Or, is is because the down side makes them look stupid?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

The average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased under the CARS program is 25.4 mpg and the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in is 15.8 mpg,

If true, this is more successful than I would have hoped for. But I'd like to see actual evidence too.

62% increase?!?! Not too shabby.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

...nearly our entire economy is based on the bad practice of borrowing money to buy things we don't need.

Absolutely true. From the federal government all the way down to the individual citizen, and everywhere in between. We need a serious wake up call.

As usual, there's a lot more common ground in these debates than people think, both here and on the national level. It's too bad that the fringe elements direct most of the dialog.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...nearly our entire economy is based on the bad practice of borrowing money to buy things we don't need.

Absolutely true. From the federal government all the way down to the individual citizen, and everywhere in between. We need a serious wake up call.

As usual, there's a lot more common ground in these debates than people think, both here and on the national level. It's too bad that the fringe elements direct most of the dialog.

you could help by stopping

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

...nearly our entire economy is based on the bad practice of borrowing money to buy things we don't need.

Absolutely true. From the federal government all the way down to the individual citizen, and everywhere in between. We need a serious wake up call.

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road, we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants, we DO need our transportation system in good shape...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program.

This is a big problem.... So we should vote to extend something before we know what it is doing?

Also, 3500 for a 4MPG gain? Sheesh. I could almost have accepted it if the new cars got 30+ MPG.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road. we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants

But to have someone go into debt to do it is not a Financially wise move. You would prefer someone go deeper in debt for a 4 MPG increase when the carbon offset is greatly reduced by both the carbon footprint of making the new car and destroying the old one?

You said something before about being penny wise and pound foolish. You are buying into the hype, not looking at the data.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

But to have someone go into debt to do it is not a Financially wise move.

But don't most people finance their new cars anyway? And, wouldn't the lenders' underwriting (i.e., financial pre-screening ) process not weed out prospective borrowers whose finances are weak, anyway? The mortgage crisis notwithstanding, the truth is (especially in the current climate) that banks really don't want to create bad debt by lending to marginal risks.

Plus, if you take a car with, say, about $2,000 in incentives (which I'm seeing a lot now), plus another $4,500 off in CforC rebate, that's a reduction in initial loan principal of about $6,500, with a corresponding reduction in the size of monthly payments.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road, we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants, we DO need our transportation system in good shape...

I agree. But so far, I haven't heard a good rebuttal to the concern that the supply of affordable older, used cars (and their parts) will tighten, to the detriment of lower-income people.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road, we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants, we DO need our transportation system in good shape...

I agree. But so far, I haven't heard a good rebuttal to the concern that the supply of affordable older, used cars (and their parts) will tighten, to the detriment of lower-income people.

It's fascinating to see how the righties have suddenly developed this concern for low income people, after decades of indifference or hostility.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road. we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants

But to have someone go into debt to do it is not a Financially wise move. You would prefer someone go deeper in debt for a 4 MPG increase when the carbon offset is greatly reduced by both the carbon footprint of making the new car and destroying the old one?

You said something before about being penny wise and pound foolish. You are buying into the hype, not looking at the data.

Quote

The average fuel economy of new vehicles purchased under the CARS program is 25.4 mpg and the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in is 15.8 mpg,

Apparently you aren't looking either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road, we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants, we DO need our transportation system in good shape...

I agree. But so far, I haven't heard a good rebuttal to the concern that the supply of affordable older, used cars (and their parts) will tighten, to the detriment of lower-income people.

It's fascinating to see how the righties have suddenly developed this concern for low income people, after decades of indifference or hostility.

It's my concern, too; and I'm not a rightie.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

$7.8 billion more and we'll equal the amount of CASH that we simply "lost" in Iraq. At least we're getting something positive for our "investment" this time.

+1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the gov't is going to throw money around, then I'd rather see it on investments that will eventually help us out in the long run.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road, we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants, we DO need our transportation system in good shape...

I agree. But so far, I haven't heard a good rebuttal to the concern that the supply of affordable older, used cars (and their parts) will tighten, to the detriment of lower-income people.

It's fascinating to see how the righties have suddenly developed this concern for low income people, after decades of indifference or hostility.

It's my concern, too; and I'm not a rightie.

But have you spent decades being indifferent and suddenly had a "Road to Damascus" conversion?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Apparently you aren't looking either.

Clearly you still are not looking.

Quote

The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program.

The DOT has not released the data...

and

Quote

Also, 3500 for a 4MPG gain? Sheesh. I could almost have accepted it if the new cars got 30+ MPG

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

It's fascinating to see how the righties have suddenly developed this concern for low income people, after decades of indifference or hostility.

It is amazing how many lefties are willing to ignore data just so they can feel good about doing something.... even if the fix is worse than the problem, and even if the "fix" will cause more hardship on the people they claim to support.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think a good case can be made that we DO need to get gas guzzlers off the road, we DO need to reduce emission of pollutants, we DO need our transportation system in good shape...

I agree. But so far, I haven't heard a good rebuttal to the concern that the supply of affordable older, used cars (and their parts) will tighten, to the detriment of lower-income people.

It's fascinating to see how the righties have suddenly developed this concern for low income people, after decades of indifference or hostility.

It's my concern, too; and I'm not a rightie.

As someone who has driven a few lower value vehicles, I don't get this argument. I nursed those things along with the absolute minimum of repairs/expense until they were on their last leg or worse and then got rid of them. Had the C4C program been around when I had them, I would have been far more motivated to spend my money if I could get that deal.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Apparently you aren't looking either.

Clearly you still are not looking.

Quote

The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program.

The DOT has not released the data...

Oh, I wonder where Consumer Reports got their numbers. (along with dozens of other sources).

Quote

and

Quote

Also, 3500 for a 4MPG gain? Sheesh. I could almost have accepted it if the new cars got 30+ MPG

Well, it's ALL about YOU, of course.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnnyD 0]

Perfect example:
#1 Car traded in so far is a 1998 Ford Explorer
If that car has about 100k miles on a 4dr 8cyl engine, its value is about 2,800 in fair condition.
Just how much money in repairs and parts are you putting in that vehicle? As little as possible. If you can get 4,500 for it, what are the odds you turn it in for something else? Where do I sign?
For reference, the next two most popular trade ins were the 1997 and 1996 Ford Explorer.

[Ron 7]

Quote

But don't most people finance their new cars anyway?

Yes, but many people who were not in the market for a new car (and new payments) are now buying to take advantage of a good deal. The sudden rise in sales should prove that point.

It is like the joke about the wife that bought 1k of purses since they were on sale and claims, "Think of all the money I saved!"

Quote

And, wouldn't the lenders' underwriting (i.e., financial pre-screening ) process not weed out prospective borrowers whose finances are weak, anyway?

That is the idea, but you can clearly see that does not always happen... Just like the mortgage crisis you mentioned. And while you can claim that banks are not that stupid twice, they have already started loosening lending requirements. Why? Because they have to lend money to make money.

Quote

Plus, if you take a car with, say, about $2,000 in incentives (which I'm seeing a lot now), plus another $4,500 off in CforC rebate, that's a reduction in initial loan principal of about $6,500, with a corresponding reduction in the size of monthly payments.

And if your monthly payment was currently zero....

So you buy a 15k car with 6,500 off, you finance 8,500 bucks.

The payments on 8,500 bucks is 164/mth.

So if you were in the market for a car, yeah, it is a good deal . But if the deal made you trade in your current car for a 164/mth payment and most likely higher insurance... Well, not such a great deal.

You would have to drive A LOT to make up 164/mth in gas savings.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Oh, I wonder where Consumer Reports got their numbers. (along with dozens of other sources).

Well since it WAS NOT FROM THE DOT... I guess it was from the salespeople.

Amazingly, you support the idea of poor people going more into debt... so much for you caring about them.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wonder where Consumer Reports got their numbers. (along with dozens of other sources).

Well since it WAS NOT FROM THE DOT... I guess it was from the salespeople.

Amazingly, you support the idea of poor people going more into debt... so much for you caring about them.

If you're driving and old Explorer over 100k miles, how long do you think its going to be before you're going to have to pay cash for a different POS car when your current POS car dies? I see this as a great chance for people to get reliable transportation at a good price instead of throwing good money after bad at POS cars.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wonder where Consumer Reports got their numbers. (along with dozens of other sources).

Well since it WAS NOT FROM THE DOT... I guess it was from the salespeople.

Amazingly, you support the idea of poor people going more into debt... so much for you caring about them.

I would like to see your data on the debt incurred by poor people in this program.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Oh, I wonder where Consumer Reports got their numbers. (along with dozens of other sources).

The same place Americans got their information on Iraqi nuclear weapons development in 2002: The White House. Surely your natural skepticism hasn't disappeared in the past 7 years? If the DOT doesn't know (or won't tell us), then how the fuck did Consumer Reports get the data?

The bill as written promises 3500$ for 4mpg gained. It shouldn't have been less than 10 for any benefit. Personally I'd want something like +10 and must be at the CAFE average - 26.5 or 27?

But the claimed nearly 10mpg is a decent gain, if true, and if actually reflective of fuel use. But otoh, if people just traded in their 2nd or 3rd vehicle, the one that sits on the front lawn on blocks, and used it to buy a new car that they'll put 10k additional miles of driving on, then it's not actually a gain at all.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wonder where Consumer Reports got their numbers. (along with dozens of other sources).

The same place Americans got their information on Iraqi nuclear weapons development in 2002: The White House. Surely your natural skepticism hasn't disappeared in the past 7 years? If the DOT doesn't know (or won't tell us), then how the fuck did Consumer Reports get the data?

The bill as written promises 3500$ for 4mpg gained. It shouldn't have been less than 10 for any benefit. Personally I'd want something like +10 and must be at the CAFE average - 26.5 or 27?

But the claimed nearly 10mpg is a decent gain, if true, and if actually reflective of fuel use. But otoh, if people just traded in their 2nd or 3rd vehicle, the one that sits on the front lawn on blocks, and used it to buy a new car that they'll put 10k additional miles of driving on, then it's not actually a gain at all.

Remember that 4mpg is the minimum it can possibly be. The minimum can be, and is apparently being, exceeded.

As for being on blocks, I suppose some people continue to register and insure their on-blocks vehicles in the hope that a program like this will come along sometime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I wonder where Consumer Reports got their numbers. (along with dozens of other sources).

Well since it WAS NOT FROM THE DOT... I guess it was from the salespeople.

Amazingly, you support the idea of poor people going more into debt... so much for you caring about them.

From AP:

But the Transportation Department, which has collected details on about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.

The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. .

The administration is reviewing the AP's request for detailed records, deputy White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki said. The administration already has released summary information from the detailed sales records, including the number of rebates requested, fuel efficiency information, vehicle sales information and amount of rebates requested in each state, she said.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.