Quote :

"Of course that would require cutting spending which appears to be harder than returning the ring to mordor. "

Anology of the Day

Quote :

"They should give people rebates to replace their old heating and air conditioning systems."

They actually already do this.

Quote :

"Why not provide a small progressive subsidy (or tax) based on mileage for all new vehicles? "

this would make to much common sense without appealing to your corporate buddies at GM, the irresponsible masses that need a handout to
get a car, and the banks that will soon be taking back the cars that people can not really afford even with their clunker loan.

8/4/2009 4:32:12 PM

so dont you get a tax rebate for buying a hybrid? could you combine that with cash for clunkers? seems like a super duper win win

8/4/2009 4:57:24 PM

^not lately...there were a finite number of tax credits for hybrids...they've all been used up for a couple years now

8/4/2009 4:59:27 PM

Were the same people who are now upset about Cash for Clunkers equally upset about the Bush administrations huge tax rebates for Hummers, Land Rovers, and the like? I'm sure they were, since you people place a great deal of importance on rationality and logical consistently, but I don't remember any conservatives complaining about that back then.

8/5/2009 5:37:54 PM

I, personally, think the govt has no business trying to artificially inflate different sectors of the market. Id rather them just let the people keep their money and let them decide how to spend it.

8/5/2009 6:21:18 PM

so what if obama signed some kinda executive order for this? could he even do that?

8/5/2009 9:20:42 PM

at least we're not calcutta, where their recent vote to ban cars older than fifteen years has been met with huge protests from taxi drivers and the like.

8/5/2009 9:31:20 PM

is it just me or are the tax rebate programs in the past 12 months getting a lot more press than the programs offered the last several years?

I never knew there was a rebate for buying a "gas guzzler" or a hybrid for that matter.

8/5/2009 9:54:08 PM

^^or how about Japan. Pretty sure they take their cars off the roads before they hit 100,000 miles.

Quote :

"Were the same people who are now upset about Cash for Clunkers equally upset about the Bush administrations huge tax rebates for Hummers, Land Rovers, and the like? I'm sure they were, since you people place a great deal of importance on rationality and logical consistently, but I don't remember any conservatives complaining about that back then."

No I thought that was a stupid program as well. I considered that ridiculously wasteful.

Quote :

"not lately...there were a finite number of tax credits for hybrids...they've all been used up for a couple years now"

Never should have been tax credits for hybrids in the first place. Most of them are worse for the environment than your average economy car.

8/6/2009 8:29:41 AM

Quote :

"Were the same people who are now upset about Cash for Clunkers equally upset about the Bush administrations huge tax rebates for Hummers, Land Rovers, and the like? I'm sure they were, since you people place a great deal of importance on rationality and logical consistently, but I don't remember any conservatives complaining about that back then."

I have never heard of this. Are you saying he gave tax credits solely for these type of SUVs, or across the board new car rebates and you just cherry picked those models? I had zero interest in new cars during the Bush terms, so I never would have paid any attention to this type of thing.

8/6/2009 9:07:55 AM

^it was something along the lines of a tax credit for purchasing a large vehicle as a "work vehicle". It was supposed to be business related, but I believe there were a lot of loop holes in it.

8/6/2009 10:00:55 AM

It was designed for farmers. They could buy a truck with a GVWR of 6k+ iirc and write off up to $25k per year as a tax deduction as long as it was used at least 50% for business. The way it was written pretty much anyone who had a small business could benefit from it as long as they used the vehicle for business use 50% of the time. Suddenly, if you met the qualifications, you could pick up a BMW X5 or Hummer and write off up to $25k per year. It gave financial incentive for people to buy luxury SUVs that they didn't actually need.

I'm not sure that it was entirely a Bush era law though. I know it was revised in 2004, but the revisions actually brought down the amount you could write off. I have no idea when the original law was passed.

8/6/2009 10:22:12 AM

Quote :

"The rebate computers don't work, the web software knocks dealers off-line, and a program that was supposed to have funding for July to November ran out in the first week. You could say CARS (Car Allowance Rebate System) is a joke. Here's a joke that actually is funny: The bumper sticker being promoted by Mini dealers - "My Other Car Was Demolished by the Government." "

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/08/more_proof_cars_is_a_joke.php

8/6/2009 1:46:44 PM

My question is, exactly what is it about Cash for Clunkers that you people don't like it? 200,000 cars sold, more by GM than any other car manufacturer. That means billions of dollars to the struggling auto industry and countless jobs saved. It means money pouring into the struggling financial sector in the form of new loans. It means millions spent on things like advertising. All that translates into sales tax income flowing into struggling local and state economies. Also, there is the bonus effect of hundreds of thousands of shit cars being replaced with newer, fuel efficient models that will have a positive effect on the environment.

So, I ask again, what is it that you don't like? Is it just that it's working so fucking well, it makes all your whining about Obama's policies look petty and childish? Yeah, that must be it.

8/6/2009 1:59:36 PM

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1285-What-A-Waste-Cash-For-Clunkers.html

Quote :

"So we spend $1 billion and what do we get? SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Ford Motor Co. said Monday that U.S. July sales rose 2.3% to 165,279 vehicles, reversing nearly two years of monthly year-over-year losses. Ok. So for $1 billion Ford managed to sell 3,801 more vehicles this month compared to last year's number, and now is pushing a roughly 2 million unit/year run rate. Hmmmm... In addition to this (tiny) impact over last year, we have done the following: * Removed more-guzzling cars from the road and replaced them with less-guzzling (good). * Significantly shifted the sales matrix toward smaller, more efficient - but far less profitable vehicles (not so good.) * Taken someone who had a paid-off car and thus no auto debt (good) and replaced that with someone who now has a huge car payment on a vehicle worth less than the loan amount the instant they drive it off the lot (bad). * Destroyed the engine (the most valuable part) of that older vehicle, thereby trashing the business of both used car lots and automotive recyclers and used parts dealers (very bad.) A good idea? Well, I suppose if the intent is to try to get Americans to be more of a debt slave when they're already choking on too much debt....... But net-on-net for the economy? Assuming gas goes to $5/gallon (and if crude's move of late, doubling in the last few months, is any indication that's exactly what we'll soon be seeing) and presuming an average purchase price of $20,000, ignoring finance charges (hah!) we're talking about 4,000 gallons of gasoline. If the average clunker got 15 miles per gallon the driver of said clunker would have to put an additional 60,000 miles on it before he paid just the principal on that note. That's a very nice debt trap you crafted there Mr. President, and utterly unsupportable on the economics."

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2009 2:08:34 PM

Why Not A Cash For Everything Program?

8/6/2009 2:15:03 PM

Quote :

"So, I ask again, what is it that you don't like? "

the people that bought cars (that meet the criteria) that got shitty mileage are now getting a gov't handout to fix their bad decision, while the people that have had fuel efficient cars are getting the shaft.

it has to be a new car (terrible investment)

and the increases in efficency for SUVs, imho (and that of many others), is too low

for large trucks there is no increase in efficiency required, just the purchase of a new one

crushing working vehicles that are not worth much, thus reducing the number of cheap cars on the market (some will argue that this hurts the poor)

it uses the EPA ratings, which vary from real-world numbers (but i guess they do need some metric for efficiency)

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2009 2:23:43 PM

Obama administration withholds data on clunkers (AP) – 1 day ago

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is refusing to quickly release government records on its 'cash-for-clunkers' rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales. The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHQR7IBwnpzrhYyGjozayepT-CLQD99SDVGO0

8/6/2009 2:24:49 PM

Quote :

"Most of them are worse for the environment than your average economy car."

i would like to see your rationale for this. i suspect you have one main article you've been waiting to share and needed the right segue. i'm offering you that segue.

CharlesHF

I find that your article was hardly definitive and your lack of supporting commentary makes it even more difficult to agree with such broad and unsubstantiated opinions mentioned therein.

For example. I could post this article by The Economist http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14162193


A very respectable free-market supporting article that highlights the benefits of the Cash for Clunkers and how its efforts should be expanded. Even though the difference between the article from the economist and your article is that the economist elaborates and explains its point of view rather than making claims that are merely blanket bullet statements.

8/6/2009 2:31:21 PM

Quote :

"i would like to see your rationale for this. i suspect you have one main article you've been waiting to share and needed the right segue. i'm offering you that segue. "

i would suspect it has something to do with the process of manufacturing the batteries, as well as the life expectancy of the batteries.

8/6/2009 2:34:25 PM

Quote :

"the people that bought cars (that meet the criteria) that got shitty mileage are now getting a gov't handout to fix their bad decision, while the people that have had fuel efficient cars are getting the shaft."

So what? This has no effect on the success of the program. And you have no idea why a particular person may have bought a car that gets poor gas mileage in the past, they may have had an excellent reason for it (job related?).

Quote :

"it has to be a new car (terrible investment)"

Dude, the top two cars being bought are Ford Focus's and Toyota Corolla's. MSRP ~$15k. Take out the Cash for Clunkers money and you're talking close to $10k for a reliable, fuel efficient car that will last you at least the life of the warranty without paying a cent on repairs. And on a car that cheap, depreciation will be minimal over the next 3-5 years. There is no way you can call that a bad investment. No one is buying $40,000 BMWs and Cadillac with this shit.

Quote :

"and the increases in efficency for SUVs, imho (and that of many others), is too low for large trucks there is no increase in efficiency required, just the purchase of a new one crushing working vehicles that are not worth much, thus reducing the number of cheap cars on the market (some will argue that this hurts the poor)"

Again, the majority of the cars being sold under the program are small and midsize family sedans. This is an insignificant issue.

Again, the overall effect of this program has been overwhelmingly positive, and the poopooing of it by the GOP and others just looks sad.

8/6/2009 2:43:20 PM

Quote :

"My question is, exactly what is it about Cash for Clunkers that you people don't like it? 200,000 cars sold, more by GM than any other car manufacturer. That means billions of dollars to the struggling auto industry and countless jobs saved. It means money pouring into the struggling financial sector in the form of new loans. It means millions spent on things like advertising. All that translates into sales tax income flowing into struggling local and state economies. Also, there is the bonus effect of hundreds of thousands of shit cars being replaced with newer, fuel efficient models that will have a positive effect on the environment."

My thought is that the money spent on Cash for Clunkers could have been spent more effectively to achieve the goals we're looking for.

From an environmental perspective, the billions we're now spending might have been better used for more small business grants toward alternative energy or investments into infrastructure for power transmission. If targeting the automobile industry specifically, why not grants to automakers to design better hybrid or electric vehicles?

Also, while Cash for Clunkers is removing older vehicles off the road, you generate a ton of pollution in producing the new vehicles replacing it. The question I would pose is this: is it really better for the environment to get rid of these vehicles as fast as possible at the expense of shifting the entire vehicle life cycle to the left versus tolerating them for a few more years and then replacing them at their regular time with even more fuel efficient or electric vehicles or perhaps not at all as new mass transit infrastructure comes online? I don't know the answer to this, but it is a consideration in whether or not we're really making a positive impact on the environment.

From an economic perspective, I suppose this is a way to keep vehicle makers in business, but I have to agree with the whole broken window theory that we're not really creating any new wealth just keeping people employed. I guess this approach is better than just burning money in a hole like we did with the earlier bailouts, but again, why couldn't these billions be used for something that generates new wealth like the much-hyped green economy technologies?

8/6/2009 2:46:47 PM

Quote :

"So what? This has no effect on the success of the program. And you have no idea why a particular person may have bought a car that gets poor gas mileage in the past, they may have had an excellent reason for it (job related?). "

being environmentally irresponsible is now reason for a gov't handout? what job says you have to have an inefficient car?

so if i have a 20 year old car that gets 40mpg i get nothing, but if i have a 10 year old car that gets 12mpg i get $4500? even if we are trying to buy the same car.

Quote :

"Again, the majority of the cars being sold under the program are small and midsize family sedans. This is an insignificant issue. Again, the overall effect of this program has been overwhelmingly positive, and the poopooing of it by the GOP and others just looks sad."

so then why even offer a $4500 credit if you just buy a new large truck (no fuel efficiency requirements)? what's the point of that if this whole law was aimed at getting people into more fuel efficient cars?

Quote :

"and the poopooing of it by the GOP and others just looks sad."

gop "and others"? i'm not republican in the least, but this whole program is a waste. there are much better ways that the gov't could be spending those billions.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2009 2:59:58 PM

Quote :

"So what? This has no effect on the success of the program. And you have no idea why a particular person may have bought a car that gets poor gas mileage in the past, they may have had an excellent reason for it (job related?)."

exactly. not to mention that the car maybe have been an automobile that received decent gas mileage at the time of purchase, meaning it wasn't a poor decision.



* Removed more-guzzling cars from the road and replaced them with less-guzzling (good). agreed

* Significantly shifted the sales matrix toward smaller, more efficient - but far less profitable vehicles (not so good.)this can't be so easily dismissed as not so good. if the result of the program is people purchasing more cars than they otherwise would have it is possible (and proving to be the case) that the company is earning larger profits than otherwise foreseen. less profitable cars are fine to sell if the quantity is higher. a fact easily recognized and blatantly ignored in this "article"

* Taken someone who had a paid-off car and thus no auto debt (good) and replaced that with someone who now has a huge car payment on a vehicle worth less than the loan amount the instant they drive it off the lot (bad). this one is tricky to qualify. however the negative aspect mentioned in this statement isn't solely associated with cash for clunkers. the large majority of products purchased by people will lose value as soon as purchased. by some extensions of the logic portrayed here it would be ideal for no purchases to be made at all, a course of action whose negative impact would be far greater. i do not find this to be a legitimate refutation especially given the added benefit that the purchase of these automobiles and added debt provides money into the economy that will allow other citizens by buy goods and services and provides capital with which banks can provide further loans to qualified individuals.

* Destroyed the engine (the most valuable part) of that older vehicle, thereby trashing the business of both used car lots and automotive recyclers and used parts dealers (very bad.) could be a valid point. i would have to first analyze the money brought into the economy by these services and compare them to that of new dealerships before i could quantify the degree of negative impact. however my first inclination would be that new dealerships provide a greater economic good since it promotes the manufacturing of new vehicles, which the others do not.

A good idea? Well, I suppose if the intent is to try to get Americans to be more of a debt slave when they're already choking on too much debt....... not everyone is choking on debt, and some could be saving too much. perhaps some people participating in this program have enough money to purchase the car out-right. this is a claim lacking sufficient credibility.

RedGuard

Quote :

"why not grants to automakers to design better hybrid or electric vehicles?"

This was already done. it was a stipulation of a little thing called the bail out

Quote :

" ...generate more pollution creating new vehicles... "

for the large part these vehicles were going to be produced regardless. the fact of the matter is now the vehicles will not have been built for naught and can serve a purpose.


[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM. Reason : red]

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM. Reason : erased /b]

8/6/2009 3:00:05 PM

Quote :

"exactly. not to mention that the car maybe have been an automobile that received decent gas mileage at the time of purchase, meaning it wasn't a poor decision. "

it goes solely off of EPA estimates, not from real-world numbers. so if you got "decent" gas mileage back then, and it gets less now (what, from wear?) then it is still classified the same (except for the fact that they revamped the EPA ratings)

Quote :

"for the large part these vehicles were going to be produced regardless. the fact of the matter is now the vehicles will not have been built for naught and can serve a purpose. "

you think ford just has a million focuses laying around and is not making any more? the level of production will follow the level of sales.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2009 3:04:34 PM

You guys keep saying that there are better ways for the government to have spent that money, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that. The fact is, this program has proven to be an unqualified success, which is more than you can say for most of the governments attempts to stimulate the economy. The fact that there might be better uses for our tax dollars doesn't take away from how well this program has worked so far.

Quote :

"If targeting the automobile industry specifically, why not grants to automakers to design better hybrid or electric vehicles?"

Actually, Obama just pledged another $2.4 billion today towards the development of electric cars and new battery technology.

Quote :

" being environmentally irresponsible is now reason for a gov't handout? what job says you have to have an inefficient car? so if i have a 20 year old car that gets 40mpg i get nothing, but if i have a 10 year old car that gets 12mpg i get $4500? even if we are trying to buy the same car."

You're right, it's not fair. People who fucked up in the past are being rewarded. Happy? That does nothing to change the fact that this program has been a success.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:29 PM. Reason : :]

8/6/2009 3:27:53 PM

"The fact is, this program has proven to be an unqualified success" [citation needed]

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ,.,.]

8/6/2009 3:40:06 PM

how are you defining success?

arent a lot of the dealerships complaining about not getting paid?

if the dealerships dont get paid, will that not drive up prices in the near future?

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ..]

8/6/2009 3:46:43 PM

Quote :

"Group of Dealers Launch Private Auto Stimulus Program" As senators prepare to vote on whether to add $2 billion to the ballyhooed "Cash for Clunkers" program, some of the nation's largest dealerships have created a private stimulus package of their own, offering from $500 to $4,500 in incentives on top of the federal program. By Joshua Rhett Miller As senators get ready to vote on whether to add $2 billion to the ballyhooed "Cash for Clunkers" program, some of the nation's largest dealerships have created a private stimulus package of their own, offering prospective car-buyers from $500 to $4,500 in incentives on top of the federal program. The dealers' package begs the question: Do taxpayers really need to kick in an additional $2 billion for the federal program now that private dealers are offering a similar -- or even better -- deal? "If the auto industry can afford their own $4,500 per car auto stimulus, why are taxpayers being forced to foot the $3 billion bill on clunkers?" Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told FOXNews.com. The dealers' program, dubbed the Automotive Stimulus Plan, was slated to start on Aug. 14 but was launched early due to instability in the Cash for Clunkers program. But unlike the federally-funded program, the dealers are declaring all vehicles older than 2007 models to be eligible for trade-ins, and they are allowing the money to be used to buy or lease both new and used cars. Brian Benstock, vice president and general manager of the Paragon Auto Group in New York City, one of roughly 50 participating dealers nationwide, said the private push is designed to fill "gaps" in the federal program, including the exclusion of used cars from the Cash for Clunkers plan. "So you left out nearly half of the potential market," Benstock told FOXNews.com. "We wanted to come up with a program in that no car would be left behind." Many would-be participants in the federal program didn't qualify because a large number of consumers tried to trade in imported vehicles that are 10 to 15 years old, most of which get good mileage and are therefore ineligible, Benstock said. Other would-be buyers found themselves priced out of new cars and shopping for used models, again making them ineligible under the federal plan. And some found themselves on the outside looking in due to fuel efficiency ratings that just missed the federal guidelines. Under the private plan, which promises easier paperwork for dealers and no down payment for qualified buyers, trade-in vehicles must be a 2006 model or older; in working condition; be owned, registered and insured for a minimum of six months; and must be less fuel efficient by 2 miles per gallon than their replacement vehicle. Incentives, which vary on make and models, are also subject to all state laws relating to automotive advertising and promotion. "The MPG requirements are lower because our primary goal is to help consumers that don't qualify for the government's program and to stimulate the economy through improved sales, jobs and spending," Courtesy Chrevolet's Scott Grunwell said in a press release announcing the program. "As a result, the environmental benefits will not be as big as the government program but it will help more customers purchase more fuel efficient vehicles." "This is exactly what the private sector does better than the government, which is to establish a program that benefits everyone and doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime," Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, told FOXNews.com. "Members of Congress can't resist looking like they are trying to help, so I doubt this will change the Senate's vote … it's unlikely this program will have any impact on the Senate vote," he said. Patricia Swift-Oladeinde, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transportation, said the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, which is overseeing Cash for Clunkers, declined to comment on the private plan. Several senators who have indicated concerns with the federal program, including Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., did not immediately respond for comment for this story. Thune has called Cash for Clunkers an example of "Congress choosing winners and losers among industries," but he told the Associated Press he expects the Senate to pass the additional funding. If the $2 billion is added to the federal program, as is expected, administration officials think that could fund an additional 500,000 new vehicle sales and give buyers until Labor Day to trade in their gas-guzzlers. The private plan is scheduled to end on Nov. 1, regardless of the government program. "Our plan is not an environmental stimulus plan, it's an economic stimulus plan," Benstock said. "This is the private sector taking over. We're going to take the baton from the federal government and run with it.""

Good to see Private Industry stepping in and doing this themselves...though one must wonder if the gov't hadn't done anything would this have materialized?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/06/group-dealers-launch-private-auto-stimulus-program/

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : k]

8/6/2009 3:56:00 PM

^^^,^^200,000 cars sold? People flooding into car dealerships? The majority of the cars sold are built in America? Nothing I say can help if you don't see the benefits in this. Keep your blinders on, I don't care.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM. Reason : :]

8/6/2009 4:00:01 PM

Quote :

"arent a lot of the dealerships complaining about not getting paid? "

THat is exactly what happened to my honda dealer that stopped participating. They havent gotten a dime.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2009/08/06/tx.clunker.purchase.recall.kvue

Here is a ford dealer that wants thier SUV back bc they havent gotten paid either. However, in the same story the GM guys havent had any problems. So what do Honda and Ford have in common but differs from GM?

8/6/2009 4:02:54 PM

The only concern i have with the program is people bringing on debt they cant afford. If they're getting 9k on trade in + cfc funds on a 15k car that gets better gas mileage i dont have an issue with it.

I would, however, much rather see us waste less time talking about this or healthcare and more time talking about energy. The way we produce, transfer, and consume energy affects more parts of our lives than anything else and as such should be the center of debate. Everything else should be shelved until we fix our infrastructure and come up with a plan to eliminate our dependance on foreign sources of energy.

8/6/2009 4:11:52 PM

^figure out a way to reduce our energy independence? It's called Nuclear Power and drilling for oil/natural gas on our home turf. Next problem please..

Artificially inflating auto sales is not a good idea. It'll be just like the housing bubble. I mean look, auto sales in the US have gone up every year for God knows how long. Obviously that is something that cannot go on forever. Limits are hit, and to continually expand on false pretenses is not good. You just delay the inevitable.

In regards to hybrid automobiles, the amount of energy required to assemble one so greatly exceeds that of your average automobile that anything short of a Hummer is better from an energy point of view.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : d]

8/6/2009 4:13:18 PM

I've heard that argument again and again and while i suspect there is merit up to a point, I'd like to see the numbers if anyone has them.

8/6/2009 4:15:15 PM

Quote :

"figure out a way to reduce our energy independence? It's called Nuclear Power and drilling for oil/natural gas on our home turf"

right. But right now we have a pretty worthless congress and a president who is anti-nuke for dubious reasons. I dont know how we'd get the ball rolling.

8/6/2009 4:18:04 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/06/news/companies/clunkers_economic_impact/index.htm?postversion=2009080612

Quote :

"The Senate is widely expected to pass a $2 billion expansion of Cash for Clunkers Thursday. The House did so last week after reports that the original funding earmarked for the program was set to soon run out. And according to some estimates, the total of $3 billion spent on Cash for Clunkers could result in an $18 billion boost to the overall economy."

Quote :

"David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's, estimates that the program could add about a half of a percentage point to gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, over the next two quarters. That's in line with the estimates from economists at General Motors, an obvious supporter of the program."

Total waste of tax payer money

8/6/2009 4:27:21 PM

If I was the kind of person who opposed government subsidizing basic human needs, I'd be having a shitstorm over Cash for Clunkers. Where is the rage?

8/6/2009 4:32:16 PM

Quote :

"Actually, Obama just pledged another $2.4 billion today towards the development of electric cars and new battery technology."

Maybe I should restate: from an environmental perspective, would we have been better off using the $2 billion or so for Cash for Clunkers for additional grants towards new technology or infrastructure. In other words, take that $2 billion and make that $4.4 billion in grants instead of $2.4 billion. Its a reasonable question in asking what buys us the best bang for our buck.

Quote :

"for the large part these vehicles were going to be produced regardless. the fact of the matter is now the vehicles will not have been built for naught and can serve a purpose."

You have to take a step back and look at this from a larger picture. Let's say cash for clunkers has moved some 157,000 older, more polluting cars off the road. Many of those cars would probably have been replaced gradually over the next ten to fifteen years or so. What is the pollution difference between getting rid of all those vehicles right now versus the more traditional rate. First, if we wait until those cars naturally drift out of the market, they might be replaced by even more fuel efficient vehicles or even electric cars because of the better technology down the road. If you want to look at it further, by manufacturing all those vehicles now, we're also shifting the pollution that's being generated to build them (resource extraction, manufacturing, shipping, etc.) up front; had we waited longer to replace those vehicles, the pollution generated to produce those cars might have been reduced as new environmental regulations, new technologies, etc. improve the efficiencies of the process.

From that, you can build a net number for how much CO2 we're removing for the $2 billion dollars or so. Then, we weigh that cost against other things we could have used the money for, say to hire new inspectors for power plants, grants to power companies to improve scrubbing technology or build windmills, etc.

8/6/2009 4:51:24 PM

What happens when Ca$h for Clunker$ is over; everyone has their new car and the automotive industry is back to square one when demand plummets at the end of program.

8/6/2009 5:07:56 PM

Quote :

"Total waste of tax payer money "

Yes it was. That money was borrowed by the government, further draining the nations already stressed capital markets of needed cash. And now, that money is owed and we must pay interest on it every year until we pay it back never. As such, a program that injected a billion dollars into draining the nation's dealerships will ultimately cost society tens of billions of dollars of value, both in the misallocation of resources by manufacturers, the widespread destruction of the affordable used car market, and losses through taxation to pay both interest and principle on that debt.

As a whole, it is crap like this that convinces some that it would be worth the massive costs associated with living without a government at all.

And it might even reduce fuel consumption, maybe, as the working poor are forced to give up their car for chronic unemployment.

8/6/2009 6:28:50 PM

Quote :

"figure out a way to reduce our energy independence? It's called Nuclear Power and drilling for oil/natural gas on our home turf. Next problem please.."

I understand that we'd be independent from foreign influence, but we would still be dependent on a limited resource.

8/6/2009 6:55:34 PM

neanderthal man insists on getting his energy from hell

im tryin to get my energy from heaven (sun and wind)

8/6/2009 7:03:23 PM

Wow. People rushing in to take free money means it's a success, because people like getting free money. Particularly for cars they were already going to buy, being paid way more than market value for their trade-in.

I've got an idea, I'm just going to start dropping twenties from a blimp, and see how many people scramble for them. If folks show up, it must be a success!

8/6/2009 7:17:40 PM

Quote :

"I understand that we'd be independent from foreign influence, but we would still be dependent on a limited resource."

lol. There's over 1,000 years of nuclear fuel available, and a few hundred years of oil + natural gas. Something tells me we'll figure something out in the meantime, WITHOUT artificially making what's available uber expensive.

8/6/2009 9:32:26 PM

Cash for Punkers

8/6/2009 10:29:12 PM

^^
We can hope.

My concern is replacing the petrochemical byproducts that we currently use.

8/6/2009 10:34:39 PM

Quote :

"neanderthal man insists on getting his energy from hell"

Sounds like somebody has got a case of the grumpies for geothermal energy. I mean, that's about as close to hell as it gets, right? The boiling heat from within the bowels of the earth?

Or a broken analogy. Besides which, nuclear fuel - uranium and thorium - comes from the final nucleosynthesis products of supernovae - think of it as "extraterrestrial power."

8/6/2009 11:16:41 PM

My parents decided on an Altima. I'm stoked. It will be the nicest vehicle they've ever owned by far. But they really need to get their act together. I'm afraid they're gonna procrastinate and miss out on the free money party.

8/7/2009 12:07:37 AM

If taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of other people's cars, don'y we now have the right to tell them how much they can drive per week, how much air pressure must be in their tires, what they can listen to on the car radio?

...and why not how much money the driver can earn.

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

8/7/2009 9:59:36 AM

were you told what your major would be when you enrolled at NC State?

8/7/2009 10:03:58 AM