Quote :

"The legislation is brilliant - a stimulus that's both cheap (in relative terms) and effective. People spending money, more efficient cars on the road (more than 2/3rds of new applications are for 10+MPG increases), everyone wins."

Everyone wins...except the poor people who are actually responsible with their money. This program effectively reduces the supply of cheap cars. The idiot poor people will see a "great" deal, and buy a new car that they can't afford with or without the program.

Poor people who are responsible will know that, even with the discount, they are better off financially to keep their clunker. But what do they do when that one breaks? Well, before, they would buy another $1-3k car. Now, finding one will be significantly more difficult.

8/2/2009 2:40:21 PM

This is an automobile version of the the problem we had with housing. The gov't encouraged people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Now they're encouraging people to buy cars they can't afford.

awesome.

8/2/2009 6:45:10 PM

^ this is nothing like that actually, but we appreciate your effort.

8/2/2009 6:46:44 PM

Quote :

"Well it is DC after all. But I don't think it matters much if you believe me or not."

im just saying, i worked on the hill for two years, it extremely rare for one person to be responsible for the authoring of ANY legislation, let alone a very junior staffer. something tells me she didnt already graduate law school, so she probably isnt a leg counsel who does bill drafting, so i know you arent using the "she wrote it" in that sense...im not shitting on your sister per se, but she's not the only one up here inflating accomplishments...it's what you do in this town.

8/2/2009 7:00:52 PM

I just love that in the name of environmentalism we are pooring acid on perfectly good engine parts so now when someone needs a part rather than recycling from a junkyard they'll get a newly manufactured part.

I am a bit annoyed that the republicans are not spinning this in a different way. They should point out that this is exactly what DC should do. However, we need to spread the wealth around to industries which Obama's cronies do not mostly benefit.

Whoever said this was just another auto bailout was spot on.

To be fair we should bailout the American taxpayers across the board, not just the chosen few who are purchasing a stupid new car. Cancel the failed stimulus plan and give that money back as a tax reduction. Money in our pockets today and the economy gets going right away.

Oh wait, I forgot it's not an election year so the democrats aren't pretending to be psuedo-conservatives.

8/2/2009 10:16:37 PM

I think this is a stupid program, but not nearly as dumb as some other stuff the Feds do.

Regardless, I'd like to take advantage of it (since I'll be paying for it), but there isn't really anything I'm interested that I could afford (or even consider paying for )other than a new Corvette, and that's still a whole helluva lot of money that I don't think I can justify.

If the new Lancer Evolution wasn't so pussified, I'd strongly consider getting one. Too bad they don't still make the IX.

8/2/2009 10:58:20 PM

^^That's what I'm more annoyed/concerned about. There's going to be a generation of good vehicles thrown into scrap simply because they didn't meet a mileage quota. That will take some of the affordable entry level cars for high school/college drivers off the road, which is a double edged sword in itself. Now I thought I read it somewhere in here but can't find it, but were the cars being made into square building blocks or were they being sold to junkyards? To me it seems to reduce the amount of cheap whole parts (pulled good transmissions/rear ends/complete doors/etc.) available in the future for some of the more popular models instead of paying stealership prices for new units.

8/3/2009 12:03:17 AM

Quote :

"i would've pulled the seats out, changed out the rims for some steelies, pulled head lights, brake lights, radio, speakers, every piece of trim, hell take the doors off, what does the dealer care?"

That's about what I did. Stripped the stereo, badges, and some miscellaneous parts at the house. Bought some Honda steelies on the way there for $10. Swapped the wheels across the street from the dealer in an empty parking lot. The front wheels didn't clear the rotors properly, so they were grinding and the steering wheel was shaking badly. One of the rear wheels was rusted and wouldn't clear the hub. I only got three lug nuts part of the way in and it had a bad side to side wobble. I only had to drive about 120 yards, but it was pretty sketchy worrying about the rear wheel falling off. Pulled into the lot and parked it in the first space that I saw. Watching them try to drive it as I was getting into the new car was quite comical.

8/3/2009 12:10:40 AM

i'm looking to replace my (almost 11 year old car) soon, so it sucks that you're not really rewarded if you already drove a decently efficient car. i'm going from a 28 hwy car to a 31 hwy and i get nothing (well nothing from cash for clunkers).

8/3/2009 2:40:47 PM

do you really wanna buy a brand new car and suffer that humongous depreciation anyway?

i just don't understand buying new unless you're filthy rich. there are so many excellent used cars out there.

8/3/2009 2:42:43 PM

My car should be worth what I paid for another 2-3 years. Heck, if I put it up for sale right now I'd be looking for $4k more than I paid. Not bad for trading in a stripped down 20 year old car with 200k miles that I paid $1,000 for three years ago.

Rules for purchasing any vehicle still apply. You should still negotiate a good deal on whatever you buy. You should still buy a car that depreciates slowly.

$4500 off is obviously a bigger deal if you're buying a $14k Fit than if you're buying a $30k Accord. Still, if you're going to buy it anyway now might be a great time to do it.

I guess the real question is, if you were looking for a "like new" car, why would you pay full price for a used one if you can get a new one for about the same cost?

[Edited on August 3, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : l]

8/3/2009 2:49:19 PM

^i agree, but i think your situation w/ finding a deal on that civic isn't the norm

8/3/2009 3:23:39 PM

Quote :

"Commentary: Cash for clunkers is a clunker Story Highlights Jeffrey Miron: "Cash for clunkers" is flawed as environmental, economic policy He says people may drive more in more fuel-efficient cars He says policy helps the auto industry, but at the expense of other industries Miron: Congress should end the program, not expand it By Jeffrey A. Miron Special to CNN Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a think tank that promotes libertarian views. CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Toward the end of last week, news spread rapidly that the "cash for clunkers" program was about to run out of money. Under this policy, consumers who own a car with low fuel efficiency can receive $3,500 to $4,500 from the federal government if they buy a new car with higher fuel efficiency. The goals of the program are to help the environment and to stimulate the auto industry. The program has been popular with consumers and car dealers. Congress initially allocated $1 billion to the program, and this funding was expected to last through November 2009. Yet the program apparently committed the entire $1 billion after only four days in operation, and many interested consumers have not yet been able to consummate a deal. Because the program is such a hit, President Obama and members of Congress have vowed to add funding. The House voted an additional $2 billion last week; the Senate may vote Tuesday. Despite the program's popularity, cash for clunkers is bad medicine for the U.S. economy. The first problem is that under the terms of the program, any used car that is traded in must be scrapped, and key parts like the engine and drive train destroyed. Thus the program pays people to junk cars that still have economic value. A good friend, for example, is planning to trade in a car that is in good working order. Before the program, he had planned to use the car for another couple of years. How can it make any sense for policy to encourage the destruction of working cars? Proponents of the program offer two rationales: that the higher fuel efficiency of new cars will reduce the use of fossil fuel, and that the increased demand for new cars will rescue the failing auto industry. Neither of these defenses passes muster. Cash for clunkers will have a minor impact, at best, on the use of fossil fuel. Many people who trade in clunkers would have upgraded to more fuel-efficient vehicles within a year or two anyway. Thus the program might hasten the adoption of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, but this is a modest, one-off effect. Worse, cash for clunkers might cause more driving, since new cars are more fun to drive, and more fuel-efficient cars are less costly to operate. Plus, it takes energy to scrap old vehicles and produce new ones, so the net effect of the program might even increase the use of fossil fuel. Attempts to reduce the use of fossil fuel should focus on two different policies: higher gasoline taxes and increased rush-hour tolls on highways. If gasoline costs more, everyone faces an incentive to drive less. If highways cost more at rush hour, some people would commute earlier or later, which means less congestion and reduced gasoline use by all commuters. These two approaches are easy to implement given existing policies, in contrast to cash for clunkers, which requires complicated new rules and enforcement procedures. The environmental defense of the program is therefore not persuasive. The question is then whether cash for clunkers makes sense because it helps resuscitate the auto industry. The answer is a resounding no. Government policy should not favor some industries at the expense of others, but that is exactly what cash for clunkers does. The program helps consumers who can take advantage, and it increases profit and employment in the auto industry. But funding for the program comes from all other taxpayers, so it harms the consumers and industries not supported by the program. Thus cash for clunkers creates winners and losers based on political considerations, not economic values. Whether or not government spending is a good way to stimulate the economy, the specific kind embodied in this program is misguided because it distorts the economy's allocation of resources across consumers and industries. Any spending stimulus, of course, tends to favor some sectors over others, which is one reason stimulus is better accomplished via reductions in tax rates, not increased spending. Tax cuts improve the incentives to work, save and invest, thereby making the economy more productive going forward. Reductions in tax rates are neutral across sectors and therefore let private valuations of costs and benefits -- not political connections -- determine winners and losers. Cash for clunkers is therefore just redistribution to certain consumers and to the auto industry; it is more bailout dressed up as environmental policy. Congress should end the program, not expand it."

8/4/2009 2:24:35 PM

Quote :

"do you really wanna buy a brand new car and suffer that humongous depreciation anyway?"

i was looking to get a new car long before this whole cash for clunkers thing came along. we've got a kid on the way and my wife and i both drive 2 door cars. mine is getting to the age that i am a little worried about the reliability.

8/5/2009 7:37:00 PM

so why go new when you can get a used one in really good shape for significantly less money?

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM. Reason : buying new rarely makes sense ever to me. sometimes it does, but rarely.]

8/5/2009 7:37:57 PM

Because depending on the car, the $4,500 from the government will offset a decent portion of the depreciation and fully ensure that you're covered by the manufacturer's warranty.

8/5/2009 8:13:10 PM

on certain cars

gf just bought a 06 acura. it's certified w/ warranty. equivalent new car would've costed her $10k more.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 8:16 PM. Reason : moral of the story is do your research]

8/5/2009 8:15:01 PM

Quote :

"Rare Maserati to be crushed as part of Cash for Clunkers program In Colorado a man traded in a rare 1985 Maserati, with only 18,000 miles on it, as part of the "Cash for Clunkers" program. But like all "Cash for Clunker" trade-ins, the car will soon be crushed. The man said the engine frequently has problems and he's been trying to sell it for months. By trading it in, he got $3,500 for it, roughly the same as he was trying to sell it for. "Probably half our deals right now are Cash for Clunkers," Billy Mills, general sales manager for Go Subaru, said. Most of the clunkers Go Subaru has taken in through the program are predictable. Many are large SUVs and pickup trucks. Some are in pretty bad shape. "Ninety-nine percent of them are clunkers," Wes Guthrie, a salesperson at Go Subaru, said. "I took somebody's car in the other day that their door wouldn't shut anymore, and they were using a bungee to shut the door." Then there was the "clunker" a man drove onto the lot that surprised everyone. "I was like, 'Wow, that's a cool car,'" Guthrie said of the 1985 Maserati BiTurbo. The Italian sports car is in near-mint condition with its odometer reading a mere 18,480 miles. "It is kind of one of those cars where you go, 'Wow. Can't believe that one is a clunker,'" Guthrie said. But it is. It qualified for the program and the owner received $3,500 for it that he used toward a new Subaru Impreza. The interior of the Maserati is pristine, with all leather, suede and wood trim. The issues with the car were under the hood. "He said that he could drive it down the road for about 10 minutes, and then he had to call his mechanic," Guthrie said of the owner's experience. The Maserati owner had been trying for many months to sell the car without success. His asking price for the car was roughly the same as the $3,500 he got from Cash for Clunkers. "So he got what he was asking for it," Mills said. "He just got it from the government instead of a customer." While the Maserati stands out in the lot full of clunkers, it will suffer the same fate. The car will have its engine destroyed and the car will be crushed. "Its one of those cars where you go, 'Wow, I wish it didn't have to be crushed, but unfortunately it does,'" Guthrie said. "

What a shame! And I honestly don't believe nobody wouldn't buy that for $3,500.

8/14/2009 12:57:02 PM

that dumbass just wasn't advertising it correctly

what a fool

8/14/2009 1:10:29 PM

That was one of the biggest POSs ever made, haha

but it sucks that they have to destroy it, someone would have loved to tinker on it

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM. Reason : a]

8/14/2009 1:17:15 PM

#28 in the BBC's book of Crap Cars, lol.

However I can picture a 2.5L twin turbo V6 being fun to tinker with. The engine's design is based on a Formula One V8.

[Edited on August 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM. Reason : k]

8/14/2009 1:25:31 PM

There's a video of the actual car below. That interior is hot lol

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/08/14/delozier.maserati.cash.KUSA

8/14/2009 1:32:52 PM

Terrible, terrible, horrible car. The 70's and 80's Maserati products are universally known for being tempramental, unreliable, expensive to run pieces of shit, and I feel sorry for the guy for buying it and expecting anything but pain.

However, with only 18K miles on the clock, someone probably would have bought it for more than 3500...hell, for that much, dump the shitty original engine and replace it with something modern and reliable. Italian flair, much improved mechanics, and a car you don't see every day. Very much a pity that a near-mint body/interior will be lost.

8/14/2009 2:08:12 PM