Government to suspend "Cash for Clunkers"

[Saul Good]

This went about as well as you could have expected any government program to go.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99P2U9G1&show_article=1


WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional officials say the government plans to suspend the popular "cash for clunkers" program amid concerns it could quickly use up the $1 billion in rebates for new car purchases.

The Transportation Department called congressional offices late Thursday to alert them to the decision to halt the program, which offered owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle.

The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Through late Wednesday, 22,782 vehicles had been purchased through the program and nearly $96 million had been spent. But dealers raised concerns of large backlogs in the system, prompting the suspension.

[KCTitus]

:LOL:

[Saul Good]

Don't we owe it to ourselves to put these idiots in charge of our health care?

[banyon]

All of the auto stocks had a nice bump on this. My Honda shares got a nice boost.

[dirk digler]

Well I guess that is a positive since it seems to be really popular with the people that they were going through that much money so quickly.

Plus it helps the auto makers.

I say put more money in it and it helps everyone.

[KCTitus]

I think the problem was the money was not going to GM...it was going to other dealers with better cars.

[Saul Good]

Well I guess that is a positive since it seems to be really popular with the people that they were going through that much money so quickly.

Plus it helps the auto makers.

I say put more money in it and it helps everyone.

Payday loans are popular too.

[dirk digler]

Payday loans are popular too.

Not really

I am actually surprised this program generated this much interest I thought it was kind of narrow in what cars you could exchange for and some of the other restrictions.

[wild1]

I think the problem was the money was not going to GM...it was going to other dealers with better cars.

They simply wrote a check before they had any clue how much it would cost. Just like anything else government does. They sell us one price tag, and then that money is used up before the thing even gets started.

[dirk digler]

Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., wrote in a letter to House leaders on Wednesday requesting additional funding for the program.

"This is simply the most stimulative $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn," Miller said Thursday. "The federal government must come up with more money, immediately, to keep this program going."

[dirk digler]

They simply wrote a check before they had any clue how much it would cost. Just like anything else government does. They sell us one price tag, and then that money is used up before the thing even gets started.

Were you one of the ones on here that said no one would use it and it would be a waste of money?

[KCTitus]

Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., wrote in a letter to House leaders on Wednesday requesting additional funding for the program.

"This is simply the most stimulative $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn," Miller said Thursday. "The federal government must come up with more money, immediately, to keep this program going."

That's the problem...these programs arent designed to stimulate, they're meant to destroy

[Saul Good]

Not really

I am actually surprised this program generated this much interest I thought it was kind of narrow in what cars you could exchange for and some of the other restrictions.

You thought that paying people who drive clunkers to buy a brand new car wouldn't be popular? Just wait about 12 months. I need to open up a repo business. If you can't afford a car that's worth $3500, what in the hell are you doing trading it in to buy a new car?

I have a six figure income, and my car is a well-maintained 2002 Acura. I can't justify buying a brand new car in 3-5 years when I'm done with this one. How in the hell can the government justify encouraging people who drive clunkers to buy brand new?

[Saul Good]

Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., wrote in a letter to House leaders on Wednesday requesting additional funding for the program.

"This is simply the most stimulative $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn," Miller said Thursday. "The federal government must come up with more money, immediately, to keep this program going."

Did you miss the part about only $96 million being used so far but they are shutting it down because of backlogs and inefficiencies?

[dirk digler]

You thought that paying people who drive clunkers to buy a brand new car wouldn't be popular? Just wait about 12 months. I need to open up a repo business. If you can't afford a car that's worth $3500, what in the hell are you doing trading it in to buy a new car?

I have a six figure income, and my car is a well-maintained 2002 Acura. I can't justify buying a brand new car in 3-5 years when I'm done with this one. How in the hell can the government justify encouraging people who drive clunkers to buy brand new?

I actually didn't think it would be this popular because IMO it was just to narrow of a market they were trying to get.

Did you miss the part about only $96 million being used so far but they are shutting it down because of backlogs and inefficiencies?

The reason why they are shutting it down because they are predicting they will be out of money since they have such a huge backlog.

As the Michigan Republican rep I quoted give it more money and put back in because it is doing great

[banyon]

They simply wrote a check before they had any clue how much it would cost. Just like anything else government does. They sell us one price tag, and then that money is used up before the thing even gets started.

It sounds like they knew exactly what it would cost since they specifically capped the fund at $1 billion.

[Saul Good]

It sounds like they knew exactly what it would cost since they specifically capped the fund at $1 billion.

Perhaps he meant how much it would cost to administer. I'm guessing you figured as much, though.

[banyon]

Perhaps he meant how much it would cost to administer. I'm guessing you figured as much, though.

The article talks about underestimating demand for the program, not an overrun in administrative costs.

[KC Dan]

As the Michigan Republican rep I quoted give it more money and put back in because it is doing greatNo, that is my childrens-childrens tax dollars and I do NOT want their future hard earned money buying cars for people. If people can't afford a car on their own - buy a bus pass.

[Saul Good]

The article talks about underestimating demand for the program, not an overrun in administrative costs.

"dealers raised concerns of large backlogs in the system, prompting the suspension"

That's an administrative failure.

[banyon]

"dealers raised concerns of large backlogs in the system, prompting the suspension"

That's an administrative failure.

Which has nothing to do with costs and everything to do with an overrun on demand.

That's what I already posted, right?

[Taco John]

The program lasted four days?

Hahahahahaha!

Praise your Golden God, Banyon. It's done it again!

[ClevelandBronco]

Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., wrote in a letter to House leaders on Wednesday requesting additional funding for the program.

"This is simply the most stimulative $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn," Miller said Thursday. "The federal government must come up with more money, immediately, to keep this program going."

Dude. She's from Michigan. I assume she wants to keep her job.

(Especially in this economy...)

[Taco John]

Here's the best part of this story: this time around, when they found out that their government program is not financially feasible, they shut the stupid thing down.

That's worth applauding.

[ClevelandBronco]

Here's the best part of this story: this time around, when they found out that their government program is not financially feasible, they shut the stupid thing down.

That's worth applauding.

:clap:

[Taco John]

Of course, this doesn't speak so well about the government's plan for healthcare. They're not just going to be able to shut it down when that thing fails.

[ClevelandBronco]

Of course, this doesn't speak so well about the government's plan for healthcare. They're not just going to be able to shut it down when that thing fails.

:Lin:

[Fishpicker]

i bought a '92 civic just recently. 50+ mpg on the highway.

[banyon]

The program lasted four days?

Hahahahahaha!

Praise your Golden God, Banyon. It's done it again!

I already criticized the program in several previous threads.

Your knee-jerk reaction is off base.

[ClevelandBronco]

I already criticized the program in several previous threads.

Your knee-jerk reaction is off base.

banyon. Get some sleep, man.

[BucEyedPea]

Well I guess that is a positive since it seems to be really popular with the people that they were going through that much money so quickly.

Plus it helps the auto makers.

I say put more money in it and it helps everyone.

Honest to gawd dirk, have you ever had an economics class? Even just one?
Money doesn't just grow on trees or appear out of thin air.

This is designed to get more people into debt. The one's driving clunkers are probably not in debt so buying a new one will make this so.
Beneficiary of the Program: The Federal Reserve

Just a repeat of Fannie and Freddie.

[BucEyedPea]

"dealers raised concerns of large backlogs in the system, prompting the suspension"

That's an administrative failure.

Typical govt program.

[dirk digler]

This is designed to get more people into debt. The one's driving clunkers are probably not in debt so buying a new one will make this so.
Beneficiary of the Program: The Federal Reserve



I see your point BEP. I would like to see some statistics on what kind of cars were turned in.

[petegz28]

according to Bloomberg this morning, the program HAS been suspended.......they just cost a lot of people a shitload in marketing costs

[petegz28]

Honest to gawd dirk, have you ever had an economics class? Even just one?
Money doesn't just grow on trees or appear out of thin air.

This is designed to get more people into debt. The one's driving clunkers are probably not in debt so buying a new one will make this so.
Beneficiary of the Program: The Federal Reserve

Just a repeat of Fannie and Freddie.

Sorry, BEP....but sadly debt is what makes the world go 'round

I agree with you but until the Fed is abolished, this is how it is

[burt]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=210701

[bluehawkdoc]

I have a good friend who is a general manager of a dealership. He predicted this months ago. $1 billion divided by 20,000 dealerships leaves about enough money for 9-10 clunker deals each. These businesses had to cover the $4500 up front and were responsible for a ridiculous amount of paperwork. He had 2 employees working full-time on the phones trying to figure out who and what met the criteria. Apparently, wait times on the phone were 30-90 minutes at a time. He said he would never make a deal with the "devil" again.

I told him this is standard operating procedure when dealing with Medicare. Welcome to the future of healthcare if this "reform" goes through.

[burt]

I have a good friend who is a general manager of a dealership. He predicted this months ago. $1 billion divided by 20,000 dealerships leaves about enough money for 9-10 clunker deals each. These businesses had to cover the $4500 up front and were responsible for a ridiculous amount of paperwork. He had 2 employees working full-time on the phones trying to figure out who and what met the criteria. Apparently, wait times on the phone were 30-90 minutes at a time. He said he would never make a deal with the "devil" again.

I told him this is standard operating procedure when dealing with Medicare. Welcome to the future of healthcare if this "reform" goes through.

It took us 12 hours to sign up to be a participating dealership!

[bluehawkdoc]

And good luck, burt, with ever getting the money you "fronted" the government to make these transactions happen. You will likely drown in a sea of red tape first.

[Chief Henry]

according to Bloomberg this morning, the program HAS been suspended.......

Can't you just see that happening in some way with our health care benefits.

Gov't: Sorry Mrs. Jones about your mamagraphy exam scheduled for next
Tuesday. All of our allocated dollars for that program have been used
up already. We will put you on a waiting list and call you back
after we get our next allocation of funds.

Mrs. Jones: Just give me the blue pill then.

[petegz28]

Can't you just see that happening in some way with our health care benefits.

Gov't: Sorry Mrs. Jones about your mamagraphy exam scheduled for next
Tuesday. All of our allocated dollars for that program have been used
up already. We will put you on a waiting list and call you back
after we get our next allocation of funds.

Mrs. Jones: Just give me the blue pill then.

exactly

[jjjayb]

We've done almost 50 of these. So far we have had no claims accepted. We've been trying for days. The system is horribly slow. The paperwork needed is dumbfounding. So far not one of the dealers in our entire auto group have had a single claim accepted.

Oh, and of course with this program there are stipulations. Any computer we use to transmit the paperwork to the government can be confiscated at will. Who knows what other little surprises are included with signing up to be an eligible dealer.

[mlyonsd]

Congress is trying to put another $2 billion into the program today as we speak.

[jjjayb]

Congress is trying to put another $2 billion into the program today as we speak.

I'd rather have free cake. Cake for everyone!

[ROYC75]

OBO ( standing behind the podium ) : OUR ADMINISTRATION IS BEING RUN LIKE A WELL OILED MACHINE.

[jjjayb]

OBO ( standing behind the podium ) : OUR ADMINISTRATION IS BEING RUN LIKE A WELL OILED MACHINE.

Shouldn't that be more like a greased palm?

[ROYC75]

Wonder how many Beer Summits is coming out of covering this one up?

[petegz28]

the $2 bil has been approved

[Chief Faithful]

A very interesting case study. They put money in the consumer's hands and the auto industry was stimulated. But, the government failed in administering the program.

[HonestChieffan]

You thought that paying people who drive clunkers to buy a brand new car wouldn't be popular? Just wait about 12 months. I need to open up a repo business. If you can't afford a car that's worth $3500, what in the hell are you doing trading it in to buy a new car?

I have a six figure income, and my car is a well-maintained 2002 Acura. I can't justify buying a brand new car in 3-5 years when I'm done with this one. How in the hell can the government justify encouraging people who drive clunkers to buy brand new?

You nailed it...give somebody 4500 bucks and a zero% 3 year loan no down payment and you have RePo Heaven in 6-12 months. Plus the only thing it stimulated was reducing dealer inventory...BS waste of money grandstand effort by congress.

[KC Dan]

You nailed it...give somebody 4500 bucks and a zero% 3 year loan no down payment and you have RePo Heaven in 6-12 months. Plus the only thing it stimulated was reducing dealer inventory...BS waste of money grandstand effort by congress.Not to mention - our tax dollars...

[Mizzou_8541]

Wonder how many Beer Summits is coming out of covering this one up?

EVERYTHING can be settled over a beer. God I am naive.

[HonestChieffan]

Billions get tossed around with no second thought...all they know is the first billion is gone. Rather than stop and actually find out if it really did anything positive, we throww 2 billion more at it.

Wait till these bureaucrats control health care. Doom.

[donkhater]

A very interesting case study. They put money in the consumer's hands and the auto industry was stimulated. But, the government failed in administering the program.

Chief,

What stimulation? Government gives money to the consumer who gives it to a retailer. All you pro-stimulus posters need to ask the most basic question:

Where did the government get the money to give to the consumers?

The answer is that they either:

1. Borrowed it from the Chinese so now we have to pay interest on that money

2. Printed it which devalues the dollar and bloats the deficit even further

3. Took the money OUT OF THE ECONOMY in the form of taxes

Even if any one of these choices was 100% effiicient (meaning no fraud or administration costs, :rolleyes:) it would STILL be a net loss to the economy.

Government stimulus is a short term panacea which perpetuates the need for more bailouts down the road. ARGGHHHH!!!

[mlyonsd]

It's scary watching the media report on cash for clunkers. They're almost giddy, pretending the government came up with some brilliant plan here.

Not once have I heard it mentioned where the money is coming from....the American tax payer's credit card.

The media isn't doing anyone any favors at all.

[HonestChieffan]

The only thing we know is money got spent and inventory reduced at dealerships. Production was not stimulated a bit. False reading if you think it stimulated

[RedNeckRaider]

I guess the printing press broke down. They must have repaired it because I hear they are going to start it up again.

[BucEyedPea]

The only thing we know is money got spent and inventory reduced at dealerships. Production was not stimulated a bit. False reading if you think it stimulated

There's the key word and concept that's missing—production.
The something for nothing mentality. Just loot others in the country.

[RedNeckRaider]

There's the key word and concept that's missing—production.
The something for nothing mentality. Just loot others in the country.

On this we agree

[Brock]

Meh, get over it. The money was going to be spent either way.

[RedNeckRaider]

Meh, get over it. The money was going to be spent either way.

True but that does not make me feel better. Oh well at least 16 million went to save the marsh mice so we got that going for us :)

[KC Dan]

Meh, get over it. The money was going to be spent either way.Apathy ---- It's what's for dinner!

[Brock]

Apathy ---- It's what's for dinner!

It's called reality. You might want to check it out while not atop your high horse.

[BucEyedPea]

It's called reality. You might want to check it out while not atop your high horse.

It's both. The reality is people are apathetic. * cheese *

[KC Dan]

It's called reality. You might want to check it out while not atop your high horse.Sorry, I like it up here as I worked hard to make it this high. I don't believe in handouts from the gov't especially from the earners in our society. You like welfare, I get it.

[BucEyedPea]

Everyone's doin' it, doin' it, doin' it
Taking from the Treasury and
usin' it, usin' it.

[Brock]

Sorry, I like it up here as I worked hard to make it this high. I don't believe in handouts from the gov't especially from the earners in our society. You like welfare, I get it.

I guess you won't be writing off your mortgage interest, after all, that's coming out of someone else's pocket. Or maybe you don't even have a mortgage, seeing as how you've worked so much harder and ascended so much higher than the rest of us have. ROFL

You take handouts in one form or another, you just won't admit it.

[stevieray]

It's stupid to destroy perfectly good vehickles that have value, just to get people into more debt.

[KC Dan]

I guess you won't be writing off your mortgage interest, after all, that's coming out of someone else's pocket. Or maybe you don't even have a mortgage, seeing as how you've worked so much harder and ascended so much higher than the rest of us have. ROFL

You take handouts in one form or another, you just won't admit it.I am over-taxed, pure and simple. Yes, the only non-dependant deductions I take are mortgage and chartiy contributions. I think that our tax code has morphed into a penalty system to justify politicians spending for relelection purposes while enabliong class warfare behind the guise of a "progressive" tax code. Please explain to me how my mortgage deduction is coming out of someone else's pocket.

[BucEyedPea]

I guess you won't be writing off your mortgage interest, after all, that's coming out of someone else's pocket. Or maybe you don't even have a mortgage, seeing as how you've worked so much harder and ascended so much higher than the rest of us have. ROFL

You take handouts in one form or another, you just won't admit it.
Oh wait, that's not the same thing. Trying to keep more of your own hard earned money in your pocket and out of the govt's is not a subsidy. That's commie think. IOW's it's the govt's money to start with and they're letting you keep some of it. Don't tell me it's not commie think because I've hear card carrying communists make that argument.

[Brock]

It's stupid to destroy perfectly good vehickles that have value, just to get people into more debt.

Out of all the cars I saw being traded in, mine was the best one, and it was a gigantic pile of crap.

[KC Dan]

Out of all the cars I saw being traded in, mine was the best one, and it was a gigantic pile of crap.How many of the 22,782 vehicles have you seen so we can quantify your bullshit statement

[RedNeckRaider]

It's stupid to destroy perfectly good vehickles that have value, just to get people into more debt.

Low income people drive used cars and buy used cars and their parts. I have a idea lets destroy all the old cars and trucks and then we can start a new stimulus package for people that can only afford clunkers. New cars for them also!

[Brock]

Oh wait, that's not the same thing. Trying to keep more of your own hard earned money in your pocket and out of the govt's is not a subsidy. That's commie think. IOW's it's the govt's money to start with and they're letting you keep some of it. Don't tell me it's not commie think because I've hear card carrying communists make that argument.

I've never cared whether you think I'm a commie, or in the past, a neocon. I laugh at your labels.

It is the same pile of money that I've been forced to contribute to for 20 years. Any opportunity I have to get it back, I'm going to take it, whether it's in the form of a rebate, a check, or an income tax deduction.

[Brock]

How many of the 22,782 vehicles have you seen so we can quantify your bullshit statement

It isn't bullshit, it's merely my observation when I was at the car dealer. Shove your false, hypocritical moralizing up your ass.

[Brock]

Please explain to me how my mortgage deduction is coming out of someone else's pocket.

What they don't get from you they get from someone else. Probably from someone who worked harder and rose higher than you did.

[KC Dan]

It isn't bullshit, it's merely my observation when I was at the car dealer. Shove your false, hypocritical moralizing up your ass.Number please. 1 or 2 cars seen is a helluva a sample distribution if that is all you saw....

[Brock]

Number please. 1 or 2 cars seen is a helluva a sample distribution if that is all you saw....

Well, at the dealership I was at, there were at least a dozen trade-ins happening. It wasn't intended to be taken as some kind of statistical pronouncement.

[KC Dan]

What they don't get from you they get from someone else. Probably from someone who worked harder and rose higher than you did.hahahahaha, so getting from me or someone else is "their" (the gov't's) money?

[Brock]

hahahahaha, so getting from me or someone else is "their" (the gov't's) money?

Isn't that how the IRS perceives it?

[KC Dan]

Isn't that how the IRS perceives it?Don't mean it's right or that I agree with it. I don't really think that we that far apart on this. I perceive that you will take whatever you can back from the gov't regardless if it causes you to take on more debt. I don't. I don't think that they gov't has a right to as much of the money that I earn that they take and I will fight them with every weapon i posess to prevent them from over-reaching before it occurs. You wait until after. No worries, it's just a different means to hopefully the same ends.

But, our taxes are not going down anytime soon and that clunker money does not exist other than being printed up. Our kids-kids-kids will be paying for all of this crap from their hard earned money so someone can buy a car and go into more debt? It's is just outrageous to me. People's and the country going into too much debt is why we are in this mess to begin with.

[patteeu]

Oh wait, that's not the same thing. Trying to keep more of your own hard earned money in your pocket and out of the govt's is not a subsidy. That's commie think. IOW's it's the govt's money to start with and they're letting you keep some of it. Don't tell me it's not commie think because I've hear card carrying communists make that argument.

It is a subsidy. And it doesn't require someone to think that it's the government's money to start with to recognize it as such.

Some card carrying communists drink milk, but that doesn't make all milk drinkers commies. You repeatedly make this logic mistake when it comes to labels like commie and neocon.

[stevieray]

Out of all the cars I saw being traded in, mine was the best one, and it was a gigantic pile of crap.

maybe to you...most peoples first car is a pile of crap...but it's still a car that can get someone to and from work.

[Brock]

maybe to you...most peoples first car is a pile of crap...but it's still a car that can get someone to and from work.

There's no shortage of crappy cars to choose from.

[stevieray]

There's no shortage of crappy cars to choose from.
so what?

[Brock]

so what?

Exactly what I was wondering.

[BucEyedPea]

It is a subsidy. And it doesn't require someone to think that it's the government's money to start with to recognize it as such.

Some card carrying communists drink milk, but that doesn't make all milk drinkers commies. You repeatedly make this logic mistake when it comes to labels like commie and neocon.

Nope my post was sound. It's not a subsidy. Your inner neo-con is coming out here after months of some remission unfortunately. And it stems from a sense of property that is communistic. Like I said before supply-siders are Keynesians with a tax cut.

[BucEyedPea]

Tax Breaks and the Govt's Who Hate Them (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken115.html)

Kinda like calling tax increases investments* or contributions a la Bill Clinton.

Sorry pat, but it's just not a small govt, pro-liberty and pro-property position. Ya' know as in conservative and/or libertarian—what you claim to be.

The article, which is not an opinion piece, is referring to a plan to decrease the tax liability for some property owners. Yet, the article repeatedly refers to the tax exemption’s "projected costs" and the burden that the exemption would add to the "state’s costs." Such language gives the impression that by cutting taxes, the government is actually spending more. Note that the article explains that by allowing the property owners to keep more of their money, $65 million dollars must be found to cover this new "spending." Thus, the conclusion we are led to is that the property owners in question are being handed something that isn’t theirs, and all the other taxpayers are picking up the tab.

[B]In actuality, no such thing is happening. Government spending is not being increased, and the taxpayers who stand to receive the tax break are being given nothing at all. They are being allowed to keep what rightfully belongs to them in the first place.

Yet, the view of tax breaks as government spending has reached a wide audience and is increasingly being accepted as an accurate way to refer to tax breaks, credits, and deductions of all types. This has led many to refer to a variety of deductions as "subsidies," and some have gone so far as to refer to the home mortgage interest deduction as a type of "welfare," with homeowners receiving "benefits" from the government when taking the deduction.

There is a certain logic behind this, but it’s certainly not the logic of private property or liberty. To accept the argument that tax breaks are some kind of subsidy, or that tax cuts are a type of spending, one must imagine that the government has a fundamental right to control all wealth before it is even generated by the taxpayer. [Your camp Pat] In this view, as the taxpayer pays taxes to the government, he is only giving the government what it already rightfully owns, but which the taxpayer has been temporarily allowed to possess. If the taxpayer then somehow manages to reduce his tax burden, then this can be labeled as a kind of "expense" incurred when the government does not receive its due.

Or, put another way, the taxpayer should be thankful to the almighty State for its great munificence in allowing him to keep anything at all of what he earns. If the State allows him enough freedom to purchase a car or take an occasional vacation, he should be all the more thankful, but never should it cross his mind that he has any right to complain when the government decides to collect what it already owns. In the tax-break-as-subsidy mindset, the citizenry should treat the State as a kindly God-like master. The State giveth and the State taketh away. Any attempts on the part of the taxpayers to keep more of what the government allows them to keep, thus constitutes theft on the part of the private citizens and an expense on the part of the government.

It is easy to understand why Leftists think this way. It has long been clear that they believe to their core that nonsense about taxes being "the price we pay for civilization" and that the government should have the right to rob the taxpayers at any time for any amount as long as the democratic masses approve - or even if they don’t approve. What is especially vexing, though, are the multitudes of Rightists who claim to be against taxes, yet repeatedly support policies that will greatly increase the tax burden on a great many Americans.
...
Changes in tax policies that violate these principles are an assault on liberty, not a defense of it, and this is precisely why no tax deduction should be abolished. Deductions are not "government spending" or "subsidies." They are not "welfare," and they are not "bounties" or "benefits" of any kind. They are, put simply, policies that keep money out of the hands of government, and in the pockets of those who earned the money in the first place.


* Ya' know when you agreed with Johnny V.

Time to get on the freedom bandwagon pat and be what a conservative and small "l" libertarian is supposed to be.

[irishjayhawk]

Despite me taking advantage of it (or trying to, anyway), I despise Cash for Clunkers. And I despise the $2 billion more invested in it.

[billay]

This Brock guy really is an idiot

[Brock]

coming from you, it really means alot.

[RedNeckRaider]

coming from you, it really means alot.

He can't spell! it is "he is and idiot" :)

[patteeu]

Nope my post was sound. It's not a subsidy. Your inner neo-con is coming out here after months of some remission unfortunately. And it stems from a sense of property that is communistic. Like I said before supply-siders are Keynesians with a tax cut.

Your label gibberish is meaningless.

Tax Breaks and the Govt's Who Hate Them (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken115.html)

Kinda like calling tax increases investments* or contributions a la Bill Clinton.

Sorry pat, but it's just not a small govt, pro-liberty and pro-property position. Ya' know as in conservative and/or libertarian—what you claim to be.




* Ya' know when you agreed with Johnny V.

Time to get on the freedom bandwagon pat and be what a conservative and small "l" libertarian is supposed to be.

There is no economic difference between a government that taxes the population at a rate of X and gives one interest group special treatment in the form of a tax deduction and a government that taxes the population at a rate of X and gives that same group special treatment in the form of a check. Your objection to the word subsidy is based on your own intellectual shortcoming not something related to how libertarian I am or am not.

BTW, the tax system that creates the least interference with the economy and, IMO, the best model for whatever level of taxation is necessary to run the government (whether you believe in big or small government) is a broad based tax that applies to all equally, without deductions for special groups including those for charity, home mortgages, or dependents. You need to get on the freedom wagon, buc. Stop supporting the government that tries to pick winners and losers (in this case favoring home owners with mortgages over people who rent or people who own their homes outright).

[Chief Faithful]

Chief,

What stimulation? Government gives money to the consumer who gives it to a retailer. All you pro-stimulus posters need to ask the most basic question:

Where did the government get the money to give to the consumers?

The answer is that they either:

1. Borrowed it from the Chinese so now we have to pay interest on that money

2. Printed it which devalues the dollar and bloats the deficit even further

3. Took the money OUT OF THE ECONOMY in the form of taxes

Even if any one of these choices was 100% effiicient (meaning no fraud or administration costs, :rolleyes:) it would STILL be a net loss to the economy.

Government stimulus is a short term panacea which perpetuates the need for more bailouts down the road. ARGGHHHH!!!

I think you missed my whole point. And if you think I am pro-stimulus you have not been reading my posts.

Cash for Clunkers was a bad plan and poorly administrated. But, it did show what happens when the consumers have money in their pockets. And while it did stimulate sales we both know it is a false stimulus as I fully expect the industry will experience a hang-over once the money is gone. It is never helpful when the government props up a specific industry with tax dollars.

If the government decides to run healthcare the results will be the same. The program will be terribly administered and over time access to healthcare will erode.

Now a question, would be what is the best way to put money back into the economy? As you seem to state I also believe in tax relief.

[RedNeckRaider]

What stimulation? Government gives money to the consumer who gives it to a retailer. All you pro-stimulus posters need to ask the most basic question:

Where did the government get the money to give to the consumers?

The answer is that they either:

1. Borrowed it from the Chinese so now we have to pay interest on that money

2. Printed it which devalues the dollar and bloats the deficit even further

3. Took the money OUT OF THE ECONOMY in the form of taxes

Even if any one of these choices was 100% effiicient (meaning no fraud or administration costs, :rolleyes:) it would STILL be a net loss to the economy.

Government stimulus is a short term panacea which perpetuates the need for more bailouts down the road. ARGGHHHH!!!

That is the plan! this guy wants us to depend on the Government.

[RedNeckRaider]

I think you missed my whole point. And if you think I am pro-stimulus you have not been reading my posts.

Cash for Clunkers was a bad plan and poorly administrated. But, it did show what happens when the consumers have money in their pockets. And while it did stimulate sales we both know it is a false stimulus as I fully expect the industry will experience a hang-over once the money is gone. It is never helpful when the government props up a specific industry with tax dollars.

If the government decides to run healthcare the results will be the same. The program will be terribly administered and over time access to healthcare will erode.

Now a question, would be what is the best way to put money back into the economy? As you seem to state I also believe in tax relief.

I am pretty sure most know what happens when consumers have money in their pocket. And your post is nails on! there will be a hang over! I am fearful of the hang over the entire country will have when this idiot is done with his steal, barrow, and print to prop up the economy scam.

[donkhater]

I think you missed my whole point. And if you think I am pro-stimulus you have not been reading my posts.

Cash for Clunkers was a bad plan and poorly administrated. But, it did show what happens when the consumers have money in their pockets. And while it did stimulate sales we both know it is a false stimulus as I fully expect the industry will experience a hang-over once the money is gone. It is never helpful when the government props up a specific industry with tax dollars.

If the government decides to run healthcare the results will be the same. The program will be terribly administered and over time access to healthcare will erode.

Now a question, would be what is the best way to put money back into the economy? As you seem to state I also believe in tax relief.

I can't keep up with who is on which side of the stimulus debate around here. Your post merely gave me an opportunity to rant a bit. I didn't mean to imply anything to you personally.

[donkhater]

Now a question, would be what is the best way to put money back into the economy? As you seem to state I also believe in tax relief.

Tax relief would be great, but before it becomes a true reality, the country needs to have a discussion about the role of government. It MUST get smaller for tax relief to take place. Does anyone honestly think that even Republicans want to give up the political power they enjoy by controlling federal money? I don't. And that's why it really didn't matter who was elected this last time. Hell, McCain was for the stimulus, so even he would've been leading the country down this track, albiet at a likely slower pace.

[BucEyedPea]

Tax relief would be great, but before it becomes a true reality, the country needs to have a discussion about the role of government. It MUST get smaller for tax relief to take place. Does anyone honestly think that even Republicans want to give up the political power they enjoy by controlling federal money? I don't. And that's why it really didn't matter who was elected this last time. Hell, McCain was for the stimulus, so even he would've been leading the country down this track, albiet at a likely slower pace.

I've been saying this for years, in real life, here and elsewhere on the net.
The problem is how people have been educated. They are being educated to think they must rely on govt and that markets or the people can't create prosperity or a better standard of living. Education in academia, media and politicians is propaganda.

[BucEyedPea]

Your label gibberish is meaningless.



There is no economic difference between a government that taxes the population at a rate of X and gives one interest group special treatment in the form of a tax deduction and a government that taxes the population at a rate of X and gives that same group special treatment in the form of a check. Your objection to the word subsidy is based on your own intellectual shortcoming not something related to how libertarian I am or am not.

BTW, the tax system that creates the least interference with the economy and, IMO, the best model for whatever level of taxation is necessary to run the government (whether you believe in big or small government) is a broad based tax that applies to all equally, without deductions for special groups including those for charity, home mortgages, or dependents. You need to get on the freedom wagon, buc. Stop supporting the government that tries to pick winners and losers (in this case favoring home owners with mortgages over people who rent or people who own their homes outright).

In your opinion which is not based on correct data.

[patteeu]

In your opinion which is not based on correct data.

:rolleyes: It's definitely my opinion, but the statement is based on correct logic, not incorrect data.

[donkhater]

Cash for Clunkers: Well, since that worked out so well..."
Kevin McCullough
Sunday, August 02, 2009

Imagine the government making an estimable promise of enormous proportion. Imagine the government pledging a promise so big that it would, in fact, as they would argue, actually save an entire sector of the economy. Imagine in doing so, that the same government promises blind fairness, trust, and integrity in the process. Imagine the government assuming the significant portion of funding such a program off of the hard sweat labor you and I commit to everyday. Imagine this program pledging complete utopia in helping to restore a struggling economy, even if the sector it was addressing was a largely insignificant part of the economy.

And imagine if, after promising this program would last for a long period of time, it ran out of actual cash in about 1/16th of the time they pledged it would work.

Now imagine if that program dealt with something as serious and intricate to the daily lives of Americans as the provision of our health care.

Oh, but not to worry, health care is still a ways off. No, we're talking about a program that uses our tax dollars to purchase cars that can not be resold, and that no one will drive, but instead be taken directly to the nearest junk yard and crushed.

That's how your government spent 1 Billion dollars in roughly six days.

They did so on a long list of promises...

No doubt some very clever chap, maybe Robert Gibbs or that smarty smart David Axelrod, came up with the ever effusive "Cash for Clunkers" brand. (Man if only their college marketing profs could see them now!)

No worries though, because while they promised there would be enough of our tax dollars--that we slaved at our jobs for, to feed our families with--to cause the program to last until November, maybe even through the end of the year, they blew it in not even one full week's time.

They called it an "economic stimulus" designed to boost the purchasing of American made, more fuel efficient vehicles. Of course they had to do this because instead of letting a company do what every other company has to do when it makes vehicles, products, or widgets that nobody wants--fold--they instead felt compelled to compel you to "buy" a vehicle that nobody was buying, and to then use our tax dollars to buy your lemon. Or as that Gibbs or maybe Axelrod fellow put it: your clunker.

So you and I bought 240,000 clunkers in six days, of which roughly 80% have already been eliminated from circulation at our local junk heaps.

Don't you feel great about it?

And did this 10% unemployed tax-paying society get a good deal on the cars they bought? Most likely, resoundingly NO! Because, instead of buying something that they had saved for, the vast majority of these "purchases" were actually extended indebtedness agreements between the buyer and the dealer. The dealer who is having to literally sell his soul to President Obama just to stay in business.

To top it off, Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and several Democrats in the House--like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and others who think monopoly money is real--have commanded the gerbil-operated printing press in the basement of the White House to print up $2 billion more dollars so that you and I can hopefully buy somewhere in the vicinity of 750,000 lemons... uh I mean clunkers.

$3 billion dollars that belongs to "We The People," randomly and--if you ask the dealerships--quite selectively doled out for three quarters of a million dollars worth of junked cars.

Your current administration has promised that this little effort would save the auto industry. They've promised it will save the environment.

But what about saving my children's dinner?

Did you know that if you just flushed $1,000,000 a day down the toilet from the day that Jesus Christ was born until this, you would've barely spent more than $7 billion dollars?

The Obama administration, because it monkeyed around, or would it be better to say, "czarred" it's way into essentially half of that now in say, another two weeks or so.

And while the fearless leader of the "beer summit" will spout, "let me be clear" and issue another strong assurance that this same group of people can make "certain" that the "promise" of the American health care system will only "improve" in the days to come if we just trust them, many of us are wondering: "how do we know you will do any better by us than making us pay for junk, when through the fruits of our own labor we already have access to the finest health care around?"

Mr Gibbs, Mr. Axelrod, Mighty Beer Summit leader? Any of you wanna take a stab at that one?

[BucEyedPea]

:rolleyes: It's definitely my opinion, but the statement is based on correct logic, not incorrect data.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

One of those deserves two.
It has nothing to do with logic....it has to do with viewpoint or how you see it. Your's is a collectivist pov. That's who usually spouts that pov.
Every time I've heard it has come from committed leftists and in one case a communist. That's how they see that. This is correct data. You're in denial.

[Chief Faithful]

Tax relief would be great, but before it becomes a true reality, the country needs to have a discussion about the role of government. It MUST get smaller for tax relief to take place. Does anyone honestly think that even Republicans want to give up the political power they enjoy by controlling federal money? I don't. And that's why it really didn't matter who was elected this last time. Hell, McCain was for the stimulus, so even he would've been leading the country down this track, albiet at a likely slower pace.

You nailed the very reason I have been angry at the Republicans because they betrayed us all through rapid expansion of government. The second even scarier problem is the Democrats have made the Republicans look like Libertarians by comparison.

To me tax relief would force the debate on role of government. Just keep cutting taxes and eventually the government will have to have the debate. Without tax cuts there is nothing that will motivate our government to stop spending crazy.

[Chief Faithful]

I am pretty sure most know what happens when consumers have money in their pocket. And your post is nails on! there will be a hang over! I am fearful of the hang over the entire country will have when this idiot is done with his steal, barrow, and print to prop up the economy scam.

That is when we will see if this country still understands the concept of Freedom.

[patteeu]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

One of those deserves two.
It has nothing to do with logic....it has to do with viewpoint or how you see it. Your's is a collectivist pov. That's who usually spouts that pov.
Every time I've heard it has come from committed leftists and in one case a communist. That's how they see that. This is correct data. You're in denial.

You're so easily fooled. Apparently, as long as government programs are administered through the tax code, they fly right past your government skepticism radar. :shake:

[BucEyedPea]

Ha! Ha! That's funny.

Just because the govt uses the tax code to modify behavior, socially engineer and control us whether it goes to programs or even defense still doesn't make it a subsidy.
Not when it's your own money from the start which you earned.

[BucEyedPea]

You're so easily fooled. Apparently, as long as government programs are administered through the tax code, they fly right past your government skepticism radar. :shake:
Nope, you're just not a conservative or a libertarian—certainly not on this.

This economist, scholar and highly intelligent man who also went to medical school and is a medical doctor disagrees with you. I don’t think Ron Paul is easily fooled either. I’m sure he’s logical too.


The panelists ( president’s advisory panel on tax reform] also misused the term “tax subsidy” over and over.

A true subsidy is very simple: certain individuals or businesses receive taxpayer money from the government.

But the panel members clearly have accepted the thoroughly leftist idea that all income belongs to the state, and therefore the state “subsidizes” you by letting you keep some of the money you earned. This is nonsense.

If the government uses tax dollars to build you a house, you have received a subsidy. Taxpayers have given you something. But if you pay less in income taxes because of the mortgage interest deduction, you have not been “subsidized” by anyone. The government has not given you something; it simply has taken less.

What kind of tax reform proposals can we expect from people who can’t understand the fundamental difference between a subsidy and a tax cut? [Answer: Laugher followers like supply-siders who are Keynesians, a self admitted socialist, at their core which left of center.]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul280.html

Sorry pat you’re with the left on this.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh, and pat, our programs by our govt is not just paid for with taxes, it is paid for with debt, deficits and inflation too. There would have been a tax revolt years ago without borrowing or inflation. The Fed Res makes profligacy by the govt possible.

So you can't say programs are paid for via the tax code. And in 1988 Paul said we could get rid of the entire income tax and replace it with nothing if we changed our FP. That should have been possible when the Cold War was over. I can imagine with the expansion of interventions beginning under Bush Sr and then Clinton how much more that costs.

[patteeu]

Nope, you're just not a conservative or a libertarian—certainly not on this.

This economist, scholar and highly intelligent man who also went to medical school and is a medical doctor disagrees with you. I don’t think Ron Paul is easily fooled either. I’m sure he’s logical too.




Sorry pat you’re with the left on this.

The left position here is with the government intervention in the market. That's your side, not mine.

[BucEyedPea]

The left position here is with the government intervention in the market. That's your side, not mine.

I don't support govt intervention in the market. You assume, incorrectly, that the fruits of one's labor is owned by the govt first. Your logic is based on altered sequence.
Since you assign a tax deduction the significance of "subsidy" (when no one is getting something that's not there's to begin with) you support govt intervention in the market.

[patteeu]

I don't support govt intervention in the market.

Of course you do... as long as it's done through special interest tax deductions.

You assume, incorrectly, that the fruits of one's labor is owned by the govt first. Your logic is based on altered sequence.
Since you assign a tax deduction the significance of "subsidy" (when no one is getting something that's not there's to begin with) you support govt intervention in the market.

That's idiotic. I don't assume anything of the sort. I just don't get my economic ideas via rote memory from Lew-bertarian demagogues. Targeted tax deductions distort the market in the same way that checks from the treasury do.

Can you explain to me the economic (as opposed to procedural) difference between a mortgage interest deduction that cuts your tax bill by $100 and a $100 check paid to you out of the treasury that's based on the amount of mortgage interest you paid? Either way your bank account ends up with the same value and both provide the same incentive to borrow against a home.

[BucEyedPea]

ROFL You crack me up. You can't just agree to disagree but have to argue to win as if you're in a court.

[banyon]

Totally ineffective.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/08/68495966/1

Brace yourself for some remarkable July sales figures today.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/.a/6a00d83451b46269e2011572552ac9970b-450wi

Thanks to Cash for Clunkers, automakers are likely to report remarkably vibrant monthly sales figures, leading off with Ford. Ford officials said Sunday that it will today report its first monthly sales increase since November, 2007. None of the six biggest automakers -- GM, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Toyota and Nissan -- have reported an increase since last August, Ford officials say.

Ford's gas-thrifty Focus, above, was one of the big sellers. "It is a sense that regular guys and gals...went out in July and bought cars and trucks," For sales Vice President Ken Czubay said.

Hyundai says Cash for Clunkers boosted its sales tally by 20%.

You guys make sure that if you sell any goods or services in the next month that you question your customers to see if they are an auto manufacturing or dealing employee who got a restoration in salary or employment because of the increased sales. Make sure to refuse their purchase because you wouldn't want to indirectly benefit from any of this.

BTW, I am still against this program, because it isn't really accomplishing what it set out to do and is watered down too much.

[patteeu]

Totally ineffective.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/08/68495966/1

Brace yourself for some remarkable July sales figures today.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/.a/6a00d83451b46269e2011572552ac9970b-450wi

Thanks to Cash for Clunkers, automakers are likely to report remarkably vibrant monthly sales figures, leading off with Ford. Ford officials said Sunday that it will today report its first monthly sales increase since November, 2007. None of the six biggest automakers -- GM, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Toyota and Nissan -- have reported an increase since last August, Ford officials say.

Ford's gas-thrifty Focus, above, was one of the big sellers. "It is a sense that regular guys and gals...went out in July and bought cars and trucks," For sales Vice President Ken Czubay said.

Hyundai says Cash for Clunkers boosted its sales tally by 20%.

You guys make sure that if you sell any goods or services in the next month that you question your customers to see if they are an auto manufacturing or dealing employee who got a restoration in salary or employment because of the increased sales. Make sure to refuse their purchase because you wouldn't want to indirectly benefit from any of this.

BTW, I am still against this program, because it isn't really accomplishing what it set out to do and is watered down too much.

How many of these sales are cannibalizing sales from future months?

I don't think there were many people who thought that paying people to buy cars wouldn't lead to increased car sales. That doesn't answer the question about whether or not it was good for the economy though. Breaking windows and then paying people to fix them would have improved the bottom line for glass installation companies too.

[HonestChieffan]

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee Ford sales up 2500 cars. Man thats some serious numbers...average 50 NEW Cars per state!!! Happy dance time.....

[Brock]

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee Ford sales up 2500 cars. Man thats some serious numbers...average 50 NEW Cars per state!!! Happy dance time.....

Even if that number is correct, it's their first sales increase in 2 years.

[Taco John]

This is great! Let's REALLY give the economy a boost and start a Cash for Groceries program. I bet grocery sales would sky rocket!

THis type of program is clearly the answer to all our prayers.

[KC Dan]

This is great! Let's REALLY give the economy a boost and start a Cash for Groceries program. I bet grocery sales would sky rocket!

THis type of program is clearly the answer to all our prayers.Why stop there? The San Fernando valley needs work too. Cash for Sex Toys!

[headsnap]

Why stop there? The San Fernando valley needs work too. Cash for Sex Toys!

that would really create a buzz in the economy...

[Chief Henry]

How long is it taking for the car dealers to receive they're $$$ from this program.

How are the car dealers getting rid of these clunkers ? Where are they going ?

I'm assuming to a scrap metal dealer of some kind. Are these scrap metal dealers
receiving some compensation from the go'vt then.

Imagine all of the f'n forms that must be filled out by the car dealers and the scrap metal
dealers if they're working with the gov't !!!! I would think it's a nightmare.

[banyon]

This is great! Let's REALLY give the economy a boost and start a Cash for Groceries program. I bet grocery sales would sky rocket!

THis type of program is clearly the answer to all our prayers.

Grocery food demand wasn't down 50-75% Year over year.

[HonestChieffan]

How long is it taking for the car dealers to receive they're $$$ from this program.

How are the car dealers getting rid of these clunkers ? Where are they going ?

I'm assuming to a scrap metal dealer of some kind. Are these scrap metal dealers
receiving some compensation from the go'vt then.

Imagine all of the f'n forms that must be filled out by the car dealers and the scrap metal
dealers if they're working with the gov't !!!! I would think it's a nightmare.

50/state average for ford wont be that much work. No idea how many dealers there are on average per state but this isnt gonna be a revolutionery success by any measure.

[Brock]

50/state average for ford wont be that much work. No idea how many dealers there are on average per state but this isnt gonna be a revolutionery success by any measure.

I don't know where you're getting that number from, but what I read is that Ford posted a 2 percent increase in July compared to last year. I'm thinking that's probably a lot more than 50 cars per state.

[HonestChieffan]

From Fords announcement. year ago vs this year sales were up 2500 cars. 50 states...57 if you are Obama.

[jjjayb]

How many of these sales are cannibalizing sales from future months?

I don't think there were many people who thought that paying people to buy cars wouldn't lead to increased car sales. That doesn't answer the question about whether or not it was good for the economy though. Breaking windows and then paying people to fix them would have improved the bottom line for glass installation companies too.

I worked for Ford the first time GM and Ford did the employee pricing for everyone. My sales skyrocketed the first month. Followed by horrible sales for the next 6 months. It was like working in a ghost town. They did exactly what you just said. Took the next 6 months buyers and put them into one month.

[Taco John]

Grocery food demand wasn't down 50-75% Year over year.



So is this program based on the needs of industry or the needs of the people?

[Brock]

So is this program based on the needs of industry or the needs of the people?

This one was for industry. Health care will be for the people. Well, some of them, anyway.

[banyon]

So is this program based on the needs of industry or the needs of the people?

It was obviously to the direct benefit of the auto industry which indirectly benefits "the people".

[banyon]

I worked for Ford the first time GM and Ford did the employee pricing for everyone. My sales skyrocketed the first month. Followed by horrible sales for the next 6 months. It was like working in a ghost town. They did exactly what you just said. Took the next 6 months buyers and put them into one month.

That's preferable for the dealership as they would benefit from the present value of money in accounts.

[jjjayb]

That's preferable for the dealership as they would benefit from the present value of money in accounts.

Heh. You are going to tell me what's preferable for the dealer? ROFL

[banyon]

Heh. You are going to tell me what's preferable for the dealer? ROFL

No, if you have a reason or argument to the contrary, then by all means put it forward.

[jjjayb]

No, if you have a reason or argument to the contrary, then by all means put it forward.

It's better for a dealer to have 6 steady months than 1 great month and 5 slow ones. I would imagine that is true for most any business. I'm not in other businesses so I won't speak for them. I am, however in the car business.

Let's say over the next 6 months my dealership sells 1200 cars.

If we sell 200 cars a month for 6 months I will have less expenses in paying my staff than if we sell 400 cars this month and then 160 cars a month for the next 5 months. Volume bonuses dictate that.

We need to constantly rotate our supply of cars. We are financing them while they sit on our lot. Every month we need to sell old cars and bring new ones in. The longer they sit on the lot, the more money they cost us. The longer our used cars sit, the more their value drops, hence, the more we have to cut the price of what we sell to make a deal buyable to a bank. If I sell my entire inventory in one month then barely move anything for the next 6 months it kills us financially.

There are a ton of reasons it's worse for us to canibalize the market of future sales. I've listed only a couple. I'm not going to give you a dealership economics lesson in five minutes that's taken me a lifetime to learn.

[Brock]

Sure, they'd love to have steady demand, but in the absence of that, they'll take this money and thank their lucky stars for it.

[jjjayb]

Sure, they'd love to have steady demand, but in the absence of that, they'll take this money and thank their lucky stars for it.

I'm not saying we're not grateful for this. We certainly haven't turned any deals down. I'm just hoping we don't have a repeat of what we had after the employee pricing.

[banyon]

It's better for a dealer to have 6 steady months than 1 great month and 5 slow ones. I would imagine that is true for most any business. I'm not in other businesses so I won't speak for them. I am, however in the car business.

Let's say over the next 6 months my dealership sells 1200 cars.

If we sell 200 cars a month for 6 months I will have less expenses in paying my staff than if we sell 400 cars this month and then 160 cars a month for the next 5 months. Volume bonuses dictate that.

We need to constantly rotate our supply of cars. We are financing them while they sit on our lot. Every month we need to sell old cars and bring new ones in. The longer they sit on the lot, the more money they cost us. The longer our used cars sit, the more their value drops, hence, the more we have to cut the price of what we sell to make a deal buyable to a bank. If I sell my entire inventory in one month then barely move anything for the next 6 months it kills us financially.

There are a ton of reasons it's worse for us to canibalize the market of future sales. I've listed only a couple. I'm not going to give you a dealership economics lesson in five minutes that's taken me a lifetime to learn.

No need, those reasons make sense to me. What will you do with the surplus income in the meantime though?

[RedNeckRaider]

let me see if I understand this. The government is broke and has doubled its debt. It has bailed out mismanaged banks and companies with money it does not have. This program was paid for with money they don't have to further help out the banks and companies.

This is how you rebuild the economy? Using this logic why don't they cut everyone a check with money they don't have for lets say two hundred and fifty thousand dollars with the agreement that they must spend this money to rebuild the economy. Would this not speed up the recovery? This is insanity IMO we are not rebuilding anything we are propping up the economy with a balloon loan. It is all fine and dandy until the huge repayment comes due.

[BucEyedPea]

let me see if I understand this. The government is broke and has doubled its debt. It has bailed out mismanaged banks and companies with money it does not have. This program was paid for with money they don't have to further help out the banks and companies.

This is how you rebuild the economy? Using this logic why don't they cut everyone a check with money they don't have for lets say two hundred and fifty thousand dollars with the agreement that they must spend this money to rebuild the economy. Would this not speed up the recovery? This is insanity IMO we are not rebuilding anything we are propping up the economy with a balloon loan. It is all fine and dandy until the huge repayment comes due.
Yes and we're going to have our taxes increased to the bankers get their interests payments too. That includes those in debt getting cash for clunkers.

[BucEyedPea]

I worked for Ford the first time GM and Ford did the employee pricing for everyone. My sales skyrocketed the first month. Followed by horrible sales for the next 6 months. It was like working in a ghost town. They did exactly what you just said. Took the next 6 months buyers and put them into one month.

That's what govt stimulus does. Creates a bubble when then goes bust.

[banyon]

let me see if I understand this. The government is broke and has doubled its debt. It has bailed out mismanaged banks and companies with money it does not have. This program was paid for with money they don't have to further help out the banks and companies.

This is how you rebuild the economy? Using this logic why don't they cut everyone a check with money they don't have for lets say two hundred and fifty thousand dollars with the agreement that they must spend this money to rebuild the economy. Would this not speed up the recovery? This is insanity IMO we are not rebuilding anything we are propping up the economy with a balloon loan. It is all fine and dandy until the huge repayment comes due.

That's basically what Bush did when he cut the advance rebate checks and pleaded with people to buy Plasma TV's.

[RedNeckRaider]

That's basically what Bush did when he cut the advance rebate checks and pleaded with people to buy Plasma TV's.

Who gives a fuck what Bush did? I was pointing out that I think was is going on is insane.

[banyon]

Who gives a **** what Bush did? I was pointing out that I think was is going on is insane.

I care. I like to review historical examples and try to see if there's any way to see any useful direct or inverse correlation.

.

[BucEyedPea]

Who gives a **** what Bush did? I was pointing out that I think was is going on is insane.

ROFL I agree.

[BCD]

WASHINGTON – The popular but overwhelmed "cash for clunkers" program is zooming toward a quarter-million trade-ins with the initial $1 billion in rebates, but the White House warns the special deals could sputter to an end by Friday unless the Senate quickly approves $2 billion more.

Senate skeptics appear to be in no hurry.

On Monday, the Obama administration pointed to environmental gains made during the first week of the program, which gives rebates of as much as $4,500 to motorists who trade in gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. As many as The White House also highlighted recovery news from Ford Motor Co., which reported its first U.S. sales increase in nearly two years.

"It's good for consumers. It's good for dealers and auto manufacturers," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "It's good for our energy security and our environment."

Gibbs said if the Senate failed to provide the extra money, "it's unlikely that we'll make it to the weekend with a program that can continue." He estimated the additional $2 billion would allow consumers to take advantage of the incentives through September.

In the Senate, Democrats remained concerned about lining up enough support for the plan, which the House approved last week before heading home for the August recess. "I'd like to see the program extended," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat. "I hope we can get it done."

While the House approved the funding by a nearly 3-to-1 margin last Friday, the clunkers program faces strong headwinds from conservatives who view it as another taxpayer bailout for the auto industry and environmentalists who complain that it ought to wring out more fuel efficiency. There's little time left on the calendar — the Senate plans to take a four-week recess beginning Friday after it votes this week on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Despite the assurances from the White House, many dealers said they were concerned they could be on the hook for some of the money if the Senate fails to approve the $2 billion. John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, said his organization was warning dealers there were no guarantees they would be reimbursed for sales they make under the program this week. McEleney said he has stopped offering cash-for-clunkers deals at his own Iowa dealerships.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the average mileage of new vehicles purchased through the program is 9.6 miles per gallon higher than for the vehicles traded in for scrap. Buyers of new cars and trucks that get 10 mpg better than their trade-ins get the $4,500 rebate. People whose cars get between 4 mpg and 10 mpg better fuel efficiency qualify for a smaller $3,500 rebate.

LaHood said some 80 percent of the traded-in vehicles are pickups or SUVs, meaning many gas-guzzlers are being taken off the road. The Ford Focus is a leading replacement vehicle. General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and Ford accounted for 47 percent of the new vehicles purchased.

Ford said its July sales rose 1.6 percent in July from the same month last year, its first year-over-year increase since November 2007, while Chrysler Group LLC posted a smaller year-over-year sales drop compared with recent months, helped by "clunkers" deals. Other automakers showed gains, giving ammunition to supporters of the car rebate program.

Senate Republicans appeared to be in no hurry.

"We were told this program would last for several months," GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said. "It ran out of money in a week, prompting the House to rush a $2 billion extension before anybody even had time to figure out what happened to the first billion."

McConnell said, "It's not a bad idea to look for a second opinion. All the more so if they say they're in a hurry."

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's second-ranking Republican, suggested lawmakers "take a time-out" so they could receive more details about the program before providing more money. "I'm concerned that somebody's going to have to pay for this, and $4,500 for everybody that wants to take advantage of this program is a lot of money."

Making its case for more funding, the administration collected information on 80,500 vehicle transactions logged into the government's operating system through Saturday afternoon. Gibbs said the fuel efficiency improvements would save a typical customer $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. The new vehicles were getting 25.4 miles per gallon on average, a 61 percent increase over the models traded in.

The data were aimed at appeasing lawmakers such as Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, who have questioned whether the program's environmental benefits go far enough.

Those two senators and New York Democrat Charles Schumer praised the gains in a Monday afternoon news conference.

"The best solution is to continue and extend the program as it is," Feinstein said. "The program appears to be running very well."

The lawmakers said administration officials told them that 120,000 new vehicle sales had been processed through the program and an additional 100,000 to 130,000 were expected to be processed to reach the $1 billion in funding.

LaHood said on MSNBC, "We're encouraging senators to listen to their car dealers and the people they represent. If they do that, it will pass the Senate."

The administration has been coy about just how long dealers would be reimbursed for rebates, after saying Sunday that the program would have to be suspended if the Senate failed to act.

Fierce lobbying for the program came from other quarters: The National Automobile Dealers Association and the American International Automobile Dealers contacted thousands of dealerships, telling them to bombard the Senate with phone calls and e-mails.

"This is the one true stimulus that seems to be working out of all the things that have been tried in the last few months," said Cody Lusk, president of the international group.

The Senate narrowly approved the initial money in June. But some lawmakers who voted for the plan, including Feinstein and Collins, have said the additional dollars should push consumers to buy even more fuel-efficient vehicles and also to allow people to buy fuel-efficient used vehicles. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has said he was concerned with the way the House paid for the extension, shifting $2 billion from a renewable energy loan program. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_cash_for_clunkers

[RedNeckRaider]

I care. I like to review historical examples and try to see if there's any way to see any useful direct or inverse correlation.

.

Look I never was on the debate team. You are a lawyer and debate for a living so you and I one on one in this format is a mismatch. If I were able to talk to you in person I would be able to convey my thoughts on these issues much more effectively. I lean to the right and by default am forced to vote that way. I was so disillusioned last election I sat out.

Please save me the you could have voted for an independent as voting for Micky god damn Mouse would have an equal amount of affect on the outcome. I think anyone who is objective will say Bush had no clue on what was happening to the economy or how to react to it. I also think those same people would say those in charge now are reckless and dangerous.

The left and right got in the mess together the left pinned it all on the right. Now they are in charge with nobody to check them and they are more clueless than the right when it comes to the economy. Now irony kicks in and as soon as Obama lifted his hand the right is blaming him for everything.

Granted I agree he is a pretty talking idiot and his actions deserve to be slammed but now the right is playing the left and denying any blame. I now stand back looking at both sides knowing that both are soulless assholes.

[Chief Henry]

That's basically what Bush did when he cut the advance rebate checks and pleaded with people to buy Plasma TV's.

Heard a report on 1040 WHO radio outr of DSM, Ia this morning that no car dealerships in Iowa hav received any of the "Cash 4 Clunkers" checks yet !!!
They're wanting they're funds.

[Brock]

Heard a report on 1040 WHO radio outr of DSM, Ia this morning that no car dealerships in Iowa hav received any of the "Cash 4 Clunkers" checks yet !!!
They're wanting they're funds.

I hate it when beggars get impatient.

[jjjayb]

Heard a report on 1040 WHO radio outr of DSM, Ia this morning that no car dealerships in Iowa hav received any of the "Cash 4 Clunkers" checks yet !!!
They're wanting they're funds.

We haven't either.

[mlyonsd]

What will be interesting is to track monthly sales after the money runs out. (if it runs out, we're talking about a democratic regime running things now).

I would expect free money falling out of Pelosi's butt will cause a spike in sales during the period said money continues to be available. Once that cash is gone I would expect sales to drop dramatically to levels way below monthly averages. The car companies could be looking at some pretty dismal months ahead.

If that ends up being the case the democrats will have given the money away for no reason and it should be looked upon as a painful lesson proving they don't know what they're doing.

[jjjayb]

I hate it when beggars get impatient.

Beggars? Get a frigging clue. We've got well over 50 of these deals we are waiting to get paid for. That's over $250,000 of our own money we have put out. Do you think that doesn't hurt our business to have given out over a quarter of a million dollars we are still waiting to get back? :rolleyes:

[BigRedChief]

Still have many dealers writing cash for clunkers deals here in kc. Probably going to pull the trigger on one today.

[Brock]

Beggars? Get a frigging clue. We've got well over 50 of these deals we are waiting to get paid for. That's over $250,000 of our own money we have put out. Do you think that doesn't hurt our business to have given out over a quarter of a million dollars we are still waiting to get back? :rolleyes:

Sure, beggars. What else do you call businesses that can't wait to latch on to the government tit? And then you have the gall to whine when the milk doesn't flow as fast as you want it to.

[Chief Henry]

What are car dealers doing with these clunkers ?

[Chief Henry]

[QUOTE=Brock;5946722]Sure, beggars. What else do you call businesses that can't wait to latch on to the government tit? [QUOTE]

Farmers

[jjjayb]

What are car dealers doing with these clunkers ?

They have to be destroyed. First we disable the engines, then we send them to the salvage yard.

[banyon]

What are car dealers doing with these clunkers ?

According to prisonplanet.com they are going to be converted into Terminator-styled drones and robots which will seek out and assassinate the people on a secret list. I hope your name isn't on the list.

[Brock]

From what I'm hearing around here, they're not being destroyed, just parted out.

[BucEyedPea]

They have to be destroyed. First we disable the engines, then we send them to the salvage yard.

Which hurts poorer people because they'd buy those but they're removed from the market.

[Brock]

Which hurts poorer people because they'd buy those but they're removed from the market.

Yes, there's a huge shortage of crap cars for poor people to buy at the buy-here pay-here lots.

[jjjayb]

Sure, beggars. What else do you call businesses that can't wait to latch on to the government tit? And then you have the gall to whine when the milk doesn't flow as fast as you want it to.

Talk about gall. Didn't you just take a big ol swig from the tit you nasty little beggar?

We don't get money from the government. Dealerships haven't taken one frigging penny from the government. When we do collect money from the government it will be repayment for money we put out. We are basically giving a free loan to the government.


We don't get free money from the government. That would be what you got. We just want our money back.

[penguinz]

From what I'm hearing around here, they're not being destroyed, just parted out.The program says it the engine and drivetrain has to be destroyed before it leaves the car lot.

[jjjayb]

From what I'm hearing around here, they're not being destroyed, just parted out.

From what you hear? Is this something a little birdie told you? They have to be destroyed in order to recoup the $4500 we put out. They cannot be parted out. If they are we are subject to pretty stiff fines. Fines well in excess of what the car is worth.

[penguinz]

Yes, there's a huge shortage of crap cars for poor people to buy at the buy-here pay-here lots.Pick-n-Pull lots are very good places to pick up replacement parts for cheap. If the engine is destroyed then there are much fewer parts that are salvageable.

[Brock]

From what you hear? Is this something a little birdie told you? They have to be destroyed in order to recoup the $4500 we put out. They cannot be parted out. If they are we are subject to pretty stiff fines. Fines well in excess of what the car is worth.

I'm just telling you what a yard operator told me the other day. I don't really care what the rulebook says, it's pretty irrelevant to what actually happens most times.

[Brock]

Pick-n-Pull lots are very good places to pick up replacement parts for cheap. If the engine is destroyed then there are much fewer parts that are salvageable.

I don't know too many people who buy internal engine components from a salvage yard.

[Brock]

The program says it the engine and drivetrain has to be destroyed before it leaves the car lot.

The engine has to be seized using silicate. That doesn't destroy the transmission, the axles, or even external engine parts.

[Chief Henry]

They have to be destroyed. First we disable the engines, then we send them to the salvage yard.

The salvage yards receiving these clunkers - how are they getting money out of this deal ? Do they receive money from the gov't for taking these clunkers ?

[penguinz]

I don't know too many people who buy internal engine components from a salvage yard.You have never talked to someone who owns a jeep or any other 4x4 that uses the vehicle for what it was designed.

[Brock]

You have never talked to someone who owns a jeep or any other 4x4 that uses the vehicle for what it was designed.

I own a jeep or any other 4x4 and I uses the vehicle for what it was designed. Did you have a point?

[penguinz]

I own a jeep or any other 4x4 and I uses the vehicle for what it was designed. Did you have a point?Then you should know that a trip to the bone yard is a part of the culture.

[Brock]

Then you should know that a trip to the bone yard is a part of the culture.

Sure, if I need a new alternator or something like that. I wouldn't buy, say, an oil pump from a salvage yard.

[petegz28]

54% Oppose More Money for ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Program

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/august_2009/54_oppose_more_money_for_cash_for_clunkers_program

[BigRedChief]

Still have many dealers writing cash for clunkers deals here in kc. Probably going to pull the trigger on one today.
Got myself a Lincoln MKX. Was going for the Ford Edge but ran into this deal. The geek in me got the better of me. I love the different media accessories and capabilites in this car.

$46,645 MSRP
-1,600 (Invoice price)
-2,500 (Mileage on car, 6000. Was the owners wifes car).
-4,500 (Ford Rebates)
-4,500 (Cash for Clunkers)
= $34,045 (Total Price)

We will save about $800 a year in gas on this car from our previous 8 cyclinder Explorer.

Not the same car, ours has a panoramic roof, spoiler and all the bells and whistles but you get the idea.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/105201123/lincoln_MKX_2009_car.jpg

[patteeu]

Got myself a Lincoln MKX. Was going for the Ford Edge but ran into this deal. The geek in me got the better of me. I love the different media accessories and capabilites in this car.

$46,645 MSRP
-1,600 (Invoice price)
-2,500 (Mileage on car, 6000. Was the owners wifes car).
-4,500 (Ford Rebates)
-4,500 (Cash for Clunkers)
= $34,045 (Total Price)

We will save about $800 a year in gas on this car from our previous 8 cyclinder Explorer.

Not the same car, ours has a panoramic roof, spoiler and all the bells and whistles but you get the idea.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/105201123/lincoln_MKX_2009_car.jpg

Good for you. It's gratifying to know that we taxpayers could bring a little sunshine into the life of a down-and-out guy like you. :p

[BigRedChief]

Good for you. It's gratifying to know that we taxpayers could bring a little sunshine into the life of a down-and-out guy like you. :p
Guilt trips won't work on me pal. :D And don't forget you are still on the hook for the $2,460 tax cut (sales tax dedutition) that I will recieve come tax time next year.

[mlyonsd]

Got myself a Lincoln MKX. Was going for the Ford Edge but ran into this deal. The geek in me got the better of me. I love the different media accessories and capabilites in this car.

$46,645 MSRP
-1,600 (Invoice price)
-2,500 (Mileage on car, 6000. Was the owners wifes car).
-4,500 (Ford Rebates)
-4,500 (Cash for Clunkers)
= $34,045 (Total Price)

We will save about $800 a year in gas on this car from our previous 8 cyclinder Explorer.

Not the same car, ours has a panoramic roof, spoiler and all the bells and whistles but you get the idea.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/105201123/lincoln_MKX_2009_car.jpg

Please tell me you bought that for your wife, right?

[Radar Chief]

Sure, if I need a new alternator or something like that. I wouldn't buy, say, an oil pump from a salvage yard.

Probably not, but if you’re truck is down and you need it for work, it sure would help being able to go to the local bone yard and pick up a short/long block to replace your worn out one.

BTW, you and I were discussing this on the main board and I have to revise something I was posting. I posted that carburetors were still being used on full sized Chevy trucks up until about ’89. That is incorrect. I sat in a buddy’s fishing truck last weekend that’s an ’89 extended cab with a 5.7L TBI engine. So it would have to be ’88 or a little earlier when the switch was made.

[BigRedChief]

Please tell me you bought that for your wife, right?Yes, it was the wife's new car. I drive a macho testosterone inducing, 0-60 MPH in 5.25 seconds 2005 Ford Mustang. Good enough for ya?

[patteeu]

Yes, it was the wife's new car. I drive a macho testosterone inducing, 0-60 MPH in 5.25 seconds 2005 Ford Mustang. Good enough for ya?

Planet killer!

[mlyonsd]

Yes, it was the wife's new car. I drive a macho testosterone inducing, 0-60 MPH in 5.25 seconds 2005 Ford Mustang. Good enough for ya?

Ok, you can keep your man card. I was just worried there for a minute. :D

[BigRedChief]

Planet killer!I never have been a tree hugger. Besides, even with all that speed I still get 21MPH on the highway.

[patteeu]

I never have been a tree hugger. Besides, even with all that speed I still get 21MPH on the highway.

I don't know if I'd call 21 MPH "all that speed". ;)

[Radar Chief]

Yes, it was the wife's new car. I drive a macho testosterone inducing, 0-60 MPH in 5.25 seconds 2005 Ford Mustang. Good enough for ya?

Have you drag raced it?
The car being able to do it is one thing, you being able to get the car to do it is something else. :D

[BigRedChief]

Have you drag raced it?
The car being able to do it is one thing, you being able to get the car to do it is something else. :DNah, I've not even done the Steve Mcqueen Bullit smoke the tires burnout in it yet.

[Radar Chief]

Nah, I've not even done the Steve Mcqueen Bullit smoke the tires burnout in it yet.

Hell man, what are you waiting for? The warrantee to run out?

[Saul Good]

Got myself a Lincoln MKX. Was going for the Ford Edge but ran into this deal. The geek in me got the better of me. I love the different media accessories and capabilites in this car.

$46,645 MSRP
-1,600 (Invoice price)
-2,500 (Mileage on car, 6000. Was the owners wifes car).
-4,500 (Ford Rebates)
-4,500 (Cash for Clunkers)
= $34,045 (Total Price)

We will save about $800 a year in gas on this car from our previous 8 cyclinder Explorer.

Not the same car, ours has a panoramic roof, spoiler and all the bells and whistles but you get the idea.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/105201123/lincoln_MKX_2009_car.jpg

Your math is off.

[Brock]

“Four of the top ten selling vehicles are manufactured by the Big Three. Of non-Big Three purchases, preliminary analysis suggests that well over half of these new vehicles were manufactured in the United States.” Did they mention that the “foreign nameplates” are produced in the U.S.? They did not. Nor did they offer a similar analysis of the country of origin for the trade-ins. Guess what percentage of the Cash for Clunkers trade-ins are American brands?

Correct. 100 percent. Here’s the list:

1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Ford Explorer 2WD
7. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

OK, so here’s the money shot: the stats that convinced House Speaker Nany Pelosi that the Cash for Clunkers program was green enough for her valley.

Average Fuel Economy

New vehicles Mileage: 25.3 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG.
Overall increase: 9.6 MPG, or a 61% improvement

Cars purchased under the program are, on average, 21% above the average fuel economy of all new cars currently available, and 63% above the average fuel economy of cars that were traded in. This means the program is raising the average fuel economy of the fleet, while getting the dirtiest and most polluting vehicles off the road.

And if that’s not enough reason to justify another $2 billion in federal funding for the Cash for Clunkers program, check out the geographical spread. There isn’t a politician in these here United States whose dealers haven’t benefitted from the program. As well they should; this is their bailout.

ALABAMA: $7,087,000
ALASKA: $1,166,000
ARIZONA: $6,527,500
ARKANSAS: $4,455,000
CALIFORNIA: $39,926,500
COLORADO: $7,758,000
CONNECTICUT: $8,916,000
DELAWARE: $1,562,000
FLORIDA: $26,947,000
GEORGIA: $12,469,500
HAWAII: $963,500
IDAHO: $3,395,000
ILLINOIS: $33,740,000
INDIANA: $18,729,500
IOWA: $12,184,500
KANSAS: $9,729,000
KENTUCKY: $9,178,000
LOUISIANA: $5,400,000
MAINE: $5,450,000
MARYLAND: $11,757,000
MASSACHUSETTS: $13,844,500
MICHIGAN: $44,399,500
MINNESOTA: $30,182,500
MISSISSIPPI: $2,431,500
MISSOURI: $16,101,500
MONTANA: $1,732,500
NEBRASKA: $7,392,000
NEVADA: $2,009,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE: $5,474,500
NEW JERSEY: $13,744,500
NEW MEXICO: $2,366,000
NEW YORK: $32,440,000
NORTH CAROLINA: $18,472,000
NORTH DAKOTA: $3,302,000
OHIO: $37,653,000
OKLAHOMA: $7,532,000
OREGON: $10,229,500
PENNSYLVANIA: $32,994,000
RHODE ISLAND: $2,392,000
SOUTH CAROLINA: $7,164,000
SOUTH DAKOTA: $4,033,500
TENNESSEE: $11,117,000
TEXAS: $35,010,000
UTAH: $5,095,000
VERMONT: $2,376,000
VIRGINIA: $18,376,500
WASHINGTON: $12,351,000
WEST VIRGINIA: $2,769,500
WISCONSIN: $24,042,000
WYOMING: $530,000


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/toyota-corolla-overtakes-ford-focus-for-top-cash-for-clunkers-purchases/

[BigRedChief]

“Four of the top ten selling vehicles are manufactured by the Big Three. Of non-Big Three purchases, preliminary analysis suggests that well over half of these new vehicles were manufactured in the United States.” Did they mention that the “foreign nameplates” are produced in the U.S.? They did not. Nor did they offer a similar analysis of the country of origin for the trade-ins. Guess what percentage of the Cash for Clunkers trade-ins are American brands?

Correct. 100 percent. Here’s the list:

1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Ford Explorer 2WD
7. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

OK, so here’s the money shot: the stats that convinced House Speaker Nany Pelosi that the Cash for Clunkers program was green enough for her valley.

Average Fuel Economy

New vehicles Mileage: 25.3 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG.
Overall increase: 9.6 MPG, or a 61% improvement

Cars purchased under the program are, on average, 21% above the average fuel economy of all new cars currently available, and 63% above the average fuel economy of cars that were traded in. This means the program is raising the average fuel economy of the fleet, while getting the dirtiest and most polluting vehicles off the road.

And if that’s not enough reason to justify another $2 billion in federal funding for the Cash for Clunkers program, check out the geographical spread. There isn’t a politician in these here United States whose dealers haven’t benefitted from the program. As well they should; this is their bailout.

ALABAMA: $7,087,000
ALASKA: $1,166,000
ARIZONA: $6,527,500
ARKANSAS: $4,455,000
CALIFORNIA: $39,926,500
COLORADO: $7,758,000
CONNECTICUT: $8,916,000
DELAWARE: $1,562,000
FLORIDA: $26,947,000
GEORGIA: $12,469,500
HAWAII: $963,500
IDAHO: $3,395,000
ILLINOIS: $33,740,000
INDIANA: $18,729,500
IOWA: $12,184,500
KANSAS: $9,729,000
KENTUCKY: $9,178,000
LOUISIANA: $5,400,000
MAINE: $5,450,000
MARYLAND: $11,757,000
MASSACHUSETTS: $13,844,500
MICHIGAN: $44,399,500
MINNESOTA: $30,182,500
MISSISSIPPI: $2,431,500
MISSOURI: $16,101,500
MONTANA: $1,732,500
NEBRASKA: $7,392,000
NEVADA: $2,009,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE: $5,474,500
NEW JERSEY: $13,744,500
NEW MEXICO: $2,366,000
NEW YORK: $32,440,000
NORTH CAROLINA: $18,472,000
NORTH DAKOTA: $3,302,000
OHIO: $37,653,000
OKLAHOMA: $7,532,000
OREGON: $10,229,500
PENNSYLVANIA: $32,994,000
RHODE ISLAND: $2,392,000
SOUTH CAROLINA: $7,164,000
SOUTH DAKOTA: $4,033,500
TENNESSEE: $11,117,000
TEXAS: $35,010,000
UTAH: $5,095,000
VERMONT: $2,376,000
VIRGINIA: $18,376,500
WASHINGTON: $12,351,000
WEST VIRGINIA: $2,769,500
WISCONSIN: $24,042,000
WYOMING: $530,000


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/toyota-corolla-overtakes-ford-focus-for-top-cash-for-clunkers-purchases/
The paperwork for dealers may be slow and the beauracy paperwork may be a nightmare for dealers but as far as government provided "stimulus" money goes, how could you get more bang for your stimulus buck than this program?

[HonestChieffan]

The paperwork for dealers may be slow and the beauracy paperwork may be a nightmare for dealers but as far as government provided "stimulus" money goes, how could you get more bang for your stimulus buck than this program?

Let me count the ways.

[BucEyedPea]

The paperwork for dealers may be slow and the beauracy paperwork may be a nightmare for dealers but as far as government provided "stimulus" money goes, how could you get more bang for your stimulus buck than this program?

It's a red herring. Other people are going to be plundered for this artificial stimulus which will bust eventually too.
And this hurts the poor who would likely buy those clunkers instead of having them junked altogether. Enviro movement hurts the needy.

Govt is always a slow payer.

[dirk digler]

Great information brock. 61% improvement in fuel mileage is a pretty good total.

[dirk digler]

Let me count the ways.

Looks like your analysis was wrong again. Of course that is not unusual

[Brock]

It's a red herring. Other people are going to be plundered for this artificial stimulus which will bust eventually too.
And this hurts the poor who would likely buy those clunkers instead of having them junked altogether. Enviro movement hurts the needy.

Govt is always a slow payer.

We're steering the poor toward a used Honda. They'll get over it when they see they get a better car.

[BucEyedPea]

We're steering the poor toward a used Honda. They'll get over it when they see they get a better car.

That they may not be able to afford. Honda's hold more of their value.

[HonestChieffan]

Looks like your analysis was wrong again. Of course that is not unusual

all depends on definition of success does it not? All this did was speed the process that was inevitable anyway. No true stimulus since it is a net cost with no added value except to those who bought a car. The car market will be flatter than the top of your head after this is done.

[dirk digler]

all depends on definition of success does it not? All this did was speed the process that was inevitable anyway. No true stimulus since it is a net cost with no added value except to those who bought a car. The car market will be flatter than the top of your head after this is done.

How do you know my head is flat have you been peeking again? :)

In all seriousness unless I misread your post you said that this was 50 cars per state and I think the numbers don't bear that out.

[HonestChieffan]

How do you know my head is flat have you been peeking again? :)

In all seriousness unless I misread your post you said that this was 50 cars per state and I think the numbers don't bear that out.

That was Ford only and it was July vs last July...I still think you probably have a flat head though.

[dirk digler]

That was Ford only and it was July vs last July...I still think you probably have a flat head though.

Ok my bad.

[Brock]

That they may not be able to afford. Honda's hold more of their value.

If they can't afford that, then they really can't afford to buy a pile of junk that they have to spend money on for repairs, not to mention the hundreds of dollars they'll spend on gas for the month.

[BigRedChief]

all depends on definition of success does it not? All this did was speed the process that was inevitable anyway. No true stimulus since it is a net cost with no added value except to those who bought a car. The car market will be flatter than the top of your head after this is done.
You analysis is way off.

Yes, the taxpayer is out $4,500 to my family budget. But, I would not have bought that car without that money. The salesman made money, the guy who cleaned the car, the dealership and its auxillary employees and they all pay taxes on those earnings to help offset the loss of $4,500 from the federal treasury.

and then the dealer has to order a new car to replace in its inventory. And he will order another one to replace it. His inventory on his lot is the lowest its been in 35 years. Jobs are created to replace that vechile. In my case, the car is assembled in the good ole USA and 85% of the parts are USA made. And all those employees pay taxes and spend their paychecks in the economy to help other citizens.

No added value?

[HonestChieffan]

Repo heaven in the near future,,,watch them dump the new car for cash and go buy a used one...this thing could have ugly all over it.

[HonestChieffan]

You analysis is way off.

Yes, the taxpayer is out $4,500 to my family budget. But, I would not have bought that car without that money. The salesman made money, the guy who cleaned the car, the dealership and its auxillary employees and they all pay taxes on those earnings to help offset the loss of $4,500 from the federal treasury.

and then the dealer has to order a new car to replace in its inventory. Jobs are created to replace that vechile. In my case, the car is assembled in the good ole USA and 85% of the parts are USA made.

No added value?

You assume that your purchase did all that and that without the 4500 all those folks would be laid off and you assume that there will be no downcycle as a result of the program running and ending.

thats a bit much even for you.

[BigRedChief]

You assume that your purchase did all that and that without the 4500 all those folks would be laid off and you assume that there will be no downcycle as a result of the program running and ending.

thats a bit much even for you.
Yeah, thats what I meant....my single car purchase saved the dealership and hundreds of jobs...:rolleyes:

My point was the sale never happens without the money. The Explorer was running fine. We wern't in the market for a new car. Would we have bought a another new car eventually, of course. But not any time soon and the economy needs help now not in 2 years.

You are blind if you can't see the economy benefits of this program.

[BucEyedPea]

You are blind if you can't see the economy benefits of this program.


You are blind if you can't see the economy benefits of this program.

You're blind. It does not help a whole economy but pours money into certain areas like cones. Going to special interests.

[patteeu]

The paperwork for dealers may be slow and the beauracy paperwork may be a nightmare for dealers but as far as government provided "stimulus" money goes, how could you get more bang for your stimulus buck than this program?

Cut taxes on business.

[BigRedChief]

Cut taxes on business.
Yeah, that worked out real well under Bush.

[patteeu]

Yeah, that worked out real well under Bush.

Our economic problems started after democrats took over Congress and the prospects for making Bush tax cuts permanent or doing anything else that would be business friendly with the tax code took a nosedive.

[BigRedChief]

Our economic problems started after democrats took over Congress and the prospects for making Bush tax cuts permanent or doing anything else that would be business friendly with the tax code took a nosedive.
Bush had his way with economic policy for 6 full years. The problem was a BS housing and banking bubble that was artifically created by Bush policies, not real growth.

[BCD]

They all suck. Why argue?

[patteeu]

Bush had his way with economic policy for 6 full years. The problem was a BS housing and banking bubble that was artifically created by Bush policies, not real growth.

In that case, what does Bush tax policy have to do with the housing and banking bubble? You can't have it both ways.

Continue to ignore the fact that the economic bad times correlate with democrat control of Congress not President Bush if you want to, but business tax relief is still better stimulus bang for the buck than Cash for Clunkers.

[BigRedChief]

business tax relief is still better stimulus bang for the buck than Cash for Clunkers.
Not IMHO and defintely not my financial status.

[mlyonsd]

We'll have to wait months until we see how long it takes for sales to return to their normal levels before making a decision on just how successful this program might be.

[Brock]

'Clunkers' Program Hits a Speed Bump
August 06, 2009 6:01 PM

Republiicans are throwing their support behind an amendment offered by Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, that would limit clunker rebates to individuals with annual incomes of 50 K or less. With Republican support the amendment stands a good chance of passing unless the majority of Democrats, who mostly favor the amendment, vote against it.

Why is that a problem?

If any amendment passes it means the House has to take up the bill again and the House, of course, has already adjourned for its August recess.

The Democratic leadership is now scrambling to get rank- and -fille Democratic senators to vote against an amendment almost all of them favor. It would be a very tough vote.

"It does seem to be out of character for Democrats to support allowing millionaires access to borrowed money to buy cars," said Don Stewart, spokesnan for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

[banyon]

'Clunkers' Program Hits a Speed Bump
August 06, 2009 6:01 PM

Republiicans are throwing their support behind an amendment offered by Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, that would limit clunker rebates to individuals with annual incomes of 50 K or less. With Republican support the amendment stands a good chance of passing unless the majority of Democrats, who mostly favor the amendment, vote against it.

Why is that a problem?

If any amendment passes it means the House has to take up the bill again and the House, of course, has already adjourned for its August recess.

The Democratic leadership is now scrambling to get rank- and -fille Democratic senators to vote against an amendment almost all of them favor. It would be a very tough vote.

"It does seem to be out of character for Democrats to support allowing millionaires access to borrowed money to buy cars," said Don Stewart, spokesnan for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

That sounds like a pretty commonsensical amendment to me.

[Brock]

There shouldn't be income restrictions on this.

[BigRedChief]

'Clunkers' Program Hits a Speed Bump
August 06, 2009 6:01 PM

Republiicans are throwing their support behind an amendment offered by Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, that would limit clunker rebates to individuals with annual incomes of 50 K or less. With Republican support the amendment stands a good chance of passing unless the majority of Democrats, who mostly favor the amendment, vote against it.

Why is that a problem?

If any amendment passes it means the House has to take up the bill again and the House, of course, has already adjourned for its August recess.

The Democratic leadership is now scrambling to get rank- and -fille Democratic senators to vote against an amendment almost all of them favor. It would be a very tough vote.

"It does seem to be out of character for Democrats to support allowing millionaires access to borrowed money to buy cars," said Don Stewart, spokesnan for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b60/timmyab1/IBTL.jpg?t=1249602203

[patteeu]

There shouldn't be income restrictions on this.

I agree. If the purpose of the program is to help the auto industry or if the purpose is to make the US auto fleet more fuel efficient, that restriction makes no sense. It's not supposed to be a welfare program.

[VAChief]

I agree. If the purpose of the program is to help the auto industry or if the purpose is to make the US auto fleet more fuel efficient, that restriction makes no sense. It's not supposed to be a welfare program.

No argument there, in fact it makes the most sense to offer to those who are financially the most viable as well as those who it helps to upgrade their old "clunkers" in otherwise inadvisable downturn.

[BigRedChief]

Done Deal!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/senate.clunkers/index.html

[BucEyedPea]

No argument there, in fact it makes the most sense to offer to those who are financially the most viable as well as those who it helps to upgrade their old "clunkers" in otherwise inadvisable downturn.

Leaving no cheap clunkers for the poor to buy. They've been taken off the market.

[banyon]

Leaving no cheap clunkers for the poor to buy. They've been taken off the market.

I heard that argument before and I don't necessarily disagree.

The goal was to increase fuel efficiency, but maybe cars didn't have to be destroyed, and so long as the vehicle the poor person was trading in was yet sh**tier than the car the richer person traded in, perhaps there could've been a "double-clunker" (or triple) that still would've increased overall fuel efficiency (maybe for 1/2 or 1/3 the rebate).

[BigRedChief]

Cash for Clunkers yielded 700K new car sales
Popular monthlong program came under $3 billion budget
The Associated Press

updated 11:37 a.m. CT, Wed., Aug 26, 2009
<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633869014470700000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - Cash for Clunkers generated nearly 700,000 new car sales and ended under its $3 billion budget, the Transportation Department said Wednesday.

Releasing final data, the government said dealers submitted 690,114 vouchers totaling $2.88 billion. New car sales through the program ended late Monday and dealers were allowed to submit paperwork to the government until late Tuesday.

Japanese automakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan accounted for 41 percent of the new vehicle sales, outpacing Detroit automakers General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which had a share of nearly 39 percent. Toyota Motor Corp. led the industry with 19.4 percent of new sales, followed by General Motors Co. with 17.6 percent and Ford Motor Co. with 14.4 percent.
The Toyota Corolla was the most popular new vehicle purchased under the program, followed by the Honda Civic, Toyota Camry and Ford Focus.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said U.S. consumers and workers were "the clear winners" under the program. "Manufacturing plants have added shifts and recalled workers. Moribund showrooms were brought back to life and consumers bought fuel-efficient cars that will save them money and improve the environment," he said.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers said the program will boost economic growth in the third quarter by 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points because of the increased auto sales in July and August. An estimated 42,000 jobs will be created or saved during the second half of the year, the White House said.

The program, which began in late July, offered consumers rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 off the price of a new vehicle in return for trading in their older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. The trade-ins were then scrapped.
It proved far more popular than lawmakers originally thought. Congress was forced to add another $2 billion to the original $1 billion budget when the first pot of money nearly ran out in a week. The extra money was supposed to last through Labor Day, but in the end, Cash for Clunkers ran only about a month.
Dealers loved the new sales, but reported major hassles trying to get the government to repay them for the rebates they gave customers. The government extended the deadline for them to file deals, but many still haven't received their money.

Peter Kitzmiller, president of the Maryland Automobile Dealers Association, said most dealers appeared to get their paperwork in by the Tuesday night deadline. He expressed hope the pace of repayments would pick up now that government officials are working through the backlog.
The Transportation Department said Wednesday that 2,000 people are processing dealer applications, but Kitzmiller said the rate of repayment hasn't increased. "I'm a little concerned that we haven't seen any improvement," he said.

The government said 84 percent of the trade-ins were trucks and 59 percent of the new vehicles were passenger cars. New vehicles bought through Cash for Clunkers had an average fuel-efficiency of 24.9 miles per gallon, compared with an average of 15.8 mpg for trade-ins, a 58 percent improvement.

American companies accounted for all the top-10 traded-in vehicles. The Ford Explorer four-wheel-drive was the most popular, followed by the Ford F-150 Pickup two-wheel-drive, the Jeep Grand Cherokee four-wheel-drive and Ford Explorer two-wheel-drive.


Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32567404/ns/business-autos/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32567404/ns/business-autos/)

[KC Dan]

I wonder if the admin costs come in under $.12 Billion. If not, then it was over the $3 Billion authorized.

[KC native]

Cash for Clunkers yielded 700K new car sales
Popular monthlong program came under $3 billion budget
The Associated Press]

It worked but all it did was pull sales forward (one of the reasons the durable goods order shot up this month).

Toyota is already cutting it's production by 10% in anticipation of a sales slow down.

[Duck Dog]

Leaving no cheap clunkers for the poor to buy. They've been taken off the market.

I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for the program was to get the gas guzzling P'sOS off the road. Not to recycle them back onto the roads.

[Saul Good]

It worked but all it did was pull sales forward (one of the reasons the durable goods order shot up this month).

Toyota is already cutting it's production by 10% in anticipation of a sales slow down.

...and GM is hiring new employees due to the increased sales created by the stimulus. Now THAT is forward thinking. Why is GM bankrupt again?

[Saul Good]

Cash for Clunkers yielded 700K new car sales
Popular monthlong program came under $3 billion budget


What a BS headline. It didn't come in under budget. They tripled the budget and still had to end the program after 20% of its intended lifespan.

[mlyonsd]

It worked but all it did was pull sales forward (one of the reasons the durable goods order shot up this month).

Toyota is already cutting it's production by 10% in anticipation of a sales slow down.

You get it. Kudos.

[jjjayb]

I'm not saying we're not grateful for this. We certainly haven't turned any deals down. I'm just hoping we don't have a repeat of what we had after the employee pricing.

And not surprisingly.....

When Congress gave away $3 billion for buyers to trade in their “clunkers” and buy new cars in August, lawmakers thrilled as buyers swamped showrooms to take advantage of the big discounts. “Cash for clunkers has captured the public’s attention . . . (it) has the possibility to truly jumpstart our economy,” said Rep. Candice Miller (R., Mich.). Other, more sober analysts, warned that the clunkers program was only stealing from future sales.
September sales are in, and sobriety can take a bow.

Edmunds.com reports that “September’s light-vehicle sales rate will fall to 8.8 million units . . . the lowest rate in nearly 28 years, tying the worst demand on record. After the cash-for-clunkers program boosted August sales to their first year-over-year increase since October 2007, demand has plunged. In at least the last 33 years, the U.S. seasonally adjusted annual rate has only dropped as low as 8.8 million units once — in December 1981 — with records stretching back to January 1976.”


This is exactly what I was talking about happening Banyon, Brock, etc...

[patteeu]

And not surprisingly.....



This is exactly what I was talking about happening Banyon, Brock, etc...

Yep. It looks like the killjoys were right. Obama doesn't care though. He's moved on to do his damage elsewhere now.

[Brock]

This is exactly what I was talking about happening Banyon, Brock, etc...

I don't believe I addressed that because I didn't and don't care about it. I never felt it would jumpstart the economy.