Let me add some purely un-scienticic, antecdotal data into this mix...
I work in an industrial/commercial zone in Long Beach, CA.... over by the airport. There is one of those main boulevard of car dealerships along one of the main streets. I go along the perimeter road between the airport and the dealership's back lots to get to my crappy cubicle.
I saw hundreds of older cars and trucks in the back lots of the Ford, Volkswagen/Subaru and Toyota dealers with 'CFC' painted on the side or scribbled on the windshields. Those cars are NOT FOR RESALE and will be place in salvage yards. There, they will be disassembled for parts... like windshields, doors, seats, fenders, taillights, etc... for people who still have these types of vehicles... or simply placed in the crusher or shredder to be placed in bins or stacked in piles on outgoing cargo ships to China... where they will come back in the form of anything you see on a Wal-Mart shelf... including the shelf itself.
...
The bottom line... I am GLAD to see that 1986 Ford Areostar van with the huge dent, bald tires and cracked windshield in the back lot of the Subaru dealer and not trying to merge ionto the road I am on. It is purely a guess on my part, but i imagine a car that looks that crappy onthe outside, probably doesn't have the best braking system in place. I can't speak for the rest of you... but, I am glad that some of those non-roadworthy wrecks are going off of the road for good.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
The bottom line... I am GLAD to see that 1986 Ford Areostar van with the huge dent, bald tires and cracked windshield in the back lot of the Subaru dealer and not trying to merge ionto the road I am on. It is purely a guess on my part, but i imagine a car that looks that crappy onthe outside, probably doesn't have the best braking system in place. I can't speak for the rest of you... but, I am glad that some of those non-roadworthy wrecks are going off of the road for good.
...
The bottom line... I am GLAD to see that 1986 Ford Areostar van with the huge dent, bald tires and cracked windshield in the back lot of the Subaru dealer and not trying to merge ionto the road I am on. It is purely a guess on my part, but i imagine a car that looks that crappy onthe outside, probably doesn't have the best braking system in place. I can't speak for the rest of you... but, I am glad that some of those non-roadworthy wrecks are going off of the road for good.
Enough to help pay for it's replacement?
...
Value of the 1986 Ford Aerostar Van is what... 150... 200 bucks? So, the guy traded it in for a 2008 Subaru SR-Whatever... and the dealer takes 4,300 bucks off the negotiated sales price.
4,300 bucks divided by what... a couple hundred million taxpayers?
Sure... I'm willing to kick in my fair share.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
The bottom line... I am GLAD to see that 1986 Ford Areostar van with the huge dent, bald tires and cracked windshield in the back lot of the Subaru dealer and not trying to merge ionto the road I am on. It is purely a guess on my part, but i imagine a car that looks that crappy onthe outside, probably doesn't have the best braking system in place. I can't speak for the rest of you... but, I am glad that some of those non-roadworthy wrecks are going off of the road for good.
Enough to help pay for it's replacement?
...
Value of the 1986 Ford Aerostar Van is what... 150... 200 bucks? So, the guy traded it in for a 2008 Subaru SR-Whatever... and the dealer takes 4,300 bucks off the negotiated sales price.
4,300 bucks divided by what... a couple hundred million taxpayers?
Sure... I'm willing to kick in my fair share.
Yep, cause it was only 1 car. :roll:
I wish I could just print more $...this is getting old. Being responsible gets you hosed.
The fact is, it's been hugely successful on many levels.
I was never a fan of the bail-out of the auto industry, and this seem much more practical to me than just writing check to GM.
While the initial energy hit it takes to produce more cars and to destroy others, I think it's going to pay off in the long run...economically and environmentally.
The fact is, it's been hugely successful on many levels.
I was never a fan of the bail-out of the auto industry, and this seem much more practical to me than just writing check to GM.
While the initial energy hit it takes to produce more cars and to destroy others, I think it's going to pay off in the long run...economically and environmentally.
So you're saying giving away $ was successful? Thank god it worked this time. It's all a bit disheatening really.
The fact is, it's been hugely successful on many levels.
I was never a fan of the bail-out of the auto industry, and this seem much more practical to me than just writing check to GM.
While the initial energy hit it takes to produce more cars and to destroy others, I think it's going to pay off in the long run...economically and environmentally.
So you're saying giving away $ was successful? Thank god it worked this time. It's all a bit disheatening really.
...
What is wrong with everyone pitching in to help a FELLOW AMERICAN? The guy trading in the piece of crap? An American. Probably a taxpayer. If we can help him get out of that piece of crap mini-van... and help out and American Taxpayer who negotiated the deal for an American tax payer who own a car dealership to sell cars made by working American taxpayers... then, yeah... I have NO problem at all... helping out my fellow American.
It's not like the money we shoveled onto that tire fire in Iraq you supported from 2002 to about 2007, right? now, there are tax dollars that are never coming back.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The fact is, it's been hugely successful on many levels.
I was never a fan of the bail-out of the auto industry, and this seem much more practical to me than just writing check to GM.
While the initial energy hit it takes to produce more cars and to destroy others, I think it's going to pay off in the long run...economically and environmentally.
So you're saying giving away $ was successful? Thank god it worked this time. It's all a bit disheatening really.
...
What is wrong with everyone pitching in to help a FELLOW AMERICAN? The guy trading in the piece of crap? An American. Probably a taxpayer. If we can help him get out of that piece of crap mini-van... and help out and American Taxpayer who negotiated the deal for an American tax payer who own a car dealership to sell cars made by working American taxpayers... then, yeah... I have NO problem at all... helping out my fellow American.
It's not like the money we shoveled onto that tire fire in Iraq you supported from 2002 to about 2007, right? now, there are tax dollars that are never coming back.
It is far better than the $ spent in Iraq...far better than the banking bailout for poor lenders and idiot consumers that bit off more than they could chew...
All in all I see some value in it, I think it's kinda crap how random it, screwing people over that bought cars already. It's just on top of everything else, ya know? And the fact that it is easy to see that it would be a successful program (if success is defined by using up all the $)...it's not like it was rocket science giving away $. What the long-term effect I wonder? Will this help American car companies reposition themselves in the worl marketplace or is it another handout to a dying breed?
...
What is wrong with everyone pitching in to help a FELLOW AMERICAN? The guy trading in the piece of crap? An American. Probably a taxpayer. If we can help him get out of that piece of crap mini-van... and help out and American Taxpayer who negotiated the deal for an American tax payer who own a car dealership to sell cars made by working American taxpayers... then, yeah... I have NO problem at all... helping out my fellow American.
It's not like the money we shoveled onto that tire fire in Iraq you supported from 2002 to about 2007, right? now, there are tax dollars that are never coming back.
What make of cars was this good on? Just the American car companies (with all the parts from mexcio)? Or also the Japanese car companies with the American parts and assembly?
It's not like the money we shoveled onto that tire fire in Iraq you supported from 2002 to about 2007, right? now, there are tax dollars that are never coming back.
That tax money pays your company, who pays you....
It is far better than the $ spent in Iraq...far better than the banking bailout for poor lenders and idiot consumers that bit off more than they could chew...
All in all I see some value in it, I think it's kinda crap how random it, screwing people over that bought cars already. It's just on top of everything else, ya know? And the fact that it is easy to see that it would be a successful program (if success is defined by using up all the $)...it's not like it was rocket science giving away $. What the long-term effect I wonder? Will this help American car companies reposition themselves in the worl marketplace or is it another handout to a dying breed?
...
I don't get how it is 'Screwing people who bought cars already'... you need to explain that part to me... because I don't get it. This thing has been in the pipeline since May... a couple of months. Were lots of people buying lot of cars before that?
And there are restrictions...
Like, I cannot trade in my 1999 Durango that gets 15 MPG for another Durango and automatically get 4,500 bucks for it. I would have to get a vehicle that get 25 MPG or better to qualify.
And if my Durango is worth $4,499 (which it ain't)... then, i get 1 dollar. If my Durgango is worth 5,000 bucks... it doesn't matter if i get a Prius that gets 48 MPG because I am over the 4,500 maximum and I'm better off trying to sell it in the used car market.
The thing was designed to get people into showrooms to buy new cars and get their crappy cars off the road. For the trade-in to be eligible for the program, the buyer must trade-in a vehicle that meets the following criteria:
Must have been manufactured after 1983.
Must have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less.
Must be in drivable condition and...
Must have been continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year preceding the trade-in.
My Durango meets all of these criteria. The Trade-in amount is probably about 3,500 bucks or so. So, i would be able to get $1,000 to take the value up to the $4,500 threshold.
Is it worth the trade off to me? Car payments for the next 3 to 5 years... increased auto insurance... increased DMV fees. Probably not.
...
So, we... Americans that are doing pretty good so far... driving around in a safe car... are helping people who are driving 1984 Plymouth Voyagers or 8 MPG 1991 Chevy Suburbans into something that will also help ourselves out... a cleaner running car that is using less gasoline.
Is this a short term fix... not at all and I do not want it to become the norm. But, it is a tiny bit of good news in a world of shitty news. The long range fixes to the economy is going to take some time... and it's not going to be easy. Long term projects, such as replacing Califonia's 100 year old Earthen levee system that was built by farmers, not engineers is going to take a while and it's going to be expensive. But, it HAS to get done. And in the end... we... OUR Generation... will get jobs designing and building a decent levee system to our future generations that won't be nickel and diming them in maintenence costs.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It's not like the money we shoveled onto that tire fire in Iraq you supported from 2002 to about 2007, right? now, there are tax dollars that are never coming back.
That tax money pays your company, who pays you....
..
I know that... and guess what? I'm a taxpayer.
I don't like the fact that an air to ground attack missle cost so much... but... when you think about what goes into it and what it is actually doing... you can understand why it cost so much.
And I didn't want a dime of our taxes or one of our soldiers to go there. I do not pledge any alliegence to my company. I am an employee and I do my job.
And certainly... when our government decides to fire one of those missiles... it does exactly what it is designed to do... blow shit up and kill people. We (Americans) don't get dime one back from that.
...
Personally... I would LOVE it if there wasn't a need for the military and the hardware. Would i be put out of a job? Maybe... or maybe we could focus the technology to fire a missile from an airborne platform that recognizes it target and hits it within 24 inches from a downrange position of about 120 nautical miles towards technologies that will benefit us... instead of kill us.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It's not like the money we shoveled onto that tire fire in Iraq you supported from 2002 to about 2007, right? now, there are tax dollars that are never coming back.
That tax money pays your company, who pays you....
..
I know that... and guess what? I'm a taxpayer.
I don't like the fact that an air to ground attack missle cost so much... but... when you think about what goes into it and what it is actually doing... you can understand why it cost so much.
And I didn't want a dime of our taxes or one of our soldiers to go there. I do not pledge any alliegence to my company. I am an employee and I do my job.
And certainly... when our government decides to fire one of those missiles... it does exactly what it is designed to do... blow shit up and kill people. We (Americans) don't get dime one back from that.
...
Personally... I would LOVE it if there wasn't a need for the military and the hardware. Would i be put out of a job? Maybe... or maybe we could focus the technology to fire a missile from an airborne platform that recognizes it target and hits it within 24 inches from a downrange position of about 120 nautical miles towards technologies that will benefit us... instead of kill us.
If you're that skilled, maybe you should find another job....I'm sure there are plenty of places that would hire you that don't conflict with your morals? Or do any of them pay as well?
If you're that skilled, maybe you should find another job....I'm sure there are plenty of places that would hire you that don't conflict with your morals? Or do any of them pay as well?
...
I'm dug in way too deep here... 30 years of deep.
Tell you what... if you find a company that will hire a 53 year old male for an annual salary of over 100K, plus full medical/dental, gimme the address. Have 'em toss in the 4 weeks paid vacation and the week off between Christmas and New Years with the usual paid holidays and I'll make the lateral move... as long as I can work from home part time and the office is within 9 miles of my house. Oh, and I assume the 401K contribution is .75 for each dollar up to 8% of the gross.
Do i get the job? I promise, I'll work hard.
If you know of anything that fits that description... lemme know because i'm not having much luck.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Hey In my tree, is that your car in the pic? Looks like a gas guzzler.
aaah, my 1991 Vanagon GL...it's on the "clunker" list...however, I'm in the final stages of dropping Subaru Legacy Engine in her...the original engine got about 16 to 18 mpg around town, the Subie engine should get about 23 mpg around town, and more on the highway...sadly, I won't be getting a tax rebate for my troubles....
while I was doing the transplant, I've been driving my 1990 Jetta Diesel has been getting about 40 mpg in the city...
Does anyone else realize that a condition of trading in your "clunker" for $4500 is that the Dealership HAS to scrap your trade in? They literally pour silicone into the engine and sell it to a junkyard.
Now I'm not sure if that's environmentally irresponsible, or just irresponsible in general, but there are a lot of vehicles that are still very nice cars or trucks that are being scrapped here.
And I do realize that one of the goals is to get more fuel efficient cars on the roads, but it just doesn't feel right to me to throw away a car that is still good.
(BTW, I'm not trading in my "clunker" it's been paid for for years and has 150K miles on it. I take great care of it and it feels like only a 2 year old car. The hit I would take in depreciation blows away the benefit of $4500).
YEa this is a BAD program...for lots of reasons. Other than pilaging more of the earths resources it gives car manufacterers and dealers money......tax payer money...why???
Hey In my tree, is that your car in the pic? Looks like a gas guzzler.
aaah, my 1991 Vanagon GL...it's on the "clunker" list...however, I'm in the final stages of dropping Subaru Legacy Engine in her...the original engine got about 16 to 18 mpg around town, the Subie engine should get about 23 mpg around town, and more on the highway...sadly, I won't be getting a tax rebate for my troubles....
while I was doing the transplant, I've been driving my 1990 Jetta Diesel has been getting about 40 mpg in the city...
That is soooo cool. The engine swap. What you doing on transaxle..subaru??? Known retrofit?
Hey In my tree, is that your car in the pic? Looks like a gas guzzler.
aaah, my 1991 Vanagon GL...it's on the "clunker" list...however, I'm in the final stages of dropping Subaru Legacy Engine in her...the original engine got about 16 to 18 mpg around town, the Subie engine should get about 23 mpg around town, and more on the highway...sadly, I won't be getting a tax rebate for my troubles....
while I was doing the transplant, I've been driving my 1990 Jetta Diesel has been getting about 40 mpg in the city...
That is soooo cool. The engine swap. What you doing on transaxle..subaru??? Known retrofit?
I had to order a adapter plate and a special flywheel to mate the transmission to the engine. I also had to purchase a new engine mount from the same vendor. I was able to reuse my stock starter. The wiring harness is another story... :geek:
as it stands, she's running and currently at a custom exhaust shop getting a few final touches...I hooked up the tachometer and check engine light on Saturday. Both work. I do have to check the Check Engine codes, as the light is on. No big deal, I was going to do this yesterday, but the beach was calling...
actually, i think his 'point' is.....do we really know that it is better to get the gas guzzlers off the road and in newer cars, coupled with the amount of WASTE from these said excessed cars....OR......even being gas guzzlers would it be more environmentally effective to allow them to keep going and die their natural car death down the road? is wasting gas = to wasting all that scrap? is it better to get fuel efficient now and creat all the waste now....or hold off on the waste and burn up more fuel in the interim? it IS a good question, and 1 i don't have an answer for.
personally, in the other thread about this, someone suggested it was more about stimulating the economy and car sales than the environment, and i kinda go with that train of thought. who the fuck knows tho?
I hear you and understand the point...I guess for me, a piece of scrap is not burning fuel at rate of 15 miles per gallon...[/quote]
I heard about this program and it seems questionable to me. I mean yea you get cars with low mileage off the road, but at the same time say someone scraps their car that gets 15mpg to buy one that gets maybe 25 mpg, yes driving that new car will save energy and resources. But will that savings negate the massive amount of energy and raw materials that was required to build the new car as well as transport it from the factory to the dealership?
I heard about this program and it seems questionable to me. I mean yea you get cars with low mileage off the road, but at the same time say someone scraps their car that gets 15mpg to buy one that gets maybe 25 mpg, yes driving that new car will save energy and resources. But will that savings negate the massive amount of energy and raw materials that was required to build the new car as well as transport it from the factory to the dealership?
a) the cars purchased in this program are already built, thus the energy used to create them has already been used...
b) sure there are some initial environmental "costs"...but what would you rather have, 10 years of a 15 mpg car on the road or 10 years of 25 mpg car on the road...?
I think folks are stuck in the here and now, rather that looking at the long term effects of this short term program....
I heard about this program and it seems questionable to me. I mean yea you get cars with low mileage off the road, but at the same time say someone scraps their car that gets 15mpg to buy one that gets maybe 25 mpg, yes driving that new car will save energy and resources. But will that savings negate the massive amount of energy and raw materials that was required to build the new car as well as transport it from the factory to the dealership?
a) the cars purchased in this program are already built, thus the energy used to create them has already been used...
I know the cars are already built, but most dealers will usually keep their inventory at a certain level. So if a certain car dealership sells out of cars, they are going to order a bunch more cars which means more cars are going to be manufacturered, which means more resources will be used to make those cars. If a car dealership doesn't sell any of their inventory, they aren't going to order any new cars.
b) sure there are some initial environmental "costs"...but what would you rather have, 10 years of a 15 mpg car on the road or 10 years of 25 mpg car on the road...?
I think folks are stuck in the here and now, rather that looking at the long term effects of this short term program....
I am not convinced that those 10 years with a 10mpg increase is going to negate the environmental impact of producing a car, which requires things like mining iron, producing steel, producing plastic, the whole manufacturing process, plus all kinds of fossil fuels to get the raw materials to the factories and then the finished cars to the dealership either on a ship or on a train or or a truck. It takes a crapload of effort and energy to build a new car, so I think the environmental benefit would be minimal.
To me the whole concept of this program is kind of like buying a bottle of beer, and pouring it down the sink just so you can get the deposit refund back.
I heard about this program and it seems questionable to me. I mean yea you get cars with low mileage off the road, but at the same time say someone scraps their car that gets 15mpg to buy one that gets maybe 25 mpg, yes driving that new car will save energy and resources. But will that savings negate the massive amount of energy and raw materials that was required to build the new car as well as transport it from the factory to the dealership?
a) the cars purchased in this program are already built, thus the energy used to create them has already been used...
I know the cars are already built, but most dealers will usually keep their inventory at a certain level. So if a certain car dealership sells out of cars, they are going to order a bunch more cars which means more cars are going to be manufacturered, which means more resources will be used to make those cars. If a car dealership doesn't sell any of their inventory, they aren't going to order any new cars.
b) sure there are some initial environmental "costs"...but what would you rather have, 10 years of a 15 mpg car on the road or 10 years of 25 mpg car on the road...?
I think folks are stuck in the here and now, rather that looking at the long term effects of this short term program....
I am not convinced that those 10 years with a 10mpg increase is going to negate the environmental impact of producing a car, which requires things like mining iron, producing steel, producing plastic, the whole manufacturing process, plus all kinds of fossil fuels to get the raw materials to the factories and then the finished cars to the dealership either on a ship or on a train or or a truck. It takes a crapload of effort and energy to build a new car, so I think the environmental benefit would be minimal.
To me the whole concept of this program is kind of like buying a bottle of beer, and pouring it down the sink just so you can get the deposit refund back.
well, I guess car manufactures should lock the doors and shutter the windows...you know, since they're wasting energy and using raw materials...which is what you are saying...I suppose all manufactures of new goods and materials should shut down...that way there would be no waste...
I really don't get your bottle beer example...is the new car the beer and the clunker the deposit...? or is the clunker the beer and the new car the deposit...? either way, it makes no sense...
a) the cars purchased in this program are already built, thus the energy used to create them has already been used...
I know the cars are already built, but most dealers will usually keep their inventory at a certain level. So if a certain car dealership sells out of cars, they are going to order a bunch more cars which means more cars are going to be manufacturered, which means more resources will be used to make those cars. If a car dealership doesn't sell any of their inventory, they aren't going to order any new cars.
b) sure there are some initial environmental "costs"...but what would you rather have, 10 years of a 15 mpg car on the road or 10 years of 25 mpg car on the road...?
I think folks are stuck in the here and now, rather that looking at the long term effects of this short term program....
I am not convinced that those 10 years with a 10mpg increase is going to negate the environmental impact of producing a car, which requires things like mining iron, producing steel, producing plastic, the whole manufacturing process, plus all kinds of fossil fuels to get the raw materials to the factories and then the finished cars to the dealership either on a ship or on a train or or a truck. It takes a crapload of effort and energy to build a new car, so I think the environmental benefit would be minimal.
To me the whole concept of this program is kind of like buying a bottle of beer, and pouring it down the sink just so you can get the deposit refund back.
well, I guess car manufactures should lock the doors and shutter the windows...you know, since they're wasting energy and using raw materials...which is what you are saying...I suppose all manufactures of new goods and materials should shut down...that way there would be no waste...
I really don't get your bottle beer example...is the new car the beer and the clunker the deposit...? or is the clunker the beer and the new car the deposit...? either way, it makes no sense...
Promoting the concept of "consume more, to help the environment" just seems backwards to me. There is reason why in the 3R's reduce comes before recycle, because the first option is usually the better option. Which is why it is better not to buy a can of beer just so you can recycle it, and why it might be better not to throw away your new car and buy a new one, just because it has better gas mileage. I never said that all manufacturing should stop, I am not sure where you got that from.
Promoting the concept of "consume more, to help the environment" just seems backwards to me. There is reason why in the 3R's reduce comes before recycle, because the first option is usually the better option. Which is why it is better not to buy a can of beer just so you can recycle it, and why it might be better not to throw away your new car and buy a new one, just because it has better gas mileage. I never said that all manufacturing should stop, I am not sure where you got that from.
I got it from : So if a certain car dealership sells out of cars, they are going to order a bunch more cars which means more cars are going to be manufacturered, which means more resources will be used to make those cars. If a car dealership doesn't sell any of their inventory, they aren't going to order any new cars.
and : I am not convinced that those 10 years with a 10mpg increase is going to negate the environmental impact of producing a car, which requires things like mining iron, producing steel, producing plastic, the whole manufacturing process, plus all kinds of fossil fuels to get the raw materials to the factories and then the finished cars to the dealership either on a ship or on a train or or a truck. It takes a crapload of effort and energy to build a new car, so I think the environmental benefit would be minimal.
which to me means that it's a waste of resources to produce new goods...at least that's how I read it...
again, I think this short-term program addresses long term needs...also, I don't think this program is a consume more type of program. One has to turn in a older, less fuel efficient vehicle for a new fuel efficient vehicle...I see this a a consume less sort of program...
Comments
I work in an industrial/commercial zone in Long Beach, CA.... over by the airport. There is one of those main boulevard of car dealerships along one of the main streets. I go along the perimeter road between the airport and the dealership's back lots to get to my crappy cubicle.
I saw hundreds of older cars and trucks in the back lots of the Ford, Volkswagen/Subaru and Toyota dealers with 'CFC' painted on the side or scribbled on the windshields. Those cars are NOT FOR RESALE and will be place in salvage yards. There, they will be disassembled for parts... like windshields, doors, seats, fenders, taillights, etc... for people who still have these types of vehicles... or simply placed in the crusher or shredder to be placed in bins or stacked in piles on outgoing cargo ships to China... where they will come back in the form of anything you see on a Wal-Mart shelf... including the shelf itself.
...
The bottom line... I am GLAD to see that 1986 Ford Areostar van with the huge dent, bald tires and cracked windshield in the back lot of the Subaru dealer and not trying to merge ionto the road I am on. It is purely a guess on my part, but i imagine a car that looks that crappy onthe outside, probably doesn't have the best braking system in place. I can't speak for the rest of you... but, I am glad that some of those non-roadworthy wrecks are going off of the road for good.
Hail, Hail!!!
Enough to help pay for it's replacement?
Value of the 1986 Ford Aerostar Van is what... 150... 200 bucks? So, the guy traded it in for a 2008 Subaru SR-Whatever... and the dealer takes 4,300 bucks off the negotiated sales price.
4,300 bucks divided by what... a couple hundred million taxpayers?
Sure... I'm willing to kick in my fair share.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yep, cause it was only 1 car. :roll:
I wish I could just print more $...this is getting old. Being responsible gets you hosed.
I was never a fan of the bail-out of the auto industry, and this seem much more practical to me than just writing check to GM.
While the initial energy hit it takes to produce more cars and to destroy others, I think it's going to pay off in the long run...economically and environmentally.
So you're saying giving away $ was successful? Thank god it worked this time. It's all a bit disheatening really.
What is wrong with everyone pitching in to help a FELLOW AMERICAN? The guy trading in the piece of crap? An American. Probably a taxpayer. If we can help him get out of that piece of crap mini-van... and help out and American Taxpayer who negotiated the deal for an American tax payer who own a car dealership to sell cars made by working American taxpayers... then, yeah... I have NO problem at all... helping out my fellow American.
It's not like the money we shoveled onto that tire fire in Iraq you supported from 2002 to about 2007, right? now, there are tax dollars that are never coming back.
Hail, Hail!!!
It is far better than the $ spent in Iraq...far better than the banking bailout for poor lenders and idiot consumers that bit off more than they could chew...
All in all I see some value in it, I think it's kinda crap how random it, screwing people over that bought cars already. It's just on top of everything else, ya know? And the fact that it is easy to see that it would be a successful program (if success is defined by using up all the $)...it's not like it was rocket science giving away $. What the long-term effect I wonder? Will this help American car companies reposition themselves in the worl marketplace or is it another handout to a dying breed?
What make of cars was this good on? Just the American car companies (with all the parts from mexcio)? Or also the Japanese car companies with the American parts and assembly?
That tax money pays your company, who pays you....
I don't get how it is 'Screwing people who bought cars already'... you need to explain that part to me... because I don't get it. This thing has been in the pipeline since May... a couple of months. Were lots of people buying lot of cars before that?
And there are restrictions...
Like, I cannot trade in my 1999 Durango that gets 15 MPG for another Durango and automatically get 4,500 bucks for it. I would have to get a vehicle that get 25 MPG or better to qualify.
And if my Durango is worth $4,499 (which it ain't)... then, i get 1 dollar. If my Durgango is worth 5,000 bucks... it doesn't matter if i get a Prius that gets 48 MPG because I am over the 4,500 maximum and I'm better off trying to sell it in the used car market.
The thing was designed to get people into showrooms to buy new cars and get their crappy cars off the road. For the trade-in to be eligible for the program, the buyer must trade-in a vehicle that meets the following criteria:
Must have been manufactured after 1983.
Must have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less.
Must be in drivable condition and...
Must have been continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year preceding the trade-in.
My Durango meets all of these criteria. The Trade-in amount is probably about 3,500 bucks or so. So, i would be able to get $1,000 to take the value up to the $4,500 threshold.
Is it worth the trade off to me? Car payments for the next 3 to 5 years... increased auto insurance... increased DMV fees. Probably not.
...
So, we... Americans that are doing pretty good so far... driving around in a safe car... are helping people who are driving 1984 Plymouth Voyagers or 8 MPG 1991 Chevy Suburbans into something that will also help ourselves out... a cleaner running car that is using less gasoline.
Is this a short term fix... not at all and I do not want it to become the norm. But, it is a tiny bit of good news in a world of shitty news. The long range fixes to the economy is going to take some time... and it's not going to be easy. Long term projects, such as replacing Califonia's 100 year old Earthen levee system that was built by farmers, not engineers is going to take a while and it's going to be expensive. But, it HAS to get done. And in the end... we... OUR Generation... will get jobs designing and building a decent levee system to our future generations that won't be nickel and diming them in maintenence costs.
Hail, Hail!!!
I know that... and guess what? I'm a taxpayer.
I don't like the fact that an air to ground attack missle cost so much... but... when you think about what goes into it and what it is actually doing... you can understand why it cost so much.
And I didn't want a dime of our taxes or one of our soldiers to go there. I do not pledge any alliegence to my company. I am an employee and I do my job.
And certainly... when our government decides to fire one of those missiles... it does exactly what it is designed to do... blow shit up and kill people. We (Americans) don't get dime one back from that.
...
Personally... I would LOVE it if there wasn't a need for the military and the hardware. Would i be put out of a job? Maybe... or maybe we could focus the technology to fire a missile from an airborne platform that recognizes it target and hits it within 24 inches from a downrange position of about 120 nautical miles towards technologies that will benefit us... instead of kill us.
Hail, Hail!!!
If you're that skilled, maybe you should find another job....I'm sure there are plenty of places that would hire you that don't conflict with your morals? Or do any of them pay as well?
I'm dug in way too deep here... 30 years of deep.
Tell you what... if you find a company that will hire a 53 year old male for an annual salary of over 100K, plus full medical/dental, gimme the address. Have 'em toss in the 4 weeks paid vacation and the week off between Christmas and New Years with the usual paid holidays and I'll make the lateral move... as long as I can work from home part time and the office is within 9 miles of my house. Oh, and I assume the 401K contribution is .75 for each dollar up to 8% of the gross.
Do i get the job? I promise, I'll work hard.
If you know of anything that fits that description... lemme know because i'm not having much luck.
Hail, Hail!!!
aaah, my 1991 Vanagon GL...it's on the "clunker" list...however, I'm in the final stages of dropping Subaru Legacy Engine in her...the original engine got about 16 to 18 mpg around town, the Subie engine should get about 23 mpg around town, and more on the highway...sadly, I won't be getting a tax rebate for my troubles....
while I was doing the transplant, I've been driving my 1990 Jetta Diesel has been getting about 40 mpg in the city...
Nice article. It addresses a lot of the things I suspected.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
YEa this is a BAD program...for lots of reasons. Other than pilaging more of the earths resources it gives car manufacterers and dealers money......tax payer money...why???
That is soooo cool. The engine swap. What you doing on transaxle..subaru??? Known retrofit?
I had to order a adapter plate and a special flywheel to mate the transmission to the engine. I also had to purchase a new engine mount from the same vendor. I was able to reuse my stock starter. The wiring harness is another story... :geek:
as it stands, she's running and currently at a custom exhaust shop getting a few final touches...I hooked up the tachometer and check engine light on Saturday. Both work. I do have to check the Check Engine codes, as the light is on. No big deal, I was going to do this yesterday, but the beach was calling...
I hear you and understand the point...I guess for me, a piece of scrap is not burning fuel at rate of 15 miles per gallon...[/quote]
I heard about this program and it seems questionable to me. I mean yea you get cars with low mileage off the road, but at the same time say someone scraps their car that gets 15mpg to buy one that gets maybe 25 mpg, yes driving that new car will save energy and resources. But will that savings negate the massive amount of energy and raw materials that was required to build the new car as well as transport it from the factory to the dealership?
a) the cars purchased in this program are already built, thus the energy used to create them has already been used...
b) sure there are some initial environmental "costs"...but what would you rather have, 10 years of a 15 mpg car on the road or 10 years of 25 mpg car on the road...?
I think folks are stuck in the here and now, rather that looking at the long term effects of this short term program....
I know the cars are already built, but most dealers will usually keep their inventory at a certain level. So if a certain car dealership sells out of cars, they are going to order a bunch more cars which means more cars are going to be manufacturered, which means more resources will be used to make those cars. If a car dealership doesn't sell any of their inventory, they aren't going to order any new cars.
I am not convinced that those 10 years with a 10mpg increase is going to negate the environmental impact of producing a car, which requires things like mining iron, producing steel, producing plastic, the whole manufacturing process, plus all kinds of fossil fuels to get the raw materials to the factories and then the finished cars to the dealership either on a ship or on a train or or a truck. It takes a crapload of effort and energy to build a new car, so I think the environmental benefit would be minimal.
To me the whole concept of this program is kind of like buying a bottle of beer, and pouring it down the sink just so you can get the deposit refund back.
well, I guess car manufactures should lock the doors and shutter the windows...you know, since they're wasting energy and using raw materials...which is what you are saying...I suppose all manufactures of new goods and materials should shut down...that way there would be no waste...
I really don't get your bottle beer example...is the new car the beer and the clunker the deposit...? or is the clunker the beer and the new car the deposit...? either way, it makes no sense...
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=106239
Promoting the concept of "consume more, to help the environment" just seems backwards to me. There is reason why in the 3R's reduce comes before recycle, because the first option is usually the better option. Which is why it is better not to buy a can of beer just so you can recycle it, and why it might be better not to throw away your new car and buy a new one, just because it has better gas mileage. I never said that all manufacturing should stop, I am not sure where you got that from.
I got it from : So if a certain car dealership sells out of cars, they are going to order a bunch more cars which means more cars are going to be manufacturered, which means more resources will be used to make those cars. If a car dealership doesn't sell any of their inventory, they aren't going to order any new cars.
and : I am not convinced that those 10 years with a 10mpg increase is going to negate the environmental impact of producing a car, which requires things like mining iron, producing steel, producing plastic, the whole manufacturing process, plus all kinds of fossil fuels to get the raw materials to the factories and then the finished cars to the dealership either on a ship or on a train or or a truck. It takes a crapload of effort and energy to build a new car, so I think the environmental benefit would be minimal.
which to me means that it's a waste of resources to produce new goods...at least that's how I read it...
again, I think this short-term program addresses long term needs...also, I don't think this program is a consume more type of program. One has to turn in a older, less fuel efficient vehicle for a new fuel efficient vehicle...I see this a a consume less sort of program...