Feds To Offer Cash For Your Clunker 740
coondoggie sends along a NetworkWorld piece that begins, "The government... wants to motivate you to get rid of your clunker of a car for the good of the country (and the moribund car industry). A 'Cash for Clunkers' measure introduced this week by three US Senators, two Democrats and a Republican, would set up a national voucher program to encourage drivers to voluntarily trade in their older, less fuel-efficient car, truck, or SUV for a car that gets better gas mileage. Should the bill pass, the program would pay out a credit of $2,500 to $4,500 for drivers who turn in fuel-inefficient vehicles to be scrapped and purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle."
Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
It Will Help The Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I think the 'ism supported here is consumerism, not environmentalism. Let old cars die their natural death.
Opposed (Score:4, Insightful)
I am totally opposed to this bill. As a hot rodder the last thing I or my fellows want is for everyone to turn their old cars in for scrap. It is better for them to remain in junkyards where they can be used as spare parts to keep other old cars in good running condition. Really guys, there are not THAT many older cars on the road compared to newer ones, so the older cars really aren't contributing a whole lot to emissions. If all these cars are scrapped then the result in millions of car enthusiasts will have a tough time restoring their older cars, all the scrap steel will go to China, and you and I will have to foot the bill for it all through taxes.
Improve the economy... (Score:4, Insightful)
By making it less and less efficient! Yay for progress!
Save America! Buy More! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like an automotive version of gun buybacks, and equally as silly.
If the goal is to save the environment, tying the credit to the purchase of a new vehicle just takes a perfectly good car whose environmental costs have already been incurred out of circulation.
If the goal is to reduce oil consumption, using taxpayer money to fund the purchase of new cars, instead of getting affordable, useful mass transit, seems like a horrible waste of money.
Clearly, this is designed to prop up the auto industry. By reducing the number of used cars on the market, which compete with new cars, and using taxpayer money for what normally would be the trade-in value of their car, they're artificially reducing the supply of cars in the country in order to drive sales of new cars. This has the effect of screwing over people who would never be able to buy a new car, since there will be a reduction in the supply of used cars.
But that's ok. The government wants you to get deeper into debt to buy things you can't afford. That's the ticket out of this recession!
Yet another case of "screw the responsible people" (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in 2000, I bought a Toyota Echo that gets about 40 miles/gallon. In 2002, even though I could have afforded more I bought a small condo, skipping out on an ARM to get a 30 yr fixed rate. Now I'm learning that I should have bought a gas-guzzler so I could get free cash down the road, I should have taken out a huge ARM on an overpriced house because the gov would get my lender to reduce the principal anyway, and maybe I should have tried to run a company or two into the ground to get a mammoth bailout. Why is the government trying to take away every incentive to act prudently and responsibly?
Tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're going to offer us our own tax dollars we've paid them, to get rid of the cars we have?
Money for better public transport where possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
May I humbly submit that a bit of money invested in public transport infrastructure, could pay off handsomely in terms of quality of life? Less people would even need cars, which would save them money. And it would help to decongest the roads, so people would get to work faster.
The huge decrease of pollution and need for fossil fuels is just an added bonus.
I don't say this works everywhere in the US, but certainly it would work in many cities.
Re:What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It Will Help The Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
This proposal would not help the Big Three, because it won't encourage sales of new cars. People are not going to trade in a $200 clunker in exchange for $2,000 of a $20,000 debt on something that depreciates if they can even get a loan in this environment.
This proposal will help used car dealers at the expense of pretty much everyone. The demand for used cars will skyrocket as people try to trade in their $200 clunkers for $1,500 used cars. Of course in that $1,500 won't buy them what it would buy them now.
There _may_ be environmental benefits as people dump less fuel efficient cars for already existing more fuel efficient cars, but it's certainly not obvious that is going to be the case.
Unless you are a used car salesman, the only real benefit here is reducing our demand for foreign energy. But the amount of oil this is supposed to save after 4 years is only 40,000 to 80,000 barrels per day. That's not even a drop in the bucket. It's not even a drop in the bucket of how much our demand will have increased during the same time period!
Re:Tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called a pyramid scam for a reason.
punishing the responsible people (Score:5, Insightful)
So those of us who already made a choice to purchase an efficient vehicle aren't getting any incentives.
I am barely scraping by with my mortgage, but because I am not in arrears, I get no assistance. This is so similar, why are we coddling the idiots of society?
I thought Idiocracy was a fictional movie, not a crystal ball into the future.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the person with the junker will buy a used car that costs them about how much they're being reimbursed by the government for, and then the person who just sold their car will buy a slightly newer used car, then that person will buy a new car? In the end a new car is bought, it just might take a couple sales to get to it.
GP is right though. Foreign is where it's at right now.
They pay more to scrap fuel efficient cars (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was about reducing emissions, they would pay more to get older, dirtier, and less fuel efficient cars off the road. The worse the mpg, the more they would pay. This is about encouraging people that proved they have the money to buy a newer car to cycle into another newer car a lot sooner than they would. It's proof this is about encouraging consumerism, not ecology.
Re:The environmental cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
How silly. whoever told you that (citation needed) is comparing the total CO2 output of the factories that assemble the car and the raw material against simply what comes out of a car's exhaust pipe. This is forgetting how much energy is used extracting, transporting, refining and distributing the fuel that the car runs on. It also neglects that oil much rarer than the coke and coal burned to smelt steel and run the grid; whatever replaces it will likely be much less efficient to create than oil is to dig up. Rarity is also a factor with how much energy needs to be used invading countries for their oil.
If there was any validity to the claim at all, the places that make cars would be more notoriously polluted than the ones that use them. This is not the case, How many cars are made in Las Angeles for example.
Is this bill really about the environment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My old car is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
no it isn't fine - 34mpg blows
you yanks are convinced that 30mpg is some sort of decent figure for fuel economy - go buy a japanese super-mini (quit whining about it being a girl's car) and revel in the 40mpg+ efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Passo [wikipedia.org]
They can start with our powerplants (Score:2, Insightful)
Exchange them for something other than coal burning steam turbines.
Basically antiquated technology.
Reform the coal into hydrogen and build giant fuel cells.
Old Stereotypes (Score:4, Insightful)
Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
Not really. Japanese companies are putting more emphasis on hybrids (and have better developed hybrid-tech), and so they get a lot of press in that regard, with some models topping 50mpg in fuel economy. But most cars sold are still conventional gasoline models, and in that regard, Japanese and American models are broadly similar in terms of fuel economy. Compare for instance, two competitors in the sedan market, a 2009 V-6 Toyota Camry, and a 2009 V-6 Ford Taurus. The Camry gets 19/28 mpg, and the Taurus gets 18/28.
As for the "more variety"... where? The beauty of Japanese car company philosophy is that they offer few models. Instead of offering vehicles for every possible niche, the Japanese companies have a few, well-designed and well-built models. Part of the problem that American companies have(and especially GM) is that they'll sell 3 to 5 versions of the same car, sometimes with little difference in the sheet metal. American car companies take "platforming"... using a base car platform to make multiple models... to ridiculous extremes.
Re:My old car is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
My 1995 Saturn SL1 gets 40 MPG (overall- probably 43-44 on the highway) in the winter (less in the summer when I need to run the a/c, of course). That's a full-size sedan that seats 5, and can fit almost two bodies in the trunk.
The first engine and clutch (on a manual- my first manual transmission) lasted 231,400 miles, and the first time it stranded me for anything other than a dead battery was at that point. Drop in a used engine, and it's back on the road- getting 40 MPG while meeting the county's stringent air quality laws by nearly half.
What the heck, Detroit? What did you do to our cars? (I know- gave them decent acceleration and class, but- dangit, I like my Saturn. Even if everybody else laughs at me, it's saved me a lot of money and hassles over the years.)
Limited government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Money for better public transport where possibl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
It says you have to scrap it. So no, it's not going back on the market. That would defeat the entire point...
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
It *is* good economics. Maybe it does not lend an astonishing improvement in fleet efficiency but it does spark car sales.
Another way to describe what you have is 4 people trade in their clunker and buy increasingly expensive replacement vehicles. One guy buys a car with the same price as the value of the voucher, another adds in some from their savings, the third takes out an auto loan equal to value of voucher, and the forth uses the voucher as a down payment for a 3-5 year Auto loan. That is a lot of money changing hands.
What would improve fleet efficiency if all this happened with fuel being over $3.00 per gallon. So paying for the program with a national fuel tax would dramatically strengthen the effects... 1: it would encourage participation 2: it would make vehicle efficiency a more important factor in future purchases 3: It would allow for a larger program (more clunkers off the road).
Re:Yet another case of "screw the responsible peop (Score:1, Insightful)
Prudence and responsibility mean independence. Governments want power, which requires dependence. I hope that answers your question.
Re:Money for better public transport where possibl (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because Americans spend a lot more time and effort telling themselves that public transportation can not work and is frequented by people outside of my race & social status, when compared to Europeans.
For what it's worth: I am an American expat living in Europe.
Better traffic control systems would actually help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Limited government (Score:3, Insightful)
Pick your battles. Speak to your audience. You're not going to convince a crowd "tilted way to the left" of the flaws in this measure by basing your argument on libertarian ideals.
In this case the measure is so obviously flawed that it won't even achieve its own stated goals. Showing how this measure won't live up to your audience's own ideals is much easier than asking them to abandon those ideals in order to agree with you.
Re:What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let old cars die their natural death."
What's wrong with a yearly mandatory test? Fail the test either fix it and get a certificate of compliance or your heap of junk will be taken off the road, as is the case in parts of Europe.
Would improve road safety too.
Re:Money for better public transport where possibl (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't burn the suburbs, just plan them better. Transit can work in suburbs, but the suburbs have to be designed with transit in mind. It's true, suburbs cannot usually support the comprehensive transit systems that cities have, such as grids, where you can get from ANY point A to ANY point B with relative ease. But suburbs can at least support commuter routes IF there are well defined job centers. In that case you can funnel people from the suburbs via buses into job/shopping centers on a limited schedule (buses in the city run every 15 minutes, buses in the suburbs run every hour, for example) - or perhaps run a light rail and provide generous parking at stations. However, many places are not planned very strategically, so there are no destinations, every person is headed from some random point A to another random point B.
I would also say that although it would not be practical or useful to "burn the suburbs," as you describe, we COULD stop subsidizing them. A lot of places grow outward instead of inward because government is more than happy to run brand new highways and civil services to rural areas.
US gallon vs Imperial gallon (Score:5, Insightful)
I too was always shocked at the quoted American miles per gallon figures until I realised that the British figures were using the Imperial gallon (4.55 litres) compared to the American figures using the US gallon (3.79 litres)
Therefore, a car doing 34 miles to the (US) gallon is equivalent to a car doing 40 miles to the (Imperial) gallon.
Re:Not environmental costs, think cost of lost liv (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you exaggerate a little. I doubt a car built in 2009 is likely to be much safer than a 1999 car. Going back another 10 or 20 years past that though and you've probably got a good point.
However, I think replacing older less safe cars is a very cost inefficient way of improving safety. To be honest once you're in a crash you've already lost. Much better to spend that money on preventing the crashes in the first place with improved road design, driver education and a greater willingness to prohibit drivers who refuse to drive safely from driving.
Re:They pay more to scrap fuel efficient cars (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Limited government (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about a bill that gives people the option of getting a little extra money if they want to replace their cars with one that is more fuel-efficient.
How is government making a decision for people?
Furthermore, what is government for, if not to protect shared public assets, such as, I dunno, the entire earth, which, if my geography serves, includes the United States of America? And if by doing this, the cash flow to enemies of the US can be reduced, that's following another major charter of the federal government: defense.
And Slashdot tilts way to the right. If you think it's left, then... how the hell did you get internet access all the way out in that highly-fortified shack in the woods?
Re:What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was stunned that there's no national mandatory MOT for cars in the US.
Although, as a British motorist, I hear the daily moans from newspapers about how "britain's motorists are being milked for every penny!" - but a £50 test every year to meet a minimum safety and emissions standard can only be a good thing.
Some of the deathtraps I've seen clanking through car parks in the US made me wonder just how insane you have to be to drive them, even if you're poor, there are other options for cheap, low-maintenance cars that would be much safer to drive.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Are you claiming that the voucher will *encourage* people to spend money they don't have? If they need the voucher as a downpayment to get a loan, they probably can't afford to pay off the loan to begin with. So you're setting yourself up for lots of defaults after some time, once the vouchers are used up.
Sorry, but economics that encourages people to take out loans they can't afford is even worse than what I was imagining.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see this helping the Big Three very much. Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
Don't forget that it takes far more energy to make a car in the first place than it does to actually use it. Despite their heavy fuel consumption, old Volvo 240s are one of the most ecologically-friendly cars ever made. They have a design life of over 20 years, and many of the earliest ones are much older than that. Furthermore, because they're easy to repair, it's possible to keep them working well for far longer than they were designed for.
Many modern cars use vast amounts of energy to produce overly complex designs, and contain lots of things that are quite ecologically unpleasant to make and impossible to recycle or dispose of safely. Almost every car made in the last five years will be toxic landfill or poisoning third-world scrap burners in another five years. That's not very green, is it?
And the laugh of it is, they're not even efficient! Just to compare two similar cars, the 2008 Citroen C5 with its 2.0 litre 143bhp petrol engine provides an "amazing" 33mpg. My 1988 Citroen CX with its 2.2 litre 135bhp petrol engine turns in slightly slower performance (it's done 130,000 miles and is heavier) and gives 32mpg. Not really a world-shattering improvement, is it? The CX has no catastrophic converter, which helps, but does mean it has slightly more CO emissions and vastly less CO2, NO and sulphur emissions. If you want to compare a 20-year-old BMW 5-series with a new BMW 5-series, you'll see exactly the same kind of thing.
This isn't about saving the environment, this is about saving car companies by getting you to buy expensive crap cars that will break beyond economic repair in a short time so you need to buy *another* crap car.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not suggesting it goes back on the market - the car at the bottom of the "chain", for which the voucher is issued, is scrapped. What he's suggesting is that the voucher goes towards a used, rather than new, replacement.
Re:Limited government (Score:3, Insightful)
How is government making a decision for people?
As usual, by spending other people's money.
Re:Limited government (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that true of everything government does? Local governments "make decisions" to save your house in the event of a fire by "spending other people's money" too, yet somehow the fire department is viewed as a good thing.
Re:My old car is fine (Score:3, Insightful)
The really crazy part of this is the argument that doubling the kinetic energy available to accidents makes things safer. Sure, if you are inside a car hit by something else, then making it stronger (or at least better at absorbing impact), and probably heavier makes it safer. However, for everyone else, it's much better if your car is lighter. Even for you, it's much better if the other car is lighter.
Safety regulations which demand heavier cars should be banned.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I have no clue of the actual numbers or averages, but I cant see this being bad. Even if everyone goes out and buys a used car with their vouchers you are still ridding the market of their previous used cars, and there is a good chance some would(or would have) to get a newer car. If you think of it, the only people that will go after the vouchers are people that will profit from it. For example they can get more money from the vouchers than selling the car. This means you will be getting rid of very low value cars which are most likely the bottom of the barrel for fuel usage (excluding vintage cars).
Anyways going back to the GP if you want to keep that example it would be A uses a voucher and buys off B, who in turns upgrades and buys off C, which pushes D to buy a new car. That would be 1 voucher for 2500-4500, and 1 car being scrapped, with 1 new car sale.
Re:Money for better public transport where possibl (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an European expat living in California, and I can attest for that. I found it intriguing that my college roommates would refuse to ride the bus on the principle that buses are for losers. I know they were half joking, but there's a kernel of truth to it (that they believe what they joke around, not that it's actually true).
Cost of policing illegal traffic in recycled cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's NOT smart. Giving away free money just makes prices rise. Those buying new cars will pay more. Why would a car company give a discount when the extra money is free?
The U.S. government has NO money. The U.S. government is DEEPLY in debt [brillig.com], more in debt than any organization has ever been in the history of the world. This bill would be funded by the Chinese, Saudi, and Dubai governments, among others, and eventually by inflation of the U.S. dollar. Inflation makes everyone pay more, forever.
Have you checked the prices of used SUV's lately? The prices for used cars have gone UP, because people don't want to spend the money for a new car.
Many people with old cars drive old cars because they drive very, very little. There's no yearly mileage requirement in the bill. The fuel economy will not be what the bill's sponsors say.
Someone who drives an "old clunker" now will not want to buy a 2004 or later model car, and probably would not be able to buy a car that expensive. Also, there are many small old cars that get close to the 18 miles per gallon specified in the bill, and many 2004 model year or newer "fuel efficient" cars that get not much more. Someone could, for example, trade in an old Toyota and buy a 2004 SUV or pickup that gets worse gas mileage, but still good gas mileage for that "class" of an SUV or pickup.
Someone who gives a 1998 car to the recyclers that runs fine but gets 16 miles per gallon and buys a far, far more expensive 2004 or newer car that gets 28 miles per gallon, and drives 5,000 miles per year, saves 133 gallons of gas per year. Under the bill, that person gets a $1,500 credit.
That 1998 car doesn't get "recycled" of course. If it runs well, it becomes part of illegal traffic in inexpensive cars for people who don't have jobs. Or, it becomes illegal traffic to Mexico. Cities and states will hire more policemen to prevent the illegal activity.
To get the $1,500 credit, the owner gave a car worth $3,000 [craigslist.org] or more! That's if the car was in a condition that it was actually being used. Obviously, no one will do that.
What will mostly happen, of course, is that people who want to buy a 2004 or newer car will first buy a damaged car in "drivable condition" that has been sitting in someone's driveway not being used. The buyer will give the junker to the recyclers and will use the free money from the U.S. government to save a little on the newer car. But the savings won't be much, because the prices of all cars will rise.
The biggest effect of that bill, other than lowering the value of the dollar and raising the price of newer cars, would be to cause the price of worthless cars in "drivable condition" to go up enormously.
Broken window fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it does not lend an astonishing improvement in fleet efficiency but it does spark car sales.
If you want to promote a measure to "spark" transactions in the market, you have to be very careful that your measure won't cause a perverse effect due to the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org]. When money changes hands for the sake of money changing hands, it distracts the people involved from actually putting value into their products or services.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
My car gets 86mpg on the highway. People in Europe consider anything less than 45mpg to be a gas guzzler.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
You understand that it is possible that the government could do more than one thing at a time, right?
We fought a war in Viet Nam and sent a man to the moon (supposedly) at the same time.
I know it's an unpopular thought among the neo-Randian, faux-libertarian, techie subculture that believes writing an iPhone app is accomplishing something, and who believes in less government but wants it to look just like Star Trek, but it might be time for our government to think bigger, not smaller.
I'm glad I didn't think that way about my first ex-wife or my first car, which was a Chevy Vega. It's OK to lose some history. That's what photographs are for.
6 MPG --- and 18 MPG (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder about imperial vs. U.S. gallons, which is important.
But even so, if the Daihatsu girl car drives 10,000 miles per year, 40 MPG vs. 34 MPG provides a fuel savings of about 45 gallons of fuel, right? Even with gas at $5.00/gallon, which it currently is not, that's only $225/year.
If 100,000 people suddenly did just pick up and follow your advice, you'd probably see a maximum savings of 200,000 barrels/year of crude, depending on how that crude is refined into fuel.
Assuming the Corolla is paid for, and given that a 2009 Passo (fwd,1.0) would run you about $13,400 plus taxes plus overseas shipping and insurance (given that you can't buy one at a dealership in the U.S.) plus the annoyance of a weird warranty situation and never having parts in stock, the financial break even point is far, far, far out versus keeping the Corolla and paying for its maintenance and the pittance more in fuel.
I know I'm kind of diverting from your actual argument here. Your point about advertised fuel economy for the American Big 3 Auto Makers is true and well-taken. I chuckle at their television ads touting "best-of-class" fuel performance of 30MPG. But when I look at things holistically, this big picture keeps me from doing any reveling. The amount you would have to spend in order to "save" doesn't warrant making any changes right now, especially given that the Corolla wouldn't be eligible for this theoretically federal voucher because it has a a fuel economy better than 18 miles per gallon.
From TFA:"The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon".
Who pays? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or will we just continue to heap it onto the debt with promises of paying it off some nebulous day in the future?
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs about 50,000 miles worth of gasoline, at 25mpg average, to build a new car (energy cost). Even if you upgraded from a 25 mpg old car (like mine) to a 50mpg hybrid, the gas savings are not going to be enough to offset that initial manufacturing cost.
A wiser solution is to simply impose a mandatory minimum of 60mpg on car manufacturers. They can continue building their SUVs, but their "top" car must be able to get at least 60mpg (instead of the current U.S. peak of 40mpg). That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
This "idea" from Congress is the equivalent of breaking all the windows in your house, just so you can keep the glass-makers employed. It is the exact *opposite* of productivity. It is wasteful. Like burning money. PLUS every new car built costs the energy equivalent of 50,000 miles of gasoline (2000 gallons). It is better for the environment to keep older cars operational than to waste energy/resources building new ones.
Re:Old Stereotypes (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed!
I test drove a Cobalt SS back around Christmas time. It's rated at 22/30 as is my 2000 Saturn LS1. The LT version of the Cobalt is rated at 25/37.
Yes, foreign cars may be efficient, but give GM some credit... their cars are competitive in fuel economy these days.
On another note, I agree with the people having 10-20 year old cars b/c that's what they can afford. That's why I bought my Saturn last year. I know the thing will last and even if I have to fork over $$ for fixes (e.g., my blower motor is going out - $250 to replace), it's still cheaper than paying 5 times as much on a newer car with similar specs. The feds program may help *some*, but for people like me, it means nothing.
Who is offering money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously people... The "Fed" is YOU AND ME.
The "Fed" has no money, it is our tax money. So some idiot elected official wants to take your money and pay someone for their old car.
Is this really Capitalism?
To repeat again, someone is going to take your money and give it to someone else for a reason that most of you don't want. This is why taxes must be cut. If these idiots don't have our money then they can't do idiotic stuff with it. If they have the money, they have the power. Simple as that.
Now this shouldn't be surprising given that the Democrats have controlled two branches of the government for a while, and are about to control everything. That and Bush hasn't acted at all like a conservative has put us in this mess.
Re:Tax dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like lemonade mix. One packet per liter. But, one liter won't go far enough. So, you dilute it with water. You keep diluting it more and more, until you get something that is akin to water.
Meanwhile, all those foreign countries which lent us money won't trust us anymore. After all, would you lend money to someone whose currency is virtually worthless? Well, paper money will have a worth. We will always need toilet paper, provided we don't find a "cure" for why we defecate.
In all seriousness though, the government spending itself into more debt is like trying to dig oneself out of a hole. It just seems like a bad idea. How are we expected to pay it off? My guess is to find a new market in which the world will want to buy from us.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be true in the past but with Ford coming out with the new Fiesta for the US market at the beginning of 2010 and a new Focus with more fuel-efficient engines by fall 2010, that benefit Ford as they will have a ready product line to take advantage of people buying more fuel-efficient cars.
Ford is working on a new technology called EcoBoost (essentially much-improved turbocharged engines) that will offer very good fuel economy without sacrificing power. Don't be surprised that Ford offers a 1.4-liter I-4 engine in turbocharged form for the next-generation Focus, which means around 140 bhp power but with excellent fuel economy.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also afraid a little over this required scrap clause. It might cause us to lose more of some classic cars that can and SHOULD be restored.
If there is a good enough reason to restore a car, that car will be worth enough to somebody to buy one for more than the voucher is worth.
In all honesty, though, unless you're a museum, you aren't providing ANY worth by doting on your antique.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It Will Help The Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
"This proposal will help used car dealers at the expense of pretty much everyone. The demand for used cars will skyrocket as people try to trade in their $200 clunkers for $1,500 used cars. Of course in that $1,500 won't buy them what it would buy them now."
You are dead fucking right.
For one thing, dealers will lawfully sell clunkers to their buddies (repos, trade-ins,running wrecks) who will lawfully tag and register them. They will then lawfully use the money from turning them in elsewhere to buy rides from the same dealer. Dealers have dealers for buddies, by the way.
Lots of clunkers will lawfully be purchased by "straw men" buyers and funneled into the system. Liability and registration aren't high enough to take the profit out of this. A family effort could turn three or four clunkers into a nice used ride, LEGALLY.
OTOH, at least it's easy money for some of the lower classes. While this is as stupid and wasteful as a gun "buy-back" program it will turn more money and make the famously out-of-touch Schumer and Feinstein feel good,
There is yet another issue that makes this proposal quite stupid. It goes by CAFE ratings instead of being across the board. Why is that stupid? Because it doesn't take "clunkers" that are over the arbitrary CAFE limit. A ragged out Escort is still a polluter and a ragged out midsize car can still be a gas hog. Charlie and Diane have hate-ons for vehicles over a certain weight, not for inefficient or polluting vehicles per se.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
In all honesty, though, unless you're a museum, you aren't providing ANY worth by doting on your antique.
Very few hobbies have anything to do with worth. Old cars can be fun.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:3, Insightful)
but their "top" car must be able to get at least 60mpg (instead of the current U.S. peak of 40mpg). That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ever consider that you can't generally get something for nothing? IE the costs of making a mass market 60mpg car would make it either so expensive or feature sparse that they can't make their development costs back from it?
We're still stuck with physics, thus it's not like we can just legislate a XXX mpg car into existence.
That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ah yes, the ecoleaner 2010. 60mpg, comes standard with 2 speaker radio, 3 star crash rating, carbon fiber construction, no AC, limited heat, all yours for only $50k!
Re:Who is offering money? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you as far as to think that this is a stupid idea, but I don't see the reason for Democrats bashing. One of the three proponents of the measure is Republican. Besides, the Republicans ran the two branches of the government long enough in recent years for everyone to see they don't know how to administrate the treasury any better.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
I think people are missing the idea. You only get money when you are scraping your car. Let's say you take that ~4k and buy a 3 year old Civic. Well the used Civic market would improve so more people might decide to trade their Civic in and buy a new one but they don't get a credit. Net result trading in an old clunker a far more fuel efficient car and costing the government ~4k.
There will probably be some limitation that the car must be in use, but it's still a begging for people to dump a lot of old cars that are not in active use. AKA the old pickup truck that you use every other month is now worth 4k.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol.. Do you think? And your the honest judge of the worth other people contribute to society?
I guess old cars should only be relegated to people who have money then. I purchased a 69 Chevelle for $1200, several years ago. It took me around 8 years to put it back into cherry condition and when I purchased it, I had to barrow the $1200 to do so. It's won a placement in two thirds of the shows I have put it in and it had to double as a daily driver for a year when everything else was going south.
So realistically, I have done nothing to contribute to anything and my effort aren't worth anything. Ok, I can buy that. Just please excuse me when I arbitrarily decide you aren't worth anything and scheme to make your hobby twice as expensive if not out of existence for your income range. Now, don't get mad, I didn't get mad at you, but computers as a whole on average use way more electricity in a year then any antique or collector cars so maybe we should arbitrarily impose restricted taxes on them and make them 2 to 3 times as expensive as they are today. We can call it an electronic tax and apply it to all electronic like big screen TV and dual core processors and all. Then only the rich can afford those things and we save a bunch of energy. How does that sound?
It's about control, not results. (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds like what you have in Singapore is less freedom than in America. How about telling your government to fuck off and let you drive whatever the hell you want instead of trying to run your life?
I simply cannot understand why the people of the world are so willing, even eager, to let others run their lives, and act as if it's something to be proud of.
Besides, the minuscule pollution which may or may not be caused by >10 year old autos pales in comparison to millions of tons of filth spewed by the heavy industry of China.
Re:Where does the Constitution say this is allowed (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone who has followed the ideals brought forth by Ron Paul in the campaign, and as much as I corroborate in the knowledge that our elected politicians walk regularly over the Constitution, they are attempting and failing to operate appropriately with some liberties and unwritten obligations that may exist that you may have not considered.
I implore you to read this bit by Jefferson:
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless *one* of the high duties of a good citizen, but not *the highest*. The laws of necessity, self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger are the highest obligation.
To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. ...
In all these cases, the unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, and of the public safety, control the written laws of meum and tuum.
The insanity is that the country is always in a state of danger and needing to be saved from something; real or imagined. Their shared delusion is that the sky is falling, and when the sky falls it creates more government largess. We need to vote these bums out of office, because we cannot share in their delusions that we are always in a state of danger that requires more expensive self-preservation.
Round and round we go.
When the nation was born it was a great 'experiment' of freedom, liberty, and representation in a time which the majority of people living would be honored to serve their local militia and defend their ideals. This level of stewardship over time has been diluted to the point where more people want to let the government be their nursemaid than to take up for their own.
We've given them so much power that they have gotten carried away with it, and there is no easy way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
The poor who can't find a Used Junker end up staying poor and often go on welfare. I'm all for the environment but not at the expense of humans, especially the disadvantaged poor. You lose all credit when you attempt to say the poor can just suffer some more because you have some arbitrary ideal of what the environment should be. And yes, it is arbitrary because you have no clue if your preferred version is the right version, you only know that someone told you something and you seem to like it.
That being said, I hope someone starts a guns for junk cars campaign so the poor can extract their just revenge on people like you when their already hard lives become harder. Not all people live within walking distance or biking distance to a job that pays more then minimum wage. I have no idea why your so eager to make more people become trapped into those conditions but if I was on a jury, I couldn't find one of them guilty if they ever did anything towards you. I want you to know that because if you survive or someone you know who believes the same as your ever has anythign happen to them and the criminal who caused it gets off scott free, it is directly because of your position of making them suffer more because you have some unsubstantated idea of what things should be like.
I will accept your version if you accept mine. I will sleep comfortably in doing so too.