Cash-for-Clunkers

[fli]

Okay...
government buying old gas guzzlers...

but now people are buying gas guzzlers again! I'm hearing reports of people trading their SUVs so that they could buy NEWER SUVs.

WTF?
Was there no provision in the contract that they would buy greener cars?

Instead of paying it within cash, what about giving it as credit which would go into the purchase of your car (from a select list.)

I dunno.
I've disliked the cash-for-clunkers from the start as being. People who actually commute don't get any incentive for using public transportation. Instead, people hijak the price of bus/train/ferry fairs in order to get the necessary funds to fix up high ways and stuff.

Which is good, but when it comes to pay for the maintenance of buses, tracks... or even to expand (like Bart to San Jose)-- and people act like there is sticks in their asses.

Cash-4-Clunkers should stop so that we could utilize the money in an efficient way... like lowering the cost for hybrids or public transportation.

[ToddM]

I don't see why we need to fund public transportation. Why sink more money in which it would increase the debt of this country. It can cost into the billions for more mass public transportation. Right now what we have is fine.

[D2Kvirus]

This sounds a lot like the Scrappage Scheme we have in the UK, where your old car goes towards the value of a new car, which is supposed to stimulate the economy.

And it has: the economy of Germany, France, Italy and Japan, as those are the cars people are buying - as the UK has no motor industry outside of Aston Martin and Caterham.

[gumOnShoe]

At 8/13/09 04:01 PM, ToddM wrote: I don't see why we need to fund public transportation. Why sink more money in which it would increase the debt of this country. It can cost into the billions for more mass public transportation. Right now what we have is fine.

Assuming the public starts using public transportation:

- it reduces our dependency on foreign oil
- dramatically cuts costs on travel, making it a stimulus bill in and of itself (I save 120+ a week by using public transportation, $1440 a year)
- relieves congestions on roads so that they don't need to be expanded which can be just as expensive as actually building public transportation
- creates permanent jobs
- in countries where its used heavily (japan, bullet trains), its the fastest mode of travel
- reduces emissions
- Generally reliable form of transportation
- Becomes an expected reliable expense
- Connects a city, encouraging people to go out and do things, etc

You can't actually come up with much of an argument against public transportation other than people who don't use it or health concerns... We'd have a better system if more people used it and gave up driving.

[KidneyThief]

At 8/13/09 04:01 PM, ToddM wrote: I don't see why we need to fund public transportation. Why sink more money in which it would increase the debt of this country. It can cost into the billions for more mass public transportation. Right now what we have is fine.

Public transportation isn't fine in a lot of places. In fact most of the public transportation I have seen has tons of financial issues, which cause the fares to go up. With better public transportation more people would use it, cutting down on traffic.

[zendahl]

At 8/13/09 04:08 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: You can't actually come up with much of an argument against public transportation other than people who don't use it or health concerns... We'd have a better system if more people used it and gave up driving.

Schedualing issues. I can't use public transportation because in order to get to work and home I would have to either take a bus to down town St. Paul, then take another bus to downtown minneapolis then take another bus on the loop to woodburry then walk about 5 miles to get to work, or take a bus to the mall of america, then take the light rail to down town minneapolis, then bus the loop to woodburry then the long walk, or I can drive the 8 minute drive to work. I can not take a bike or walk though because there is a big ass mississippi river between me and work. To take public transportation, I would add at least two and a half hours to each direction of my trip. Even when I was a kid taking the bus just a strait five miles to work, I lost my job because on the days when the bus would show up late, I would be late to work, and on sundays There wasn't even a bus to get me there untill an hour after I was supposed to have started. My only otion was to walk. Public transportation can be completely worthless for the lower income half of the population because the scheduals cater to the m-f 9-5 crowd and the poor people who might need it are generally working odd shifts outside of that time freme. so unless they ran a buss or train that dropped off at all stops every 1/2 hour and dropped off in the subburbsstrait from every other subburb and the city, then it would be usefull, but that is unrealistic so it is only marginally usefull for many people.

[All-American-Badass]

At 8/13/09 04:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: as the UK has no motor industry outside of Aston Martin and Caterham.

Isn't Jaguar a british auto maker?

Also what i don't like about the cash for clunkers is that they scrap all the old cars, leaving no parts to salvage, which means people who still have old cars wont be able to get parts for them anymore becuase no one will make parts for them becuase there's only a few left on the road and there wont be parts in junkyards either.

[fli]

At 8/13/09 04:10 PM, KidneyThief wrote:

At 8/13/09 04:01 PM, ToddM wrote: I don't see why we need to fund public transportation. Why sink more money in which it would increase the debt of this country. It can cost into the billions for more mass public transportation. Right now what we have is fine.

Public transportation isn't fine in a lot of places. In fact most of the public transportation I have seen has tons of financial issues, which cause the fares to go up. With better public transportation more people would use it, cutting down on traffic.

Part of a reason is that public transportation pays for roads...
To decrease the cost of buying cars BUT to maintain the state of highways, streets, etc-- they have to fuck over public transportation users.

Which means less money to use to actually improve public transportation...

So...instead of shifting the burden solely on the users of public transportation, why not just return the original cost back to the people who actually use the roads more often?

[gumOnShoe]

At 8/13/09 04:34 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: Also what i don't like about the cash for clunkers is that they scrap all the old cars, leaving no parts to salvage, which means people who still have old cars wont be able to get parts for them anymore becuase no one will make parts for them becuase there's only a few left on the road and there wont be parts in junkyards either.

The cars are being taken off of the road because they aren't good for the environment. If there's less parts for similar cars then they go to and the engineers of the program are happy. I think you are distinctly missing the point of the program, which is to upgrade the vehicle force of america.

But again, while its something good for the economy in the now, I have concerns that what fli is suggesting would be better long term.

But I thought there were requirements on the program that you had to buy cars that were more fuel efficient. And I also thought that it was a credit kind of deal. You have a link that says otherwise fli?

[fli]

At 8/13/09 05:04 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: But I thought there were requirements on the program that you had to buy cars that were more fuel efficient. And I also thought that it was a credit kind of deal. You have a link that says otherwise fli?

I can find one if I look. I go to the VTA, BART, and Caltrain meetings--and this was info from the last election in November where the Bart extension barely won.

a lot of car-driver-mentality... "Oh, who cares..."

[zephiran]

At 8/13/09 04:34 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 8/13/09 04:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: as the UK has no motor industry outside of Aston Martin and Caterham.

Isn't Jaguar a british auto maker?

Kinda. It IS seated in the UK, but as of march 2008, it´s actually owned by the Indian (budget car, if I recall correctly) company Tata Motors Ltd.

Also what i don't like about the cash for clunkers is that they scrap all the old cars, leaving no parts to salvage, which means people who still have old cars wont be able to get parts for them anymore becuase no one will make parts for them becuase there's only a few left on the road and there wont be parts in junkyards either.

Hmmm. I can see where you´re coming from, but if the program didn´t scrap the cars and instead "Stripped" them of useful parts, the program would be a bit counter-productive
- The more cars that have gone into the program, and thus, more spare parts, the easier it would be for owners of older cars to adequately maintain THEIR old cars, thus decreasing the overall effectiveness of the program by making it EASIER to own an old car... Somewhat.

Also, judging from this article, not all parts are scrapped...
- "The engine, transmission and some other parts must be destroyed so they can't be reused. The idea is to cull fuel-thirsty, polluting drivetrains. Operators can resell other parts, however."

[gumOnShoe]

"For passenger automobiles, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon. For category 2 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles per gallon. Category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement; however, there are special requirements that apply to the purchase of category 3 vehicles."

That was on the original site. Sounds like rather low mpg ratings though. :/

[gumOnShoe]

At 8/13/09 05:21 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: "For passenger automobiles, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon. For category 2 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles per gallon. Category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement; however, there are special requirements that apply to the purchase of category 3 vehicles."

That was on the original site. Sounds like rather low mpg ratings though. :/

And:

"How do I know if my car or truck is an eligible trade-in vehicle?
There are several requirements (but you also have to meet certain conditions for the car or truck you wish to buy). Your dealer can help you determine whether you have an eligible trade in vehicle.

Your trade-in vehicle must

-- have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you trade it in
-- have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less
-- be in drivable condition
-- be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year preceding the trade-in
-- The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, must also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001"

So at 18 mpg you're fine pretty much, you don't have to upgrade, if you have the right kind of truck...

So it does appear there are some cases where you wouldn't be upgrading, but in most you probably are.

[ChemicalReaper]

Wow the new cars are 22+ MPG! You know, in Asia it's illegal to sell cars with less than about 40 MPG.

[Korriken]

Cash for Clunkers is a government scheme to artificially boost the auto industry to make it seem the economy is doing better. They will also have something they can point at come election time and say, "look what WE did for YOU!"

Also, HOW do some of these cars qualify? Chevy Astro? A van? a Hummer?

[adrshepard]

At 8/13/09 10:58 PM, Korriken wrote: Cash for Clunkers is a government scheme to artificially boost the auto industry to make it seem the economy is doing better. They will also have something they can point at come election time and say, "look what WE did for YOU!"

Also, HOW do some of these cars qualify? Chevy Astro? A van? a Hummer?

Yeah, it might simply be a pointless waste of government funds. Granted, it'd probably be more efficient to split the money between subsidies and tax breaks. But you're forgetting how it will put an instant stop to climate change!

[ChemicalReaper]

At 8/13/09 10:58 PM, Korriken wrote: Cash for Clunkers is a government scheme to artificially boost the auto industry to make it seem the economy is doing better. They will also have something they can point at come election time and say, "look what WE did for YOU!"

Also, HOW do some of these cars qualify? Chevy Astro? A van? a Hummer?

The funny thing is that it's trying to boost the American car companies' sales... but I can still get a government rebate if I buy a Honda or Toyota.

[ToddM]

I live in Milwaukee and the bus fare is $2 for a fare and a month pass is $60. It is too expensive for me to consider doing that for college so I have truck to drive to school 20 miles away from my house and the bus does not even go to the campus.

[morefngdbs]

Owning a vehicle is the most practicle solution for almost all Atlantic Canadians.
Mass transit systems are only viable in large traiffic zones (places where there are many people.)
Except for a handful of Canadian cities...there are too few people in most of this country for mass transit to work !
Look at Nova Scotia where I live. The larger cities- oh wait there are only 2 cities in the whole Province ! one the capital city, Halifax & Sydney in the Northern part of the Province. 373,000 aprox living in & around Halifax & Sydney 109,000 in the Sydney area !
Nova Scotia has 936,000 residents approximately in an area of 55,000 square kilometers (we are a very small Province)
So there are busses in the cities & several of the bigger towns like Truro . We have no fast trains or subways, & our transit systems that are available are subsidized by the Government, because they just can't survive on fare collection alone !

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

What we should be doing is pulling our socks up and trying to make our economy more efficient, all these arbitrary do-nothing policies serve to do is warp people's perceptions of what they need and what the economy can support. We need to accept the fact that we need to cut the fat before the economy can start growing again, there is a culture which pities the businesses faced with closing down but there is no thought given to the businesses that will suffer in the future because of the increase in tax for these ignorant measures to prop up these failed businesses.

[p4c]

At 8/14/09 08:07 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Owning a vehicle is the most practicle solution for almost all Atlantic Canadians.
Mass transit systems are only viable in large traiffic zones (places where there are many people.)
Except for a handful of Canadian cities...there are too few people in most of this country for mass transit to work !

well first you're in canada where 10 people live anyway, but even if there are areas that are too lightly populated for public transit to work...

there are lots of cities that can use a revitalized public transit system. i live in cleveland, OH for example. the city is dying. people are leaving. downtown, with stuff to boast like the second largest theater district behind broadway, and the rock hall, and tons of ethnic alcoves and stuff, but nevertheless, the city is dying off because people can get everything they want from the suburbs and going downtown is a hassle and a traffic nightmare. we have a subway system that only reaches the suburbs within 15 minutes of driving from the city, and essentially only two lines. thus, ridership is very low.

if the city was connected by a more decent public transit system, i feel pretty confident it would be a strong source for the city to revitalize. but nevertheless, the city has cut its budgets for the RTA; the RTA, with the #1 rated best bus system in the US, is now cutting a major portion of its bus routes, and the fares have all been increased, further discouraging people to venture out of suburbia. the city continues to deteriorate and shrink. thats killing the economy of the entire city.

and im not just talking within cities; between cities, proposals for high speed rail are also extremely important and would service less densely populated areas to travel distances. granted, that would be a hit to the airline industry, which is already suffering, but it is well worth it in my opinion.

[Korriken]

The thing about cash for clunkers that irritates me is that many good vehicles are being destroyed while there are people driving vehicles that are on their last legs and probably won't work in the next 6 months at all that can't afford a new vehicle.

It would have been beneficial to everyone to allow people living in poverty to be able to trade in their smoking rattletraps for a much better clunker, rather than destroy a good vehicle and leave others on the side of the road. Of course, the politicians don't care about the small guy, they only care that they have something they can point to come 2010 and say, "look what I gave you! you owe me your vote!"

It'll be interesting in the coming months to see just how many people who traded in their old vehicle end up having their shiny new vehicle repossessed when they can't afford to keep up with the payments, then they'll be out of their car as well.