Posted on 08/04/2009 12:48:29 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The principal behind the Cash for Clunkers program that has proven catastrophically popular is that it allows people with gas-guzzling and polluting old cars to trade them in for more fuel efficient vehicles. But what does that really mean?
Legislators could easily have required that new cars get better than, say 22 mpg combined. Why didn't they? Because American cars are clunkers. Requiring clunkers to be traded for truly efficient vehicles, then, would have provided stimulus for foreign companies.
So, in answer to my question, the Cash for Clunkers program is only the teensy tiniest bit green. Opportunities were missed to make it greener. However, it seems to be working fairly well as an economic stimulus program without actively screwing the environmental pooch.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It takes energy and resources to build cars and car parts.
Cash for Clunkers DESTROYS perfectly good cars and car parts!
This is the opposite of recycling.
This is the opposite of “green”!
Why 22 mpg? Why not 100?
Cash for clunkers is nothing more than a way to move the same lending problems we saw with real estate, over to vehicles.
Why do people have clunkers? Any guesses? We have people with clunkers because they can’t afford the payments to buy a newer model. There you have it. Think about that.
Why just bring in your old clunker. You’ll get $4,500 dollars for a down payment, and most dealers will chip in another couple of grand, perhaps more. Then what?
Then you have a person driving out the door with a new car, who probably can’t afford to make the payments. In a few years, then what? In a few years our governments, read that you and I, will be forking over trillions to stabilize lending institutions that got caught with millions of defaulting car loans.
What a great plan. We’ve sure learned a lot from the melt-down we’re going through right now.
Their plan backfired big time. I truely believe that it was meant for the hoopdies from the late 80’s be turned in for a new more efficient car. Instead folks that could afford to part with cash did so in record time - and got some great deals in the process. I’d also be willing to bet that the reason for the numbers hold up is that it didn’t have as good effect on GM sales. I am sure that folks went to Ford and for the imports.
This is why I can’t take advantage of Cash for Clunkers despite having a desperate need for more reliable and more frugal transportation, and the perfect vehicle that Obie envisioned when he came up with the idea—a battered, slightly rusted, dirty, beat-to-Hell, 1996 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup with 165,000 miles on it and several outstanding mechanical issues. $4,500 for that thing would be manna from heaven, that’s at least double what it’s worth.
BUT...(a) I can’t afford a car payment right now; (b) I’m restricted from taking on any new consumer debt due to the debt management program I’m on; (c) even if (a) and (b) weren’t so much of an issue, I could still only afford or qualify for a tiny crackerbox that would probably fall apart in three years, instead of a real car that would fit me and my wife and our daughter and be useful for her business. Well, that and (d), if I caught somebody pouring silicate down the oil tank of my Ram, I’d probably kick his ass out of sheer reflex.
If I could get the gummint to give me $4,500 for that truck and then let me go spend the money the way I WANTED TO—which would be getting my wife’s more efficient 2000 Ford Focus back on the road from a mechanical issue that’s sidelined it, and *pay off* some other debt in the meantime instead of loading up 10 or 15 grand more—then I might actually succumb to it. But as it is right now, nuh-uh. You can take my clunker when you pry it from my cold dead hands, or when it finally keels over for good and I’ve got no choice but to replace it. Until then, I’ll just keep rolling around getting 12 mpg. Thanks, Obie!
}:-)4
You’re not alone there Moose4. Hey, I’ve been in dire straights a few times myself. The first ten years of my first marriage were financially straining on us. We elected for my wife to stay at home with the kids until they started school. It made things quite tight. It was worth it.
Hang in there.
You’ll get a lot of satisfaction at pulling yourself out of this. Good luck to you.
One thing to consider may be how many pmpg or person-miles per gallon does a vehicle get. If you can carry only two children in car seats in your Honda Civic, and you just found out you are carrying twins when you already have a 2 year old -- you need a new car. The Civic could easily carry three children in car seats, but the government won't allow a car seat in the front. Three babies could fit in the back, if the car and seats were designed better.
There are a lot of simple, easy things that the government could do to increase p-mpgs, but, no one is focusing on this.
Fox is reporting that the main beneficiaries of this program are the only two automakers whose entire product line has mileage high enough to qualify...HYUNDAI and KIA!
So in essence this is a bailout program....for South Korea!
(and I have a Hyundai which is a great car, but would never ask taxpayers to subsidize it)
Here is a link showing the destruction of a nice Volvo under the program:
Volvo Cash for Clunkers Engine Disabling
The Government is forcing the needless destruction of many vehicles that are better than those driven by many tax payers who are forced to pay the bill for this idiocy.
“Because American cars are clunkers. Requiring clunkers to be traded for truly efficient vehicles, then, would have provided stimulus for foreign companies.”
I’m not a particulary big fan of American cars, having driven more than a few lemons over the years, but this is not true. GM and Ford both make a range of vehicles which are reasonably fuel efficient for their class. Malibu, Cobalt, Aveo, Fusion, Focus, etc. Just as good (in terms of fuel economy, at least, and in some cases in general) as their non-hybrid competition from Japan. Some Chrysler products probably fit this description, too - Sebring, Caliber, ...? And if we start talking minivans, light trucks, or SUVs, I don’t think the Japanese have any big fuel economy advantage there, either.
The worst polluters are the cars not maintained that are owned by those too poor to maintain them, much less any sort of payments for a new car. These folks are the ones who might have been able to purchase one of the used cars being destroyed by this program but instead are now forced to keep their own "clunkers". This program actually CONTRIBUTES to pollution rather than reduces it.
It would be interesting to find out how many of these vehicles have recently passed an emissions test. It is a requirement for many big metropolitan areas..
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.