“Cash for clunkers” was so successful that a program that was meant to take until November achieved its goals in a week or two. Thousands of cars were sold, helping dealerships and car companies to move toward recovery. Thousands of gas-guzzlers were scrapped, helping the country move toward improved energy efficiency. Just as it starts to become clear that the government has a winner on its hands, we start to see reports in the conservative media that call the program a failure. The lesson they all teach is this failure shows what will happen if we pass health care reform. Draw your own lessons. Was a program that wildly overachieved its goals, stimulated the economy, improved the country’s fuel efficiency and brought a great price for a new car to tens of thousands of Americans a success or not? I say it was, and I say it shows why we want a public option choice in the health care reform. — Dave Johnson, Huffington Post
What the clunker policy really proves is that Americans aren’t stupid and will let some other taxpayer buy them a free lunch if given the chance. It’s hardly surprising that Peter is willing to use a donation from his neighbor Paul, midwifed by Uncle Sugar, to class up his driveway. On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years. Since money is no object, let’s give everyone a $4,500 voucher for other consumer goods. As long as everyone thinks we can conjure wealth out of $4,500 giveaways, let’s go all the way. — Wall Street Journal editorial
85 Comments
Ford Focus is Cash for Clunkers’ top-selling new car.
More than 80 percent of the vehicles turned in were trucks and sport-utility vehicles, the government said. The top-selling new car is the Ford Focus, followed by the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry. The new vehicles on average get 25.4 miles per gallon, compared with an average of 15.8 mpg for the trade-ins.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080401700.html?hpid=moreheadlines
“Take from the many hard working Americans … give to the few who will take advantage whenever possible.”
“Ask not what you can take from your government that is already flat broke … ask what you can give back.”
“Just say NO, No, No to the budget breaking Congressional clunker giveaway.”
Sloganeering won’t help turn the economy around, but thanks for your input, JW.
The Wall Street Journal Rhonda?
I noticed your ad revenue from the new car dealers dried up yesterday.
Is the Wall Street Journal gonna cover the loss?
What I don’t like about the program is that the “clunkers” will be destroyed. I have a 1993 pickup that I could have turned in on this program. However the truck only has 50,000 miles and is in good condition. Why destroy a good vehicle like this? I understand the program and why they are doing this, but I still don’t like to see a good vehicle destroyed that would have many miles of good use for someone.
Wow! The government can spend money!
And since it’s money the government doesn’t have, they’ll have to borrow it, print it, or increase taxes!
Impressive!!!
Tax and Spend, Borrow and Print. The Democrat way.
I like my old “clunker” and I intend to keep it.
Cash for clunkers hurts poor people. Printing money to fund something is nothing more than a hidden tax on poor people and savers. Not to mention the fact that you are removing the market that poor people rely on to get automobiles.
Was this intended to be an environmental program or one to help ailing American auto makers?
Doesn’t seem to be doing the later. Ford wasn’t in trouble and all the rest of the top sellers are foreign brands.
Anytime I find the cons worried about the environment or poor people I may rest assured they are dishonest out of desperation.
This program shows that Government can be successful where the “free” market is not.
The Dem-controlled government controls GM and Chrysler. The Dem-controlled government passes legislative money to try to make GM and Chrysler successful.
How much will the Dem-controlled government spend to make Obama’s decision to take over GM and Chrysler look good?
Heck, the annual budget deficit is now over ONE TRILLION and projected to be from $1.75 to $1.85 TRILLION for the year 2009.
That is QUADRUPLE the annual budget deficit in 2008.
How much more Dem spending on Cars for Clunkers can our grandchildren afford?
Tax and Spend, Borrow and Print. The Democrat way.
It sounds like Delilah’s vehicle is no clunker. It is probably worth close to $4,500 anyways with that much life left.
This is probably true with a majority of the vehicles traded in since the requirement is that they had to be less then 25 years old, still running. Trucks and SUV’s alone have a higher resale value so just because they are under 18 MPG doesn’t mean they are really “clunkers”.
Scrapping perfectly good vehicles for new vehicles via taxpayer subsidy does not help the economy and it does not help the consumer!
If it did, we all should set our personal belongings on fire right now, get a small stipend from the the tax payers, (er tax borrowers) and buy all new stuff.
What have we gained in the process? Well, nothing but debt.
The program is wildly successful and apparently WILL get further funding.
It’s a good first step. We should explore it further. There are many ways where the Government could be successful where the “free” market has failed.
BlueJay
Posted August 5, 2009 at 8:17 am | Permalink
Anytime I find the cons worried about the environment or poor people I may rest assured they are dishonest out of desperation.
This program shows that Government can be successful where the “free” market is not.
—————–
With the success of this program I am sure you traded in your clunker for one of those new gov provided fuel economical cars. What kind did you get? Did you stick with a union made or go with a foreign one?
Change we can all believe in. My refrig is starting to make a noise so I will wait for the ‘cash for coldbox’ and then me a new fangeled one that is more efficient. This gives me ‘hope’ for the ‘change’ I can indeed believe in.
All I see is a bunch of sour grapes, from the cons not in the market to buy a car.
“It’s a good first step. We should explore it further. There are many ways where the Government could be successful where the “free” market has failed.”
——————
BJ I can remember when our youngest wanted something really bad, and when I told him we didn’t have the money he said ‘Well just write a check’. He was six or seven and had the advantage of inexperience on his side. The gov can’t claim this innocence. When you spend money you don’t have it is irresponsible not a good thing. The gov hasn’t succeeded when they spend the future of our nation to make themselves look good.
Dems control the House.
Dems control the Senate.
Dems control the White House.
Dems control the Legislative and Executive branches of federal government.
Cash for Clunkers is a Dem spending program.
Spend, spend, spend. Tax and Spend.
Spend, Dem, spend. Borrow and Print.
Tax and Spend, Borrow and Print.
Borrow and Print, Spend, Dem, spend.
Phantom what I see is a bunch of leeches on the left looking for a way to look better in a time their stock is sinking like a rock.
Looking at this realisticly lets say BJ or someone in circumstances similar to his took his clunker down to trade in and get $4,500 off his new Prius. Now the base price on this car is in the $25,000 to $30,000 range. What will happen when the first payment comes due on that new car?
We are looking at repos by the hundreds shortly. This is reality not sour grapes. The libs should try it sometime.
So….
Deficit spending for war ok.
We are talking about a few billion dollars here. We spent that in Iraq in less than a month. What is the return on that investment?
I understand why you and your fellow cons are nervous to discredit this very successful program okie. You are afraid that people might come to expect more of the same from their Government. They just MIGHT figure out that you and people like you have been scaring them against reason for all this time from such an idea.
No okie, I am not in the market for a new car.
(There’s that “free” market again.)
I do know someone who is and will buy just as soon as this funding is assured.
BlueJay is a turd rollin’ nut job.
I say that with all due respect.
“ANTI” contributes to the topic –
“BlueJay is a turd rollin’ nut job.”
Thanks for your input on the issue of C4C.
Good point okobserver – this is the same financial model as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That is, where the government forces/requires or colludes to force artificial sales in order to get people into a car and supposedly save the auto industry.
The federal government owns 70 percent of General Motors, so who exactly are they saving?
Not to mention that all of these people are now saddled with bank loans for the next six years.
So let’s get the straight – The government borrows money to develop the Cash for Clunkers Program, the Dealers get a temporary loan from the government and consumers are tied with a loan for the next six years.
Loaned money to develop more loans, which in turns develop more loans. Didn’t we just have a financial crisis based on that concept?
What the clunker policy really proves is that Americans aren’t stupid and will let some other taxpayer buy them a free lunch if given the chance. It’s hardly surprising that Peter is willing to use a donation from his neighbor Paul, midwifed by Uncle Sugar, to class up his driveway. On the other hand, this is crackpot economics.
===
Yup. This IS, despite JR’s denials, the free market; the gov’t is just playing in it. With your money – well, uh, actually your kid’s money. And amazingly, people will take the free money. Duh.
But . . . Does this help the poor? No; they can’t afford new cars even with the subsidy, and the used cars they rely on are being destroyed.
Does this help the automakers? Sure, if you’re Toyota or Honda. But domestics? Not so much.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI2NDlkYWRkYmE0ZWI5YjZiYmE4Njc1ZWI1NGY5YTU=
Does it help the environment? What’s the carbon impact of producing all these new cars? More driving the ‘clunkers,’ for certain.
Where’s the money come from? Well, it’s borrowed. From our grandkids. To pay for our cool new ride. Makes you proud don’t it.
And this is touted as a “grand success?” Good God, I can’t wait to see a ‘failure . . . ‘
Government works folks.
(Well, except for GMC)
It’s not a new concept. Just one the Republicans have tried to hide from us for a long time.
“GMC70″ poses –
“What’s the carbon impact of producing all these new cars? More driving the ‘clunkers,’ for certain.”
For certain!
For certain?!
I’m sure a gifted litigator such as yourself has evidence, “GMC70.”
Produce it.
C4C is a complete waste of tax payers money as it is structured now.
Speaking of a waste of tax payer money, Congress is getting brand new Gulfstreams at out expense!!
What recession?
out=our
“Not to mention that all of these people are now saddled with bank loans for the next six years.”
I’m not aware of any information one way or another on the economic classes who are buying the cars. I expect they are made up of exactly the same economic classes that buy cars usually. Neither the Right nor the Left can resist an opportunity to display their prejudices.
That is, people who drive cars are poor. But what if the clunker is a second or third car? As for people who are trading in cars that have a trade in value near or just below the clunker rebate, now that’s just stupid. The street value of your vehicle is much higher than the trade-in value. A study of four-year-olds instructed that if they wait they can have two pieces of candy if they wait a few minutes, or wone piece immediatly is instructive in this instance.
Gulfstreams, you know those pesky private jets that the congress critters were b|tching about a few months ago…..
OK for me, not for YOU!
“The program is wildly successful and apparently WILL get further funding.”
So why stop at $4,500? If that was “wildly successful”, wouldn’t $20,000/car be MORE “successful”?
Why stop at cars? Why not use taxpayer $’s to give airlines $1M/junk plane to trash their jets and buy new? Why not tear down older homes to force new buildng?
Anyone ever heard of the “broken window fallacy”? It’s the same logic ignorant economists tried to argue more than 2 centuries ago, that a broken window was “good for the economy”, because someone had to fix it, a glass maker had to make more glass, etc, etc…then logic prevailed as they realized spending money that would’ve otherwise been put to better use, just to get back the status quo was insane! C4C is no different. You take an asset of some value, destroy it, in exchange for a little better mileage to pay for the taxpayer loan and a shiny new loan payment on an asset guaranteed to depreciate just as fast as always (cars are HORRIBLE “investments”), increasing prices on lower priced cars (that lower income people buy), and higher priced parts to fix lower priced cars that people who can’t afford new drive…
So the auto companies have a good quarter or two…what happens when all the demand compressed into the present disappears in the future? Consumer debt is a big problem looming as well…so it makes sense to increase it???
“Not to mention that all of these people are now saddled with bank loans for the next six years.”
I’m not aware of any information one way or another on the economic classes who are buying the cars. I expect they are made up of exactly the same economic classes that buy cars usually. Neither the Right nor the Left can resist an opportunity to display their prejudices.
That is, people who drive old cars are poor. But what if the clunker is a second or third car? As for people who are trading in cars that have a trade in value near or just below the clunker rebate, now that’s just stupid. The street value of your vehicle is much higher than the trade-in value. A study of four-year-olds instructed that they can have two pieces of candy if they wait a few minutes, or one piece immediately is instructive in this instance.
In addition, I don’t remember people worrying too much when the Bush tax rebates of 2001 and 2008 were passed by an eager Congress. Those in total cost several hundreds of billions of dollars, which was your grandkid’s money too.
There, that’s better.
The Bush Tax rebates affected a much broader income distribution group, including lower income brackets.
Very few people in the lower income brackets who desparetly need working automobiles won’t get any help. Being nickled and dimed (due to constant repair)leads them to just this side of bankruptcy and the low income groups were left out the program completely.
Low income or folks in categories with existing debt or perhaps a large family with modest income didn’t get a break from the O’BAMA administration.
Obama administration withholds data on clunker program
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its “cash-for-clunkers” rebate program that would substantiate – or undercut – White House claims of the program’s success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release electronic records about the program, and President Barack Obama has pledged greater transparency for his administration. But the Transportation Department, which has collected details about 157,000 rebate requests, won’t release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.
The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. But the public and Senate Republicans demanding more information will have to wait for details because federal officials running the program don’t have time to turn over data delivered by car dealers, said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
LaHood said in an interview Sunday he would make the electronic records available. “I can’t think of any reason why we wouldn’t do it,” he said.
DOT officials already have received electronic details from car dealers of each trade-in transaction. The agency regularly analyzes the data internally, producing helpful talking points for LaHood, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and other officials to use when urging more funding.
LaHood, the program’s chief salesman, has pitched the rebates as good for America, good for car buyers, good for the environment, good for the economy. But it’s difficult to determine whether the administration is overselling the claim without seeing what’s being sold, what’s being traded in and where the cars are being sold.
LaHood, for example, promotes the fact that the Ford Focus so far is at the top of the list of new cars purchased under the program. But the limited information released so far shows most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles, and six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai.
LaHood has called the popular rebates to car buyers “the lifeline that will bring back the automobile industry in America.” He and other advocates are citing program data to promote passage of another $2 billion for the incentives – claiming dealers sold cars that are 61 percent more fuel efficient than trade-ins and Ford’s Focus is the top seller.
LaHood also said this week that even if buyers aren’t choosing cars made by U.S. automobile manufacturers, many of the Honda, Toyota and Hyundai cars sold were made in those companies’ American plants.
But there’s no way to verify his claims without access to DOT’s data.
Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has argued against quick approval of $2 billion for the program because little is known about the first round of $3,500 and $4,500 rebates.
“We don’t have the results of the first $1 billion,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. “You don’t have them. We don’t have them. DOT doesn’t have all of it. We’d hate to make a mistake on something like that.”
This is crazy not knowing what the details of the program are. Who destroys the vehicles and what is the cost of doing so?
Those in total cost several hundreds of billions of dollars, which was your grandkid’s money too.
Doris thinks that goverment expenditures that give tax payer money back to ALL tax payers are a “cost”.
Which costs more, a tax rebate with your name on it or paying towards a new car for someone else?
Seems reasonable to me to have and understand all the data from the first batch of CFC before moving foward with more.
WHile I disagree with the program in principal, and in general, I would still be interested in knowing
1) what the goals were
2) How well they were met
3) the efficiency of the dollars spent
A program that actually works, and the wing nuts complain. Is anyone surprised?
Many good points have been made up thread, recently mom decided to buy a pick-up? Anyway while at the dealership with her I saw a 2000 F-150 extended cab, towing package and color matched topper. A dream truck for me and I asked if it was in contention instead of the 2000 ranger. Turns out it was the trade in for cash for clunkers. And could not be sold and was going to the crusher. Heartbroken is a nice word for how I felt.
As has been pointed out this was the truck I could afford, even with 45000 I could not afford the remaining 7,000 for a new truck. Many of these vehicles are the market for poor people. I think of all the single parents who have to beg a ride or take several public bus rides often with kids in tow. Because they can not afford a new car.
I was against the program, thought it was pie in the night and would not work well in this economy.
I was surprised to say the least! I do see where this is a benefit, the dealership I visited was in danger of closing for lack of business. Now there is new breath in it, the employees are breathing easier and the money will go outward from this dealership and back into the economy. That is a injection into the economy and faster then the rest of the stimulus package.
A program that pays people to scrap their perfectly good vehicles and the Liberals call it a “smashing success”. Is anyone surprised?
” program that actually works”
Please define “actually works”
Let the poor people have the gas-guzzling polluters so they can spend more of their scarce resources wasting gas.
“This is crazy not knowing what the details of the program are?” You need it spoon-fed to you? Google, man! GOOGLE!!!!
Since the most popular car is the great FOrd Focus, it’s not rich people buying these…
Because it was so precise it does enter the economy better then if you received a check for the 4,500.
Giving this money for the spending as one sees fit often would have meant that money would have simply gone to paying bills and would not have been flowing. It also is less money then if there was a general giving away. This helps the car dealers, the car industry and the suppliers all employ people.
In turn these employees will spend their money within the economy.
A program that actually works,
The libs will buy any line Obama feeds them. If it works so well, why is the Whitehouse sitting on the data?
So,is thatit? Simply to sell cars? Then why not have an American Made requirement? Or, at least an AMerican car company requirement?
Probably violates WTO agreements, but what is the goal?
Fuel savings?
I Don;t beleive the 60% efficiency statement. If the Ford Focus is the top seller, andit averages 30 mpg, then the average trade in only gets 12 mpg. I simply don;t believe that that many people are driving cars with that poor of gas mileage and havent; already gotten rid of them
Besides, the fuel requirement is only
New passenger cars must average at least 22 mpg; new small trucks and SUVs must average at least 18 mpg; and new large trucks must average at least 15 mpg.The new vehicle must be purchased between now and November 1st, 2009. ($4,500
Voucher Qualification
To receive the maximum $4,500 voucher, your new vehicle’s combined mpg must exceed your trade-in vehicle’s combined mpg by the following amounts:
Passenger Cars?By 10 mpg or more.Light-Duty Truck, SUV, Minivan?By 5 mpg or more.Large Light-Duty Truck?By 2 mpg or more.$3,500 Voucher Qualification
To receive the $3,500 voucher your new vehicle’s combined mpg must exceed your trade-in vehicle’s combined mpg by the following amounts:
Passenger Cars?By 4 mpg or more.Light-Duty Truck, SUV, Minivan?By 2 mpg or more.Large Light-Duty Truck?By 1 mpg or more
SO, wow, I can get a 3500 check fromthe goernment by getting a newer minivan that gets 2 mpg? At an annual driving rate of 15000 miles that;s a savings of what, 50-75 gallons of gas a year?
It may be stirring the dealerships, it may make people that are participating or buying new cars anyway happy, but is that the definiton of “works?”
Where did the money come from? BOrrowed from Chinese, again?
How about taking money out of the DOT gas tax funds to pay for it?
Philosphically, I see no reason for me to subsidize the purchase of a new vehicle by someone else.
Practically, I have seen no evidence that it serves a NATIONAL good, anymore than free food, free airconditioners, or any other “free” money giveaway
Giving this money for the spending as one sees fit often would have meant that money would have simply gone to paying bills.
Ask any financial advisor, people should pay bills first and stuff they want second. If the 4500 is more than people need to make their mortgage payment, they will spend it on something they want. The money gets routed to the economy one way or the other. Or it is saved which will keep housing prices up since people are not in a rush to sell if they have to move.
This helps the car dealers, the car industry and the suppliers all employ people.
This program dies in a few weeks. It’s not going to cause any significant uptick in employment over the long term. In fact, unless the new cars boughten recently are largely unreliable, look for weaker auto sales in the years to come.
If the program works so well, why not give money to everyone that wants a new fuel efficient car regardless of any trade-in they may happen to own?
Why not give money away to everyone to buy whatever they want to help employees of all industries?
If it’s such a smashing success…why isn’t GM/Chrysler anywhere to be seen on the top 5 list? Aren’t they the companies that now have over $80B of taxpayer investment at risk? Is it not ironic, that the companies that were more successful in the market anyway, are the ones more successful at the freebie handout too?
I’ll bet the Koreans and the Japanese love the C4C program.
You doubters really refuse to read the news don’t you?
More than 80 percent of the vehicles turned in were trucks and sport-utility vehicles, the government said. The top-selling new car is the Ford Focus, followed by the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry. The new vehicles on average get 25.4 miles per gallon, compared with an average of 15.8 mpg for the trade-ins.
The clunkers program was meant to stimulate sluggish auto sales and spur people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said 157,000 trades had occurred as of Tuesday morning, eating up $664 million of the $1 billion appropriated for the effort.
The top-selling new car is the Ford Focus, followed by the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry.
===============================
Looks like the majority of people would rather buy a foreign car than a Government owned one.
I guess Gov. ownership doesn’t work so great after all.
It is not ironic that the old school cars companies that got themselves into trouble by building inefficient cars people did not want are not being helped as much by the New Car Order.
“In dealerships nationwide, the showroom traffic is unbelievable right now,” Fedewa said. “Even if people don’t qualify, they are still being enticed to go look at vehicles.”
So,is thatit? Simply to sell cars? Then why not have an American Made requirement? Or, at least an AMerican car company requirement?
The problem is just what brand is an American made car? Already GM is saying they will quit buying some materials from American suppliers. They moved there production South of the Broader, Ford moved North and overseas. The only brand I am aware of that is solely building their cars in the U.S. is Toyota
Did GMC miss out? yeah but then they have been building cars that did not live up to anyone’s standards.
The goal is to get money flowing again, to get banks to loan again both the people and bank got so gun shy that neither have been moving their money around.
Did GMC miss out? yeah but then they have been building cars that did not live up to anyone’s standards.
LOL my best buddy would want a fist fight over me saying that! Hey is a Chevy guy and I am Ford.
Why not notice the success story – the Ford Focus, instead of looking for a sloganeering opportunity?
“The clunkers program was meant to stimulate sluggish auto sales and spur people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.” DavidB
You see, that’s the problem when you listen to politicians and you hear “logic”. It’s the equivalent of listening to a baseball game and hearing the score as “Royals 3″ and assuming you now know the result of the game.
As long as you ignore all intended/unintended negative consequences..your math/logic works. But that’s exactly what they expect from their electorate.
This program enabled in bi-partisan legislation. Rs & Ds working together toward a common goal.
Is this why the Contras hate its success?????
DavidB
Posted August 5, 2009 at 11:38 am | Permalink
This program enabled in bi-partisan legislation. Rs & Ds working together toward a common goal.
======================================
Really?
Sure isn’t that way for the ‘refund’.
Gee, maybe I should trade in my motor home. It gets less than 6 mpg.
XXX
Posted August 5, 2009 at 11:42 am | Permalink
Gee, maybe I should trade in my motor home. It gets less than 6 mpg.
================================
Good luck sleeping on something the size of a riding lawn mower seat.
“In dealerships nationwide, the showroom traffic is unbelievable right now,” Fedewa said. “Even if people don’t qualify, they are still being enticed to go look at vehicles.”
Sounds like a sellers market for NEW cars right now. The car dealerships are the only ones making a good deal. They can charge more for their cars due shortages caussed by this government whipped up craze.
Kinda reminds me of the housing market a few years ago. Lowering interest rates and borrowing requirements really created a lot of jobs in Housing didn’t it? It only resulted in more people getting ripped off trying to save a buck.
Hey, along this auto gimme line of thinking, my central air conditioner isn’t the most fuel efficient model and the furnace uses to much gas. I’m thinking I need we need a government program to help me get the most up to date fuel efficient model. They can have my old one for scrap.
Now some of you may have a more fuel efficient a/c furnace than I do, but too bad, those won’t qualify for government help because they are too efficient. But you can still participate in this exciting program by helping me buy mine.
Well outlander,
whether you are seriously interested in conserving energy and helping the environment (yeah, right) or more likely looking to squeeze another nickel?
I’m pleased to be able to help.
http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5697&p_created=1240593838
outlander posted August 5, 2009 at 11:55 am
Hey, along this auto gimme line of thinking, my central air conditioner isn’t the most fuel efficient model and the furnace uses to much gas. I’m thinking I need we need a government program to help me get the most up to date fuel efficient model.
—————-
Good idea, but, the wiser utilities are already doing that.
They offer rebates and low (or zero) cost loans to encourage their customers to upgrade to more efficient A/C & furnace units. They also encourage weatherization and more efficient appliances.
Got an old, inefficient refrigerators? How about $50 to replace it?
ANTI
Posted August 5, 2009 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Good luck sleeping on something the size of a riding lawn mower seat.
_______________________
Mrs XXX would KILL me if I got rid of her “big girl playhouse”.
“littlejohn” argues –
“If the Ford Focus is the top seller, andit averages 30 mpg, then the average trade in only gets 12 mpg.”
I’m guessing math isn’t your strong suit, is it?
Mrs XXX would KILL me if I got rid of her “big girl playhouse”.
=========================
LMFAO!
I know your guessing sure isn;t your strong suit, MonkeyHawk.
But, here ya go
THe statement was that the new car is getting 60% better gas mileage than the trade in. That means that the trade in gets 40% of the gas mileage of the
New gas mileage- old gas mileage =.6 old gas mileage
new gas milage = old gas milage +.6 old gas milage
new gas milage = 1.6 old gas mileage
30 = 1.6 old gas mileag
30/1.6 = old gas mileage
18.6 = old gas mileage
Sorry, I stand corrected. I fellinto the common quick thought process of saying that if the new gas mileage = 60% better, than the old gas mileage = 40% of the new. My bad.
Did ya follow that okay, Monkeyhawk, or what is too mathematical for you.
There is a cash for clunkers program for air conditioners if your utility company is Kansas City Power and Light. Maximum benifit is $850 and you have to have a woefully inefficient system and opt for the highest efficiency rated replacement.
Replacing broken down systems are ineligible for a rebate no matter how efficient your new purchase is.
In order to qualify for a rebate, the system being replaced must have an EER of 8.0 or less, as tested by a CheckMe!-trained HVAC contractor. The replacement of “dead” systems will not be supported under this program because these systems cannot be tested.
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=KS16F&State=federal¤tpageid=1&ee=1&re=1
“Today, a new refrigerator uses less than half the energy of a 1970 model, and they’re getting more energy efficient all the time. The most recent improvement came with 1993 Federal appliance efficiency standards.”
Regulations are good for us….
“phantoms” comment of:
All I see is a bunch of sour grapes, from the cons not in the market to buy a car.
is off the mark. SOME of us bought responsible, high mileage vehicles quite some time ago, and are not eligible for this “FREE” giveaway that the libs are giddy about is ’successful’…duh..give away “FREE” money and it will be “successful”…until you have to pay the bill.
“regulations are good for us”…
well spoken…did you take that directly from Stalin?
Got sour grapes, make sour wine. Looks like the Cfc is going to be voted/approved tomorrow.
I believe there’s also a tax credit for buying energy efficient heating/ac, as well as insulation credit.
Stalin! HA HAHA!!! Red-baiting, how quaint!
The program WILL be voted to be continued.
The idea that Government actually works!
Get used to it cons. Gotta lotta more for ya.
Dems control the House.
Dems control the Senate.
Dems control the White House.
Dems are able to spend as much as they wish.
Okay! Everybody now! Do Dem Aerobics! Ready now! Go!!!
Spend, Spend, Spend. Borrow and Spend.
Borrow and Spend, Borrow and Print.
Spend, Spend, Spend, and Tax and Spend.
Tax and Spend and Borrow and Print.
Hey!!!
Cash for Clunkers has strong support from both major political parties…
Senator Brownback was co-sponsor of the original bill… he was for it before he was against it. I am not sure where he stands now…
Which way is the wind blowing today??
“DavidB” inserts some truth to WE Blog –
“Cash for Clunkers has strong support from both major political parties…
Senator Brownback was co-sponsor of the original bill.”
Perhaps his genuine Opus Dei barbed-wire jock strap was chafing.
Tax Credits foor Energy Efficiency:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index
More efficient energy usage helps the nation.
‘Make Fuel Efficiency Our Gulf Strategy‘
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf
For Immediate Release
June 11, 2009
Contact: Brian Hart or Becky Ogilvie
Brownback Opposes Increasing Debt for Clunkers
Will not support provision in the Supplemental Conference as passed by the House
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today removed his support from the Cash for Clunkers legislation. He was the primary Republican sponsor of one of the Senate versions of this bill which was budget neutral.
“I can no longer support Cash for Clunkers because the House has decided to fund the legislation through deficit spending and has attached it to the war funding supplemental,” Brownback said. “Our bill was a good plan and Senator Stabenow and I worked hard on the Drive America Forward Act to craft a bill that would be truly stimulative, directly benefit consumers, help a critical industry and dealers while not creating more spending but using existing stimulus funds. I will not support the plan if it creates new spending and increases the deficit to do it. I cannot understand why House leadership can’t find a way to use any of the $455 billion left in stimulus funds to pay for the program.”
http://brownback.senate.gov/public/press/record.cfm?id=314288
CFC is a horrible program, taking money from
taxpayers and benefiting only one small sliver
of the business world, however, if nothing else
CFC has proven that new vehicles are overpriced
by at least $4,500. The long-term answer for
better sales is simple: drop the sticker price
by $4,500 and watch sales go up. Next problem,
please.