You think that's bad?

Rage.

 

OMG!!! Do NOT let Adam K see that!!!

 

Yeah, I'm kinda hoping he doesn't see this thread... for his own sake :lol:

 

Thank Mr. Obama for that one.

 

it seems a lot of typhoons and syclones were turned in.

 

Not sure about that. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of them left, and when one does make it to the Clunkers lot, people recognize it and cause a stink, same as you'd post about the BS of crushing a '93 5.0, a first gen Ford Lightning, or an '85 IROC.

The overwhelming majority of SyTy owners know what they've got, and know the value of their trucks, even in pieces. There always is a knucklehead though.....

 

The good thing is that this Cash For Clunkers program wont be arond too much longer since there is no way the government can continue to pay for it in the long run... Hopefully.

 

I don't know why you think the government is paying for this...it's actually you and me and anyone else who has a job and pays taxes.

A lot of those cars in line to be junked are nicer than the car I'm driving, it just so happens I wasn't a dumbass and didn't buy a car with really poor gas mileage. Great, I get to buy eveyone else who didn't make a wise decision a nice new car while I keep my old car..

 

Another one traded in.

This particular truck was hunted down by a couple local SyTy-ers, who spoke with the dealership owner. The owner was still sitting on the paperwork, and ended up being processed just about the day they showed up. Headed to the junkyard.

The red Ty was crushed.

 

how did that volvo in the video qualify?

 

Good question. Money-wise, a higher mileage '99 S80 only books for around $3500. The fueleconomy.com lookup on it shows a combined 19mpg. Though 18 was the cutoff??

It could also be that this vid was done for the sake showing how to do it.....and not that THIS EXACT car was traded in, and being junked.

 

Edit FOOTINMOUTHSYNDROME

I didn't get a pic of it but we just had a spotless 91 turbo/vert get crushed. I wanted to cry as engine came to a screaching hault.

 

They raised it to 21 combined

Lots of cars quailfy now.

Can you post documentation of that? I pissed in a co-workers Wheaties the other morning when she said she was going to trade in her '97 CSE 5-spd toward something new, and I told her that only automatics qualified.

 

What idiot would settle for $4500 for a Syclone or Typhoon? I will glady pay somebody $5000 for one in that sorta shape.

 

geez that video is painful. i agree on the syty value comment above, those things can fetch 5k easily.

 

Yeah, the auto 9k thing...............I think I'll need to keep that on the DL since my parents bought my sister a car during the cash for clunkers when I sold perry my old 9k. Not that I would have wanted to go to that end but yeah..........she'd flip that she missed out on that.

 

I don't have a mullet. Its just a little longer in the back.

 

I don't have a mullet. Its just a little longer in the back.

All business up front, party in the back?

 

Bah!

I know you're joking Mike, but you do raise another really good point.

Besides the fact that, as a tax payer, I'm helping to buy a bunch of undeserving jerks brand new cars while I'm stuck with my old one because I was moderately frugal in my choice of daily transportation in the first place... Before even beginning to put pencil to paper, the whole "save the planet" argument doesn't even get close to passing the smell test.

It really takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce a new car. Think about all the parts and pieces. The electricity that smelts the metals. The petroleum that makes the plastics. The impact of all the people spending energy to get to work and assemble things. The energy used to transport all these pieces from all over the world. And the old cars and the absolute asinine waste of perfectly good engines that could be *gasp* recycled and used again in the true sense of conservation. And over what time period will the very incremental increases in fuel efficiency recover even a fraction of that energy spent to produce the new car?

As an engineer the whole thing stinks and I'm really disgusted at how gloriously righteous the government has made it appear to purchase a new car in the name of environmentalism.

 

Besides the fact that, as a tax payer, I'm helping to buy a bunch of undeserving jerks brand new cars while I'm stuck with my old one because I was moderately frugal in my choice of daily transportation in the first place... Before even beginning to put pencil to paper, the whole "save the planet" argument doesn't even get close to passing the smell test.

It really takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce a new car. Think about all the parts and pieces. The electricity that smelts the metals. The petroleum that makes the plastics. The impact of all the people spending energy to get to work and assemble things. The energy used to transport all these pieces from all over the world. And the old cars and the absolute asinine waste of perfectly good engines that could be *gasp* recycled and used again in the true sense of conservation. And over what time period will the very incremental increases in fuel efficiency recover even a fraction of that energy spent to produce the new car?

As an engineer the whole thing stinks and I'm really disgusted at how gloriously righteous the government has made it appear to purchase a new car in the name of environmentalism.

Very well said, my thoughts exactly!

 

Amen!!!

 

Yeah, the whole Cash for Clunkers system is very misleading on the public. People think that they're getting a gift or something when they find out they can trade-in their $2000 S10 pickup for $4500 towards a new vehicle. Like others have said, we, the taxpayers, pick up the entire tab in the end. I'm an Obama fan, but it really enrages me when I think about the program. I know that saving GM is a high priority, but we, the public taxpayers, ALREADY bailed them out. Now, months later, the government installs the cash for clunkers rebate system and guess what, we pay YET again. It's PATHETIC how many gifts and bailouts car makers need to get to turnover inventory. Meanwhile, while the companies finally move cars and people put on their "I just got the deal of a lifetime" grin, we'll be seeing increased taxes for the next 20 years. If companies can't survive and sell cars, let them have their business death. Business isn't a charity and the forces of supply and demand will always rule. The government and the source of it's power, us the people, shouldn't have to bail companies out that do things the wrong way. All it does is disguise problems and prolong the inevitable.

Finally, while I hate the program with an intense passion, I admit it's clever in the fact that it takes an incredible amount of used cars off of the road. With the used car population decreasing at a staggering rate, we'll see less used/reman'd parts to keep other cars on the road, less demand for older model car parts, and buyers will have diminishing car purchase alternatives.

 

Yeah, the whole Cash for Clunkers system is very misleading on the public. People think that they're getting a gift or something when they find out they can trade-in their $2000 S10 pickup for $4500 towards a new vehicle. Like others have said, we, the taxpayers, pick up the entire tab in the end. I'm an Obama fan, but it really enrages me when I think about the program. I know that saving GM is a high priority, but we, the public taxpayers, ALREADY bailed them out. Now, months later, the government installs the cash for clunkers rebate system and guess what, we pay YET again. It's PATHETIC how many gifts and bailouts car makers need to get to turnover inventory. Meanwhile, while the companies finally move cars and people put on their "I just got the deal of a lifetime" grin, we'll be seeing increased taxes for the next 20 years. If companies can't survive and sell cars, let them have their business death. Business isn't a charity and the forces of supply and demand will always rule. The government and the source of it's power, us the people, shouldn't have to bail companies out that do things the wrong way. All it does is disguise problems and prolong the inevitable.

Finally, while I hate the program with an intense passion, I admit it's clever in the fact that it takes an incredible amount of used cars off of the road. With the used car population decreasing at a staggering rate, we'll see less used/reman'd parts to keep other cars on the road, less demand for older model car parts, and buyers will have diminishing car purchase alternatives.

wait wait wait.....You're an Obama fan, but are enraged about a program he dreams up like this??

hold onto your britches. This is a $3B program to move cars. How can anyone begin to believe that it will be ANY different with his healthcare package crap? Johnny Bluecollar Worker gets stuck holding the bill on a piddly car program. What do you think will happen with anything else he touches??? Just want til that "anything else" is trillions, not $3B.

That SOB said everything he needed to in order for people to vote for him, now you're those voters are getting that vote shoved straight back up their a$$ and out their wallet.

** disclaimer **
not picking a fight here, but you are just one of the MANY MANY americans who voted for him and now is feeling a little bit like "hey, this isn't the Change & Hope you promised when I voted for you." I'm extremely glad that some Obama voters are starting to see the wolf under the sheeps clothing.

 

Andrew, all economic stimulus packages involve some taxpayer outlay, whether through direct aid bailout funds, no-interest loans, rebates or tax credits.

We're car people, so we tend to focus unduly on the cash-for-clunkers program, which was a originally a $1 billion program that was so successful it was expanded to nearly $3 billion. The immediate tangible benefits are laid out above, what you're not seeing are the longer term benefits to communities from rekindling the industry and not letting US carmakers plunge off the cliff. If GM died, taxpayers would be on the hook for much more than the amount of bailout money.

It's funny, but most of the people railing about Cash for clunkers and other stimulus programs have absolutely no problem with pocketing tax credits for mortgage interest, or with the new housing sales tax credits that are a $75 billion package.

People have zero problem with federally subsidized student loans...

 

Here's a link to Texas' state program. The nice thing about this one is that they actually send the cars to the junkyard, not crusher. The engines are marked as unusable, but you can bone pick other stuff.

 

The last report I saw on Federal Pay backs to dealers were at 3% of the "MONEY" owed to dealers by the federal Gov.

So what do you think will happen to Every dealer in America if the Federal government Doesn't Pay up?

 

...and the reason for the slow payment was that the program was far more successful than originally estimated. Since then, they've tripled the staff needed to process the forms in order to expedite refunds.

...and the $3 billion is part of the $780 billion already appropriated for general stimulus. The funds are in the pipeline already....

 

So with this $3B clunkers program, we will now have positive GDP like Germany and France? nice........that sure was easy.

Everything else is complete and total HorseS.

Know what "Government Intervention" was in the 1930's?

"Hey you without a job! Want to put food on the table and not starve? Take this shovel and go build highways & dams."

not

"Hey you with that 15-year old SUV that has nothing wrong, and many people would kill for....want your neighbor to pay for your new car? Go see your friendly car dealer today."

The government gave people JOBS, which turned into EARNED TAX INCOME, not spoon-fed, sit-on-the-couch-watching-Springer, eating-Doritos handouts. Sure, the govermnet paid straight out of the taxpayers pockets to help climb out of the hole, but know what it got in return, the Eisenhower Interstate System, and MANY other huge construction projects that we all use every day.

If the government took the role today that they did in the 1930's, there would be revolution because nobody would get up off their fat asses to get a job. In the 1930's, people begged for any work and felt priviliged to dig a ditch all day for a few bucks.

No Glen Beck & Rush for me. 100% common sense right here.

 

So with this $3B clunkers program, we will now have positive GDP like Germany and France? nice........that sure was easy.

Read the article posted above, with particular attention to the part about the imminent end to the recession and good prospects for growth.

Know what "Government Intervention" was in the 1930's?

"Hey you without a job! Want to put food on the table and not starve? Take this shovel and go build highways & dams."

not

"Hey you with that 15-year old SUV that has nothing wrong, and many people would kill for....want your neighbor to pay for your new car? Go see your friendly car dealer today."

The government gave people JOBS, which turned into EARNED TAX INCOME, not spoon-fed, sit-on-the-couch-watching-Springer, eating-Doritos handouts. Sure, the govermnet paid straight out of the taxpayers pockets to help climb out of the hole, but know what it got in return, the Eisenhower Interstate System, and MANY other huge construction projects that we all use every day.

The infrastructure stimulus was $27 billion, in part to fix some of those ancient crumbling interstates, spread among all the states.

 

You make some valid points, Adam, but America has changed a lot since the 1930s. We no longer *build* things (it's much cheaper to send that dirty work overseas), we *buy* things.

Also, there are some places in the United States, one county in Tennessee comes to mind, that are using federal recovery funds to create jobs. Now, government jobs will work in backwoods Tennessee since manufacturing jobs recently left for Mexico, but for how long?

And, hand a shovel to most Americans these days and they'll stick their nose up at you. Except, however, in Vermont. When I moved there in 1999 from Illinois, my cousin looked at the landscaping crews doing that ill-fated median planting by UVM and said, "White people do landscaping here? What kind of state is this?"

Seriously.

 

Andrew, let me explain trickle-down economics to you:

Cleveland = big machinist economy for the auto industry
People don't buy cars = Cleveland parts suppliers and suppliers to parts suppliers stop production and lay off people
Laid off people stop buying things = less money in the pockets of other companies in Cleveland
Less money in the pockets of other companies in Cleveland = less desire by those companies to buy things, including magazine advertising
Less desire by those companies to buy things, including magazine advertising = ad revenues decline at a regional Cleveland business magazine
Ad revenues decline at a regional Cleveland business magazine = layoffs of magazine staff
Layoffs of magazine staff = Erica out of a job.

And that's what happened when we DIDN'T let GM fail.

You know, a lot of people in this country have to realize one important thing: We're in this together. If you don't like the recession, leave.

 

I understand trickle down economics very well and know it was a staple of reagan in the 80's and understand how it applies here, I'm just debating whether the auto industry will legitimately occupy the large percentage of gdp, jobs etc that is has in the past. In essence, I'm wondering if we're seeing a changing of times in which we're seeing a redefinition of what comprises the most critical prevalent, large industries. Things never stay the same and with the auto industry getting leaner and leaner by the day, jobs were going to be gone anyways. Take that and add the fact that cars are staying on the road longer and rising in price and we see decreased demand, equating to less production and less needed workers. Yeah the auto industry is a big piece to the current economic puzzle but I bet it won't continue to be for much longer. Seeing this, I didn't think the investment was worth it. I feel bad for the specialized workers who make 26 an hour installing tail lights and have to pay the bills, but it is what is.

 

it's an economic benefit because the money comes from the Chinese and you'll never have to pay them back

Arguing about unsold inventory is absurd. Of course the cars were unsold before they were sold! Regardless they would have ALWAYS sold, a week later, a month later, the same day without any such corruption of the market.

Global warming for its end is a socialist-driven hoax with the aim of enslaving humanity

Destroying anything cannot increase value. To say so is absurd. Value is essentially money, so imagine burning a stack of money, this is not a way to produce money.

in other words:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

one quotation from that piece that may be interesting:

I. THE BROKEN WINDOW

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation - "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade - that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs - I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end - To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."

What will you say, Monsieur Industriel -- what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying - What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

 

it's an economic benefit because the money comes from the Chinese and you'll never have to pay them back

We've been stockpiling loonies to let them loose on the open market

Arguing about unsold inventory is absurd. Of course the cars were unsold before they were sold! Regardless they would have ALWAYS sold, a week later, a month later, the same day without any such corruption of the market.

No. That assertion ignores the fundamental way money flows through economic strata. A car sitting in a parking lot for 10 months isn't generating income for the company, which can't pay its suppliers, which can't pay its employees, who can't buy clothes, tanning sessions, aluminum siding, chicken legs, wood flooring, houses, lawmowers, etc...

Multiply that economic ripple by 500,000.

The point of a stimulus program is to trigger buying, to prompt spending, to get money moving through the economy. The $4,500 credit someone gets on a car will presumably be spent elsewhere.

Global warming for its end is a socialist-driven hoax with the aim of enslaving humanity

Um, ok.

Destroying anything cannot increase value. To say so is absurd.

...which, perhaps, is why no one is saying that.

 

...also....


Please don't forget that the only part actually destroyed in the cash for clunkers program is the engine. Much of the remaining vehicle is recycled and "creating value"....

 

The problem with your argument is that you are saying the 4 500$ is coming from the sky. IT is not. The money is a "real" thing produced by the labour of the country. The money is coming out of your pocket no matter what is done - if they run the printing press, inflation will eat it out of your savings. If they run taxes, it will be done more directly. Via debt, which so far seems to be the prerogative of recent administrations, this will be taken from your taxes and your children's.

This is the main reason why any kind of "stimulus" is only damaging to the economy, and most importantly to the taxpayer, on the long term.

One need only look at the United States, with the biggest "stimulus" package, and... still in recession. Germany and France did virtually nothing (with the exception of their own "clunker" legislation), and have exited. Canada was forced into "stimulating" but did very little, practically none of that small amount was spent, and Canada may well have exited the recession already.

There is no better way the several billion dollars of this program could be spent, in terms of the health of the economy, and indeed, in the welfare of the country and its citizens, than for every penny of it to have been spent by the man who earned it.

Car sales did improve with the clunker, but as well in Canada the car sales have jumped, without any such program in place. What is likely to occur is that with the end of the program, car sales will decline due to people "already owning" their new bought automobile. There are only so many cars that can be sold in a five or ten year window to a mature market like the USA.

We've been stockpiling loonies to let them loose on the open market

go for it! The Bank of Canada has mentioned that they might do that themselves as the high CAD/USD ratio is worrying for exports... however the BoC hasn't done forex dumping in many years, and shouldn't since it is too ineffective...

 

The problem with your argument is that you are saying the 4 500$ is coming from the sky. IT is not. The money is a "real" thing produced by the labour of the country. The money is coming out of your pocket no matter what is done - if they run the printing press, inflation will eat it out of your savings. If they run taxes, it will be done more directly. Via debt, which so far seems to be the prerogative of recent administrations, this will be taken from your taxes and your children's.

No, it's not coming from the sky. It's coming from anticipated revenues.
The greater issue when is debt absolutely necessary (as in a recession) and when is it crippling (accumulating debt during a boom). Doing the latter made the former essential.

This is the main reason why any kind of "stimulus" is only damaging to the economy, and most importantly to the taxpayer, on the long term.

This is provably wrong. Without massive stimulus programs during the 1930s, we'd be eating dirt pies and speaking German. We spent steadily to emerge from the Great Depression, then got cold feet in 1937 and abruptly stopped...and nearly triggered another recession.

One need only look at the United States, with the biggest "stimulus" package, and... still in recession.

...and emerging from recession. Please see the above articles quoting Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Germany and France did virtually nothing (with the exception of their own "clunker" legislation), and have exited.
Canada was forced into "stimulating" but did very little, practically none of that small amount was spent, and Canada may well have exited the recession already.

Uh, no.

Germany spent 82 billion euros ($110 billion USD) or about 1.5 percent of its GDP. It's expected to possibly spend more this year. France has reserved 100 million euros ($146 million USD), immediately spent almost $37 billion of it. It's expected to spend about 1 percent of GDP

Canada spent about $12 billion CDN in stimulus -- or about 1.9 percent of GDP.

The US, with an economy more than twice as large as France and Germany combined, and and nearly 10 times as large as Canada's, plans to spend....wait for it...about 2 percent of GDP. Reason: the IMF and other organizations calculated that most industrialized nations would need about 2 percent of GDP to kick start the private sector.

It seems to have worked.

There is no better way the several billion dollars of this program could be spent, in terms of the health of the economy, and indeed, in the welfare of the country and its citizens, than for every penny of it to have been spent by the man who earned it.

Again...more libertarian boilerplate.

I wonder why the same libertarians/conservatives who rail against subsidies and tax credits never seem to be returning those benefits when they receive them.