“cash for clunkers” program

[3p141592654]

The Supra qualifies at 18mpg combined! :biglaugh:

The new “cash for clunkers” program, which was signed into law on June 24 provides subsidies of up to $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car or truck if your trade-in is a clunker. The law defines a clunker as a vehicle that gets 18 miles per gallon or less in city/highway combined fuel economy.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/findacar.htm

 

[emiliorescigno]

Say goodbye to parts cars...

 

[Count Knobula]

4500?

only if I was desperate. Ive put too much time into my baby

 

[Poodles]

LOL, a new Ford F-150 qualifies...

 

[GrimJack]

4500?

only if I was desperate. Ive put too much time into my baby

You probably have... but there's a LOT of Mk3 Supras out there that are worth a whole lot less than $4500.

The question is, 'up to $4500' - so what do you have to do to qualify for the max? Buy a $100,000 supercar? Or does this apply to any new car purchase?

lol - and what if the NEW car gets worse mileage than the Supra???

 

[DBN]

Maybe if they handed me $4500 cash in hand and allowed me to buy whatever I wanted. But that would defeat the purpose.

 

[mkiiSupraMan18]

My STi almost qualifies as a clunker. lol

*edit*
look at the 85... see anything fishy about it...?

 

[Supracentral]

You probably have... but there's a LOT of Mk3 Supras out there that are worth a whole lot less than $4500.

The question is, 'up to $4500' - so what do you have to do to qualify for the max? Buy a $100,000 supercar? Or does this apply to any new car purchase?

lol - and what if the NEW car gets worse mileage than the Supra???

• Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
• Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify
• Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
• Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in
• You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
• Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.
• The program requires the disposal of your eligible trade-in vehicle and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.
• The new car manufacturer's suggested retail price cannot exceed $45,000.
• The program does not apply to the purchase of used vehicles.

As for what it takes to earn the different rebates, it's based upon gas mileage, this will help:

So in order to get $4500 for your (18 mpg) Supra, you'll have to purchase a new car that gets at least 28 mpg combined.

That narrows it down the following 2009 model year cars:

• Honda Civic Hybrid ($23,000 approx)
• Volkswagen Jetta ($23,000 approx)
• Toyota Yaris ($14,000 approx)
• MINI Cooper ($19,000 approx)
• MINI Clubman ($22,000 approx)
• Honda Fit ($15,000 approx)
• Nissan Versa FE ($16,000 approx)

So you can trade in your classic Japanese sports car for a soulless, uninspired econobox transport pod. Even the MINI Cooper, which can be a fun car is the base model emasculated version. A Cooper S or any of the turbo models aren't eligible, they don't get good enough fuel mileage. IMO, nothing even remotely interesting qualifies.

Like most things from Washington, D.C. - it sounds a lot better than it really is...

And it's adding money to our national debt, which is already a ludicrous proportions.

(p.s. - We've hit ONE TRILLION in deficit spending for this year already folks.. 9 months into the fiscal budget. We've spend a trillion we didn't have. That's $1,000,000,000,000.

(p.p.s. - An interesting bit of trivia: If one were to count the national Debt at the rate of one dollar per second, he or she would have to use a mechanical counter to click off the digits. Why? Because, if he or she counted in the usual way, saying "one, two, three, …" etc., there would be numbers whose names are so large, that it would take more than a second of clock time to pronounce them. For example: "Nine hundred and ninety nine billion, nine hundred and ninety nine million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine," takes about 8 seconds to pronounce.)

 

[Poodles]

Not to mention....who in fact is paying for this?

Oh, right...

 

[WhtMa71]

No thanks. I'll just keep my clunker.

 

[Mk3runner]

I like scrapper cars. F@ck the government.

 

[Canuckrz]

Funny thing is most old cars that most people consider clunkers are usually old 4cylinder cars that get just as good of gas mileage as the new cars. They really should either revise the title of the bill or revise the way vehicles qualify.

 

[2JZ_MA70]

The program is not designed to help you buy a new car... Its designed to sell new cars. Your car is payed off and insurance is cheap... buy new car = montly payment+ full coverage. Its for people that need reliable transportation and realy own a cluncker, and for dealers and car manufacturers to move some inventory. It costs $500+ per car montly to sit on the dealers lot... It would also help move some money out of the banks and circulate them.
I would rather see a program like that... Than Bush's plan to bail out the banks... Call it what you want but he was the one that was presing for it now they want to blame it on the curent administration. Im glad that congress stoped that second $350B from geting out. Bush was realy pusing to get it before he got out... Our debt started few years back with the war in Iraq... Lets face it curent administration faced preaty F@($@ up situation. Im not republican or democrat that is how I see it. I dont aggree with Obama's plan on bailing out the auto industry but I can understand that there werent many choises. Let milions of people loose their jobs that would lead to more job loss or bail them out risking tax payer money and posibly come to the same result. Its on GM and Chry to get out of the situation that they are in. This program will not save them.

 

[3p141592654]

If you look at how the program is structured, it is basically geared to provide a subsidy towards the purchase of a new truck, especially large trucks from Ford/GM/Chrys that each have some models that just barely meet 17mpg. For large trucks you only need to show a 2mpg improvement (from a baseline of 15mpg to 17mpg) to get the full subsidy.

And you will notice that not one eligible passenger car is made by the domestic car companies. This program is not about passenger cars at all, hence the bar is raised to the roof.

 

[2JZ_MA70]

If you look at how the program is structured, it is basically geared to provide a subsidy towards the purchase of a new truck, especially large trucks from Ford/GM/Chrys that all just barely meet 17mpg. For large trucks you only need to show a 2mpg improvement (from a baseline of 15mpg to 17mpg) to get the full subsidy.

And you will notice that not one eligible passenger car is made by the domestic car companies. This program is not about passenger cars at all, hence the bar is raised to the roof.

You GOT IT.... =). That is all that it is!!!

 

[Supracentral]

The program is not designed to help you buy a new car... Its designed to sell new cars. Your car is payed off and insurance is cheap... buy new car = montly payment+ full coverage. Its for people that need reliable transportation and realy own a cluncker, and for dealers and car manufacturers to move some inventory. It costs $500+ per car montly to sit on the dealers lot... It would also help move some money out of the banks and circulate them.

Anyone who "need reliable transportation and realy own a cluncker" can't afford a car payment or qualify for a loan. The vast majority of people who own piece of shit cars own them as a matter of necessity, not as a matter of choice.

I would rather see a program like that... Than Bush's plan to bail out the banks... Call it what you want but he was the one that was presing for it now they want to blame it on the curent administration.

Where do you get your information from?

Im glad that congress stoped that second $350B from geting out.

Once again, where do you get your information from?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679801/ns/business-economy_in_turmoil/

Bush was realy pusing to get it before he got out...

Really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12cong.html

Our debt started few years back with the war in Iraq...

You must be a child and a product of modern public schools.

This congress and president have spent more money than all other previous administrations combined.

And it's destroying the economy:

Lets face it curent administration faced preaty F@($@ up situation.

Indeed. One that was brought on by the policies of not only Bush and the Republicans, but moreso the Democrats. Once again, I have a few facts to back that statement up. What do you have?

You seem to feel that the former administration is responsible for the current financial crisis. I'm somewhat bewildered by this position. You either have some information that I'm missing, or you've made a very uninformed statement.

Let's take a look. The current financial crisis facing the United States of America and the world began with the US home ownership debacle and President Bill Clinton.

How can I make that statement? It's rather easy when you are aware that about 15 years ago (in 1994) President Clinton signed a bill into law. It was a bill that was purported to to promote "low-income home ownership" for people who did not qualify for standard mortgages. There's the first problem. You see, when a mortgage is issued, there is risk taken by the lender. The thing that mitigates that risk is the lenders assessment of the borrowers ability to pay that debt back. When you start creating an artificial market which makes loans to people, no matter their credit histories or ability to pay, you're setting yourself up for a disaster.

Thus began the heavy distribution of ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) that ensued. These ARMs began with very low rates. But the rate is based on the market. As the market changes, the rates and subsequent monthly payments for homeowners rise to rates that the homeowners could no longer afford. Foreclosures on the ARM properties began and, like a house of cards in high wind, the current financial meltdown began.

You seem to feel this is the Republicans fault? How?

History shows us that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were quietly taken over by the Clinton Administration and its supporters. Have you heard of Franklin Raines?

Franklin was appointed by Bill Clinton to run Fannie Mae. Franklin ended up with over six million dollars in personal earnings by the end of his first year. Let that sink into your American Idol addled brain. Six million dollars in personal income in his FIRST year as a presidential appointee. By the end of his days running Fannie Mae, Franklin accumulated a personal net worth of over one hundred million dollars. Where's the Republican's fault here?

Do you know who Barney Frank is? You've probably seen him on TV. He's the lisping idiot who is always spouting the rhetoric you are repeating. He's Democrat. He's also the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Those are the people who oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In 2003 when Barney was the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, he opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department.

At the time Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Once again, true to his Democratic roots, he's more interested in buying votes than protecting the voters. As recently as 2008 Barney was stating that Fannie and Freddie were not in crisis.

I could go on for several pages, naming every prominent Democrat who had influence over the entire affair over the last 15 years, but I would hope you are starting to get the point.

Here's a collection of further quotes just to be sure the point gets through to you:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html

Done reading that? Good.

Let's move on. Where are the Republicans you ask?

Well there were those who saw this train wreck coming years in advance and tried to stop it. Remember John McCain? The guy you appear to think would have caused more problems? He saw this coming.

Here are his words from the official congressional record in 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

I've even heard a few of your Democratic politicians claim that he never made those statements. Fortunately, the Congress keeps records. Here is the exact statement above, in the official record from 2005, you can go read them yourself:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/rec...x002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m

You'll note that this is the official record of the US Senate. I'm not making this up.

Let's continue. Do you remember Alan Greenspan? He's another of those damned Republicans you seem to want to blame for everything. He warned in 2005 that the situation placed "the total financial system of the future at substantial risk,"

I'll let you read that at CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/03/21/8254821/index.htm

When Greenspan said this, a very serious Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform bill was written up by the (then Republican run) Senate Banking Committee. The bill would have given Federal Regulators the power to crack down on both of these entities, and would have required them to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

But that bill was not passed. Why? Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee. They were buying the votes of poor people with those mortgages. They couldn't give them up. Republicans, facing tough and coordinated Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Then of course there's President Obama (who is the third largest recipient of Fannie Mae political contributions) who has also benefited greatly from this mess.

He, and the other Democrats used the crisis to manipulate uninformed and easily duped people, like you into believing that George Bush was responsible.

Now in some ways I can understand, Bush is an easy man to hate, and he's not on my list of favorite people. If you dig though my posts, you'll find that I can hardly be labeled as a Bush supporter. He did a lot I disagreed with. However I am well informed. I check facts and make sure that politicians bullshit stories don't manipulate my decision making. It's a damned shame you don't do the same. It appears that you've "drank the Kool-Aid" and don't even realize that the very people you are railing against are the ones who tried to save the country from this disaster.

Moreover, the very people who created this problem are now supposedly in charge of "correcting" it. But they aren't really trying to correct it. They are simply using it as an excuse to run roughshod over the American people, the Constitution and the very principles that this nation was founded on. Do you realize that Obama and the 111th Congress have spent more in the last 5 months than all other past administrations combined? Let that sink in. How do we repay that?

Ok, time for me to take a break. Do you have some facts that indicate otherwise? Have I made a single false statement? Please, let's review any issues. I can provide more information, more facts, but this should be enough to wake you up.

Im not republican or democrat that is how I see it.

I am not a Republican or Democrat either. I'm a libetarian. However "how you see it" isn't supported by any set of facts I've ever seen.

I dont aggree with Obama's plan on bailing out the auto industry but I can understand that there werent many choises.

Bullshit.

How about a 3 month income tax and FICA holiday? Cost? $350 Billion dollars. Same amount as all of that worthless, ineffective bailout bullshit. Letting every single person who pulls a paycheck in the US keep 100% of their GROSS take home pay? Tell me that wouldn't stimulate the fuck out of the economy.

But no, we can't do that because it doesn't transfer power to politicians. And it might make people realize exactly how much the government is ripping them off.

Let milions of people loose their jobs that would lead to more job loss or bail them out risking tax payer money and posibly come to the same result. Its on GM and Chry to get out of the situation that they are in. This program will not save them.

Nor did any of this buillshit save the jobs they said it would.

Socialism and Marxisim don't create jobs.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and wake up.

 

[2JZ_MA70]

Love you man =)....LOL

 

[IJ.]

Interesting and informative read!

 

[DonS1mpson]

And I thought it was just our government was dumb...

A similar scheme was introduced a couple of months ago here to both save the environment (I'm not even going to get started explaining how damaging this all is it poor old mother earth) and help our economy (Despite the fact that a staggering percentage of cars bought under the scheme are Korean)...

Seems like it would have been an ideal way to help out the US car markers though, scrap the silly MPG requirements and offer the full amount on a U.S made car? Judging by the list Supracentral made up, looks like the only people only people who are going to benefit from this are FOREIGN car makers.

As far as I can see, it's just going to create more impulse buying ('Look honey, $4,500 off of a $20,000 we don't really need!') and debt (let's be honest, if a $4,500 discount is going to sway you into a soulless turd, and you're driving a car that meets the requirements, you probably don't have the cash to buy outright ).

We've already had our share of 1 owner, fully serviced fully original Minis/Morris Minor/ordinary 'back in the day' classic meet it's end so it's elderly owner can pick up a Brand New Kia Cee'd (gasp), I hope that classic 60s & 70s Detroit muscle cars aren't going to have a similar fate!

 

[Poodles]

What REALLY sucks is that when these go to the junkyard, they can't sell many of the parts because they will pollute...

I want a good rebuildable core for an engine? Nope, can't take it...