The “cash for clunkers” program would allow car owners to turn in their old gas-guzzlers in exchange for a voucher for up to $4,500 to help buy a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle. Way too many people still drive their SUVs and large trucks because they apparently don’t care about the harm that their vehicles do to the environment. Smaller cars generally cost less up front than big gas-guzzlers, and they use much less fuel. But SUV drivers bought SUVs instead. So these drivers are apparently not motivated by the price of a vehicle or the ongoing cost of fuel. Perhaps they will be motivated by the prospect of a $4,500 voucher. I hope they will be, because that would mean fewer gas-guzzlers on our roads. But it pains me to realize that we have to bribe people into doing the right thing. — Mary Shaw, Philly Freedom.blogspot.com
“Cash for clunkers” is a bad idea whose time seems to have come. Congress added trade-in incentives for old gas-guzzlers to a $106 billion supplemental appropriations bill. Motorists who have owned an older car or truck for at least one year may trade in their vehicles and receive vouchers to help pay for new, more fuel-efficient models. The bigger the fuel-efficiency gain, the bigger your voucher, up to a maximum of $4,500. The program, which is expected to start in August and run through October, is supposed to help the auto industry and modernize the U.S. auto fleet. It’s modeled on similar plans in many European countries, which have boosted new-car sales. The program is capped at a total cost of $1 billion, down from $4 billion in earlier versions. Even $4,500 per clunker may not be enough to help many owners trade up: Clunker “owners are either not looking for an increased car payment or cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle, which averages nearly $30,000,” a report by analysts at Edmunds.com concluded. They believe the program will struggle to produce sales of 250,000 vehicles — or half of Congress’ goal. — Washington Post editorial
58 Comments
Hmmm….
Now just who might benefit from a $4,500 discount for fuel efficiency?
CEOs?
Fat Cat Wall Street traders?
Sounds like a Middle Class tax break to me.
Now, it might mean you have to part with your rusted-out Torino. But it’s your choice.
After all, you might get as much as $4,501 for your trade-in.
And a Smart Car might class up the trailer park.
And don’t forget, you buy a new car this year and Uncle Sam is going to give you another break by allowing you to take a deduction for the state sales taxes on the purchase.
Gotta love all this FREE MONEY!!!!!!
Now, let’s see if those 14.7 million unemployed Americans, and the 4 million others who have given up will qualify for that FREE MONEY!!!! Let’s see these breaks help the poor!
9.5% almost one tenth of all Americans have no jobs.
Bet they are loving their president today.
It’s a horrible idea and will just put more people deeper in debt who think it’s a good deal.
Perhaps they should require the new cars be purchased from the “meaner, tighter, post bankruptcy” General Motors Corporation since reportedly the U.S. Government will be owner of some 80% of G.M.
Its beyond me to know how the bankruptcy judge can cancel the G.M. common stock but retain most of the executives that caused the problems.
Wonder how many retired people owned General Motors common stock thinking they owned blue chip stocks for their retirement only to find that stock is now virtually worthless.
“Bet they are loving their president today.”
This recession/depression started in 2007, under George W Bush. It is ridiculous to think that Barack Obama could clean up the mess in six months.
Economists are nearly universal in stating that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression. Obama stated that things could get worse before they got better. That is just being realistic.
I have yet to see a Republican plan with specifics that could do any better. So far, all the GOP has to offer is “no.”
“Wonder how many retired people owned General Motors common stock thinking they owned blue chip stocks for their retirement only to find that stock is now virtually worthless.”
GM union workers for a start. I’d guess millions of Americans through mutual funds, 401K plans, or DRIP’s. Not sure if employees had a stock purchase plan option through their payrolls.
“20 percent of the bonds are owned personally by roughly 100,000 mom-and-pop investors across the country, according to Main Street Bondholders, a group organized to lobby on their behalf.”
“Half of all U.S. households now own equities directly or through mutual funds, up from about one-fifth in 1983. Ninety percent of equity-owning households invest in stock mutual funds, and nearly half own individual stock.”
“Equity ownership occurs across a broad range of demographic groups. Younger owners are more likely to hold equities through mutual funds and in tax-deferred accounts than are older inves-tors. Younger owners are also more likely to have first invested in equities through retirement plans at work, whereas older investors typically purchased their first equity investments outside these plans.
Although growth in equity ownership since 1999 has been primarily through retirement plans at work, nearly three-quarters of U.S. households that own equities hold individual stock or stock mutual funds outside these plans. Professional financial advisers are the main conduit to equity ownership outside retirement plans at work.”
Obama didn’t just screw the evil rich. Ma and Pa lost their auto industry investments. Union support comes way before individual Americans with Obama. The union finances campaigns and now the feds finance unions.
“This recession/depression started in 2007″
Could be, but it’s getting worse under the democrat president and his lackey congress. Much worse. Even worse than Obama expected.
Obama will go down in history as the next Hoover.
Hoover or Franklin Roosevelt? Hoover wanted to government to maintain a hands off policy when the depression began early in his term. It was FDR who instituted a massive government intervention. Some revisionist historians now question FDR’s federal programs and suggest Hoover’s plan might have worked better.
In my life, I believe my father worked for a time for WPA back in the mid-1930’s before he got back into the oil business in southeastern Nebraska in about 1939. At least my parents talked a lot about how they thought WPA and similar programs helped to end the depression. I wish I could go back and ask them more questions about that time period.
However, regarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I still consider him America’s greatest President. He could have spent his life as a polo playing playboy with family money and fancy cars in the 1920’s. But he contracted polio or related disease. He then served as Governor of New York, followed by election four times as President of the U.S. During his presidency, he was continuously challenged by the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and his evil nemises, Adolph Hitler.
I think FDR did more to serve America and the world than any President before or since.
So today, on July 4th, 2009, Independence Day, I say God bless Franklin Delano Roosevelt, great American, for keeping this nation free.
Quit lying, Mr. Way. Obama told us it was going to get bad, or sure could. Your side spent 30 years selling all the chicken houses to China. Now you’re bellering. Fry the Duck up and look in the mirror to see where your problems came from.
It’s a good idea.
BlueJay,
Will you be trading in your clunker then and buying something new which gets better mpg?
“Will you be trading in your clunker then and buying something new which gets better mpg?”
ROTFLMAO!!! Good one SSgt!!!
Does public transportation count? Can he claim a city bus?
“Obama told us it was going to get bad, or sure could”
That doesn’t excuse or provide cover for Obama destroying the nation with huge increases in the national debt which has to be funded by foreign nations – who could at any time hold us hostage to blackmail by refusing to buy our worthless bonds.
I’m thinking the resulting inflation will hurt the poor and young the worst. Those of us in middle age have accumulated what we need and much of what we want. I have my toys. Last time inflation reared it’s ugly head in the early 70’s, my father accumulated much wealth buying CD’s. Those were the days when banks offered goodies to put your money in their banks. I once got a huge boom box for investing 5,000 in a five year CD at high interest rate (I was a young investor).
But for the poor who live and shop day-to-day, and young Americans still accumulating the bare necessities – Obama is going to ruin them.
I don’t recall FDR taking over private industry so much as BHO has done.
BHO seems to be more of a Marxist then FDR.
Did FDR take over any auto manufacturers? How about banks, investment firms, or insurance companies?
I think that was Lenin or more recently Chaviz.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez threatened to nationalize the milk factories of Nestle and Parmalat, accusing the transnational food companies of bribing producers and leaving the network of state-owned and cooperative milk processing plants without the product.
“This government needs to tighten the screws,” the president affirmed on his weekly talk show Aló Presidente on Sunday. “If, for example, it is demonstrated that [Nestle and Parmalat], by distinct economic mechanisms or pressure, take away production and leave the factories of the state and the cooperatives without the necessary milk supply, we must apply the constitution and intervene and nationalize the plants.”
Chavez did call Obama his “comrade” brother, gave him a book, and congratulated Obama for being a bigger socialist than even himself.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/06/08/spiked-hugo-chavez-jokes-gm-nationalized-comrade-obama-makes-castro-look
“American_Way” asks –
“Did FDR take over any auto manufacturers? “
Yeah, pretty much.
One day they were building Pontiacs and the next day they were building tanks.
Remember?
Nah, you don’t remember.
CONs don’t remember much.
It’s what they depend on.
Keep pleading ignorance, CONs.
Not a jury in the world will convict you.
“One day they were building Pontiacs and the next day they were building tanks. ”
The US Government had contracts with all American manufacturing during the war.
They didn’t take them over by joining the board rooms and owning stock majorities – did they?
Not even a nice try.
A distinction without a difference, “American_Way” –
Some CONs are so busy spinning they think dizzy is normal.
You say I am spinning?
LoL!
Truth Monkeyhawk escapes you.
Did FDR buy private corporations?
Did FDR push laws for public ownership and domination of private corporations?
Did FDR take over full control of the banks?
Talk sheat or truth.
No not at this time anyway, first buying a new car at this time when no one is assured that next month they will not be unemployed. Second this is a program that is spending money when it is not needed to be spent.
It a pie-in-the-sky idea.
It’s been nine hours. I’d have to say Monkeyhawk doesn’t have the answer and therefore is full of sheat, as I originally suspected.
The only one who has been busy spinning as it turns out is Monkeyhawk of course.
Gm was strong enough to survive Hoover and FDR, but not strong enough to withstand the busheconomy. They were in a death spiral before Obama took office, he managed to breathe new life into them. Now they just have to start over.
Cons, first they whine ‘Let the American auto companies go bankrupt’, then when they do, the cons whine because it was a chpt 11 instead of a chapter 7.
Just can’t please them, so why try?
Phantom – who whined about that? What does that have to do with the price of beans in China (clunker law)?
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 4, 2009 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
A distinction without a difference, “American_Way” –
=====================
Well AmWay, this is as close as Monkey ever gets to admitting he was wrong.
BHO is a bigger Marxist then FDR.
FDR never took over private corporations. There was much profit in the lucrative Government contracts to convert their plants from making cars to tanks, or even tractors to tanks.
The BHO bailouts fall outside the bounds of Constitutional authority. The Government held a gun to their heads, and FORCED companies to take bailouts and FORCED companies to bow down to Government control.
Cash For Clunkers is Government using taxpayer money to support the taxpayer funded Auto Companies.
DOUBLE SOCIALISM
If you are smart, you would keep your old clunkers.
You might need it to convert to gasification power or a mobile home.
“Government held a gun to their heads, and FORCED companies to take bailouts and FORCED companies to bow down to Government control.”
Oh, Bull-stuff. Name one company that was FORCED to take a bailout.
WSClark
Posted July 5, 2009 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
“Government held a gun to their heads, and FORCED companies to take bailouts and FORCED companies to bow down to Government control.”
Oh, Bull-stuff. Name one company that was FORCED to take a bailout.
================================
Here are NINE companies forced to take a bailout.
Clark, your Ignorance is Showing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122398468353632299.html
While the program is voluntary, Treasury essentially forced nine major U.S. banks to agree to take $125 billion from the federal government. Treasury will buy $25 billion in preferred stock from Bank of America — including soon-to-be acquired Merrill Lynch — as well as from J.P. Morgan and Citigroup; $25 billion from Wells Fargo & Co.; $10 billion from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley; $3 billion from Bank of New York Mellon; and about $2 billion from State Street. The remainder will be available to small and medium-size institutions that apply for an investment.
They had no choice Clark.
The Banks were threatened by the Federal Government.
The Government forefully took control.
Your Marxist Future can be seen here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402486344034247.html
OCTOBER 15, 2008 At Moment of Truth, U.S. Forced Big Bankers to Blink
“While the program is voluntary, Treasury essentially forced nine major U.S. banks to agree to take $125 billion from the federal government.”
Perhaps the Murdoch Journal can explain “essentially forced?”
All of the companies in question requested assistance.
BTW. Mr. Johnson, perhaps you could remind me who was president on “OCTOBER 15, 2008?”
Are you suggesting that George W Bush is a closet Marxist, Mr. Johnson?
WSClark
Posted July 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
“While the program is voluntary, Treasury essentially forced nine major U.S. banks to agree to take $125 billion from the federal government.”
Perhaps the Murdoch Journal can explain “essentially forced?”
All of the companies in question requested assistance.
————————-
That is NOT correct. All of the companies in question most certainly did NOT request assistance. Link?
“Perhaps the Murdoch Journal can explain “essentially forced?””
Essentially force as in how (and no I am not going to subscribe to the WSJ so that I can read the article) and why did Bernacke, Paulson and Bush force them into taking money that they did not want or need?
Perhaps you can explain the “Marxist” philosophy of Bush and Paulson – two free-market advocates and confirmed supply-side economic proponents?
“The BHO bailouts fall outside the bounds of Constitutional authority. The Government held a gun to their heads, and FORCED companies to take bailouts and FORCED companies to bow down to Government control.”
It was who’s administration in charge in October 2008?
BHO?
Naw!
GWB.
Did BHO object? Nope.
Did BHO openly support it and vote for it? Yup.
Did BHO continue the buyouts as POTUS? Yup.
BHO brings us more of the same siht brought to us by GWB.
“Did BHO openly support it and vote for it? Yup.”
Your article said that the TREASURY forced companies companies to take bailout money.
That would be the Treasury Department under Paulson, who work for Bush.
Perhaps you can show me the bill that Obama supported that advocated having the Treasury forcing banks to take money they neither wanted nor needed.
Waiting on that “essentially forced” explanation – that Paulson employed.
The TARP bill passed the Senate 74 – 25, with Senator Kennedy on medical leave. That seems to be a substantial bipartisan majority.
Don’t you believe in a democratic republic, Mr. Johnson?
And your post beginning:
“The BHO bailouts”
Was clearly meant to tar Obama, even though the election was still weeks off. Correctly, it was the GWB bailouts.
Clark, you can google.
Google that October meeting. You’ll find it.
Hint: Geithner was also there. Look for news recently on Ken Lewis at B of A.
“Clark, you can google.”
You tried to tar Obama with the TARP bill, despite the fact that it was a Conservative Republican administration under George W Bush that requested and administered the first half of the program.
You called it the BHO bailout, being unconstitutional, despite the fact that, at the time, Barack was just a Senator from Illinois and his Party’s nominee for president. You also ignore the strong bipartisan vote on the TARP bill in the Senate.
You also bring Geithner into the equation, despite the fact that he had no authority in a Federal matter and Hank Paulson, Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury was George’ chosen point man on the economic situation.
You have tried to tar Obama, while conveniently ignoring the fact that he wasn’t even the President -Elect at that point.
Try as you might, the facts won’t let you blame EVERYTHING on Barack Obama.
If Geithner had no authority, why was he at the meeting with the banks that October day?
And I gave you not one, but two solid links already Clark.
There’s very recent news about Ken Lewis and B of A.
It doesn’t matter how many links I give you. You still have your honeymoon colored glasses on.
Who is stopping the banks from repaying those loans today?
Blaming Bush for that too I bet.
“If Geithner had no authority, why was he at the meeting with the banks that October day?”
In an advisory role as CFO of the State of New York.
“It doesn’t matter how many links I give you. You still have your honeymoon colored glasses on.”
And you will continue to try to blame Obama for what happened in October of 2008, week before he was even elected president.
I understand that Republicans don’t want a honeymoon for Obama, but reaching back to a time BEFORE he was even elected is a little extreme.
And I already told you…..
(and no I am not going to subscribe to the WSJ so that I can read the article)
Is this the “breaking Ken Lewis” news?
The panel is investigating claims that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke pressured (Ken) Lewis and urged him to keep quiet about Merrill Lynch’s financial problems. Not divulging that information would have violated Lewis’ fiduciary duty to the bank’s shareholders.
And this is Obama’s fault how?
Sorry, the above quoted passage was from Huffington Post – forgot to get the link….
Seems that Forbes feels the problem with Ken Lewis and Bank of America was Lewis’ desire to make a bigger splash than his retired former boss, not pressure from the Treasury.
“Why Ken Lewis Destroyed Bank Of America
Sydney Finkelstein, 03.03.09, 03:37 PM EST”
“How could Lewis surpass that mighty presence? He needed to make a big splash. What could be a bigger trophy than Merrill Lynch? That’s how you can explain the single weekend of hectic due diligence, amid pressures from all sides, as the sale went through. Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? Because he was buying a dream of a company, one that had an enormous emotional attachment for him personally. McColl had never acquired Merrill. Now Ken Lewis could do it. Wow.”
So after Lewis was ousted as CEO of B of A, THEN he claimed that Paulson MADE him do it.
Interesting.
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? -WSClark
I don’t know, why would Congress agree to a Bill spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS with so little information and so little time for debate?
Government now runs the banks Clark, and Obama is digging his little paws even deeper into Government control.
If you can’t see that, then you b either blind, brainwashed, or stupid.
“JimJohnson” –
The French think we’re silly in America because so many people fear the government.
In France, the government fears the people.
And yet you cower in the corner at the thought of:
Government of the people,
By the people,
And for the people.
You CONs are revealing yourselves to be not against “government,” but against “people.”
The party of misanthropy.
Now there’s a political movement for ya.
How many times did America save France in the 20th Century?
Who could fear the French government?
OMG, Mr. Johnson, you are STILL trying to blame Obama for what Paulson and Bush did in October 2008!
Do you even realize how silly that is?
And:
“Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? -WSClark”
The quote was from Sydney Finkelstein from Forbes Mag and it was properly attributed.
“How many times did America save France in the 20th Century?”
There would not be an America if it had not been for the French. Perhaps we should keep that in mind.
I just got back from the local Ford and Nissan dealers and the Ford people explained that they were waiting for info about the program from their headquarters and wouldn’t be ready until the 24th of July. The Nissan dealer didn’t know anything about the program. They actually asked me if I was buying a new or used car with the clunker money. LOL I was told to research online about the facts and I found a site http://www.slickbudget.com about a guy who is documenting the whole experience of buying a car using the clunkers program. It is very informative.