Cash for clunkers swindle

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I wonder if you can use the clunkers voucher in conjuction with those vouchers that GM and Chrysler offers their employees who leave the company? The automakers vouchers are worth $15,500.00 dollars. If you could, that would be major savings towards a vehicle purchase.

[rvtwitty]

I believe her, I know dealers do it, and have been for at least 30 years.
The problem is the only relation to the program is that it brings in new customers..
Everything she said about the p/s flush and warranties is true and has been going on for the 30 years I have been a mechanic. The add on warranty actually happened to me, and no it was not in the contract I signed..

Thank you for your comments.

[rvtwitty]

The older couple got a new contract last night. General manager was not returning their calls, they went in personally with their kids. The GM helped them with a new contract person. Then never checked back or acknowledged them when they left. Nothing but icy stares. They heard from the contract writer the home office was pissed and got involved. Because they have to go back there for the servicing of the car, [[next dealer is some miles away) they are not going to the media . I wish they would, I want this dirtbag unGodly place exposed for the crooks they are, but have to respect their wishes. I won't be responding back here for a day or so. Going out of the area for a day.

[bailey]

rvtwitty... i didnt catch the name of the dealership? where did this happen?

[rvtwitty]

rvtwitty... i didnt catch the name of the dealership? where did this happen?

The old people involved are scared seniors, don't want retribution. They had a home invasion a couple of years ago and are scared of their own shadow. They caught a guy and he got off on a technicality. So they have asked the friends that know not to say who the dealer is. They think every business of this nature is like the Sopranos. I don't think the dealership is like that, but like I said they are just a couple of scared seniors.

[bailey]

The old people involved are scared seniors, don't want retribution. They had a home invasion a couple of years ago and are scared of their own shadow. They caught a guy and he got off on a technicality. So they have asked the friends that know not to say who the dealer is. They think every business of this nature is like the Sopranos. I don't think the dealership is like that, but like I said they are just a couple of scared seniors.

then what is the point of posting this? some random dealer may or may not have swindled some old people. I mean seriously? can I have the 5 minutes I spent reading your fake post back please?

[luckycar]

Swindling people out of their hard earned cash is a sure fire way never to get repeat customers.Negative word of mouth will destroy a dealership.In these times a new car store cannot have any foul-ups.The auto makers are looking to shed dealers,don't give them a reason.Old established dealers like ours must have these repeat customers to stay afloat in these tough times.We don't have reabtes,cash for clunker programs,rip-off financing or bait and switch advertising.Just good honest deals since 1952.

[Strathcona]

Well, it looks like the cash for clunkers deal is off.

http://www.freep.com/article/2009073...ESS01/90730081

[bailey]

Well, it looks like the cash for clunkers deal is off.

it's not "off". saying "off" makes it sound as if it was discontinued for no reason. it was such a unexpected success it ran out of the billion dollars allotted in only a week. 250,000 cars were purchased so far under this program. I would expect a few more billion [[possibly from tarp) to be put into this. Or would we prefer it goes to wall street bonuses?

[CornBot]

it's not "off". saying "off" makes it sound as if it was discontinued for no reason. it was such a unexpected success it ran out of the billion dollars allotted in only a week. 250,000 cars were purchased so far under this program. I would expect a few more billion [[possibly from tarp) to be put into this. Or would we prefer it goes to wall street bonuses?

I heard Fred Upton on the radio yesterday... he said the official amount for Cash for Clunkers was $4 billion, but only $1 billion was funded. So, program might continue........ and for sure, not one penny of it should go to Wall Street or a "financial institution." Matter of fact, I think all those fat-cat bank execs should be required to donate any and all bonuses received in 2008 and 2009 to the Cash for Clunkers. OK so I am just brainstorming for ways to fund the right programs instead of class lifestyles, which is not exactly a realistic line of thinking. But it is mildly satisfying.

[eastside,c]

why don't you take a look at a pontiac vibe or g-3 they're good on fuel and the price is right

[eastside,c]

I heard Fred Upton on the radio yesterday... he said the official amount for Cash for Clunkers was $4 billion, but only $1 billion was funded. So, program might continue........ and for sure, not one penny of it should go to Wall Street or a "financial institution." Matter of fact, I think all those fat-cat bank execs should be required to donate any and all bonuses received in 2008 and 2009 to the Cash for Clunkers. OK so I am just brainstorming for ways to fund the right programs instead of class lifestyles, which is not exactly a realistic line of thinking. But it is mildly satisfying.

there is another 2 billion comming it's not off

[oladub]

Congratulations to any and all who qualify for this free money. If I qualified, I would look into this freebee program too. That said, this program is idiotic in that it does not take into account the energy that is required to build cars, ship them across oceans in some instances, and melt the old ones. The lack of these considerations dooms the alledged conservation part of this program to an overpriced failure.

Since there is nothing stopping purchasers from buying foreign made cars with this money and foreign producers make a higher percentage of fuel efficient cars, this bill will be inefficient at putting Americans back to work and will send a huge amount of money out of our economy as it worsens the balance of payments and consequently the value of the dollar.

Poor people who buy clunkers to drive around in will find fewer to choose from selling at higher prices. Used parts will be harder to find. This will be tough on the poor. What were this bill's backers thinking?

The $3,000,000,000, so far, this will cost will be billed to taxpayers who will have that much less to spend on things they want or need. Sometimes I wonder if the people in charge are doing everything they can, a la Zimbabwe, to destroy the economy. So the government gooses car sales for a month or two. What happens to car sales the month after this offer is over?

[Detwa]

Dumb question, maybe, and I'm sure some of you here can enlighten me - but why are all of the "clunkers" being destroyed? Is that really the best idea they can come up with in this horrible economy? Could they not have been donated to programs to give to qualified struggling people, like the Michigan DHS used to [[and maybe still does) have a car voucher program - couldn't these clunkers go to needy folks? If they were good enough to drive to the dealership, I'm sure someone would have appreciated one of them to help them look for a job. i'm just saying. I hate to see "perfectly good" cars destroyed.

And why don't they just smash them instead of going through all of the process of putting solution in the engine and so forth, according to the video on freep.com. Isn't that more time consuming and costly?

Finally, I hope this program doesn't turn out like the great mortgage boom of 2005-2006 when everybody and their momma was buying houses. If so many people are out of work, who's rushing out to finance new cars? Seems it would have made more sense to just keep your clunker if its paid off, but apparently millions are going to get new cars and new car payments. I just hope in 2010 there's not a big repossession scandal and then another auto bailout because they can't collect on all of the cars they sold.

I don't know, this isn't setting right with me. I hope I'm wrong but right now....

[Novine]

One of the goals of the program is to get low mileage cars off the roads. Many of the older vehicles not only use a lot of gas [[why stick someone with little disposable income with a gas guzzler?) but also generate a lot more pollution than the cars that are replacing them. Putting those cars back on the roads would defeat the purpose of the program. A couple billion is a lot of money but as a Ford spokesman stated, it's been one of the quickest and cheapest environmental cleanups ever accomplished.

[Detwa]

One of the goals of the program is to get low mileage cars off the roads. Many of the older vehicles not only use a lot of gas [[why stick someone with little disposable income with a gas guzzler?) but also generate a lot more pollution than the cars that are replacing them.

I see what you're saying, but I just keep thinking that a gas guzzler beats NO CAR whatsoever, when it comes down to someone needing transportation to get a job, and maybe getting that person off the unemployment/welfare roll. So you've got a gas guzzler, just drive it less, consolidate your trips, until you can do better, but it will get you to work. For people who can't afford newer cars, teens, low income folks, etc., what car will they buy when they scrape together a couple thou, now that these have been taken off the road?

This program sure generated a lot of profit for the auto industry, but how is it going to really help the people right now? Now more people have car notes, in the worse recession in over 30 years. I just wonder if there aren't better ways to address going green than giving people car notes. Color me pessimistic but I'm not feeling good about the way things are going. Mortgage industry bailouts, auto industry bailouts, now this program to generate more money for the auto industry - but millions of people will exhaust their unemployment this Fall and move to welfare. I think going green is the least of this country's problems.

[luckycar]

I'm thinking the same way here.In the next two years we may see an uptick in repos.Do you really need a car payment and paying full coverage car insurance when you may loose you job,house and savings?Does taking these cars and trucks out of the secondary market help the poor who need a $3000 car?If this were a green only program,shouldn't hybirds and 30+mpg vehicles only be the ones that can be bought?Don't get me wrong,any action at car dealers is good for our economy.I just don't think that they thought this thru very well.Hope health care works better...

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Color me pessimistic but I'm not feeling good about the way things are going. Mortgage industry bailouts, auto industry bailouts, now this program to generate more money for the auto industry - but millions of people will exhaust their unemployment this Fall and move to welfare. I think going green is the least of this country's problems."

I'll take the truth over soothsaying any day. Say it louder man.

Someone mentioned a Ford exec had something positive to say about this "program"? I'll bet he does, he has the Government paying people to do business with them, must be nice. You're spot on about all these people taking on a long term credit obligation, and the Government is doing jackshit about job creation, trade.

[oladub]

One of the goals of the program is to get low mileage cars off the roads. Many of the older vehicles not only use a lot of gas [[why stick someone with little disposable income with a gas guzzler?) but also generate a lot more pollution than the cars that are replacing them. Putting those cars back on the roads would defeat the purpose of the program. A couple billion is a lot of money but as a Ford spokesman stated, it's been one of the quickest and cheapest environmental cleanups ever accomplished.

Wrong. Something like 15% of the energy consumed by a car over its lifetime has to do with the energy used to manufacture and ship the car, especially if foreign made. If the car is belching black smoke you have a point. If, however, the car has another 60,000 miles left on it, to crush it would represent a colossal waste of embedded energy. Because the nitwits who designed this program did not consider embedded energy, the program will have little, if any, energy conservation potential.

A simpler way of getting fuel ineffiecient cars off the road would have been to raise gas taxes a couple of dollars a gallon and offset this tax with the same amount of income tax reductions especially for the poor so the gas tax increase was revenue neutral. Doing so would have also gone a long way toward meeting the goals of the middle class cap and trade tax without imposing that additional tax.

[Novine]

"If the car is belching black smoke you have a point. If, however, the car has another 60,000 miles left on it, to crush it would represent a colossal waste of embedded energy."

I've heard this arguments made several times and I don't buy it. If people kept their cars for 20 years and then they went off to the scrap heap, you might have a point. But most of these cars would have been replaced in the next few years anyway. All we've done is accelerated the replacement cycle, leading to a huge increase in the number of cars that burn less fuel and emit less pollution on the roads.

"Now more people have car notes, in the worse recession in over 30 years. I just wonder if there aren't better ways to address going green than giving people car notes."

Have you tried getting a loan lately? They're not giving loans out to anyone who wants them. Many people are getting these cars for prices far below what they would have paid in the past so their loan costs are lower too.

"Someone mentioned a Ford exec had something positive to say about this "program"?"

Feel free to name any initiative that's helped reduce pollution and increase fuel economy to this degree that was done for less money.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Feel free to name any initiative that's helped reduce pollution and increase fuel economy to this degree that was done for less money."

Well, you made it sound like the motivation behind their positive take is the environment. Yeah right, they are selling cars and we're paying for it, again. Can't keep nursing these losing propositions forever. What is going to happen this fall when the economy is still shit and the people that would have bought one then took advantage of the free gift from the taxpayers now? Think they'll still be selling cars? This is not the natural flow of a free market, this is artificial profit. That never ends well.

[oladub]

"If the car is belching black smoke you have a point. If, however, the car has another 60,000 miles left on it, to crush it would represent a colossal waste of embedded energy." -oladub

I've heard this arguments made several times and I don't buy it. If people kept their cars for 20 years and then they went off to the scrap heap, you might have a point. But most of these cars would have been replaced in the next few years anyway. All we've done is accelerated the replacement cycle, leading to a huge increase in the number of cars that burn less fuel and emit less pollution on the roads.

"Now more people have car notes, in the worse recession in over 30 years. I just wonder if there aren't better ways to address going green than giving people car notes."

Feel free to name any initiative that's helped reduce pollution and increase fuel economy to this degree that was done for less money.

"According to Edmunds, about 200,000 old low mileage cars would normally be traded in, every 3 months, in exchange for more efficient higher mileage cars, without this program."

" if all buyers have qualified for the higher $4,500 rebate, the "cash for clunkers" program will mean a marginal increase in car sales of 22,000 this quarter. $1 billion divided by 22,000 means a net cost to the government of $45,354 per car.
If all buyers only qualify for the $3,500 rebate, it means a marginal increase in sales of about 86,000, or a net cost to the taxpayers of $11,628 per vehicle. In all likelihood, however, there will probably be a mix of vehicles qualifying for various rebates between $3,500 and $4,500. Based upon that assumption, Edmunds.com estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer will be about $20,000 per vehicle."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1529...54-per-vehicle

Let's go with the $20,000 per vehicle figure as further proof that the inmates are running the asylum. What will China say the next time Timmy the Tax Cheat comes around begging China to buy some more treasuries so we can deploy such idiotic solutions? I already provided a better idea for accomplishing the same thing for free.

"Fifty-four percent [[54%) of Americans oppose any further funding for the federal “cash for clunkers� program which encourages the owners of older cars to trade them in for newer, more fuel-efficient ones.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 33% of adults think Congress should authorize additional funding to keep the program going now that the original $950 million allocated for it has run out. Thirteen percent [[13%) are not sure.
These numbers are virtually identical to the findings in mid-June just after Congress first approved the plan when 35% favored it while 54% were opposed."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...unkers_program

[4real]

The REAL swindle is that the government is redirecting tax dollars from you and I and subsidizing people who most likely would have bought a car soon anyway.

Isn't it great, fed tax dollars subsidizing Toyota, Honda, Hyundai mostly and GM and Chrysler get the big drive shaft.

What will miss piggy stabenow and the other liars do when car sales stall in september?

[Novine]

"Isn't it great, fed tax dollars subsidizing Toyota, Honda, Hyundai mostly and GM and Chrysler get the big drive shaft."

Toyota reports almost a billion dollar loss this past quarter and Ford reports its first sales increase in 2 years. This program wasn't intended for just the Big 3 but they are getting a good percentage of the sales.

"According to Edmunds, about 200,000 old low mileage cars would normally be traded in, every 3 months, in exchange for more efficient higher mileage cars, without this program."

First, the Edmunds report did not say that low mileage cars would be exchanged for higher mileage cars. The writer made that up. Go read the Edmunds report yourself. Without the requirement that buyers purchase more fuel efficient cars , it's likely that a number of these purchases would have been for less fuel efficient cars or trucks or SUVs than what was purchased. As far as the sales numbers that Edmunds projected, that was accomplished in one week with the program. That blows away any assumptions in the Edmunds article. It also assumes that most, if not all of the clunkers would have been traded in. Edmunds own research indicates the opposite to be true. People were not trading their cars in for new cars at the rates seen in the past.

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/pr...9/article.html

The same article indicated that many of the C4C buyers were not people currently in the market. If you're going to run around touting the Edmunds article, try reading what's at Edmunds and not parroting what some guy on the Internet claims.

[oladub]

Ok. "Some guy" as you dismissed him is an attorney of 23 years, and has concentrated in securities law related cases. He holds Juris Doctorate from the UCLA Law School. He is a member of the roster of neutral arbitrators of the National Futures Association and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Cars sold in 1998 had an average fuel mileage of 28.8mpg.
Cars sold in 2008 had an average fuel mileage of 31.2mpg.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ble_04_23.html
The average new 2008 car got 2.4 additional mpg more than the average 10 year old car. I think that is what "some guy" who authored the article is talking about. Old cars average worse gas mileage than new cars He just extrapolated from that to find out what the billion$ were getting us above and beyond what would have happened anyway.

Now let's go back to Edmunds per your request.
http://www.edmunds.com/cash-for-clun...ulus-bill.html

According to the Edmunds chart, the federal government will pay out $3,500 if someone turns in a 18mpg car and turns it in for either an 22mph new car or turns in a 16mpg car for an 18mpg pickup.

So even though the average new car only gets 2.4 mpg more than the average 10 year old car, the government will pay $3,500 if someone buys a car that only gets 4mph more than their old car or a pickup that gets only 2mpg more than the trade in car. The more I learn about this program the more ludicrous it sounds.

This doesn't take into account the "embedded energy" that will be wasted as many good cars are sent to the crusher. Nor does it take into account what taxpayers might have otherwise done with their own money if the goverment hadn't squeezed it out of their wallets on whimsical spending programs