By on July 28, 2009

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

26 Comments on “Cash for Clunkers: Wow! What a country!...”


  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Fox ‘news’ can blow me.

    As some purely observational evidence, most people taking advantage of the program thus far at my dealership are moving up much more than one or two miles per gallon cashing in their clunker. People don’t just want the money, they want to be spending less on fuel. Yes, we are selling some SUVs, CUVs, and trucks on the program, but those CUVs get almost as good of mileage as many cars, and some people just need and SUV or truck. Plus, even if the fuel economy improvement is only 1 or 2 mpg, the difference in tailpipe emissions between a 1990 Dodge Pickup and a 2009 F-150 is orders of magnitude greater.

    Also, I don’t care for it when they imply that the SUV/CUV/Truck provisions are purely there for American automakers. Ford and GM both make fuel efficient cars, and the Focus, Fusion, and Malibu are all worth seriously looking at if you want a fuel efficient daily driver.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Didn’t play it yet, but I see the caption: Is CFC helping or hurting the environment. If there is any organization that will do a hatchet job on the environment, its Faux News. Rupert slants all stories to suit the best interest of his business empire.

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    Didn’t watch. Faux News.

    I spent my time coming to the comments section to say I would only provide a comment about not commenting.

    Figure that one out.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    I couldn’t watch past the sneering, smiling self-righteous tone of the first 15 seconds.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Fox is spot on with regard to CFC.

    It’s painful for me to say that, especially after seeing this douche with the faux Aussie accent. But Fox is right.

    This segment feels less like watching Fox news and more like watching the Simpsons or Family Guy. It’s Fox actually telling the truth.

    CFC is narrowly tailored to help the “domestics” without violating trade agreements.

    Worse, it’s the federal government assisting scum bag dealers in doing bait and switches.

    Most people are not going to qualify for CFC, but they are going to go to their dealers to find out about it and get scammed into a new car anyway.

    People really should not have to have their tax money spent on programs that trick them into being ripped off.

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    Faux news…haha, that’s great.

    As far as the CARS program goes, it is inefficient, is encouraging the destruction of many road worthy cars, is costing U.S. taxpayers 20,000 USD per voucher, and will only serve to steal sales from the future, so that when the money runs out, stealerships will see even less traffic than they ordinarily would have.

    It’s a real lemon of a bill, and it’s not going to do a damn thing other than delay the additional tough decisions manufacturers and dealers have to make by a month or so.

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    It’s worse than Fox Noise. They at least have viewers. The Fox Business channel is a lot like the other Murdoch empire perpetual loss makers (NYP). He just runs it so he can get his view point out.

  • avatar
    Bunter1

    So Fox distorts the news in a different direction than the rest…yawn.

    Will be interseting to see if CFC does anything other than create another “pull-forward” situation.

    Bunter

  • avatar
    Geo. Levecque

    The Cash for Clunkers is just another Tax on all Taxpayers, and should have never been implemented imho! it rewards failed dealers and failed Auto manufacturing companies that down the Road of life, another time you will all need another such program to get rid of the “junk” people will buy with this cash like the deal that Chrysler is offering with this program.

  • avatar
    mattstairs

    I think most of Mr. Murdoch’s properties are doing OK these days, considering the disastrous condition of print media these days.

    Faux News? Fox Noise?

    FNC and FBC are slanted conservative, but at least these channels permit opposite viewpoints. Watching MSNBC is like watching a recital of DNC talking points on a daily basis.

    My advice? Always keep in mind the biases of any reporter or news organization including their corporate parent.

  • avatar
    dwford

    @NulloModo:

    Agreed. The people coming into my dealership to use this program not only want the best mileage, but also the cheapest vehicle they can get. We have 1 Veracruz being bought with this, a couple of Sonatas, and about 20 Elantras. And even with the $4500 extra discount, people are still grinding us for every penny of dealer discount. These people are even cheaper than most other customers!

  • avatar
    Rod Panhard

    So, uh, why isn’t the $3500 or $4500 taxed like income?

    Why doesn’t the government, instead, reward those of us who have been driving, for years, (or riding) vehicles that get good gas mileage?

  • avatar
    Robstar

    Rod>

    I’m still trying to figure this out as well.

    Wifes car gets mid 30′s highway. My bike on my new commute with mostly highway (sometimes heavy traffic) did just under 44 on it’s last fillup. My car does only 20-23 highway (but use mostly in winter).

    No car money for me. I bought my 2 cars (had both before marriage) way before gas prices were really considered high so I _would_ have a fuel efficient choice + backup/car.

    I’d go snag a new car for the wife (currently 10 years old, 172k miles) if I had some incentive….I’d even buy a more fuel efficient one (most likely yaris sedan). IMHO, IF they are going to run this program it should be applicable to ALL cars as long as you are increasing your mpg by, say, 20% or more.

  • avatar
    shaker

    dwford :

    I’d say (in the case of your dealership) that the C-for-C program is working exactly as intended. Of course, Fawkes News won’t be showing up there any time soon…

    Gee – Stewart Varney wears the FBC “snide suit” very well (or is that a “turn coat”?)

  • avatar
    grog

    I’m shocked, shocked I say to see that a Faux “News” link is provided on *this* site.

    It also reveals that at least one of Faux’s bidness channel’s 13 viewers is from here.

    What NulloMondo said above: I’ll be trading in my 93 Explorer for something that gets at least 10 miles per gallon better on the highway.

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    is costing U.S. taxpayers 20,000 USD per voucher,

    What you mean, and it is a good point but you may have misunderstood or been unclear, is that it’s costing U.S. taxpayers 20,000 USD per car scrapped that otherwise would not be. If the vouchers all go to people that would have bought a more fuel efficient car anyway, then they don’t help the environment. If someone takes the $4,500 and decides that with that now they can use that money to step up to the V6 Malibu instead of the four cylinder (or the Cobalt) to replace their truck, then it doesn’t help the environment. If all it does is cause someone to replace their truck one year earlier, it helps the environment a small bit, but not all that much.

    The worst case scenario would be if everyone who bought a car using the program bought exactly the same car– or more powerful– than they would have bought anyway (since they’re concerned about gas prices), and everyone would have bought a new car now or soon anyway. In that case it would just be a pure subsidy to car dealers and manufacturers, and to people who bought gas guzzlers beforehand. It’s not the worst case scenario, but preliminary studies indicate that for everyone who’s using a voucher and would otherwise not be in the market for replacing their fuel inefficient vehicle, there are 3 or 4 who would in the market anyway and are just getting free money for doing basically what they would have done anyway.

    And that’s why NulloMondo’s statement that
    People don’t just want the money, they want to be spending less on fuel.

    actually in some ways (though not others) weakens the case for Cash for Clunkers. If people want to be spending less on fuel more than they want the money, perhaps they would have gotten a more fuel efficient car even without the voucher.

    In any case, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, right? So we need channels that are willing to take a critical view of the current Administration, just as we needed others to take a critical view of the previous.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    I’m not sure where this 20000 number is coming from. Yes there are some administrative costs, but they won’t be anywhere near 5x the amount of the actual voucher. The dealerships are eating the costs of actually destroying the clunkers, and only get to take $50 per car to do it.

  • avatar
    wsn

    Rod Panhard :
    July 29th, 2009 at 8:49 am

    Why doesn’t the government, instead, reward those of us who have been driving, for years, (or riding) vehicles that get good gas mileage?

    —————————————————

    Because if you are driving a fuel efficient car, most likely you are not supporting the Chairman’s minions and thus the Chairman himself.

  • avatar
    wsn

    johnthacker :
    July 29th, 2009 at 10:06 am

    And that’s why NulloMondo’s statement that

    People don’t just want the money, they want to be spending less on fuel.

    actually in some ways (though not others) weakens the case for Cash for Clunkers. If people want to be spending less on fuel more than they want the money, perhaps they would have gotten a more fuel efficient car even without the voucher.

    ————————————————

    I agree.

    Furthermore, this is not about fuel efficiency improvements, this is about rewarding D3 customers (which more than any other group will buy a D3 product again).

    If it’s for fuel efficiency improvements, there doesn’t need to be a MPG requirement. There only need to be a MPG improvement requirement.

    Replacing an old Carmy with a Prius probably saves as much gas as replacing an old Silverado with a new one.

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    I’m not sure where this 20000 number is coming from.

    NulloModo:

    I’ll try to explain. My apologies if I wasn’t clear before.

    Suppose that absent Cash For Clunkers, 3 people in a town would have traded in their clunker for a newer, more efficient car that year. With the Cash For Clunkers program, 4 people trade in their car for a more efficient car. The government gives $4500 vouchers to all 4 of them. The government has spent $18000 in vouchers, but only obtained 1 additional trade in.

    In that case, the correct cost of the program is not $4500 per car, as three of those trade-ins would have have happened regardless. The correct cost of the program is measured in terms of additional cars that were traded in that would not have been otherwise, or $18000 per car.

    That’s what the $20000 per car figure comes from.

    If people using the program were all buying a car that barely qualified for the voucher, then that would be evidence that the program was strongly affecting people’s behavior. It would imply that people would be getting less fuel efficient cars except for the program, so the program was doing a lot of good. But if people using the program all get cars that would easily qualify, then maybe they would have gotten more fuel efficient cars even without the program. So that in a way is a strike against the program.

    From the opposite perspective, the fact that people are getting the cheapest possible car is a mark in favor of the program. If people were getting nicer cars that qualified, then perhaps they would still buy a car without the program, just one that cost $4500 less (but still qualified.) If they’re getting the cheapest car possible, then perhaps they would not have replaced their car at all without the program.

    When judging this program, you can’t look at it as “$4500 per car,” or total cars sold You have to compare the results under the program to what would have happened otherwise.

    Some people would have bought a new car anyway. Some people would have bought a new car next year, and maybe you just pulled their purchase forward by a year. That’s worth something, but not as much as people that would have continued driving their clunker for five years. Etc.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Buckshot:
    You might as well link to the KKK.

    So a CNN or WelfareRadio NPR link would equal a link to the CPUSA?

    News organizations today have slant.
    News organizations twenty years ago had slant (but were too myopic or arrogant to admit it).

    Society is better for it.

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    “So a CNN or WelfareRadio NPR link would equal a link to the CPUSA?”

    Are you saying that CNN is communistic? :-)
    Lol.

    But Fox is NOT news, it´s propaganda.

  • avatar

    That’s not an Australian or NZ accent, it’s one of the more educated British accents, itself accented by at least five to 10 years of living in the USA, or someone who deals every single day with Americans.

    The few different Australian accents have broader vowels. His accent is closest to the educated Australian accent, which itself is related to British educated accents, but it’s not an Australian accent.

    The other Australian accents are the standard one (US folks rarely hear this unless a tourist comes by), and the broad accent, which is like Paul Hogan’s or Steve Irwin’s accent. That’s actually rarer than the educated Australian accent. Luckily, we can barely tell each other apart unless we talk about beer or footy. Then we know which state the other is from as each state has different beer and terms for the glass sizes you can get at a pub.

    After being in the US for a few months, I was so frustrated at the drive through. I had to either learn basic Spanish or change the way I spoke to get my junk food. So I put on a bit of a twang and adopted a bit of the local Baltimore accent. It worked. Maybe too well. Last year, I was mistaken for a Yank by an Australian at a conference and it happened again today. I think I need more rehabilitation of my accent.

    Andrew

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    But Fox is NOT news, it´s propaganda.

    Ah, when you don’t have the facts, attack the messenger. I’ll take this as you conceding the essential accuracy of this report, then.

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    Fox don´t use facts.
    I thought everybody knew that.

  • avatar
    TeeTee

    WEll guess what! I was going to try and get a new car and use the rebate. I drive a 89 olds. and I have been driving it for 20 years. People all over are turning in 2001,2002,ect, SUV ….. and using the rebate. But my car does NOT rate for me to use it . It has to be 18mpg or less right. Well the government has rated mine a 19mpg. So no help for this poor taxpaying hard worker.. so i will to keep driving my Clunker!!!!!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States