AP: Govt to suspend 'cash for clunkers'

[IHOPSkins]

Here's some Liberal Thinking: how do I get my money back from the Iraq war?

"9/12" not happening in LA, Boston, Chicago........?

The Military/Intelligence Community is an Insurance Policy........we cannot affored not to have full coverage

[Peeping Wizard]

Don't do it if you don't want to. No one is making you participate.

We are all participating, like it or not.

NYT is reporting that this program is a total cluster ****.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dealers-race-to-get-their-clunkers-crushed/?hp

Maybe we should let these dip ****s run our healtcare program.

[twa]

Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law, said in a statement that the cash-for-clunker program is not a cost-effective way to reduce fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. Any energy savings, he said, could take several years to realize, considering the time it takes the fuel savings from a new car to exceed the energy cost used to make it.

Wonder how long my amnesiac lib friends????:silly:

using the formula from Environment and Forecasting Institute in germany.

http://www.lead.org.au/lanv3n2/lanv3n2-4.html

Each (average medium sized)new car totals 1,524 million cubic meters of polluted air including raw materials,shipping and production(and disposal of old one in this case)

A average medium sized car produces 1,000 cubic meters of polluted air driving 81,000 miles:doh:

Any of you math whizzes want to tell me how long to recoup the environmental cost???:evilg:

Next these geniuses are gonna tell us how to clean the air:chair:

[AsburySkinsFan]

"9/12" not happening in LA, Boston, Chicago........?

The Military/Intelligence Community is an Insurance Policy........we cannot affored not to have full coverage

The statement was about the Iraq War and you bring up 9/11, surely you're not still connecting the two.

Anyways back to the GOP dream to halt car sales, pollute the environment, and maintain our dependence upon oil song and dance.

"Tax cuts always good, spending always bad...except military spending then mortgage the farm baby!"

[AsburySkinsFan]

Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law, said in a statement that the cash-for-clunker program is not a cost-effective way to reduce fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. Any energy savings, he said, could take several years to realize, considering the time it takes the fuel savings from a new car to exceed the energy cost used to make it.

Wonder how long my amnesiac lib friends????:silly:

using the formula from Environment and Forecasting Institute in germany.

http://www.lead.org.au/lanv3n2/lanv3n2-4.html

Each (average medium sized)new car totals 1,524 million cubic meters of polluted air including raw materials,shipping and production(and disposal of old one in this case)

A average medium sized car produces 1,000 cubic meters of polluted air driving 81,000 miles:doh:

Any of you math whizzes want to tell me how long to recoup the environmental cost???:evilg:

Next these geniuses are gonna tell us how to clean the air:chair:

So...you want us to stop making cars? When I suggest that this program helps the environment its in that a gas guzzling car pollutes more than an efficient car for a car that was going to be made in the first place.

[AsburySkinsFan]

NYT is reporting that this program is a total cluster ****.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dealers-race-to-get-their-clunkers-crushed/?hp

BTW, that's not the NYTimes reporting, its a NYT blog big difference. But then I'm not overly surprised at the mistake in a society that thinks Olbermann, Hannity, and O'Reilly are providing "news".

[Fergasun]

BTW, that's not the NYTimes reporting, its a NYT blog big difference. But then I'm not overly surprised at the mistake in a society that thinks Olbermann, Hannity, and O'Reilly are providing "news".

Difference? So there's no news in this blog post?

[twa]

So...you want us to stop making cars? When I suggest that this program helps the environment its in that a gas guzzling car pollutes more than an efficient car for a car that was going to be made in the first place.

No,but simply replacing a old with a new is adding major pollution before you even leave the lot.

Take the time to look at the impact of making a new car vs the increase in mileage benefit w/o partisan glasses on....even Fienstien agrees the present program is foolish environmentally speaking.

The cars nor the funding are created w/o cost.

Would getting rid of your truck make sense?

Cars are produced only in response to demand,which is being artificially inflated.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Difference? So there's no news in this blog post?

Its a blog i.e. a personal opinion editorial which may highlight certain facts in order to substantiate a belief or claim, there is a difference between than and journalistic reporting which is supposed to just report the facts.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Would getting rid of your truck make sense?

Yes, if I knew my truck wasn't going to be resold, it gets taken off the roads and no longer pollutes and then I would drive a car that reduces pollution via less gas.

But none of it matters to me considering I can't afford a new car payment...something about student loans getting paid.:mad:

[Thiebear]

Senator Charles Schumer, one of the original sponsors of the bill, said the program ran out of money because skinflints in the Senate wouldn't give him the $4 billion he wanted for the program, which gives people up to $4,500 toward buying fuel efficient cars to replace their old gas guzzlers.

"There were people in the Senate who didn't like the program and they said 'We won't let it go through. We will filibuster. Try $1 billion and see if it works,'" Schumer said.

He said those senators now have egg on their face.

Where the hell is this money coming from..

Pull our troops home at least to offset this billionanza

Drill for Oil to pay for this extra mythical 4 billion when China is paying for it.

Do something for goodness sake.

We aren't making money, we are printing money.

And what will the car companies do when sales drop considerable over the next 4 months because everyone just bought one.

[twa]

Yes, if I knew my truck wasn't going to be resold, it gets taken off the roads and no longer pollutes and then I would drive a car that reduces pollution via less gas.

But none of it matters to me considering I can't afford a new car payment...something about student loans getting paid.:mad:

So we add the environmental impact of producing the new car,then subtract the gains from improved MPG.

How many decades;) driving will it take to recover the difference of 1,500 million cubic meters of pollution @ 1,000 cubic meters of polluted air driving 81,000 miles?

Nothing free in life eh?

[mikered30]

^^ Yep the fed is printing money in unheard of volumes. In a related story, Bernanke "forgot" that he loaned HALF a TRILLION dollars: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/fed_chairman_187.html

[Duckus]

It is pretty amazing the aggressive campaign that some conservatives and especially Drudge has used the last 48 hours to frame this program as some sort of failure. (not against the spending, but its success)

Nothing the government does can be positive! And anything that threatens that mind-set needs to be taken down.

I now know 3 people who have all bought cars (one late yesterday afternoon, a co-worker) - and none of them experienced any sort of crazy or uncertain car dealership experience. They did not have to sign any waiver, nothing.

Is it perfect? No.

Again - I understand if people don't want to spend the money (though I bet if we look up the Bush tax cut threads people have a different view ) but to try and claim this is some sort of giant government failure is just wacky. It is clearly been very successful, almost too successful.

I think my favorite part of the NYT blog posted here are the quotes from certain car dealerships. The program is 100% optional for the dealerships. If it is SO bad, how come each of them are participating and putting ads all over the country??? If they hate it, I got a solution for them, don't do it.

[twa]

It is pretty amazing the aggressive campaign that some conservatives and especially Drudge has used the last 48 hours to frame this program as some sort of failure. (not against the spending, but its success)

.

Amazing you ignore the critics on the Dem side as well.

Well...not really amazing...just typical :evilg:

[jnhay]

Where the hell is this money coming from..

Pull our troops home at least to offset this billionanza

Drill for Oil to pay for this extra mythical 4 billion when China is paying for it.

Do something for goodness sake.

We aren't making money, we are printing money.

And what will the car companies do when sales drop considerable over the next 4 months because everyone just bought one.

4 billion isn't nearly enough to say "everyone has bought one"

So we add the environmental impact of producing the new car,then subtract the gains from improved MPG.

How many decades;) driving will it take to recover the difference of 1,500 million cubic meters of pollution @ 1,000 cubic meters of polluted air driving 81,000 miles?

Nothing free in life eh?

You forgot to subtract the pollution they'd produce from normal operations.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No,but simply replacing a old with a new is adding major pollution before you even leave the lot.

.

TWA I've been thinking about this and I figured out where you're going wrong, you keep bringing up the environmental impact of creating a new car and trying to make it sound as if the people weren't in the market for a car to begin with. The people taking advantage of this program wanted to be in the car market the $4500 serves as an incentive to buy a new car and not just a new car but a lower gas mileage car which the might not have been inclined to buy before the incentive. If the market was better the people buying these cars would have bought something, this makes sure that they buy a fuel efficient one...ergo better for the environment.

[twa]

Fair point, but it really depends on what they are buying and if they would buy new rather than used w/o the cash.

I believe the plan only specifies a 4 mpg (overall improvement in a very low mpg vehicle to begin with)to qualify for $4,500 of OUR dollars.

Shouldn't we at least make it higher to increase the bang for our buck?

Really it irritates me mine are too high mpg to qualify for a Camaro...****s:silly:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Fair point, but it really depends on what they are buying and if they would buy new rather than used w/o the cash.

I believe the plan only specifies a 4 mpg (overall improvement in a very low mpg vehicle to begin with)to qualify for $4,500 of OUR dollars.

True enough, I wish is was higher too.

Really it irritates me mine are too high mpg to qualify for a Camaro...****s:silly:

Tell me about it! What's funny is that Kentucky Governor Steve Bershear had a promotion about the program and he was signing on a 2009 Mustang Cobra. Our Treasury secretary Jonathan Miller posted it on his facebook and I politely reminded him that the Cobra probably didn't qualify.

[mikered30]

Anyone going to write to their congress person stating that destroying serviceable vehicles and rewarding people who make poor decisions with my money is bad policy? Also if one of the goals is to get vehicles that get under 18 mpg off the road for more fuel efficient vehicles, then shouldn't Obama halt the production of current vehicles that get under 18 mpg? After the carbon tax comes to the US, I can see that as a possibility.

[jnhay]

Also if one of the goals is to get vehicles that get under 18 mpg off the road for more fuel efficient vehicles, then shouldn't Obama halt the production of current vehicles that get under 18 mpg? After the carbon tax comes to the US, I can see that as a possibility.

That's probably the biggest waste of money I've heard of in this thread. It's not logical either. There are going to be low mileage vehicles on the road for a good while. The point is to encourage people to drive cars with better mileage, not force them and alienate and anger a large part of society.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's probably the biggest waste of money I've heard of in this thread. It's not logical either. There are going to be low mileage vehicles on the road for a good while. The point is to encourage people to drive cars with better mileage, not force them and alienate and anger a large part of society.

Not to mention taking away my mode of transportation.

Anyone going to write to their congress person stating that destroying serviceable vehicles and rewarding people who make poor decisions with my money is bad policy?

BTW, what does this have to do with the cash for clunkers program?

[mikered30]

Not to mention taking away my mode of transportation.

BTW, what does this have to do with the cash for clunkers program?

People who have a "clunker" bought a working vehicle that gets crappy gas mileage. The majority of these cars are trucks and SUVs and some V6 and V8 sportier cars. You would pay more for these vehicles compared to a 4 cylinder car (on average) and pay more at the pump for gas. Other things like larger tires, larger oil sump and larger capacities of other fluids compared to a 4 cyl have higher costs, but were bought anyway even if they were not absolutely needed. Why the SUV craze caught on is beyond me. Obviously people need trucks to haul things other than air and my gripe is not with them. I can count on one hand how many trucks I see with cargo in the bed of the truck or hauling in a given day. I cannot count on my fingers and toes the amount of trucks I see hauling or towning nothing, because I run out of fingers and toes to count on. The poor decision process comes in from buying vehicles (mainly SUVs, and really who needs a hummer, (the vehicle)) that get crappy mileages. Short sighted thinking, me first attitudes, buying air haulers and SUVs for soccer moms that never go off road, and thinking gas would stay below $2 a gallon for ever led to a poor decison making process in my mind. So I didnt feel that bad when gas was $4 a gallon but SUV owners on the highway were going 10 mph below the PSL because of high gas prices annoyed me. Now I am paying for their poor decision process and I have no choice in the matter because these people should have bought a more efficient vehicle in the first place. Before SUVs people still hauled their stuff just fine. Also, some people will go deeper into debt buy falling for this program. Then maybe we will all get a bailout.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Also, some people will go deeper into debt buy falling for this program. Then maybe we will all get a bailout.

Ok, I see your reasoning here. BTW, were you for or against the Federal TARP Bail Out when it was proposed by Bush?

[Goaldeje]

TWA I've been thinking about this and I figured out where you're going wrong, you keep bringing up the environmental impact of creating a new car and trying to make it sound as if the people weren't in the market for a car to begin with. The people taking advantage of this program wanted to be in the car market the $4500 serves as an incentive to buy a new car and not just a new car but a lower gas mileage car which the might not have been inclined to buy before the incentive. If the market was better the people buying these cars would have bought something, this makes sure that they buy a fuel efficient one...ergo better for the environment.

I would argue you are generalizing. My assistant told me the other day she and her husband were thinking about this program to get something with better gas mileage. I know for a fact, and even confirmed with her, that they were not considering a new car purchase before this program was announced. The ONLY reason they are thinking about it now is b/c of the rebate.

On a different note, I have yet to see anyone respond to some of Mike's very good points about wasting these trade ins. Not only are we depriving lower-income families of working vehicles (or Vo-Tech schools, Salvation Army, etc), but by disposing of these in the ways we are, we are contributing to the negative environmental impact twa describes.

I see this as extremely successful in the short term, but a complete and miserable failure in the long term. Especially when car manufacturers and dealerships come crying for more bailout money in a couple of months because no one is buying cars anymore.