Bobzilla wrote:Adrian_Thompson wrote: You don't like it, I do. My only issue is they're not puttin gup $20b to fund it.Where do you think that money comes from? The money fairy? The money tree planted on the whitehouse lawn? It comes from the people that can't take "advantage" of this assinine plane to start with because we bought products we NEED and didn't blow our wad on useless crap and racked up too much CC debt. We didn't buy the trendy $60k SUV that gets 12mpg. We bought smart, and use it until it's dead. This is yet another waste of MY money to give to retards that have no clue where it came from and EXPECT more to follow. First we bail out their mortgage. Now we give them new cars. Stupid me, going to work every day, living a frugal life to get ahead.
I consider it a return on investment. My tax money goes to support it too. I'm happy it does as I can see keeping the economy moving and people employed. I'm working and paying my mortgage as well, but see the TARP and Mortgage relief as a necessary evil. If we hadn't done it I think we'd be back in 1930 again with a serious depression that would hurt all of us more than the current tax burden. I save for retirement so I'll have a good one. I support TARP and CFC so there's still a viable country to live and work in.
captain_napalm wrote: My problem is that I hate waste. I hate to see a perfectly fine running car get junked. Even the heaps we run on the BABE Rally are sometimes given to charities to refurbish and sell.
I sympathies, but by this same argument, taken I admit to an ridicules extreme, we should have kept every model T Ford (all 15 million of them) running as there's no point in moving on when what you've got will do. In town commute speeds are frequently below 25mph with only 1 person in the car so a model T should do fine.
Model T can't pass emissions. Imagine how sooty the air would be in urban populations with Model T's running around as the only source of transport. You can't have it both ways.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:captain_napalm wrote: My problem is that I hate waste. I hate to see a perfectly fine running car get junked. Even the heaps we run on the BABE Rally are sometimes given to charities to refurbish and sell.I sympathies, but by this same argument, taken I admit to an ridicules extreme, we should have kept every model T Ford (all 15 million of them) running as there's no point in moving on when what you've got will do. In town commute speeds are frequently below 25mph with only 1 person in the car so a model T should do fine.
and the model T got 20mpg! zomg we should make everyone in the city drive one!!!!1111eleven
Instead of taking it to a ridiculous extreme, why don't you just play it straight?
Double post
captain_napalm wrote: Instead of taking it to a ridiculous extreme, why don't you just play it straight?
OK then. Old cars are old and there's lot's of them. Taking 750K of them off the road is going to make a small dent in what's available used, what's available for donation to charity and what's available to enthusiasts in the future. MOST (not all) of the cars being scrapped are not going to be economically viable in the long term for the average person to keep on the road. Most sub $4,500 cars are going to need expensive work in the next few years. There was a thread here a couple of months ago complaining how hard it was to service and repair modern cars. Now for 99.9% of the population (those that don't read GRM or similar mags) that would mean paying $50 - $100 an hour to a shop to do it, suddenly swapping an engine or a trans, even with a used one just isn't viable to the average Joe. That's why old cars get scrapped. In general 'enthusiast' cars have either owners who are willing to spend more money that makes absolute economic sense on keeping them going and/or does the work him or her self. Hence most old cars get scrapped. Look at cars from the 60's there is a disproportionally high number of MG's, Mustangs, Vette's etc left compared to boring grocery getters and station wagons for that very reason.
So cash for clunkers is partially speeding up the turn over of the fleet on the road 99.9% of the cars getting crushed are going to be of the no one cares variety. On the other hand the program is making a real, measurable impact on new car sales, job protection and job growth helping the country claw it's way out of the worst recession in nearly 80 years. I still stand by my claim that it's a good scheme. It could be improved by being bigger and possibly by allowing greater recycling of old parts, but I'll take what I can to start this county's economy moving forward again and keeping people in work.
It's a false growth though. Now that the money is gone, those people that went back to work to make more cars are going to get laid back off AGAIN because the new car sales have stopped.
That's the problem with faking sales figures. It always catches up to you no matter how hard you try to ignore it. so instead of the market catching up to itself at a SUSTAINABLE rate, we've prodded it into a fast run that quickly runs out of wind. Now, no one is buying becuase they're scared as hell.
It's a brilliant plan I tell you. Brilliant. If you're an idiot.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: Most sub $4,500 cars are going to need expensive work in the next few years. There was a thread here a couple of months ago complaining how hard it was to service and repair modern cars. Now for 99.9% of the population (those that don't read GRM or similar mags) that would mean paying $50 - $100 an hour to a shop to do it, suddenly swapping an engine or a trans, even with a used one just isn't viable to the average Joe.
I doubt that most of them will need expensive work, but even if they did and you took it to a mechanic (local or dealership), how many cars of recent vintage, or at least within a 10 year timeframe will need $4500 worth of work? I'm including repairs along with general maintenance.
Bobzilla wrote: It's a false growth though. Now that the money is gone, those people that went back to work to make more cars are going to get laid back off AGAIN because the new car sales have stopped.
That's something else that should be taken into consideration; letting the market correct itself.
captain_napalm wrote: I doubt that most of them will need expensive work, but even if they did and you took it to a mechanic (local or dealership), how many cars of recent vintage, or at least within a 10 year timeframe will need $4500 worth of work? I'm including repairs along with general maintenance.
I agree. We purchased the wifes 2000 accent 2 years ago with 109k miles. Paid $2k. Transmission took a crap (original owners did not deem it necessary to EVER change the trans fluid) and it cost $300 for me to get a complete engine trans. Minor maintenance, registration, and fuel costs and we're STILL under $3000 into this car. We have 166k on it now and w're planning on retiring it somewhere around the 250k range, or another 6 years.
Or we could have gone and paid $15k for a new car(we own no vehicles that would qualify for CARS), had the same basic maintenance requirements only been paying higher insurance premiums, registration costs for the next 6 years. REgistrations alone would have racked up over $1200 more over the next years. Insurance another $2400.
So what's the smarter route? Spend $19k + interest for a new car, or keep an older cheaper car? I can't see how CARS is helping anyone but the banks and car dealers SHORT TERM.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: taken I admit to an ridicules extreme, we should have kept every model T Ford (all 15 million of them) running as there's no point in moving on when what you've got will do. I
My great uncle dragged a "t" out of a farmers forest long past its "useful" life as determined by the farmer. He rebuilt the engine and had cheap transportation through the 30's. After that they converted it to a portable "power station" by installing a PTO and a home made regulator and used it to do farm stuff.
The majority of the "T"s got dusted when they were melted down to make tanks and bombs to kill Nazi's. Not to stimulate an economy. The Chinese, who apparently aren't our biggest fans, will probably wind up with the steel now.
I know its a dead horse, program's dead.
But, yes, your correct, the cars were destined for the yard anyways, it was just sped up. However, next time your looking for a project car engine, think how cool a Northstar would be. Instead of grabbing a low mile cream puff one out of a caddy grandma backed down a flight of stairs you'll be skipping over dozens of seized and useless motors.
There really is no logical reason to destroy a working engine and ensure the total destruction of a vehicle.
FWIW, four months ago I was going to buy my girlfriend a cheap, clean little toyota for about 500 bucks. Well, I was laid off, had to use the money for bills. Now that I'm working again, I really can't find any thing for less than a few grand worth having. I thought C4C was brilliant at first. Suddenly, my opinion has changed. People are wanting 2 or 3k for a $500 car.
Just the voice of "the working poor"...
Adrian_Thompson wrote: I consider it a return on investment. My tax money goes to support it too. I'm happy it does as I can see keeping the economy moving and people employed. I'm working and paying my mortgage as well, but see the TARP and Mortgage relief as a necessary evil. If we hadn't done it I think we'd be back in 1930 again with a serious depression that would hurt all of us more than the current tax burden. I save for retirement so I'll have a good one. I support TARP and CFC so there's still a viable country to live and work in.
Are you seriously suggesting C4C saved us from a recession? With a straight face even
In response to krepus:
... and that's pretty much the experience in every place that runs/ran a C4C program or similar. It distorts the market and it is regressive.
From what I heared in Germany, it pretty much destroyed the bottom end of the car market. It's been quite hard to find decent cheap cars there anyway for some time (most of them headed east) and it's gone from "few" to "none". And of course due to the inability of a lot of people to do the sort of maths required to work out the actual cost of the car purchase, plus the acceptability of buying a car on the never-never, it also kills/killed smaller dealers and garages who were catering to the lower end of the decent car market and were looking after cars for people who couldn't afford to go see main dealers.
Strangely enough the program here in the UK, which was modelled after the German one, seems to have had less of an impact. I'm not sure if it was because people didn't dare commit to a new car purchase or simply because they couldn't get credit.
wlkelley3 wrote: I can't find the link now but a couple days ago I read an online news article about someone using cash for clunkers and turned in a Maserati Biturbo. I know these aren't that loved and not high value but sheesh, he could have got more selling it outright.
One of the guys in my model car club works restores and maintains a number of Maseratis. Someone brought in the BiTurbo article and he said he was pretty sure you could buy all of them for $4500, and that crushing them would be more satisfying then trying to start them.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: OK then. Old cars are old and there's lot's of them. Taking 750K of them off the road is going to make a small dent in what's available used, what's available for donation to charity and what's available to enthusiasts in the future.
You're making good sense Adrian. But some people aren't listening to good sense. They made up their minds the day after they lost an election. Until they're team wins the next game they could care less what is trying to be accomplished -or- what they may/may not have been saved from.
Good on you for earning your citizenship.
So if I read what you are saying correctly, if we do not agree with Adrian and you we are pre-determined to bitch and moan until the Republicans win office again then we will be shiny happy people again.
Ummm, maybe we just don't like seeing classic cars and their engines being destroyed in a flawed attempted to save the big three from their own mis-management
aussiesmg wrote: So if I read what you are saying correctly, if we do not agree with Adrian and you we are pre-determined to bitch and moan until the Republicans win office again then we will be shiny happy people again.
Well...yeah. That's what I'm seeing. 
Glad I communicated that so clearly. It's rare on the internet.
Sorry, but you fail, this is a free society and we are able to make our own choices without your consent.
Last time I looked this is the US not Xceler8x land
Good thing old-fashioned iron-block motors are basicly infinitely rebuildable.
I'll keep my 50 year-old car and 40 year-old pickup truck thank you very much.
I broke a rocker arm in the '58 the other day, it's a good thing these clunkers are old and unreliable, I put in a new rocker but it's probably only got another 50 years on the new part. I'd better turn it in for scrap. Damn thing only gets 20mpg too.
Shawn
Xceler8x wrote: But some people aren't listening to good sense. They made up their minds the day after they lost an election. Until they're team wins the next game they could care less what is trying to be accomplished -or- what they may/may not have been saved from. Good on you for earning your citizenship.
Don't make the small-minded mistake of assuming everyone who opposes Obama is a Republican. Some of us realize that it took both parties to get us into this mess and see that they are essentially only a single party intent on the same goals.
Xceler8x wrote: ...But some people aren't listening to good sense. ...
Spout some good sense rather that the usual party line, and some of us might listen.
I'm neither party here, and was disappointed to see the worse of two evils win the election. But I was hopeful that Barry Hopeandchange would actually pull this one out and suprise me and not do EXACTLY what I expected him to do.
Sadly, he has not and I am further disappointed in my fellow Americans.
You'll need to log in to post.
