I hope they stop that BS Cash for clunkers funding.

[GoPokes83]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo

Here's a Volve that would make many, many people a nice car, but under Obama's crap program it can't be resold and the engine must be destroyed. They emptied all the engine oil, and put in two quarts of what is basically "Liquid Glass" into the engine and it still took almost 5 minutes for the engine to lock up. This car was no "Clunker", it was a modern, fuel efficient car that had thousands of miles left in it. What a waste. And this isn't just one case. Look at the decent ride next to the Volvo getting the same treatment, or just search youtube and it'll make you sick.

This is just another example showing how clueless this administration is when it comes to business. The money made from selling a decent used car would have been almost all profit for a struggling dealership. They could have serviced this car, or an independent mechanic would have, auto supply stores would profit... But who isn't profiting from Cash for Clunkers? Government Motors and Chrysler. The top 5 selling cars bought using this program? Two are Ford, one is Hyundai, and two are Honda. LOL Plus I heard on the radio this morning that there may be up to 20k in administrative costs associated with EACH cash for clunkers transaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ZP6aG2xl0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3qXvDDhUpE

[bleedorange]

This program will bear out to be one of the biggest federal blunders of all time. It is an absolute joke, an expensive one at that, with very little, if any, positive value.

The whole thing just makes me nauseas.

[Razor_Poke]

Next up, cash for junkie homeless people.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Do you have a more cost effective way to ensure the inefficient cars do not make it back on the road?

[legelegel]

I have a client in the automotive repair business. This program is killing him and others like him.

[FloridaPoke]

Do you have a more cost effective way to ensure the inefficient cars do not make it back on the road?


From the articles I've read, the system has been "gamed" to a max, which is always what happens when government gets involved in private enterprise.

A very large percentage (greater than 50%) of the "clunkers" were truly clunkers.....that is idle in the front yard up on blocks......until the ability to get the sucker running long enough to drive it to the lot and pick off a cool $4,500 for something worth less than $500.

It is essentially "the federal government will give you $4,500 toward the purchase of a car" and efficiency and the environment is completely irrelevant.

Now that it is helping Ford, who didn't get bailed out like GM, the politicians are readily admitting that the program is simply more bailout stimulus money that has nothing to do with anything GREEN.

Stupidity gets multiplied exponentially with this cast of characters and the sum total of all of the blunders needs to be tallied. It quite possibly is already a complete financial fiasco from which there will never be a recovery.

Obama will do something that is almost impossible. He will go down in history as worse than Jimmy Carter.

[Chainman]

The government is giving away $4500.00 to people that drive clunkers for 2 reasons either they choose to drive the old cars because they like them or they simply can not afford a new car payment. Our government is spending possibly upto 3 billion dollars for this program, but yet let 700 post offices across the country close because of no money.

Makes a lot of since if your stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GoPokes83]

That's the typical Democrat elitist way to think Vulgar. Why not just come on out and say, "Let them eat cake". The point is that many of the the cars being destroyed in this program could help low income people, (or just the thrifty) get to school and work, and improve their lives. If you're a first time driver, a college kid or someone working at the local grocery store or someone starting a new family an 8 year old Blazer would probably be an affordable alternative to getting saddled with a 5 year car note you can't afford on a new vehicle. And inefficient? That's just BS. The car you purchase under the program just has to get 5 MPG better than what you're driving to qualify. Let's say you did buy a car that got 5 mpg better than your previous. If you have a 13 gal tank, that's 65 more miles you can drive before filling up. At $2.50 per gallon at 22 mpg (minimum for the program) you've saved a whopping $7.25 per fill up. In order to make up the 4500 bucks the taxpayer gave you you are going to have to fill up 623 times. So if you fill up once a week, you're going to have to own that car for roughly 12 years for our (taxpayers, or suckers as you Dem's prefer) investment in that vehicle to pay off. That's not a great example of efficiency. None of the cars above are what you'd call gas guzzlers, and if new would probably qualify for the base level of the program. And they are probably going to get better mileage than the car the low income family that inherits these would have been driving before.

But I'm sure the right to drive a government built car will soon be on the horizon. We're already buying up to $4,500.00 of our neighbors upgraded car for them, why not just subsidize the whole transaction?

[bleedorange]

Do you have a more cost effective way to ensure the inefficient cars do not make it back on the road?

The clunkers weed themselves off the road. This program is stupid and stands alone on that fact, whether I have a more cost effective way or not. Many people drive clunkers for a reason. They do not have the means to be saddled with car payments. Now they've got their own government suckering them into a crappy new car loan that they'll likely default on. Then they will have to buy a frickin bike to ride to work because this dumbass President squashed all the cars they can really afford.

[GoPokes83]

The clunkers weed themselves off the road. This program is stupid and stands alone on that fact, whether I have a more cost effective way or not.

Exactly. The trash that's being brought in now would have maybe got $500.00 trade in before this program. The dealers would haul them to an auction where they'd sell for scrap. Or they'd head down the NAFTA road to Mexico.

[Lewis the Pike]

What happens when the banks are holding notes for people that defaulted on their car loans, because they were enticed by the cash for clunkers programs and didn't have the means before the bogus 4500 down payment came about.

The government assigned 4500 dollars per car, for cars worth less. That is inflation. If you wanted less expensive cars, let GM/Chrysler fail.

Do you think the UAW will make some concessions when the workers can't afford their union dues?

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

That's the typical Democrat elitist way to think Vulgar. Why not just come on out and say, "Let them eat cake". The point is that many of the the cars being destroyed in this program could help low income people, (or just the thrifty) get to school and work, and improve their lives. If you're a first time driver, a college kid or someone working at the local grocery store or someone starting a new family an 8 year old Blazer would probably be an affordable alternative to getting saddled with a 5 year car note you can't afford on a new vehicle. And inefficient? That's just BS. The car you purchase under the program just has to get 5 MPG better than what you're driving to qualify. Let's say you did buy a car that got 5 mpg better than your previous. If you have a 13 gal tank, that's 65 more miles you can drive before filling up. At $2.50 per gallon at 22 mpg (minimum for the program) you've saved a whopping $7.25 per fill up. In order to make up the 4500 bucks the taxpayer gave you you are going to have to fill up 623 times. So if you fill up once a week, you're going to have to own that car for roughly 12 years for our (taxpayers, or suckers as you Dem's prefer) investment in that vehicle to pay off. That's not a great example of efficiency. None of the cars above are what you'd call gas guzzlers, and if new would probably qualify for the base level of the program. And they are probably going to get better mileage than the car the low income family that inherits these would have been driving before.

But I'm sure the right to drive a government built car will soon be on the horizon. We're already buying up to $4,500.00 of our neighbors upgraded car for them, why not just subsidize the whole transaction?

It's not about saving the consumer money at the pump or a return on an investment. The government isn't in the business of making money. What it is about is putting cars that are at least 27% more fuel efficient on the road to reduce our nation's fuel consumption.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

What happens when the banks are holding notes for people that defaulted on their car loans, because they were enticed by the cash for clunkers programs and didn't have the means before the bogus 4500 down payment came about.

The government assigned 4500 dollars per car, for cars worth less. That is inflation. If you wanted less expensive cars, let GM/Chrysler fail.

Do you think the UAW will make some concessions when the workers can't afford their union dues?

Is countrywide in the auto loan business now?

[Lewis the Pike]

Is countrywide in the auto loan business now?

No but you can bet these auto notes will be bundled and packaged and turned into securities that will be traded by brokerage houses worldwide, AGAIN

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Sure they will. Wall street is going to make a buck if it is there to be made or not. There are companies very similar to countrywide working in the auto loan market today. They will extend a line of credit at 11% to someone who doesn't qualify at any bank regardless of if they make their payments or not.

[FloridaPoke]

What it is about is putting cars that are at least 27% more fuel efficient on the road to reduce our nation's fuel consumption.

Net fuel consumption will INCREASE due to this program, its pretty easy to see. This program has no way to audit miles driven before and after. First, most of these trades are people bringing in run-down TRUE clunkers that are presently not driven much, if any at all. Second, people drive more if their ride is worthwhile (much more). Third, these new cars will primarily go to people who haven't driven much in the past.

It is a government giveaway using other people's money. It is a redistribution of wealth. Nothing less and nothing more.

I truly hope Obama and his puppets keep this crap up. The more they try to bully through the system, the more intense the revolt.

Much like the fiasco of Carter led to many years of economic growth and conservatism, Obama will lead to the same.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Net fuel consumption will INCREASE due to this program, its pretty easy to see. This program has no way to audit miles driven before and after. First, most of these trades are people bringing in run-down TRUE clunkers that are presently not driven much, if any at all. Second, people drive more if their ride is worthwhile (much more). Third, these new cars will primarily go to people who haven't driven much in the past.

It is a government giveaway using other people's money. It is a redistribution of wealth. Nothing less and nothing more.

I truly hope Obama and his puppets keep this crap up. The more they try to bully through the system, the more intense the revolt.

Much like the fiasco of Carter led to many years of economic growth and conservatism, Obama will lead to the same.

CNBC told me the same thing at lunch. I don't buy it though, not to say it isn't true. I think its just more lip service by those who have chosen their side of the issue and will not alter their opinions regardless of developments. Something tells me that if I would have been watching MSNBC that I would have heard the exact opposite. Are the clunkers really clunkers? Maybe. The three people that I know that have taken advantage of the offer have all traded in their primary cars (2007 GMC Envoy - 17 mpg, 2007 GMC Envoy - 17 mpg, 1999 Ford Explorer - 15 mpg) for more fuel efficient ones.

[bleedorange]

The three people that I know that have taken advantage of the offer have all traded in their primary cars (2007 GMC Envoy - 17 mpg, 2007 GMC Envoy - 17 mpg, 1999 Ford Explorer - 15 mpg) for more fuel efficient ones.

You have not one, but two friends who traded 2 year-old, $14,000 vehicles in exchange for $3500-4500 each?

And Obama is going to put in the trash compactor, two 2 year-old $14,000 vehicles?

This is madness.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Haha. I don't know. They were talking about it last week and they both have new cars today. If that is the case then I have some land to sell them. My parents used it to get rid of their explorer though.

[Deepfork]

I don't think it's ethical or moral to take my money to give to somebody else to buy a new car. Period!

[Ostreak]

1 billion spent on the program / 50,000 total cars sold = $20,000 in taxpayers dollars spent to buy back each car

[JimBob]

1 billion spent on the program / 50,000 total cars sold = $20,000 in taxpayers dollars spent to buy back each car

So you're saying the "S&H" costs are too high? How dare you question the chosen one, our messiah, the jack-off-idiot who will make Carter look semi-competent; shame on you!:p

[WAHOOS14]

I'll do it. I'll trade in my 2000 Ford Windstar, which runs fine, for $4500 toward the vehicle of my choice. Probably a BMW with $800/mo payments but with measurably better gas mileage. That way I get to "help" the American banking community AND the German auto industry, those Germans have it tough too ya know.

I've done everything right for way too long - pay my mortgage, paid off my student loans, have two cars that are paid for, don't carry credit debt, give gobs of money to my church and the United Way. Look what I got for it - 35% loss in my 401k, an employer that's struggling to survive thanks to Obamanomics extreme aversion for US gasoline producers, savings account that pays a whopping 0.75% interest (calculated monthly, not daily anymore), and a notice from the county tax assessor that the fair market value of my house has mysteriously risen 6% this year.

It's my turn to suckle at the teet of the American taxpayer and by golly you are gonna like it as much as I do!

(i'm being facetious. Unlike Bold or Italics, there is no facetious button. Maybe we should make one up. Oops, my mind is wandering...focus Wahoo...focus.)

[wood911]

So you're saying the "S&H" costs are too high? How dare you question the chosen one, our messiah, the jack-off-idiot who will make Carter look semi-competent; shame on you!:p

Careful what you say, somebody will turn you in to the rat-out zcar/tsar. :ex_omg: The way this is working only veirfies that the original stimulus should have gone to the taxpayers rather than the banks, GM, and Chrysler. There hasn't been a good decision come out of Washington in awhile.

[JimBob]

Careful what you say, somebody will turn you in to the rat-out zcar/tsar. :ex_omg: The way this is working only veirfies that the original stimulus should have gone to the taxpayers rather than the banks, GM, and Chrysler. There hasn't been a good decision come out of Washington in awhile.

I've already notified "them" about you; expect a letter from the IRS about your "tax problems" soonest*.:officechair:''

*I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn't put anything past these thugs; it's scary!:vomit-smiley-001:

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

[OSUFan]

Senate is suppose to vote and approve another $2 billion for the program. It isn't suppose to last to November.

[wood911]

I've already notified "them" about you; expect a letter from the IRS about your "tax problems" soonest*.:officechair:''

I use Turbo Tax, I'm safe:rollseyes:.

[GoPokes83]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid Vulgar.

[76374_Poke]

Senate is suppose to vote and approve another $2 billion for the program. It isn't suppose to last to November.

I doubt the program lasts two weeks. There are a lot of clunkers out there, and I'm sure losts of good people who would love to trade them all in. It will be just as before, and Congress will ask to keep the program going, this time, for $4 billion. Then, after it tanks again, they'll come back and ask for $8 billion. Then $16 billion, $32 billion, and on and on. It will be a never ending joke. Or is it nightmare?
I agree with the car salesman I heard interviewed last week. How can we trust the government to overhaul the health care system when they can't mange a program like "cash for clunkers?"

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Tanks again? Haha. I wish my business would tank like that.

What I don't understand is why they approve a certain amount instead of guaranteeing the program until a certain date. It seems like if they were worried about leaving the dealers on the hook that they would set a cutoff date and guarantee funds until that date. But then again Obama and socialism and the liberal media and birth certificates and whatnot.

[wood911]

Tanks again? Haha. I wish my business would tank like that.

What I don't understand is why they approve a certain amount instead of guaranteeing the program until a certain date. It seems like if they were worried about leaving the dealers on the hook that they would set a cutoff date and guarantee funds until that date. But then again Obama and socialism and the liberal media and birth certificates and whatnot.
Since the funds are not operational funds, meaning for the daily operation of gov't, they have to be approved by Congress for a specific amount and a specific purpose. That is why some of the TARP money they have used for different purposes other than those approved could very well have been illegal. It's all a matter of interpretation, tho.