|
|
Post by Phil on Aug 10, 2009 13:15:19 GMT -5
I don't think it's a good idea. It's greed, fast money and ultimately destructive.
What they will end up doing if this happens in full swing is take serviceable used cars off the road.
A 1998 Ford Taurus, Chevy Malibu or Buick LeSabre is not a clunker only on account of its age or mileage.
If there's not 1 straight panel left, the bottoms of the doors are rusted clean off, it has a blue body red doors and a white hood, the muffler is hanging up with coat hangers, you open the door and look at the petals and can see the road below, those are clunkers.
A 10 year old car with 120k miles is not a clunker if it looks presentable and runs dependably.
I made this blog.
I guess it falls under a greater ploy to make it so that the used cars left are not so plentiful because all the lease deals have probably flooded the market with 3 or 5 year old cars.
Anything older than that would be cash for clunkered or at least they would reduce them with that.
Used cars would then go up in price because there's going to be fewer of them. If you find out that a used car is not that much cheaper than a new 1 you might buy new.
I don't see that though. Economic growth doesn't work from the bottom up it mostly filters down.
If the Eastern Atlantic Co maintains the Penn-York Division then Penn-York employs me. I can pay Jason for some odd jobs done at home *beyond his chores he doesn't get paid for that. * If I pay him for some extra labor then he can buy his little brother a nice little birthday gift when he turns 6 nest week.
We don't start with my 6 year old to get to Eastern Atlantic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Aug 10, 2009 15:08:38 GMT -5
It sounded like a nice idea at first, but in the end can't work out. It's a waste of money, especially when so many things don't qualify. I know they have to have rules, but it was really narrowed down, and now the money is running out. I've heard of certain dealerships doing trade-ins, so why not leave it at that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Aug 10, 2009 23:08:23 GMT -5
I think it's just another Government idea to waste money. There have been a number of groups trying to reduce emissions of cars. (I like that idea) but when its done this way they're a little overboard. They're going too far like Phil said they are going to destroy plenty of good used cars and trucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Aug 11, 2009 14:11:42 GMT -5
The thing is regardless of protests, most people will jump on it if they can. If they're selling a used car for 1500 to 2000, and they find out that there's a way to get 4000 for it it's pretty hard to ask 2000 and be negotiated down to 1450 or something when that overpayment is available.
But isn't that the kind of action that has put this country in the mess we are in to start with?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason O'Lewa on Aug 14, 2009 1:20:01 GMT -5
i will be mad if theres no good cars left when I need 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Aug 14, 2009 23:07:11 GMT -5
That wont happen Jason. The market might get damaged for a while but there's still going to be used but operable cars for your Friends and you when you come of age.
|
|
|
|
Post by edlin on Aug 15, 2009 18:02:42 GMT -5
The part that irritates me is the *crushing* of the clunkers. Finding parts for older vehicles is hard enough without that...
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Aug 16, 2009 1:38:58 GMT -5
Thunderbird has said some of the old trucks need to cycle out of his fleet. That might represent a lot of fast money but I don't know if that's really a good idea.
Like everybody is saying the program can destroy otherwise salable used cars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason O'Lewa on Aug 16, 2009 17:27:38 GMT -5
i want to see what mahnarch things of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Aug 18, 2009 0:02:07 GMT -5
I heard once the Cash for Clunkers has been in for the vehicle traded in not a single part is supposed to be removed and it must be scrapped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Aug 18, 2009 19:29:15 GMT -5
I was very disappointed about an hour ago.
I saw a car carrier and I remember exactly what was on it.
Front top, a Mercury Villeger. That was a clunker. Behind it was a Buick Roadmaster Wagon also long in the tooth. Below it a 1500 Chevy 4x2 I'd say 50/50 on that. Next was a perfectly good Ford Thunderbird, Next a marginal extended cab 1500 Chevy or GMC. Then there was a very nice Dodge 2500 van. I mean not a spot of rust and even the frame was still black the body was white and had there been the smallest amount of rust it would have been seen. Beneith that was a perfect Ford Crown Victoria. I think there was another car on there but I don't remember what it was or what it looked like. There were at least 3 vehicles on that truck that were clearly not a clunker though. That really upsets me.
|
|
Kimm
Moderator 
Posts: 2,993
|
Post by Kimm on Aug 21, 2009 20:50:21 GMT -5
I heard they sold over 400,000 new cars during that promotion but its ending soon.
My dad said what you did too about good used cars being destroyed to fulfill greed that people are getting more for them to scrap than they can be sold for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason O'Lewa on Aug 22, 2009 11:47:26 GMT -5
what does mahanrch thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahnarch on Aug 23, 2009 21:52:37 GMT -5
Jason: Here's my thought.
Novel idea.
Poorly executed.
Sure, it generated sales of more than 3 million vehicles and put factories back to work.
However, it removes from the stock a large quantity of vehicles that could/are worthy to people who are trying to get out of debt and/or are 16 years old and have had their parents buy their cars.
CFC (Cash For Clunkers) will remove the basic "childhood memory" of your 'first car'.
What if my parents had access to CFC whilst I was 17?
I'd have never owned my Yugo GV! (bought and paid for with $175 [3 weeks pay, at the time]).
16 year olds do NOT belong behind the wheel of a 2010 model vehicle.
16 year olds do NOT belong behind the wheel of a 2000 model vehicle.
16 year olds do NOT belong behind the wheel of a 1995 model vehicle.
Yet, these are the models (in perfect shape) that B.O. (Barry) is having crushed!
It would be like Classic receiving a brand new Louisville Slugger and having to turn it over for burning in two months because "it's too old".
Also, the CBO had predicted that the CFC program would last it's lifetime (4 weeks) but, it went bankrupt within a week.
Congress had to add an additional $2B (that's BILLION) to the program in order to resurrect it for another week!!
TWO BILLION!!!!!
HOW......if Congress can't run a simple CAR EXCHANGE program (to people who shouldn't be buying cars in the first place).....CAN PEOPLE BACK A GOVERMENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM THAT IS DESIGNED TO FAIL AT IT'S OUTSET???!!!!
Medicare is heading for insolvency.
Medicaid is heading for insolvency.
VA hospitals are insolvent.
Welfare is insolvent.
Ted Kennedy is still a Senator (when he should be in jail).
John Byrd is still a Senator (when he should be in a retirement home).
Nancy Pelosi is still alive without a knuckle imprint in the middle of her forehead.
How is it that people seem to have confidence that the Government will be able to uphold Health Care?!
They are 0 for 7.
I'd bet on the other team!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Aug 24, 2009 1:27:58 GMT -5
I don't understand why they would over pay for something when it's only going to be destroyed anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Aug 24, 2009 14:27:31 GMT -5
My 1st car was a 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass. About 3 years later I got my dad's 1987 Chevy pick I had that for a long time.
My Cutlass was a 10 year old car when I got it but it wasn't too bad. If they did the cash for clunkers 20 years ago that car might not have been there for me. I can assure you I didn't pay 4,000 for it. I paid 1,200 for that car.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahnarch on Aug 26, 2009 0:16:11 GMT -5
Here's the final punch in the gut for anyone that did participate in the Cash for Clunkers deal:
The U.S. Government isn't going to ignore this deal at the end of the year!!
If you bought a brand new car (which you shouldn't do, unless you're a millionaire - and can take the bath on the loss) and got the maximum rebate of $4,500 for your "clunker" - you are going to be taxed that $4,500 as though it were INCOME!
That's right!
If you were expecting a $4,000 refund on your 2009 income taxes (files in April 2010) you will only be receiving a fraction of that because you bought a new car in 2009.
That REBATE is actually being called INCOME by Obama.
.....that's how they get you - minus the 1099 IRS form.
(though, you may get a 1099...........on April 13th).
DON'T FALL FOR THE "ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE" PROGRAM TO COME IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Demona on Aug 26, 2009 0:22:29 GMT -5
Here's the final punch in the gut for anyone that did participate in the Cash for Clunkers deal: The U.S. Government isn't going to ignore this deal at the end of the year!! If you bought a brand new car (which you shouldn't do, unless you're a millionaire - and can take the bath on the loss) and got the maximum rebate of $4,500 for your "clunker" - you are going to be taxed that $4,500 as though it were INCOME! That's right! If you were expecting a $4,000 refund on your 2009 income taxes (files in April 2010) you will only be receiving a fraction of that because you bought a new car in 2009. That REBATE is actually being called INCOME by Obama. .....that's how they get you - minus the 1099 IRS form. (though, you may get a 1099...........on April 13th). DON'T FALL FOR THE "ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE" PROGRAM TO COME IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS!!!!!!!! What's the energy efficiant appliance program? Can't they leave well enough alone? |
|
