Jump to content
REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UPLAND JOURNAL Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Dongotto

Cash for Clunkers

Recommended Posts

Guest
The fact that the SUV program was wrong in every way doesn't make Cash For Clunkers right.

No, but I don't recall the uproar from Glenn Beck, et al about that program. I'm not saying anything one way or another about either program, just pointing out that the same folks who are screaming 'socialism!' about an 'Obama' program were eerily silent about a simliar 'Bush' program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Hong
Sounds like an unnecessary program. glad we don't have it.

Sales numbers up here in the great white north have been startling to me.

Canada did not have an honest to goodness recession, despite what the spinmeisters and the media tried to tell us. ( There is something to be said for government "interference" in some sectors, socialist that it is).I have ridden on this merry-go-round a few times and this is NOTHING compared to 1980-82. The Toronto Stock Exchange Index has revovered all 3000+/- points that it lost in the last 7 months and the other main indicator, house sales, is going through the roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frak

He questions destroying the motors and is fearful of slow times ahead after the flurry of clunkers is over.

Rex, your junk-yard guy is smarter than a room full of senators.  One of those economic rules, somewhere up there with supply and demand, is that you don't get rich by destroying valuable assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Hartman
The fact that the SUV program was wrong in every way doesn't make Cash For Clunkers right.

No, but I don't recall the uproar from Glenn Beck, et al about that program. I'm not saying anything one way or another about either program, just pointing out that the same folks who are screaming 'socialism!' about an 'Obama' program were eerily silent about a simliar 'Bush' program.

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SydneyWI

Cash for Clunkers is a Democrat plan and Glenn Beck says it's stupid so it must be ok.

the SUV program was Bush's so it HAS to be stupid.

Or is it the other way around? I can't remember, which party has the monopoly on stupid again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindyHills

I can't remember, which party has the monopoly on stupid again?

seems to me that they are both winners in that regard.

Heard an interesting conversation with a senator today.  

Seems the initial intent was to require more of a MPG increase on the new car end--but get this--congress buckled to pressure from the big three domestic car companies who claimed all the new cars would then be Toyota/Honda/Mazda/Subaru's etc...and they would lose out.  

And the latest figures showed there to be just a slight edge to companies other than ford/GM/Chrysler in new cars purchased under the program.

Of course usually someone comes in to say that many of the Toyota's, Honda's, Nissans, Subaru's etc. are made right here in the good old US of A.....might as well be me this time.  Sure wish I didn't have to spend the $500 on my made in Canada Chevy today when the elecronic 4WD module pooped out at 70,000 miles!  

I'm not really a fan of any of these types of programs including this one, but the initial intent seemed to have a bit more merit than most.  Help an especially struggling sector in the economy which is known to have many indirect benefits when going well, save some oil, etc.  

Off to drink my kool-aid....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too Dogs

I suppose the "cash for Clunkers" program helped more middle glass families than the "Jets for Congress" will.

$200 Mil spent on (3) jets; (1) to for the Pentagon (?????????) and (2) to Congress (???????).

What am I missing here? Other than a jet ride and the kiss!-Too Dogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R. D. Gattis

Some are making money on "Cash for Clunkers".  

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Citigroup(TK Quote) has reaped considerable scorn for the significant investments the government has made to keep the company afloat. But being on the dole has its privileges -- as possibly evidenced by the report today that the Obama administration has awarded Citigroup a $7.7 million contract to help administer the "cash for clunkers" program.

Word of the contract comes as the Senate  approved late Thursday a $2 billion extension of the program.

It also comes on the heels of complaints that the government has not sufficiently managed the books on the program, resulting in the confusions over the past week regarding how much, if any, money remained in the coffers of the surprisingly popular car-voucher initiative.

Earlier this week, the Transportation Department  announced that Citigroup had been hired to process applications for vouchers for the program. Thursday, Transportation Department spokeswoman Sasha Johnson told Dow Jones that the estimated cost of that contract was $7.7 million.

Officials said the program's initial $1 billion probably already has been spent, but a paperwork backlog prevented an accurate accounting. The government was able to confirm Wednesday that more than $775 million of the original funds had been spent, accounting for the sale of nearly 185,000 new vehicles.

The additional $2 billion should be enough to help consumers purchase a half-million more new cars, they added, estimating that the extra funding would last into Labor Day.

Shares of Citigroup , which have climbed by more than 30% in the past week, rose 6.3% in after-market trading to $4.04.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12ette

There are a few others making money on this Cash for Clunkers bill.

1. Salesmen are selling more (more income)

2. Dealerships have more used cars (more parts, repair business, more sales, more income)

3. Mechanics have more work (more income)

4. Banks are making more loans (more income)

5. Car companies are selling backlog (repaying my money)

So if more income is in the hands of consumers more is being spent, more is needed from manufacturers ... just a thought.  Maybe just maybe some of the economists and people behind this bill have a better grasp than Beck, Rush, O'Riely et al.

Maybe just maybe the nay-saying is political BS and not data, not actual information.  

$1 billion, with a provision to add 2 billion if successful (as CBO says it has been) seems reasonable.  Of course with talking head BS is causing the Reps now to "tinker' with it.  They want to make it income specific.... Now that is a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SydneyWI

2. Dealerships have more used cars (more parts, repair business, more sales, more income)

3. Mechanics have more work (more income)

I think the vehicles are required to be scrapped. The intent is to get the gas guzzlers off the road as well as stimulate new car sales.

I'm struggling to remember any government incentive program that actually had a long term positive effect on the problem it was trying to solve. I'm sure there have been some, but they seem to usually stall the inevitable and cost billions more than their original price tag.

If it helps,fine. Just a little tired of BOTH sides using the "well they did ____, and you didn't care so..." excuse to push stupid feel good ideology.

History has a pretty good track record of what works and what doesn't. (with the benefit of hindsight of the unwanted effects) Time for Government and the population to grow up, study the data, and choose wisely. There is a lot at stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brymoore
 Maybe just maybe some of the economists and people behind this bill have a better grasp than Beck, Rush, O'Riely et al.

What economists?  This is a political bill to reduce gas consumption, not stimulate the ecomony (we already spent money on that adventure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dakota Dogman

I'm not buying the idea that anyone is getting helped by baiting the people into taking on more personal debt.  $5000 off the sticker price is nice, but I can't afford the payments, nor do I believe it is wise.

I'm in the crowd that would be proud to own most of the junkers as they are nicer than what I'm driving.  

I notice one other thing fly under the radar earlier in this forum... I don't live in a democracy, or at least I'm not suppose to.  "God save us from a Democracy!"  "I pledge allegance to the flag of the US of America and to the..."

God Bless,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12ette
 Maybe just maybe some of the economists and people behind this bill have a better grasp than Beck, Rush, O'Riely et al.

What economists?  This is a political bill to reduce gas consumption, not stimulate the ecomony (we already spent money on that adventure).

The CBO seems to think its working.  

The 184,000 cars sold in the short time it was offered would say it worked to cut emissions, maybe not as much as you would like but you have to start somewhere.  I would say that the manufacturers of those cars think it worked, the dealers too, heck I would bet all the states who collected sales tax think it worked.  The additional 2 billion will sell aprox. 475,000 more cars.  

13.2 million sold last year, 3.3 a quarter, its a 5% sales increase in the quarter.  Not too bad IMO.  I would like 5% increase in sales for the quarter.

And I stand corrected the trade is to be scrapped.  So the recycling business makes money, not the used car market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dongotto
I went to pick up my truck yesterday and asked the dealer a few questions about this. He said they are required to drain the oil, then fill the crank case with a product called liquid glass, which is used to fix leaky blocks and radiators, then run them until they lock up. Then they can send them to the junk yard and six months later the junk yard must crush or shred them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×