Monday, July 27, 2009

Congress Bait and Switch

True- I benefited from the cash for clunkers program, a program that allegedly was formulated to assist getting gas guzzling cars off the road and help with climate change. However the program has one massive flaw- you must exchange your gas guzzler for a NEW more efficient car. This program can be used only by people in a certain income range- namely those that can afford a new car in a recessionary period. Which leaves us asking the follwoing questions:

If our democrat congress is so intent on helping the poor, why didn't they give assistance to those that can afford a used car and not a new car?

If the intent is to assist with climate change why the stipulation that you must purchase a new car, why not a more fuel efficient used car?

Isn't it more environmentatlly friendly to utlize the used fuel efficient cars on the market than the new fuel efficient car? Why on earth would our congress that is SO SO SO conserned with the environment be against someone trading in their gas guzzler for a 2007 Prius?

Who benefits from the 'new car' stipulation?

Auto Unions. This 'climate change' initative is just another way to funnel tax payer dollars back to the unions. AUTO UNIONS benefit from the words "NEW CAR" not the environment and not Americans. Those same unions that keep funneling campaign funds into the democrat party. Those unions that now own GM and Chrystler.


mj said...

Yes, this bill is more of a stimulus bill than an environment bill. Much like the $1500 tax rebate for more energy efficient home appliances, etc. which requires that you spend A LOT to get it (energy efficient repairs would not qualify but a brand new HVAC system would). But, since our HVAC in our 35-year old home had never been replaced, we are using it.

In either case, I figure it's better than nothing: a mainly economic move with some environment benefits. It's kind of republican/democrat hybrid thinking, which might not be so bad.

Sarah said...

This program actually manages to encourage overspending in two ways -- by enticing the owners of clunkers to trade up and in all probability incur additional debt to finance a portion of their new-car purchases and by taking a bunch of affordable used cars off the market (they have to be destroyed) and thus eliminating options that allow the less affluent to meet their transportation needs affordably.

The timing is outrageous.

Robin said...

I think you should re-name your blog and use the word "detective" in it.

Emmy said...

My father-in-laws company is changing offices. As part of their new office, those that drive environmentally friendly cars get dibs on special parking spots. My father-in-law has a small Honda civic with NO bells and whistles and it gets on average 40 miles to the gallon. So when he asked if he could park in one of those spots, they said his car didn't qualify. They don't care about gas millage, they just care about the certain brand and the ones that have been deemed environmentally good.

davers said...

Yeah, this is all about stimulus, no effect on the environment, and as far as stimulus it's horrible because it's no different than a high-pressure commercial that says "we'll even give you $4500 junker trade-in value" - just another sales tactic that doesn't bring in NEW buyers.

So all it has done is 1) made it cheaper for people who were going to buy a car anyway, and 2) kill the used auto market and expedite the bankruptcy of those dealers who recently lost their brand name (thanks GM), and 3) lower the price struggling families can get for their spare car which they need because dad got laid off at the used car lot.

A typical result for the typical democrat solution: throw money at it.

Steve said...

Well, if GM and Ford were making these cars in the first place the past 20 years and not SUVs and such, the govt wouldn't have had to come in and give people a reason to buy new cars now to save everyone in those industries from losing their jobs. It is like the new home buyers credit, with the idea to stimulate purchasing, the only way to get out of a recession. Again, I think it should have required a lot stiffer requirements on the cars purchased, but it is working as I pointed out in your previous post and your husband and others still have jobs, thanks in part to the government. Not sure what you are complaining about....

Salt H2O said...

My complaint is simple (and I thought pretty clear):

This was touted as an evironmental bill, not a 'stimulus package'.

Those that allegedly care about the poor put forth a bill that in no way assists those they claim to represent because they can not afford new cars.

One word could have been changed in the bill and it would have had an impact on the environment and permitted those that are NOT in a certain income bracket to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. One word would have allowed a democratic congress to achieve all that it has set out to, help the environment and the middle class yet they didn't change that word.


Steve said...

Sorry, I still don't get your point. Is the word "new" that you are so concerned about? New cars purchases fuel the entire supply chain of about a dozen industries. Used cars only used car lots. I'm not sure where you are getting your news from that this is an "environmental" bill. Even the Ford commercials with our favorite Dirty Job guy make it clear it is to buy new cars and an economic plan.

BTW, if you didn't agree with this, why take the credit?!?! You could have simply not taken the credit!!!

Salt H2O said...

I've decided that either you and I think in two different languages, or that this is such a painfully simple post that you refuse to admit that a congress that claims to love the environment and the poor passed another bill that assists neither.

Salt H2O said...

In addition Steve, you have made an assumption that I am against this bill. I have injected no personal feelings about the bill, merely pointed out that the change of one word in the bill would have helped the environment and those that are not in a certain income bracket- and trying to find the reasoning as to why a congress that allegedly loves those two things- would not make the change.

Steve said...

Wait, so now you think Congress should ONLY help the poor and the environment?!??! hahaha. Who are you and where is the real Salty?!?!
Sorry, I guess I just missed the bitterness in your post. Sure, Congress says lots of PC things about the environment and poor people, BOTH parties do, but they also continue to do other things like pass Defense appropriations, weigh in on Supreme Court nominations, and other Congressional mandates that are required that have nothing to do with the poor or the environment. With all the things to complain about, Congressmen having affairs, the insane "birthers", and some actual REAL problems facing this country, complaining about a car subsidy seems quite trivial for your standards.

Salt H2O said...

Steve, You haven't answered a single one of my questions I've posed in this post, namely the most important:

Why did congress stipulate that the car must be NEW?

Who benefits from the word NEW?

Steve said...

Who benefits if you buy a used car:
The used car lot owner and salesman

Who makes money if a new car is sold:
Car salesman
State/Local govts (tax and title fees are higher on new cars)
Truck drivers delivering the cars from the plant
Auto companies
Tire makers
Sheet metal/plastic molders
Engine component suppliers
Leather/cloth suppliers
Electronics suppliers (radio/gps/dvd)
Glass suppliers
All the workers that work for these suppliers
All the suppliers that supply these companies with their raw materials
The diners/lunch eateries/gas stations around said businesses
The waitresses, cooks, busboys, store clerks that wait on the customers that work at these suppliers
Salvage yards and other second hand places where the traded in cars will end up

Salt H2O said...

I'm starting to wonder if you've even read my post.

adamf said...

Seems like he did answer your question there though. :)

I just got one of those coupons in the mail as well, but alas, my car is a Toyota. No soup for me!

Salt H2O said...

I swear you two think in a completely different language-

Who benefits from used?
All Car Dealerships (FYI Used Cars are sold on all lots)

Every american who can't afford an new Prius but could afford a used one

Our environment which would feel the impact of a substancial number of gas guzzlers taken off the road, not just old inefficent SUV's being traded in for new ones

Our children, who's environment would be less poluted by inefficent vehicles because a majority of the American population would be able to afford a more fuel effiecent car- used or otherwise.

Families that could now spend more money on groceries and are spending less money on gas.

Grociers that are now making more money because their customers can afford to buy more food and can spend less on gas.

Mortgage companies, who would receive payments promptly and wouldn't have some of their customers default because they had to put money in their tank for gas.

I'd say it's interesting that I'm the one advocating for middle America and the environment, while you two defend Congress- but then again it's been proven that conservatives truely care more about the poor than liberals.

davers said...

I'd be interested to see how much the price dealers are willing to give for used cars have gone down since this went into effect. There's so much shell game tactics that go on it boggles the mind.

If normally I'd get $10K I'm thinking I'll end up with $14.5, but if it turns out everyone now says I'll only get $8K, I'm still getting $12.5 total which is a lot better than $8K, but would I have been offered the $10K without that psychological factor? I don't think so. That's not how dealerships make money ... it's all about psychology - getting the most possible while getting the buyer to believe their getting a great deal ... easy to do when the gov't has done half the work for you.

kris and cathy said...

I love your posts. I think you are fabulous. And the typical remark of a liberal is to play the blame game. "Congress wouldn't have to step in and bla bla bla BARF if these companies would have made these cars in the first place". Oh jeeze. Blame the American public. Supply and demand, genius.

I think the government should definitely force our purchases. I think that's an awesome idea. I love the government. Hopefully next they will force us to buy houses built by certain builders.

nrthshore said...

While you all have been discussing this, the program has been suspended because too many well off people have brought in their cars. (By the way, those cars might end up in China.) Kory, it looks like you got just under the wire on this deal.

Salt H2O said...

Thanks Cathy! No worries, soon they're going to tell you what doctors you can and can't see, so we'll all be saved.

For clarity, you only get the $4500- you don't get the money in addition to your trade-in value. Not surprisingy, that is what was pitched, but not what was executed.

Steve said...

Even in your scenario, a lot less people make money. Trading in a car for a new used car isn't going to help "poor" or middle class people b/c now instead of driving a "clunker" that is paid for, now they are going to have a car payment (like Davers said, the shell game with prices so no used car salesman is going to let a car go for $4500 or less, not to mention any car worth that little almost certainly wouldn't meet the MPG requirements of the program unless it is a 93 Nissan). So now they will be spending MORE per month paying for a car, not the other things you listed. The program is working exactly how it should be.

adamf said...

Lol, I say "seems like" and all of a sudden I'm speaking a different language. :)

Really, I just have a thing for Zombies, and people named Steve. That's pretty much it. ;)

davers said...

Thptpt! Looks like I was wrong ... thought it wouldn't attract new buyers. 1 week and the program's bankrupt.

Sure wish they'd do that with my customers in the HVAC industry (gov't buy junker HVAC systems), and it would have a much more significant effect on the environment. Suddenly they'd have a lot more money which would be good for me.

Jo's Outlet said...

If all of us were smart, we taxpayers would have all bought a new car under the cash for clunkers program like Kory -- our money is going towards it anyway through taxes. Why not keep our $4500 in our own garages?

Jo's Outlet said...

Actually, if the democratic president were smart, he would have started cutting taxes on the middle and lower classes so we could better afford to buy a new car on our own in the first place.

Ok...I'm rambling now.