What is your opinion of this "cash for clunker" approach?

TMT

Obama, lawmakers agree on "cash-for-clunkers" bill
Tue May 5, 3:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers
reached agreement on Tuesday on a legislative proposal designed to
stimulate U.S. auto sales, which have fallen to near 30-year lows.

The one-year plan crafted by members of the U.S. House of
Representatives would offer vouchers worth up to $4,500 for owners to
replace their less fuel efficient vehicles for models that get better
gas mileage.

The goal of the "cash for clunkers" legislation is to sell 1 million
vehicles.

"By stimulating consumer demand for new vehicles, this proposal will
directly benefit domestic autoworkers and automotive manufacturers,
which have arguably been hardest hit by the current economic
downturn," said Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and staunch
industry ally.

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer has embraced the proposal and said
in an interview with Reuters in April that the measure would be acted
upon quickly once proposed.

(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick, John Crawley and Rick Cowan; Editing by
Richard Chang)

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
What is your opinion of this "cash for clunker" approach?

TMT

Obama, lawmakers agree on "cash-for-clunkers" bill
Tue May 5, 3:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers
reached agreement on Tuesday on a legislative proposal designed to
stimulate U.S. auto sales, which have fallen to near 30-year lows.

The one-year plan crafted by members of the U.S. House of
Representatives would offer vouchers worth up to $4,500 for owners to
replace their less fuel efficient vehicles for models that get better
gas mileage.

The goal of the "cash for clunkers" legislation is to sell 1 million
vehicles.

"By stimulating consumer demand for new vehicles, this proposal will
directly benefit domestic autoworkers and automotive manufacturers,
which have arguably been hardest hit by the current economic
downturn," said Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and staunch
industry ally.

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer has embraced the proposal and said
in an interview with Reuters in April that the measure would be acted
upon quickly once proposed.

(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick, John Crawley and Rick Cowan; Editing by
Richard Chang)

My opinion? Thanks for asking. I think President Barack Obama and Democratic
lawmakers should all drive around in little clown cars while the rest of the
country throws tomatoes at the windshield. Sounds like fun!

On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:33:46 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

What is your opinion of this "cash for clunker" approach?

TMT

Obama, lawmakers agree on "cash-for-clunkers" bill
Tue May 5, 3:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) =96 President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers
reached agreement on Tuesday on a legislative proposal designed to
stimulate U.S. auto sales, which have fallen to near 30-year lows.

The one-year plan crafted by members of the U.S. House of
Representatives would offer vouchers worth up to $4,500 for owners to
replace their less fuel efficient vehicles for models that get better
gas mileage.
snip
--------
More "free market" in action?

Very much akin to giving low income people cheap cell phones so
they can order pizza and chinese as a cure for hunger.

If everyone makes what the Representatives (c. 175k$/year) and
their staffs make , this *MAY* be a logical approach.
http://www.legistorm.com/member_of_c..._salaries.html
http://www.legistorm.com/browse_by_s...ate_id/CA.html
http://www.legistorm.com/salaries.html

The truth is that most people make no where near that much money,
and a "beater" is all they can afford (and in truth all they
need). In most states an older car pays much less in taxes and
license, and has lower insurance rates. The 4,500$ will
evaporate with the sales tax, property tax, license, insurance,
etc. leaving the "sucker" with sky high long-term [60 moth?] car
payments [unless these too are subsidized]

Note that legislatively getting rid of existing cars to force
their replacement [like Japan] has been a Detroit "wet dream" for
decades. This was attempted during the 70s oil crunch in
California and then again in the late 90s under the disguise of
"environmental protection" and safety.




Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

F. George McDuffee fired this volley
in :

Note that legislatively getting rid of existing cars to force
their replacement [like Japan] has been a Detroit "wet dream" for
decades. This was attempted during the 70s oil crunch in
California and then again in the late 90s under the disguise of
"environmental protection" and safety.


Note that such legislation is a hair's breadth away from being passed in
Germany.

LLoyd

On May 6, 12:29*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:33:46 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools



wrote:
What is your opinion of this "cash for clunker" approach?

TMT

Obama, lawmakers agree on "cash-for-clunkers" bill
Tue May 5, 3:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) =96 President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers
reached agreement on Tuesday on a legislative proposal designed to
stimulate U.S. auto sales, which have fallen to near 30-year lows.

The one-year plan crafted by members of the U.S. House of
Representatives would offer vouchers worth up to $4,500 for owners to
replace their less fuel efficient vehicles for models that get better
gas mileage.

snip
--------
More "free market" in action?

Very much akin to giving low income people cheap cell phones so
they can order pizza and chinese as a cure for hunger.

If everyone makes what the Representatives (c. 175k$/year) and
their staffs make , this *MAY* be a logical approach.http://www.legistorm..com/member_of_.../salaries.html

The truth is that most people make no where near that much money,
and a "beater" is all they can afford (and in truth all they
need). *In most states an older car pays much less in taxes and
license, and has lower insurance rates. *The 4,500$ will
evaporate with the sales tax, property tax, license, insurance,
etc. leaving the "sucker" with sky high long-term [60 moth?] car
payments [unless these too are subsidized]

Note that legislatively getting rid of existing cars to force
their replacement [like Japan] has been a Detroit "wet dream" for
decades. *This was attempted during the 70s oil crunch in
California and then again in the late 90s under the disguise of
"environmental protection" and safety.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

I agree.

It is simply corporate welfare for the car companies with the buyer
being saddled with all the downside.

Now if the $4500 went towards having me buying an electric vehicle
with comparable performance to my current fleet and weaning the
country off oil I might bite.

But then I have always been a sucker for doing things that make
America a better country.

TMT

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
F. George McDuffee fired this volley
in :

Note that legislatively getting rid of existing cars to force
their replacement [like Japan] has been a Detroit "wet dream" for
decades. This was attempted during the 70s oil crunch in
California and then again in the late 90s under the disguise of
"environmental protection" and safety.


Note that such legislation is a hair's breadth away from being passed in
Germany.

LLoyd

Actually it's the first step toward telling you what kind of car you can
drive. That's assuming they think that you really need to own a car.

Richard W.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

The truth is that most people make no where near that much money,
and a "beater" is all they can afford (and in truth all they
need). In most states an older car pays much less in taxes and
license, and has lower insurance rates. The 4,500$ will
evaporate with the sales tax, property tax, license, insurance,
etc. leaving the "sucker" with sky high long-term [60 moth?] car
payments [unless these too are subsidized]

I think you nailed that down quite well.


Note that legislatively getting rid of existing cars to force
their replacement [like Japan] has been a Detroit "wet dream" for
decades. This was attempted during the 70s oil crunch in
California and then again in the late 90s under the disguise of
"environmental protection" and safety.

Dreams of that sort on many topics lay waiting in the wings.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

The truth is that most people make no where near that much money,
and a "beater" is all they can afford (and in truth all they
need). In most states an older car pays much less in taxes and
license, and has lower insurance rates. The 4,500$ will
evaporate with the sales tax, property tax, license, insurance,
etc. leaving the "sucker" with sky high long-term [60 moth?] car
payments [unless these too are subsidized]

I think you nailed that down quite well.


Note that legislatively getting rid of existing cars to force
their replacement [like Japan] has been a Detroit "wet dream" for
decades. This was attempted during the 70s oil crunch in
California and then again in the late 90s under the disguise of
"environmental protection" and safety.

Dreams of that sort on many topics lay waiting in the wings.

Wes

My previous car was a 97 Bonneville that did 27 mpg. Most of the newer cars
don't do a whole lot better. 35 mpg doesn't really help make payments too
much. But if you need a car now is the time to buy. My neighbor just bought
a 08 Dodge Dakota ....28 list for 17 with free financing. They even gave him
a grand over book on his old truck. Although he didn't need it, he borrowed
the money for half of it on their dime.
Steve

On May 6, 3:59*pm, "Up North" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...



F. George McDuffee wrote:

The truth is that most people make no where near that much money,
and a "beater" is all they can afford (and in truth all they
need). *In most states an older car pays much less in taxes and
license, and has lower insurance rates. *The 4,500$ will
evaporate with the sales tax, property tax, license, insurance,
etc. leaving the "sucker" with sky high long-term [60 moth?] car
payments [unless these too are subsidized]

I think you nailed that down quite well.

Note that legislatively getting rid of existing cars to force
their replacement [like Japan] has been a Detroit "wet dream" for
decades. *This was attempted during the 70s oil crunch in
California and then again in the late 90s under the disguise of
"environmental protection" and safety.

Dreams of that sort on many topics lay waiting in the wings.

Wes

My previous car was a 97 Bonneville that did 27 mpg. Most of the newer cars
don't do a whole lot better. 35 mpg doesn't really help make payments too
much. But if you need a car now is the time to buy. My neighbor just bought
a 08 Dodge Dakota ....28 list for 17 with free financing. They even gave him
a grand over book on his old truck. Although he didn't need it, he borrowed
the money for half of it on their dime.
Steve

It will be cheaper as time passes on...the car market is in no hurry
to recover.

I hope he enjoys his new vehicle...new toys are always nice. ;)

TMT