Are you sure?
But....it's so cute!
Posted on 06/10/2009 2:39:21 AM PDT by Daffynition
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation Tuesday aimed at stimulating auto sales by providing cash vouchers to consumers to trade in gas-guzzling cars for newer, more efficient models.
The 298-119 vote culminates months of wrangling among lawmakers over the details of a so-called "cash for clunkers" program, pushed mainly by Democrats and President Barack Obama. Most members voting "yes" were Democrats, while all but a few of the "no" votes came from Republicans.
The legislation aims to halt a steep slide in auto sales. Proponents pointed to a program in Germany credited with spurring a double-digit spike in car purchases there.
Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., said the U.S. government's efforts to restructure the auto industry, which is costing tens of billions of dollars, "won't work if there isn't work on the demand side."
The legislation, which still must be passed by the Senate, faces hurdles, including questions about where to find the money for the one-year, $4 billion program. Some lawmakers have suggested the money could come from the economic- stimulus package passed earlier this year.
The House bill, authored by Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, would authorize the administration to provide cash vouchers of as much as $4,500 to consumers who trade in older vehicles and then lease or purchase a newer, more energy- efficient one. It would require the older vehicle to have a fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less and the newer vehicle to get at least 22 mpg. The voucher would be worth $3,500 if the newer vehicle achieved a 4 mpg increase in fuel economy. If the mileage of the new car was at least 10 mpg higher than the older vehicle, the voucher would be worth $4,500.
The older vehicles would be dismantled. [snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
not a problem
if your a GMer, a 383 small block in an old C10 is cool
for bigger thrills, a 502 big block
Beware of those sky high raised gas prices, coming to a town near you.
What this truly is, is OBAMA GOVERNMENT CONTROL! He wants everyone to drive a VW Bug I mean an ObamaMobile.Does he have a fricking clue how many people in southern states drive nothing but nice trucks? Take the trucks away from the rednecks Obama it will be funny.
I’ve got a 97 Saturn also and it’s great.
Sometimes we just have to grin and bear the fact that the govt is screwing us, at least until the next election.
......plus the energy needed to produce a car [that no one really wants either] .......... this is a sick joke. Caveat emptor. Caveat lector.
Did that used to say ‘Barack’ on the door?
Are you confusing GM and Chrysler?
I don’t know of any edict like this on the GM dealers.
They are phasing out over the next 18 months, no?
This cash for clunkers is full of problems and unintended consequences:
1.) Economist, Freakonomics author and New York Times blogger Steven Levitt writes, “People who drive clunkers are generally not in the market for new cars. Presumably their replacement car will be a used car. The increased demand for used cars will lead to higher prices for used cars, which will push some buyers towards a new car, but the likely impact on new cars would be small.”
2.) This program would distort the used car market in a couple of ways. If the idea is to get older cars off the road, the supply of used cars will be reduced at a time when demand has been increasing. This will raise the sticker prices of used cars for people who can barely afford them in the first place. Because the program would scrap a relatively small percentage of used cars and parts, the effect may be marginal, but it’s still a market-distorting policy.
3.) Thanks to one of our commenters, Karen, for this unintended consequence: “This bill would put every charity car donation program in the nation out of business since the amount of the voucher would be much greater than the tax deduction.” Simply do a Google search of “Donating Cars for Charity” to see how many organizations this would affect.
4.) The environmental benefits are questionable. Maybe a few more miles-per-gallon improvement will emit less carbon dioxide per mile, but increased fuel efficiency often leads to more driving because people know they’re getting more miles to the gallon. Furthermore, the excitement of buying and driving a new car entices people to drive more. New cars are “[...] typically driven between 15,000 and 18,000 miles a year in its first three years of ownership, while a car owned for 10 years is driven between 5,000 and 6,000 miles a year and a 15-year-old car is driven only 2,000 miles on average.” There are also the pollution costs of actually building a car and the disposal of a car to be considered, rather than just the pollution caused by driving the vehicle.
5.) Proponents of the bill point to Germany’s boost in car sales as a reason to enact the program in the United States, but Germany’s incentive structure for buying new cars is much different ours. Gas prices in Germany are $5.50 per gallon, forcing people to switch to smaller cars. Their government also put in place other tax breaks and incentives on top of their cash for clunkers provision. And it may not have as big an impact on stimulating Germany’s economy as previously thought; the program instead simply shifted spending: “Retailers, for instance, say the bonus is shifting spending patterns rather than creating demand. Higher February car sales coincided with falling turnover at consumer electronics stores. Stefan Genth, managing director of the HDE retailers’ federation, slammed the bonus last week, saying it was ‘sucking out spending’ from the retail sector.”
6.) Clearly this won’t be a costless program – it’s estimated to be $4 billion in taxpayer money from the $787 billion stimulus bill. Chump change, right? But if the program in Germany does provide any forecast, it will cost more. In Germany’s case, the program has become three times more expensive than what they initially budgeted.
This is a good example of economic Frederic Bastiat’s broken window fallacy, except that instead of breaking windows to “stimulate the economy”, we’re destroying perfectly good cars. Meanwhile, we’re asking consumers to purchase cars they might not be able to afford and incur more debt. Sounds strangely reminiscent of the home mortgage crisis, don’t you think?
WTF I JUST THOUGHT ABOUT IT, he is! life long welfare free cellphones now the cars...
IIRC, you can’t buy a truck for $4500 with less than perhaps 200K miles on it...those restrictions will mean only the worst clunkers qualify.
When this is a colossal failure, expect huge taxes on the price of gasoline. Mark my words. ;)
Last night on the Glenn Beck show, he talked with Fox & Friends host Gretchen Carlson, and her parents own a GM dealership in Minnesota and are being forced to cut ties they’ve been doing business with for 90 years.
Read the transcript here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/26499/
With size 12.5 ugly arse sneakers or Obama's white shirt and nose picking?
LOL ... we need to learn how these people do it. Really. I just busted my butt at work today. For what?
I want what’s mine. Mine! MINE!
I’m just about to abandon all my principles and morals. Who the heck cares anymore? //sarc
These idiots don’t realize that there is a huge energy cost to produce replacement cars and to recycle old guzzlers into newer more energy efficient cars.
Children never grow up.
The charities should lobby for a deal in the Senate where they can still get the car and auction the vouchers on the internet. The Baraqqis wouldn't like it since their goal is replacing private charities with govt programs, but I bet enough individual Senators can be rolled on this deal to hammer it through.
A LOT of room. I suspect one could go to a junk yard, buy a recently wrecked SUV and exchange it for the voucher. The dealer would probably have an arrangement with the salvage company and, with a wink and a nod, send the customer there. The car would be sent back to the same salvage yard for for scrap or reuse in the same scam.
Because the program apparently calls for scrapping the cars anyway, the evidence can be destroyed when ever anyone becomes wise to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.