LOL!
Actually, this creates a nice little entreprenurial niche for some smart guy or gal with a little cash to buy up future 'classic' cars that Old Hippie 0bama Voters will be lining up to sell:
Posted on 06/26/2009 7:27:09 AM PDT by DemforBush
With news that Congress has passed its ballyhooed $1 billion “Cash for Clunkers” bill, we feel compelled to voice our skepticism about the program. Here’s the bill in a nutshell: Buyers of new vehicles between July 1 and November 1 will be given a voucher for $3500 if they forfeit a post-1984 car or truck that has been registered for at least one year and has a combined fuel economy rating at least 4 mpg lower than their new vehicle. The voucher grows to $4500 if the increase in fuel economy is 10 mpg or higher. The old car or truck is then crushed and recycled.
Here are five reasons we don’t think this program is worth the time it took to draft it, let alone a billion dollars:
(Excerpt) Read more at autos.yahoo.com ...
LOL!
Actually, this creates a nice little entreprenurial niche for some smart guy or gal with a little cash to buy up future 'classic' cars that Old Hippie 0bama Voters will be lining up to sell:
bookmark
Well, this lady’s not going to trade hers in, that’s for sure... LOL...
Romancing the Road (89 year old still knows how to lube it up and is packing heat)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278086/posts
The 5 points of weakness in this bill are well articulated, with the possible exception of eliminating potential “classic” cars.
Number One is the real killer:
1. The voucher replaces the trade-in deal you might otherwise get from the dealership; it’s not in addition to the car’s private sale or trade-in value. In other words, if you’re trading in a car that’s worth $3000, your net gain is only $500. Although if your car is worth $100, CFC couldn’t come at a better time.
Why do you and I have to pay for some other dude’s new car??
....So in other words, if my ‘clunker’ is worth more than $4500, I’m effectively losing money. This is a perfect example of what happens when the inmates run the asylum (Washington, DC).
It looks like the price of new cars is set to plummet. People will want $4,500 off invoice not sticker and then they will want trade value concession on price since they don’t get trade in. The writer is making the assumption that no one is smart enough to bargain or to demand that the price of the car be reduced in place of the trade in value. This is looking like 0% interest on steroids. I see the unintended potential of this legislation may drive the cost of cars back to fair market value or result in the total collapse of the US auto industry. It will cause major hurt to the UAW as it will anger consumers when they don’t get their promised cars.
We still drive our 1997 Ford E-150 half-conversion van because:
1. It's in great shape;
2. It hauls kids, soccer and baseball teams just fine;
3. The Titan 5.4L engine does an excellent job;
4. It's been paid off for quite some time;
5. Most importantly, it's worth far more to us being on the road than as a trade in as we certainly can't afford a >$25,000 new minivan.
Another total waste of government time and money - hope they printed this on soft paper so maybe they can give it to us to wipe our butts with it...geez...
Interestingly (or not), my first trade in was worth exactly that - $100. It was a beater to end all beaters - an old Ford with 300K miles and about three pages’ worth of things wrong with it.
To be honest, I’m amazed they took it at all. I know I was amazed when I was able to get it to the dealership without breaking down or spontaneously bursting into flames. :-)
I’m in the camp that considers global warming (oops, sorry, “climate change”) to be a complete and total farce.
That said, if one subscribes to this crackpot theory, then it would behove one to take a look at ALL the sources of pollution generated by a motor vehicle.
It takes a huge amount of energy to produce a vehicle. It takes a huge amount of energy to recycle scrap metal. Much pollution is spewed in the process, directly and indirectly. It likely dwarfs the emissions caused in just operating the vehicle over, say, a five year period.
Cars that already exist used a lot of energy in their creation, but that cost is sunk - there’s nothing you can do about it. Ditto with the emissions those cars made - its done.
If these people REALLY cared about the environment, they would be doing everything they can to extend the lifetimes of existing vehicles, and improve their emissions as much as possible.
This could include retrofitting modern vehicle control systems on older vehicles, or transplanting newer powertrains. Oh, wait. The reason this isn’t done more often is that the government makes it illegal to “tamper with a vehicle pollution control system”, even if you are making it more efficient or effective than what the OEM provided.
As usual, control is more important than results.
EXACTLY.
Where does Congress get the power to force you and me to pay for someone else’s new car? Certainly not from the Constitution.
At least it removes the incentives to crush the good cars from the 60s and earlier.
Or better yet, take a look at ALL the pollution generated by our "public" transportation.
Buses running around town designed to carry 60 people transporting 2 - well, three if you count the driver.
An energy signature is more than just fuel that goes into the tank - it's the drivers salary - the people who administer that salary - the people they buy from, the grant writers, bus maintenance workers etc. In short it AIN'T just the "fuel" that goes in the tank. I'm not a nutcase greenie. But public transportation is a big waste of money, resources, and tax dollars.
Brain-dead liberals push public transportation that's nothing more than a way for them to feel good about themselves. If you have doubts, walk out and count the number of people riding a bus today. Then do the math - how much is spent to take one old lady 12 blocks. We could hire a personal driver for her cheaper - and have her picked up in front of her house. For the younger people it'd be cheaper to buy them all cars - maybe the "clunkers" Obama wants thrown away... Or best yet - add more capitalism to the system and it'll solve itself...
Yes, exactly. That was my first reaction. This bill is very wasteful, if it persuades people to trade in their cars earlier than they would have done. All that energy wasted to make an unnecessary new car; all that energy to scrap and recycle the old one.
“Waste not, want not” was a popular saying in the last Depression.
This bill goes directly against that good advice, from a generation of rich, yuppified congresscritters who probably trade in their personal cars every year on the government’s dime and change their fashions by buying new clothes twice a year, while taxing the hell out of everyone else.
The same reason we have to pay for his housing, food, healthcare, heating bills, cell phone, kids’ education, kids’ food at home, kids’ housing, kids’ healthcare, kids’ breakfast and lunch at school, etc.
To me, that is the ONLY reason this is a terrible deal. I don’t care in the least about the other reasons. for me, $500 is an ok savings. But i don’t want to pay for other people new car discounts!
The author states that those people with clunkers can’t afford new cars, and he’s right.
There’s another group, too. Those people—like myself, and my inlaws, and lots of other “millionaire next door” types I know (although I’m not a millionaire per se)—who CAN afford new cars but who are very frugal, don’t care about “newness,” or status, and are just fine with our clunkers, as long as they are driveable and reliable.
I’ve never bought a new car in my life and never will. Let someone else take the depreciation. I like to buy used cars (and used houses). . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.