Find Reviews by Make:
The latest attempt to bring the hottest Euro-fad in the biz has failed in the Senate Appropriations Committee, reports the Detroit News. Was it because it was attached to a tobacco regulation bill of all things? Or because SenAppCom has bigger, better plans for Obama’s stimulus money? Or because of the nascent green opposition which kiboshed the measure mere weeks ago? Who cares? At least it’s dead. For now. Since the idea has the White House’s support, expect it to be exhumed at least a few more times.
33 Comments on “Cash For Clunkers Dies Another Day...”
Read all comments
I’d guess that the attachment to the tobacco reg bill and green opposition killed it. But this is purely a guess. Anyway, good, and very interesting.
The photo is obviously an early ’60s Ford Falcon. However, it’s probably a Canadian version, as the grillwork is anomalous.
I, for one, hope it goes through. I definitely would take advantage of it (1992 Mazda MX-3), and I know my 2 sisters would as well (1996 Geo Prism, 1994 Honda Civic), though I don’t know what they could buy that would qualify!
As a car salesman, it would bring in new business, though mostly from cheapskates that think $3000 rebates aren’t large enough. The government could really help the automakers by restricting it to 2008 and 2009 model years through the end of the year.
Couple it with a $.05/gal gas tax increase and there you go.
I don’t blame you, but since it’s my tax money that would be buying new cars for people, and since I don’t think it would have any social benefit, I am strongly opposed.
Just more government meddling in the free market, using borrowed Chinese and Arab money, and paid for by your children and grandchildren.
A stupid idea created by short-sighted politicians.
dwford:
The cars you mention would not qualify. The “clunker” has to get 18 mpg or less, combined epa rating as listed on http://www.fueleconomy.gov
/waiting to cash in my daughter’s 96 grand marquis…..
DWFORD,
I think the bill requires your car would have to get a combined 18mpg, meaning none of the cars you mentioned would qualify anyway.
“I definitely would take advantage of it (1992 Mazda MX-3), and I know my 2 sisters would as well (1996 Geo Prism, 1994 Honda Civic)”
David, I think that’s an Argentine Falcon.
The cash would be the total payment though for the vehicle right? Not in addition to any other money. Also who pays to crush the cars?
I’ve got a F-150 waiting on this. As soon as I can get 4500 obamadollars for it I’m buying a new car. It’s going to be difficult to find a US built car with an American company name on it that gets good enough mileage which I actually like.
I’d be a big fan of this if it would allow me to shave another few K off the already discounted Pontiac G8. As a credit union member, they’re already giving these “supplier prices” (is that the same as the employee discount price?) on top of the 3K in incentives.
Oops, I can still get more for my 99 Celica selling it used than I could via this program. Curses, foiled again.
Then there’s by suburban St Louis buds who crowed that I’d be the envy of all my neighbors out here in East Bumkinville if I came home with a G8. And these guys are car nuts like the B&B. That Transcamaro PWT perception dies a hard death.
And don’t mention the wife who said “you want to get what?” Hard to argue against a car that still gets 30pmg on the highway (all of my driving) and is still reliable as all getout for a big unknown.
Just more government meddling in the free market, using borrowed Chinese and Arab money, and paid for by your children and grandchildren.
My wife and mine’s decision to not breed results in another bonus!
Plus, wasn’t it Darth Cheney that said “deficits don’t matter?”
Plus, wasn’t it Darth Cheney that said “deficits don’t matter?”
Indeed, and President Obama agrees with Cheney on that, like on so many other things these days.
Except that Cheney’s a bigger supporter of gay marriage, of course.
Fred,
I see what you mean. I thought the intention was to stimulate car sales. I didn’t know that the car had to be old AND get terrible mileage, I thought it just had to be old. So they are setting this up to only have a minimal impact, I guess. I can’t imagine there are tons of people rolling in ancient V8 BOF rigs that want to get into something newer.
Fred and dwford:
I’m thinking along the same lines. For example, our mangled 93 Explorer with the 5-speed manual is listed *new* as 17mpg combined. Under this program, will they still be judging all the vehicles by what mpg they were getting new? Seems counter intuitive to me. Having said that, the ole Explorer (195K miles) still does get around 17mpg combined.
For giggles, I looked up my 99 Celica (5-speed manual) and it’s highway mileage is 26mpg. I consistently get 30mpg with it at 175K miles so go figure.
I thought the German plan was much more open in terms of what you trade in for your voucher. I guess whoever crafts this legislation doesn’t want somebody trading in their 1999 F350 for a 2009 model.
Cash for clunkers?
1) Isn’t that what you get when you sell your clunker to a 17 year old?
2) Isn’t that what you get when you trade in your car?
3) Isn’t that what you get when you donate the car to a charity?
Why is the government trying to do this? I know it was successful in Europe. But why don’t the automakers do it if it benefits them? With coming regulations of OEM cradle to grave responsibility over any product that isn’t purely organic, why aren’t the manufacturers required to buy back their old wares?
I’m not advocating this, I’m merely pointing out the ludicrous concept that I should expect the government to buy back my old car, television, washing machine, cell phone, etc. whenever I feel I deserve a new one.
Hey, my Vista OS sucks. Can the government give me a check to buy a Mac?
2 fist approach to the problem. A cash giveaway for vote along with a push to get people to darken a dealership door.
Among other restrictions were it had to be a US car, get good mileage, and when said and done they are probably going to make us buy a GM or Chrysler shit box so they can recoup some of the money they sunk into this mess.
So they give you 4500, you take the check to a Obama Motors dealer, buy a craptastic car, and they get the money back. You get a car with almost no resale or worth. Hopefully it will last a long time because you are not going to get much in trade for it.
I keep thinking this is how the communists ran their markets, but since criticizing the wise one is not allowed I’ll just have to go along with it.
dwford
grog
and so on…
This is why eventually this whole democratic experiment will fail.
It starts off great.
1 man, 1 vote…power to the people, whatever.
THEN, suddenly, we realize we can vote ourselves money.
Yes!
Let’s get together and vote money from him over to us!
Wow.
WTF!?
Why work hard anymore!?
Just vote for more money.
I want a new car and it makes perfect sense to have others help me get it.
Everybody is doing it, so why shouldn’t we all start getting ours?
This is really awesome, this voting shit.
Democracy is awesome!
Edward,
Isn’t this what is really fueling car sales growth in Germany?
Martin Schwoerer,
Yup, that’s what it is, an Argentine Ford Falcon. You could buy a new 1960 Ford Falcon in Argentina right up to 1991. Think Ford made back it’s tooling money on that one?
Pic of Argentinian made 1990 Ford Falcon.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Ford_Falcon_Argentina_late_model_yellow.jpg/800px-Ford_Falcon_Argentina_late_model_yellow.jpg
Pass this bill to help new car sales and the manufacturing industry (JOBS). Our daughter drives an older SUV (15 mpg) and I would very much like to trade it for a newer more fuel efficient vehicle. But when you go to trade as you well know you don’t get much for your trade with having an older car, making it discouraging to want to buy a new car. Bill H.R.1550 will help balance that out. Giving the new car buyer a $5000 dollar voucher to trade in his older car to buy a new more fuel efficient vehicle. I do know people are WAITING for this to pass and by WAITING it only hurts car sales even more. That’s why its so important to get this passed as soon as possible. It worked in Europe to stimulate the economy it will work here too. Please support H.R.1550 and H.R.1606 The House got it right, now if only the Senate will get it together. The President’s for it and the American people are too. This needs to be done a.s.a.p.
Paulie: Yes. Dacias are selling like hotcakes in Germany, thanks to clunker-culling. But the US is unlikely to experience the same benefits (this link is already in the post). Besides, clunker-culling only seems to pull forward sales, not generate new business that otherwise wouldn’t be there.
“Martin Schwoerer :
June 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
David, I think that’s an Argentine Falcon.”
No, it’s an African Swallow, no WAIT it’s a European Swallow! (my apologies to Michael Palin et. al.)
I believe it’s a NA Ford; it looks identical to my neighbour’s 63 Falcon Futura. He’s got an orange and white two-tone four-door beauty.
Yet another attempt to make it look like things are better than they actually are.
Shocka.
It is an Argentinian Falcon. Alternate caption: “Don’t cull me, bro.”
Waiting2Trade: Why not sell the older SUV for $1500-2000 or whatever it’s worth and buy a ten year old Mazda Protoge or similar small, safe, fuel efficient car for roughly the same price or maybe a thousand or two more?
Why wait to get someone (taxpayers) to fund the difference between the value of your old SUV and $5000, probably $3000, for the opportunity to owe $15,000 – 20,000 (plus interest) over five to six years in the name of better fuel efficiency?
Even at $4.00 a gallon, you could drive your 15mpg for ($15,000/4.00*15) 56,250 miles before you even started to save money based on fuel efficiency of the new car.
Are you powerless? Have you no alternative but to hope that the government will fund your next car purchase? Can you not drive a used, less expensive car?
I know, I know, I’m arguing with sound logic and not emotion, which takes the fun out of it, and means I have to bring the bad news that you’ll have to buy a new car, if you so desperately need one, all by yourself.
Cash for Clunkers will end charitable car donation in this country since the amount of the voucher would far exceed that of the current tax deduction. It would cost charities millions of dollars. Why not simply allow people to qualify for the voucher by donating their car to charity. The charity would then scrap the car and use the proceeds to help fund their programs.
So far the feds have provided various banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc, with BILLIONS of bailout bucks. Everyone of these companies were driven to the brink by bad management, if not outright theft. All of these companies used a portion of the bailout money to pay their CEO’s, and other big kahunas, million dollar salaries — a taxpayer funded reward for incompetence and corruption. Red Ink Rick got a multimillion dollar bankruptcy proof pension as a thank you for slamming GM into a utility pole at 90 MPH. On the other hand, just proposing a $5K credit, to benefit Joe and Josephine Blow, in the purchase a of new Festiva, brings out the blood lust in all the Limpblow/Hannity fans.
The stupidity and patience of the average American is astonishing. In any other country, the corporate kleptocrats would have been dragged out of their mansions by now. The lucky ones would have been lynched on the spot.
There two essential parts to this proposal:
1) The incentive must benefit GM and Chrysler only (maybe Ford can tag along).
2) Design a disguise such that it doesn’t have “protectionism” all over it.
Implementation:
Reward past buyers of GM and Chrysler. I mean if a person always bought Toyota, he is unlikely to consider a GM car anyway. So, the goal is to persuade old customers to buy another one. Thus, it must reward inefficient cars that had poor resale value.
By allowing inefficient cars to get incentives only, it made sure mostly domestic branded cars qualify.
By giving a $3000 incentive, not $5000 and not $1000, they made sure the owner of an old $1000 Serbring is benefited, while the owner of an old $4000 Corolla is not. Guess who is more likely to buy a brand new 2007 Serbring now?
Cash for clunkers. How much for a non-performing, gas-guzzling, over-the-hill out of alignment Congress ? Anything would be more than it is worth.
toadroller : Why sell the older SUV for $1500-2000 or whatever it’s worth and buy a ten year old Mazda Protégé or similar small, safe, fuel efficient car for roughly the same price or maybe a thousand or two more? Because this bill as it stands in the House will give a $5000 dollar credit for our daughters older SUV, duh. And I don’t mind owing more for a reliable car that will be under warranty. It will give me the peace of mind knowing our daughter has something reliable to drive back and forth to college in. I agree with skor, its ok to give billions to bailout various banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc. but to help out Mom and Dad to buy a new car the claws come out. But your right if the Senate has it there way and medals with the House bill I might as well go ahead and trade now because I’m not going to get much more with there version of the bill.
I was hoping that this bill would pass soon – My GM credit card gives points ($) toward a new GM car (something that I never thought I’d use, but hey). They announced that until the end of the month, I could use ALL my points on select cars, and I have a bit over 4,500 points. Add that to the clunker, and I could get at least $9000 off a G3 or G5! Almost enough to make me think of dumping my Aerostar AWD… but it’s so useful!
I’m almost sure that’s an Argentinean Falcon. My father bought five falcons during his lifetime. Once He tried to buy a GM contender Nova but did not fit in his garage.
All ran for about 200K miles; with the exception of a white ’77 falcon standard; very similar to the one in the photo above. This one was involved in a serious road traffic accident in its first months of life.
http://www.todofalcon.com.ar/Fotos/Standard16.jpg
Toadroller – I’m with you. Gotta stop spending gov’t cash somewhere.