Good News! Cash for Clunkers bill

The Cash for Clunkers bill that was passed in the house of representatives (and will go to the Senate) today contains a restriction that cars over 25 years old are not eligable. There are other restrictions (such as gas mileage, must be currently registered/insured, etc.) but the age restriction will protect our interests.

Here's a CNN link:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/economy/cash_for_clunkers/index.htm?postversion=2009060917

Thought this was good news to pass on...

 

Haven't read it yet, but seems like a sensible revision and maybe a halfway decent idea to help get actual crap off the road instead of just anything not new enough.

 

Basically the bill is aimed at vehicles that are equipped with smog control devices that can't pass smog,either due to neglect or smog equipment malfunction,and the owner can't afford to make the necessary repairs.There was a government program that assisted in repairs up to a certain amount a while back.Can't remember if it was called the Gold Seal program or something like that.

 

Somehow the dealers will hide the $3500 (or $4500) in the price of the new car. Just like before. Pay with cash get the same deal as the guy who needs financing and then gets the voucher.

Won't work until they just give you the $3500 for you old car outright.

Just my opinion, which is worth about a nickel. Of which I will be taxed 6 cents for, etc.

 

Great post Paul

Just finished watching the video and it seems that only the cars that are build in in the U.S. are eligible in for the highest voucher. Just to think that even if its a Chevy, Ford, or Chrysler and still made in Mexico or Canada the voucher won't be as high as the ones built in here.

They mentioned one of the most gas efficient cars the Prius wouldn't be eligible since its manufactured by Toyota and made in Japan. Which is not making much sense if the government is try to get consumers to purchase gas efficient vehicles. The other thing is that the 2011 Chevy Volt won't qualify since it'll be priced above $35,000.

The Ford Fusion Hybrid would probably be have the best incentive with the voucher if your looking for a hybrid.

 

Say goodbye to cheap used pickups made after 84. On the plus side my 85 C20 just increased in value by a thousand bucks.

Good news would be total defeat of the bill.

 

They also want to target pre-76 cars and give you $1000

http://www.rodandcustommagazine.com..._enhance_vehicle_scrappage_program/index.html

 

Perfect for Ford Pintos

 

Don't think that our Congresscritters are doing this as some sort of a big "favor" to us old car guys...Believe me, they'd get rid of everything old if they could...From Jalopnik:

Many car enthusiasts fearful someone will trade in a rare classic will applaud the section limiting the cars to those produced in model year 1985 or after. Of course, this wasn't done for the sake of car fans. They can't easily determine the combined fuel economy of vehicles before the date, because the EPA didn't track this data.

 

A statement, not an arguement. If the person can't afford to fix the car they already have how can they make car payments on a new car?

 

Point is, they can't. Well, in today's new America, money is supposed to fall from the sky from the masters in DC; maybe they'll buy us a a new car!

 

funny thing is, those "gas-guzzlers" make up much of the fleet used by folks that are not well off. They actually can make pretty good and reliable transportation (think Town Car, DeVille, Suburban) I thought the liberal leaning party represented those very same folks...but if all those big ol' gas-guzzlers become worth $4500 and end up crushed, what will these folks end up being able to afford?

 

Say goodbye to cheap roller projects and parts cars. They're all worth a grand as push pull drag with a pre 76 clause. Model As, 55 chevys, and your car.

 

Keep the government out of my pocket and out of my choices for cars. Can it get anymore invasive?

Government should not be handing out any more money!!

 

It is not a mandatory law. It is just an option for some people that might work out in their benefit and they can chose to participate or not. It doesn't force anyone to trade anything in that doesn't want to, but gives people who do some extra benefit. Now, what's wrong with that? Kind of like a tax credit. If you don't like the tax credit, no reason you have to take it.

 

Damn, there go all the '85 Chevy Citations...

 

That law makes no sense. If I can only afford a $1000 beater they deem a "gas guzzler" what the hell good does a $4500 credit towards a $20,000 new car do me? I still can't afford to buy it.

I suppose up until last year when everyone from your dog to the illegal alien still wet from swimming across the Rio Grande could get a credit card and a mortgage, it would have made sense because someone would give you an auto loan, but not anymore.

 

Well, when you get into math that is a little more than + and -, the equations are a bit more tricky to understand. But, when you do, you realize it likely is a lot cheaper for the government to help people out on the front end verses fix all the messed up crap on the back end. Think wars, toxic dumps, criminals with no education, global warming, current economic meltdown, etc. These equations are way beyond + and - and need a bit more sophisticated math to solve. I think it is a pretty good bet it is cheaper to help get a few people out of bad cars if now for no other reason to give the automakers a few sales and more likelihood they might still be in business next year, which if they fail will have even more expensive consequences. And yes, doing nothing cost money too, just a matter of how much and what is the cheapest way to fix whatever problem is at hand.

 

That reminds me, who's paying to take care of all those batteries from the Prius and other hybrids when they wear out? They aren't exactly made of recyclable newspaper.

 

Again, it is optional. If you want to participate and can afford to, great, that might help encourage you to buy a fuel efficient car instead of another cheap guzzler. I think that is more the intention of the law. It is not intended as a welfare program to help poor people get new cars. It is to help encourage people who are sitting back just driving old gas guzzling cars and who can afford a new car to go out and buy a new a fuel efficient one and gives further encouragement to buy an American one. If you can't afford a new car this doesn't give you any free money to buy one. You are still poor and too bad - save up your change until you can afford one - kind of the way it should be.

 

No, they are made of perfectly recyclable battery materials. Pretty much everything in a Prius battery is recyclable. They aren't made of nuclear waste, they are just batteries. They are recyclable just like other stuff in pretty much any other car. Who is going to pay for recycling your car when it is done for?

 

Even if you can afford a new car, it still makes no sense. Most new cars lose around half their value in the first 12 months even though you might only put 12,000 miles on them. But they'll last 200,000 miles with reasonable care. I'd just as soon buy a beater, drive it a year or two, and buy another, and if it loses half it's value, I'm only out a few hundred bucks, I'm not still making payments on a car I owe $17,000 on that people are buying used at dealers for $11,000 or so. Even with a credit I still owe more than the car's worth after one year.

If you have the money to piss away and don't care, great, but the way they're printing money before long toilet paper is going to have a higher face value to it, and then none of this is going to matter.

 

Because they deserve it and their entitled to it?

It's deja vu all over again - first houses for people who cannot afford them and now cars for people who cannot afford them - fucking brilliant!

 

You're going to have to show me the proof behind that statement.

My clunker I get paid by someone else to recycle, right now I get about $100 a ton. For a while there last summer it was close to three times that. Hell, the clunker I just retired still runs great, it's living on as a lot truck until I put the motor and trans in another car.

 

Ok, one more time, this in no way helps people who can't afford to buy a car get a loan for one

It is sometimes cheaper to help people make smart decisions than to let them make poor decisions and then have to pay later to fix up their mess. Global warming and wars are very, very expensive to fix and it will be left up to the government to do it. They are simply trying to get people to help out a little now to min. the growing problems in the future. Burning less gasoline helps with these problems. No one solution is going to solve either, but every little bit helps.

 

Wait till they start telling you what kind of toilet paper to use..

 

Ok, so what do you think the Prius owners are going to with their batteries when they go, just toss them into the rivers? Come on, those kind of people who do that don't drive Prius'. What do you do with all your batteries when you are done with them - car, cell phone, flashlights, remotes, etc.? Is your life battery free and you have such a clean conscience?

 

Sounds like I better get a parts car for my 64 Galaxie, because the cool junkyards are on the list! One day I see myself like the old guy on the Jetsons,my car hidden under a tarp while all the other ones are flying!

 

I am not even sure I am for or against this legislation, but I am willing to consider it if it makes sense in the details. Some of these negative comments just seem a little too superficial. Let's face it, it costs money to put out a fire in a burning building. Some will say that is money well spent, others will say just let it burn. I guess you just need to decide which type of person you are. There are some benefits to putting out a fire and some in just letting it go down.

 

What is this list you are referring to? It is my understanding it has to be a currently registered and running car. Not that many of those in a junkyard. If you choose to ignore details like that, yes this sounds like a terrible piece of legislation.