Cash for Clunkers

[JerryW Gilliland]

Got a '79 Chrysler Cordoba (RIP Ricardo Montalban) with cracked corinthian leather gobbling cash at the pump and spewing hydrocarbons from its ill-tempered carburetor? Congress is considering a proposal that would reward Americans up to $4,500 if they yield their inefficient cars to scrapping companies and buy a high-mpg modern car instead.



Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California believes such a move might stimulate new car purchases from the Big Three, helping to get the bleeding U.S. auto industry on the mend and towards profitability. Bill co-sponsor Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from California, also feels that the proposed legislation would stimulate our ailing economy. Nice to see two-party rancor morph into cooperative respect when times are tough for the populace.



The bill ultimately hopes to cease operation of up to one million egregious consumers (vehicles, not people) per year, which would in turn save from 40,000 to 80,000 barrels of fuel per day by the fourth year of implementation. Stipulations: for the cash reimbursement, replacement purchases must exceed federal targets for its class by 25 percent, must have an MSRP of less than $45,000, and be a model year 2004 or later.



No, you can't turn in your dead project car for cash; trade-in vehicles must be drivable, registered in the U.S., and have EPA fuel economy ratings of less than 18 mpg at time of original retail.



Cost of this program is estimated at between $1 billion and $2 billion per year.



[source: Detroit News]

 

[Jacob Dryer]

I like it, but require them to buy American.

 

[Jenn D]

have EPA fuel economy ratings of less than 18 mpg at time of original retail

would my ST count? City EPA should, but not Highway EPA.



I've never seen a day over 18mpg (even though EPA highway says I should....)

 

[Patrick Bajtka]

First Feinstein wants my guns, now she wants my cars? Anything she has a hand in stinks in my opinion.

 

[EddieS'04]

For the most part. Most people that still have those older cars on the road (except for collectors). They are so poor they can barley afford to keep them running, with used parts and bailing wire. What makes our law makers think they can afford a monthy payment on something newer?? They would have to hope they could find an efficient used car for the $4500. From what I see around my town. Less than $5000 buys you another wreck.

 

[user 62394]

I read this yesterday, and is one of the more ridiculous things that I have ever heard. Good old government.



On a side note, I just learned the other day what Corinthian Leather was -- Chrysler completely made it up. They didn't want to just say that the leather was soft, so they made up this term. Maybe everybody knew that already, but it was news to me.



Rocks

 

[TrainTrac]

Most people that still have those older cars on the road (except for collectors). They are so poor they can barley afford to keep them running, with used parts and bailing wire. What makes our law makers think they can afford a monthy payment on something newer??

Exactly what I was thinking, Eddie. And it's likely that they don't have anything more than liability (if any insurance at all) on these cars. So gov't thinks these folks would now be able to afford a car payment and the required insurance?:huh: And I fail to see how this would "stimulate the economy". If it's so hard to get credit/loans, how are folks going to finance these cars? And what happens if some of them then default on the loans?



This is nothing more than another forced income redistribution, "spread the wealth", vote-buying scheme.:angry:

 

[David Ponder]

I have a fully restored 1961 Ford Galaxie Sunliner. The FGCOA (Ford Galaxie Club of America) puts out a bimonthly newsletter and it has notices of local laws trying to be enacted to do away with thes older cars, and the parts cars some of us have. You would not beleive the stupid and comical laws that the local governments and states are pushing all over the country, and some actually get approved.



Someone who has a 1961 Ford in a scrapyard can apply for this $$ as long as they have a title? There goes some parts I might need that havent been made by anyone in 30 years, and thus those used parts are my only option.



My 1961 probably wont pass any new emissions tests so by one proposal I should not be allowed to use the car except in parades and special events, where I have to have a (Paid) permit to drive my own car. (Either that or they will tax me more and more as it gets older for the age of the car and the "excessive" emissions..)



I take very good care of my car, and it runs as good now, (if not better) than it did when it was new. I really hate the push to do away with anything that is not up to new standards, in essence "scrapping" our automotive history. My car may be inefficient, but its mine and I intend to keep it no matter what the government offers.



Sorry, no offence to what was posted here. Rant over... :angry:

 

[Jacob Dryer]

Did you guys notice it's NOT required. It's an incentive. We recently purchased a used minivan, with an extra $4500 we would have at least considered new, but since we didn't have that money we didn't even look. They are not going to TAKE your clunker away from you, but if you are looking to buy anyways why not give some incentive to buy more fuel efficient and domestic (assuming that add that part in)???

 

[EddieS'04]

Dave, '61 starliners were cool cars. I like the old galaxies. I had a '63 galaxie xl 500. 406ci tri-power 4 speed. I wish I still had it. It would be a collector.



What powertrain does yours have??

 

[TrainTrac]

We recently purchased a used minivan, with an extra $4500 we would have at least considered new, but since we didn't have that money we didn't even look. They are not going to TAKE your clunker away from you, but if you are looking to buy anyways why not "give some incentive" to buy more fuel efficient and domestic (assuming that add that part in)???

You said that that gov't is going to "TAKE your clunker away from you", but where do you think this "extra $4500" incentive" is coming from? You do realize that this "incentive" is actually mine and other taxpayers' money, which gov't would be TAKING from us by force and "giving" to others as an "incentive", don't you? That's what bothers me about this whole thing.:angry:



Did you purchase your minivan as an additional vehicle, or trade another in for it? If it was a replacement, I doubt that you'd have been able to buy a new minivan instead of a used one anyway, because of the stipulation regarding fuel efficiency:

replacement purchases must exceed federal targets for its class by 25 percent

Minivans aren't the most fuel efficient vehicles on the road either, so unless you had a real old gas guzzler, finding a new minivan with 25% greater fuel efficiency than an trade-in might be a challenge.

 

[Jacob Dryer]

The bailout was ok but incentives aren't? I'm really not ok with either, but now that it's a total loss someone who is actually a taxpayer might as well get something for it.



replacement purchases must exceed federal targets for its class by 25 percent is worded funny, and I'm not totally clear what they mean, I could interpret is several ways. I'm just speaking broadly on the bill, not the specifics. So we may or may not have qualified, but our minivan gets way better mileage than the ST. It was not a trade-in but would could have bought a clunker for $500 and drove it in and gotten $4500 for it right?

 

[TrainTrac]

The bailout was ok but incentives aren't?

I never said that I was OK with any of the bailouts. I didn't like any of them. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant gov't the power to use taxpayer money to bail out entire industries, businesses, or individuals that are failing as a result of their own poor choices.

 

[Jacob Dryer]

I guess I should have phased it better. Incentives are better than bailouts right? This incentive could have used in place of the bailout if they would have figured it out quicker and structured it better. It would have sparked the economy and the auto industry.

 

[TrainTrac]

Incentives are better than bailouts right?

Nope. It's still gov't deciding that someone else needs the money that I earn more than I do and taking it from me by force and giving it to someone else. In other words: forced income redistribution, spread the wealth, or, as Karl Marx said: "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs".



And besides, the "tax rebate/incentive" program last May that the gov't assured us would "spark the economy" didn't do jack squat, so I'm not convinced this proposal would help either.

 

[Jacob Dryer]

Your missing my point. It is/was going to happen. Which would you rather have?



Your point is VERY valid, but we keep voting the same clowns into office, so it's never going to change, a two party system is not going to cut it anymore. But that is a whole other topic.

 

[TrainTrac]

Your missing my point. It is/was going to happen. Which would you rather have?

I'd rather have neither. Not all of us keep voting for the same clowns. I pay attention to how my Congressman and Senators vote, and if I see that they're not representing me and performing their duties in accordance with what We the People outlined in the Constitution, then they don't get my vote come the next election day. If more people looked at this in the same manner, instead of "What can my reps do for me?" things might be a lot different.



Sadly, the majority of the American populace is far more concerned about the latest American Idol results than what their elected representatives are doing.

 

[David Ponder]

Eddie, I have a 352 2 barrel, cruise-o-matic. I thought I added a pic to my profile, I createdthe folder at least. I'll add it now.

 

[EddieS'04]

Dave, that is really nice. Great color. At one time a freind had a red starliner with the swept hard top.

I wish I had some pics of my Galaxie. They got lost somehow, years ago.