRT wrote:LOL, Bman gets the psychic award for the day.

Cash for clunkers gets another $2 billion
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/autos/cash_for_clunkers_suspended/index.htm

Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

LTRT Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:34 pm

Bman wrote:
LTRT wrote:
Bman wrote:Why is it a joke seems like it was more succesfful than thougoht ... we should pump another 2-3 Billion in to the program.

A program of this kind isn't defined as a success by how many individuals desire its use.

Edit:
LOL, Bman gets the psychic award for the day.

Cash for clunkers gets another $2 billion
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/autos/cash_for_clunkers_suspended/index.htm

Really? A program designed to stimulate the auto industry and pump money into local economies and put more fuel efficient cars on the road can't keep up with the demand and you say this is not a success?

Whatever ... BITTER!

How long before we hear about all the repos? king

Guest Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:32 pm

LTRT wrote:How long before we hear about all the repos?

Are they loaning money again? I would think the majority of people that get into this kind of deal have at least a bit of cash for a considerable chunk of down payment. I could be wrong though.

LTRT Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:16 pm

Dealers Race to Get Their Clunkers Crushed
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dealers-race-to-get-their-clunkers-crushed/?hp

The White House and Congress may be giving the “cash for clunkers” program a reprieve, but one can’t help wondering how many dealers and customers will have the confidence to go forward at this point. Things sound like a total mess in the showrooms.

“There is absolute frustration across the board,” Alex Kurkin, a lawyer based in Miami who represents several car dealerships, tells The Lede today. “As of this morning, they’re not really confident about any deals, and no one can give them advice about what they should be telling their customers.”

One thing still not clear is how many older cars have actually been sold and scrapped with the original $1 billion, and how many more the new $2 billion will be able to cover. Mr. Kurkin tells us that the government Web site where dealers are supposed to register their deals has been crashing, and the dealers haven’t been able to plug in their information.

Yep, sounds like everything is running real smooth. What a Face

What good does pumping more money into it do if the back end isn't worth a dime?

Scooby01_98 Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:44 pm

While I don't have a problem with this stimulus item. To me no different than getting credit for energy efficient furnace in your home etc. What I find hard to believe is the government couldn't even keep up with the program. The same government that wants to be your insurance agent.

**Cincy Fan 44** Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:31 am

So a government run program is going to run out of funding? Gee, whowouldathought? scratch

Guest Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:41 am

I see LTRT is using a right wing opinion piece (blog) as his source to try to sway you folks ... FAIL.

Scooby, do you thing republicans would have offered up $4B to begin with for this program .... NOPE

The program is working, money is getting pumped into the sagging auto industry and you guys are just bitter losers.

Guest Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:59 am

Scooby01_98 wrote:While I don't have a problem with this stimulus item. To me no different than getting credit for energy efficient furnace in your home etc. What I find hard to believe is the government couldn't even keep up with the program. The same government that wants to be your insurance ~~agent~~ provider.

Fixed.

Similar to LTRT's comment, "the use or choice not to should not be the determining factor of success of a program". Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps... How do we determine the success/failure of these programs?

I say you have to look at the results. That only happens after participation has occurred.

LTRT Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:43 am

Bman wrote:I see LTRT is using a right wing opinion piece (blog) as his source to try to sway you folks ... FAIL.

Give me a break, it's from your beloved NY Times who I thought was the source of truth from what we've heard. Smile

That's right, everything that was stated in the story was all made up, nothing like the snipet I quoted could possibly ever happen. Rolling Eyes

Nice to see that you think it's OK for FF to constantly post things from the Huffington Post, keep up the double standard there big boy.

Markwes Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:51 am

Scooby01_98 wrote:While I don't have a problem with this stimulus item. To me no different than getting credit for energy efficient furnace in your home etc. What I find hard to believe is the government couldn't even keep up with the program. The same government that wants to be your insurance agent.

The problem is they did not promote it as a stimulus item. It has the stipulation that the car being purchased gets x amount better gas mileage, which makes it a "save the environment" program. It rewards those who bought a gas guzzler years ago.

Markwes Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:56 am

Bman wrote:
Why is it a joke seems like it was more succesfful than thougoht ... we should pump another 2-3 Billion in to the program.

So, you were against spending money to build a ballpark downtown, but you casually throw 2 to 3 billion out there on a national level. I imagine being your financial advisor would be something like being Elizabeth Taylor's marriage counselor.

Scooby01_98 Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:18 pm

meta4 wrote:
Scooby01_98 wrote:While I don't have a problem with this stimulus item. To me no different than getting credit for energy efficient furnace in your home etc. What I find hard to believe is the government couldn't even keep up with the program. The same government that wants to be your insurance ~~agent~~ provider.

Fixed.

Similar to LTRT's comment, "the use or choice not to should not be the determining factor of success of a program". Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps... How do we determine the success/failure of these programs?

I say you have to look at the results. That only happens after participation has occurred.

Either way not who I want in charge of healthcare.

Guest Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:28 am

Markwes wrote:
Bman wrote:
Why is it a joke seems like it was more succesfful than thougoht ... we should pump another 2-3 Billion in to the program.
So, you were against spending money to build a ballpark downtown, but you casually throw 2 to 3 billion out there on a national level. I imagine being your financial advisor would be something like being Elizabeth Taylor's marriage counselor.

I was at the SELL OUT Tin Caps game last night and 6-5 Tin Cap win in the bottom of the 9th. GREAT GAME! Mark is just pissed he traded in a clunker a year ago when Card told everyone too and now Mark would have saved an extra $4,500 .... it is the republican greed oozing from him. lol

Scooby01_98 Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:23 pm

Bman wrote:
Scooby, do you thing republicans would have offered up $4B to begin with for this program .... NOPE

Don't know, don't really care who offered up the program (some, not many rep did vote for it). It is more of a stimulus than the increase in Pell grants, buying software for digitalized medical records, or research funding. If it is a reasonable program then I can live with it no matter who proposed it. However, all you are really doing is shifting demand from 6 to 18 months in the future to now. Don't be surprised if after this little bubble the auto industry is back right where it was before this program.

Markwes Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:08 pm

Bman wrote:
Markwes wrote:
Bman wrote:
Why is it a joke seems like it was more succesfful than thougoht ... we should pump another 2-3 Billion in to the program.
So, you were against spending money to build a ballpark downtown, but you casually throw 2 to 3 billion out there on a national level. I imagine being your financial advisor would be something like being Elizabeth Taylor's marriage counselor.

I was at the SELL OUT Tin Caps game last night and 6-5 Tin Cap win in the bottom of the 9th. GREAT GAME! Mark is just pissed he traded in a clunker a year ago when Card told everyone too and now Mark would have saved an extra $4,500 .... it is the republican greed oozing from him. lol

I was at the Thursday game and it was a good one too. It's easy to sell out when the team is 28 and 7 or whatever they are. They are definitely kicking booty.

I traded in for an SUV so I would not have qualified for the clunker program anyway. By the way, that SUV will be worth a lot more when Obama forces all auto manufacturers to comply to 30 something MPG, and little girly cars are a dime a dozen. Mwah ha ha.

LTRT Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:00 am

Four of Top ‘Clunkers’ Model Purchases Are Foreign
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=am1mj6R6tAcg

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Four of the top five models sold so far under the U.S. “cash for clunkers” program, aimed at boosting the auto industry, are made by foreign automakers, according to Transportation Department data.

Ford Motor Co.’s Focus was the top seller, followed by Toyota Motor Corp.’s Corolla, Honda Motor Co.’s Civic and Toyota’s Prius and Camry, data from the department showed today.

Scooby01_98 Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:32 am

Toyota corolla built in California, Toyota Camry built in Lafayette, IN and Kentucky, Honda civic built in Ohio, ford focus in Michigan. Prius is the only foreign assembled car currently built in Japan, but I believe they are building a plant in the U.S. to build them in the U.S.

Way I look at it Americans building them, selling them, repairing them. Toyota and Honda traded on the NYSE. All good to me.

Markwes Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:46 am

LTRT wrote:Four of Top ‘Clunkers’ Model Purchases Are Foreign
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=am1mj6R6tAcg

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Four of the top five models sold so far under the U.S. “cash for clunkers” program, aimed at boosting the auto industry, are made by foreign automakers, according to Transportation Department data.

Ford Motor Co.’s Focus was the top seller, followed by Toyota Motor Corp.’s Corolla, Honda Motor Co.’s Civic and Toyota’s Prius and Camry, data from the department showed today.

Well, at least we're stimulating someone's economy, even if it's not the U.S.!

**Cincy Fan 44** Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:47 am

Just remember a lot of them foreign car companies employ a ton of American Auto Workers, so as the demand remains for those vehicles they're working on, the better chance they have of retaining their j-o-b.

LTRT Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:09 am

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Just remember a lot of them foreign car companies employ a ton of American Auto Workers, so as the demand remains for those vehicles they're working on, the better chance they have of retaining their j-o-b.

Yep, we know that, but what's that got to do with GM (aka: Gov't Motors)? Very Happy

Pez Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:43 am

I'm not sure I understand. GM was so near failure that the government didnt really have a choice but to act aggressively, avoiding half measures and tackling the problem in a hand-on approach. While I might agree with you if you said that GM should have been allowed to fail, I would only do so in an otherwise sound economy. With the credit freeze up coupled with the mortage crisis, the loss of GM would have crippled our economy and prolonged the recession...

The mess that GM is in was a result of their indecisiveness in allowing themselves to be pushed around by labor unions. They should have seen the handwriting on the wall and shut down when they were profitable in order to negotiate a better contract... if GM fails, everyone loses. The union "negotiated", GM responded with capitulation in order to avoid strikes... The Unions took everything they could get and shouldnt necessarily be blamed for doing so because GM kept bending over and taking it...

To simplify, there was a startling statistic that a large percentage of profits from the sale of a GM vehicle went to provide health benefits for retired workers. QWe have already established that the government had to take over GM else it would have failed, noiw the government is pushing universal health care, which will free up GM (and ford etc) from the burden of paying these health benefits going forward. The net result of which will be a profitable and eventually growing domestic auto industry that can finally afford to produce a decent vehicle that can compete globally.

Cons can bitch and moan about the government takeover or GM and the socialist aspects of universal healthcare --and certainly both programs have their negative points -- but they fail to see that the socialistic aspect of universal healthcare will result in the domestic auto industry that is able to compete in an international capitalist marketplace.

Markwes Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:46 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_sc/us_cash_for_clunkers_pollution

WASHINGTON – "Cash for clunkers" could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren't impressed.

Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.

SavoyTruffle Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:10 pm

Definitely agree with most of the people interviewed in that article. I admit, I don't even think of it as an environmental policy - it's almost purely economic based in light of automotive heavyweights going through such tough times. It's more like, they had to make it a good incentive (money back and better mpg) in order to draw people, but had to draw a line to limit who should be picked for this offer (those who own 'clunkers'). So in doing that, they probably made it so that the average fuel efficiency would be sure to go up. It's basically like the last guy said, it's not that it's necessarily a "bad" idea (I'm pretty 'meh' about the whole thing), but it certainly isn't going to solve our CO2 emission issues.

Pez Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:59 pm

Markwes wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_sc/us_cash_for_clunkers_pollution

WASHINGTON – "Cash for clunkers" could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren't impressed.

Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.

Conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry... well it's ostensibly done both those things... and the fact that it's the environmental equivalent to shutting down everything for an hour a year seems like a pretty significant statistic to me... that an hours worth of our consumption (likely a staggering figure) can be addressed by a few people buying new cars?

In all honesty, the fact that it's not an effective way to attack climate change is like saying it's not an effective way to pick lotto numbers... a nonsequitur from something it was meant to do (stimulate the economy), into something it wasnt meant to do (stop global warming)...

Speaking of nonsequiturs, an internet survey told me that I'm a conservative... so I could have proibabaly just said STFU you tree hugging faggots... followed by a copy paste from fox news and the eyeroll smiley...

Guest Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:06 pm

Who expected it to solve global warming... seriously? Probably the same people who thought the (socialist) AIG bailout would work. I'm also not surprised that a few treehuggers might have felt a momentary warm fuzzy. I think our President is acknowledging the CC/GW problem through policy. This administration is taking steps now in reforming our international posture as an oil addicted leviathan and taking on a more responsible posture. Billions and billions of bits in NASA/satellite images can't be wrong when hordes of scientists agree over what they see in the trend data.

Sponsored content