News Who Benefits from the CARS Program?

[Al68]

This is one reason why they're dangerous, people get confused as to what the GSE's are and thus to don't accurately assess the risk the pose. No, they were nothing like the USPS. At the USPS the government signs the pay checks, the government sets the salaries, there are no shareholders and so on. Freddie and Fannie operated on a daily basis completely as private for profit entities complete with publicly traded stock shares. The government's role was to initially sponsor their creation. Not wanting to take responsibility for the huge mortgage flows as part of the yearly federal budget process, the government made them a private organization. There has always been an unwritten understanding, that Fannie/Fred vehemently denied in public, that they were creatures of the government and essentially had the backing of the treasury. (We now know via the seizure that this was always true). This allowed them to borrow money as if they actually were the US treasury, in other words to borrow money at the same interest rate as the treasury - essentially a license to print money.

You're exactly right. Sure the Federal gov't "loaned" out the reins of F&F, but their charter was never completely private in the "libertarian" sense, meaning that gov't created them, cut the cord financially, but contingent on F&F continuing its obligation to serve the public interest, with gov't oversight. Government "seizing" them is not in any way like seizing a private company, started and operated by private individuals, that made no voluntary agreement to fulfill any public purpose or goal.

I only made the comparison to the post office because, although they are quite different, the analogy is in the fact that they are both government created entities, created for public purposes, obligated to serve the public interest.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/03/financial/f082355D29.DTL

At that point we are likely doubling our money wrt to imported crude and the GDP.

I don't know what the numbers are wrt to gross sales in dollars, but there is also the issue of taxes and fees collected by the Federal government, and the States, including title transfers and the like, based on probably 5-6 billion in sales.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My only problem with this program is that, they destroy the engine and and make the sell of the transmission illegal. Those parts would be useful to repair other vehicles.

That would be counterproductive. The idea is to get the gas hogs off the road. This program works on a number of levels: It stimulates the economy generally; it stimulates auto sales in particular; it reduces the demand for foreign oil; it reduces CO2 emissions.

Other hidden benefits include a reduction in the cost of health care. There is data relating pollution levels in cities, to health care costs. In particular is the cost of respiratory problems that send people to the ER.

Imo, with rare exception, I think this notion that people will drive more if they buy a respectable car, is silly. That will probably be true in a few cases, but most people have routines and a set of needs that dictate how often they drive, and how far.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Imo, with rare exception, I think this notion that people will drive more if they buy a respectable car, is silly. That will probably be true in a few cases, but most people have routines and a set of needs that dictate how often they drive, and how far.

I own a crappy old car. I intentionally drive as little as possible because I am afraid of it breaking down on me again. I think a lot of people with older cars do this. They probably also drive less to save money on gas. If they are not as worried about their cars breaking down and not as worried about the expense of keeping gas in the car they are most likely going to drive more. How much more is another question all together though.

 

[mgb_phys]

If they are not as worried about their cars breaking down and not as worried about the expense of keeping gas in the car they are most likely going to drive more.

Thats one of the problems with the economics of owning a car, once you have sunk the large cost purchase/lease and the annual fixed costs like insurance there isn't much extra marginal cost to driving it (at least with US fuel prices).
So if you never use a car (and don't own one) it could be cheaper to take transit but once you buy a car then it becomes cheaper to use it for all trips.

I just got sent the details for the Canadian equivalent, naturally since the Canadian government is involved it's much more complicated - but does have some good ides. Here are the options for taking your payback http://www.scrapit.ca/incentivechoices.htm

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Google "broken window fallacy". Are they going to give incentives for people to destroy their houses next?

 

[mgb_phys]

Google "broken window fallacy". Are they going to give incentives for people to destroy their houses next?

Depends what the aim is, to improve air quality in cities removing clunkers works quite well - the majority of pollution is produced by a smaller number of older vehicles. A scrap refund is about the only way to incenitivize (is that a word?) these vehicles off the road - or you could introduce expensive frequent emmissions checks for cars more than n years old.

If you want to reduce overall fuel usage then you can put up gas prices, change emissions regs and tax/vehicle classifications to make smaller cars cheaper or always a favourite - build more roads.

 

[mheslep]

Imo, with rare exception, I think this notion that people will drive more if they buy a respectable car, is silly. That will probably be true in a few cases, but most people have routines and a set of needs that dictate how often they drive, and how far.

It's not the respectability, its the lower cost per mile driven of the newer fuel efficient vehicle that increases total miles driven. That doesn't nullify the effect of the program, but it is far from silly, rather it is well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox" in economics.

Another economic near certainty about the clunkers program: it will substantially increase the cost of low end used vehicles - the kind of car that gets the less fortunate around.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's not the respectability, its the lower cost per mile driven of the newer fuel efficient vehicle that increases total miles driven.

When I said respectable, I meant that wrt to social consciousness and being part of the solution to the energy problem, the trade deficit, and our reliance on foreign oil, instead of being part of the problem.

That doesn't nullify the effect of the program, but it is far from silly, rather it is well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox" in economics.

That is not evidence that it applies in the case of cars. I say it is silly based on a practical perspective. People don't normally drive just to be driving. The drive when they have a need to do so.

Another economic near certainty about the clunkers program: it will substantially increase the cost of low end used vehicles - the kind of car that gets the less fortunate around.

Only temporarily. In the long term, all of the more fuel efficient cars will help to drive down the used car price for fuel efficient cars, which are typically more expensive than gas hogs, which means that fuel efficient cars will be more available to the disadvantaged. This in turn means that they will pay less of their incomes out to OPEC.

Also, most disadvantaged people don't buy SUVs anyway. They can't afford the gas.

 

[j93]

Only temporarily. In the long term, all of the more fuel efficient cars will help to drive down the used car price for fuel efficient cars, which are typically more expensive than gas hogs, which means that fuel efficient cars will be more available to the disadvantaged. This in turn means that they will pay less of their incomes out to OPEC.

Also, most disadvantaged people don't buy SUVs anyway. They can't afford the gas.

They buy whatever they can get for cheap just to get around wether it be an 80's miata or that ugly SUV rodeo car. Some people have to buy gas guzzlers for their job ie a truck. The gas isn't much of an issue unless thinking in the long run which most people do not when the only thought is how they are going to get to work quickly.

That is not evidence that it applies in the case of cars. I say it is silly based on a practical perspective. People don't normally drive just to be driving. The drive when they have a need to do so.

This is not true. Think about the amount of cars in Los Angeles.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They buy whatever they can get for cheap just to get around wether it be an 80's miata or that ugly SUV rodeo car. Some people have to buy gas guzzlers for their job ie a truck. The gas isn't much of an issue unless thinking in the long run which most people do not when the only thought is how they are going to get to work quickly.

In that event, we need to consider not a five-year advantage for the GDP, as I did. Instead we need to consider something more like a fifteen-year advantage, which would mean that we get more something more like a 4:1 or 6:1 return on our billion dollar investment, in terms of the GDP.

Thanks, you make a good point: We have to consider not only the immediate benefit of getting a clunker off the road, we also have to consider that the incentive to buy fuel-efficient cars will put some of those cars on the road for many years in place of others that would have been gas hogs. That is to say that some people will buy more efficient vehicles that otherwise wouldn't have done so.

This is not true. Think about the amount of cars in Los Angeles.

What does that have to do with anything? Usage is dependent on need. That doesn't change no matter what vehicle one owns.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Google "broken window fallacy". Are they going to give incentives for people to destroy their houses next?

The broken window fallacy does not apply in this context. The reason is that we are effectively creating wealth [not depleting wealth] by reducing the trade deficit.

If the shopkeeper buys a high efficiency window to replace the old leaky one, and as a result, over the coming years, the shopkeeper reduces his heating bill by more than the value of the window, and assuming that his heat energy supplier is a traveler from a distant land, everyone wins but the traveler - OPEC.

The real number to consider is the GDP. That is the bottom line.

 

[DavidSnider]

This all seems very hand-wavey to me. Does anybody have a link with some sort of ballpark estimates?

The main complaints I seem to be hearing are:
1) Depreciation of the new car
2) The cost to dispose of the old car
3) Cost to manufacture the new one
4) The cost of borrowing the money for the incentive
5) The cost of borrowing the money to manufacture the car

 

[mheslep]

When I said respectable, I meant that wrt to social consciousness and being part of the solution to the energy problem, the trade deficit, and our reliance on foreign oil, instead of being part of the problem.

Yes, understood.

That is not evidence that it applies in the case of cars.

The theory, well documented over all kinds of data, applies to the replacement of _any_ energy using device with a more efficient one. There are complications and other counter acting economic effects.

I say it is silly based on a practical perspective. People don't normally drive just to be driving. The drive when they have a need to do so.

People drive, fly, take the train, eat a hamburger all when they need/want to and always with an eye on the cost of each. The effects of cost are not always immediate because of elasticity (slack in the market), but eventually always come into play. In the case of the car, a practical example would be that third yearly trip to grandma's house that was previously forgone because of the gas cost in the clunker, but now in the new 25 mpg ride is affordable again.

Though I still oppose it, all and all this is one of the more effective stimulus ideas, because it is timely and targeted, dramatically unlike the rest of the stimulus. But it is not without costs, and I don't mean just to the the US Treasury. It benefits the few, at a cost to others, particularly those with very low incomes as they can't play.

Only temporarily. In the long term, all of the more fuel efficient cars will help to drive down the used car price for fuel efficient cars, which are typically more expensive than gas hogs, which means that fuel efficient cars will be more available to the disadvantaged. This in turn means that they will pay less of their incomes out to OPEC.

Getting off (imported) oil is a great goal though I don't care for these means. In the long term the gas hogs clunkers disappear by themselves. And if the argument is the application of market forces to the car companies will help the disadvantaged by increasing the supply of fuel eff. cars (and lowering the cost), I can think of a counter argument along those lines. The disadvantaged need very, very low cost cars. Detroit traditionally avoids this market, they chase the higher cost and higher margin cars (esp. SUVs) so they and the unions can maintain the vertically integrated business models. That shamefully has left to India and China the role of making the $2500 car (e.g the Tata Nano). This buy back plan is yet another enabler along the old lines - the subsidy encourages Detroit to not serve the low cost market. Why do so when the govt is paying people to buy your more expensive cars?

Also, most disadvantaged people don't buy SUVs anyway. They can't afford the gas.

Eh? SUVs? They scrape to buy (as I did once upon a time) a $1500 car. Now all those cars cost ~$4000, or whatever the buy back price point.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Depends what the aim is, to improve air quality in cities removing clunkers works quite well

I can think of much better ways to do that.

you could introduce expensive frequent emmissions checks for cars more than n years old.

If you want to reduce overall fuel usage then you can put up gas prices, change emissions regs and tax/vehicle classifications to make smaller cars cheaper or always a favourite - build more roads.

And so, apparently, can you. Surely no one thinks this is a way to reduce pollution, you can't get a credit for dropping the clunker unless you buy a new slightly less clunker.

 

[mgb_phys]

I can think of much better ways to do that.

Yes, if we didn't have such faith in politicians we might be suspicious of the motives of handing out $4000 to people who could afford to buy new cars.

Surely no one thinks this is a way to reduce pollution, you can't get a credit for dropping the clunker unless you buy a new slightly less clunker.

Thats why the Canadian system might be better, you get more money for a trade in against transit passes, less against a bike or ride-share scheme and least in cash. There is no requirement to get a replacement car.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The broken window fallacy does not apply in this context.

This context is a textbook example of the broken window fallacy. You turn in a working car which is demolished and you have to buy a newly manufactured car to replace it.

The reason is that we are effectively creating wealth [not depleting wealth] by reducing the trade deficit.

Reducing the trade deficit does not create wealth, it just shifts it around. There is only one way to reduce the trade deficit: Produce more and/or consume less. Politicians don't like this answer, they prefer to blame foreigners. So what, it's still true. This program will not save a drop of gasoline. The energy cost of building a new car to replace a servicable old car will eat all of the savings and more.

 

[mheslep]

...There is only one way to reduce the trade deficit: Produce more and/or consume less. Politicians don't like this answer, they prefer to blame foreigners. So what, it's still true.

That is so fundamentally true it should be inscribed on one those shiny white buildings the Pols enter daily.

This program will not save a drop of gasoline. The energy cost of building a new car to replace a serviceable old car will eat all of the savings and more.

Er probably true in terms of a not saving a drop of energy (coal et al) after counting the new car production. Likely it will save on some gasoline, though not much as much as hoped.

 

[drankin]

Reducing the trade deficit does not create wealth, it just shifts it around. There is only one way to reduce the trade deficit: Produce more and/or consume less. Politicians don't like this answer, they prefer to blame foreigners. So what, it's still true. This program will not save a drop of gasoline. The energy cost of building a new car to replace a servicable old car will eat all of the savings and more.

I've been waiting for someone to point this out.

 

[Al68]

Google "broken window fallacy". Are they going to give incentives for people to destroy their houses next?

If the shopkeeper buys a high efficiency window to replace the old leaky one, and as a result, over the coming years, the shopkeeper reduces his heating bill by more than the value of the window, and assuming that his heat energy supplier is a traveler from a distant land, everyone wins but the traveler - OPEC.

So if put sugar in someone's gas tank, ruining their car, and they go buy a new one, I can claim that putting sugar in gas tanks of older cars helps the economy.

Is that more analogous to the broken glass theory of economics, or the CARS program?

 

[Phrak]

Besides tax payers, of course, who footing the bill for this? Any takers?

 

[j93]

So if put sugar in someone's gas tank, ruining their car, and they go buy a new one, I can claim that putting sugar in gas tanks of older cars helps the economy.

Is that more analogous to the broken glass theory of economics, or the CARS program?

Lol

Er probably true in terms of a not saving a drop of energy (coal et al) after counting the new car production. Likely it will save on some gasoline, though not much as much as hoped.

Why the need to buy new arent there equivalently efficient 2007 and 2006 that are on the selling market or did some great technological MPG advance happen in 2008 that I am not aware of.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32290028/ns/us_news-environment/page/2/


http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-selling-efficient-cars.html

"No. 2: Subaru saw sales of its all all-wheel-drive lineup skyrocket 34% in July thanks to Cash for Clunkers and the launch of the new Legacy sedan and Outback wagon, which haven’t even hit every state yet. While Subaru has been one of the only automakers to keep its head above water during the past year’s dismal sales slump, its lineup isn’t especially efficient, mainly because all its cars are equipped with all-wheel drive. The Impreza and Legacy with manual transmission get the program’s passenger-car bare minimum of 22 mpg combined, meaning anyone trading in a clunker for a Subaru car is likely to get only $3,500.The new Legacy and Outback have an optional CVT transmission which raises combined mileage to 26 and 24 mpg respectively."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some criticisms I have heard about on the radio.

WASHINGTON – "Cash for clunkers" could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren't impressed.

Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.

"As a carbon dioxide policy, this is a terribly wasteful thing to do," said Henry Jacoby, a professor of management and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT. "The amount of carbon you are saving per federal expenditure is very, very small."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_sc/us_cash_for_clunkers_pollution

The guidelines in the House-passed bill state that large SUVs and trucks, typically considered gas guzzlers in everyday conversation, qualify for the $3,500 credit, and in some cases the $4,500 credit, depending on the trade-ins that come through the door for them. New Category 2 trucks -- like the Hummer H-3, Ford Explorer, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tundra -- qualify if they get at least 15 MPG combined, and get at least one mile per gallon more than the car or truck being traded in.

The larger Category 3 trucks have no fuel-efficiency rules at all, since the EPA does not rate them for MPG. The only requirement for their purchase is that a buyer be trading in a pre-2002 Category 3 truck that is as large or larger than the one they're buying. For example, you can bring in your 2001 Chevy Suburban and buy a new Chevy Suburban, and still get the $3,500 credit. The bill has no requirement that the trucks, classified by the Federal Highway Administration as "work trucks," be used for farm or construction work.
cont...

 

[j93]

The first link is the same as my msnbc one.

Some criticisms I have heard about on the radio.
The guidelines in the House-passed bill state that large SUVs and trucks, typically considered gas guzzlers in everyday conversation, qualify for the $3,500 credit, and in some cases the $4,500 credit, depending on the trade-ins that come through the door for them. New Category 2 trucks -- like the Hummer H-3, Ford Explorer, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tundra -- qualify if they get at least 15 MPG combined, and get at least one mile per gallon more than the car or truck being traded in.

The larger Category 3 trucks have no fuel-efficiency rules at all, since the EPA does not rate them for MPG. The only requirement for their purchase is that a buyer be trading in a pre-2002 Category 3 truck that is as large or larger than the one they're buying. For example, you can bring in your 2001 Chevy Suburban and buy a new Chevy Suburban, and still get the $3,500 credit. The bill has no requirement that the trucks, classified by the Federal Highway Administration as "work trucks," be used for farm or construction work.
cont...

I didnt know this. Oh come on.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I didnt know this. Oh come on.

According to a CNN article they only assigned 7.5 million towards category three vehicles (no mention on category 2 though). It still seems to punch a hole in the pollution control and oil independence selling points of the bill.

 

[j93]

According to a CNN article they only assigned 7.5 million towards category three vehicles (no mention on category 2 though). It still seems to punch a hole in the pollution control and oil independence selling points of the bill.

Even the Category 2 vehicles. Come on.
but for the Category 3 even a few hundred of taxpayer money for that use is ?come on.

 

[mheslep]

...Why the need to buy new arent there equivalently efficient 2007 and 2006 that are on the selling market or did some great technological MPG advance happen in 2008 that I am not aware of.

Good point, though the rules of this program say buy new...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

On the bright side, the dumpster business is booming. Those huge dumpsters that you normally see at construction sites have been sitting idle now that there aren't any construction sites. They have been repurposed as advertising gimmicks at every car dealer in this vicinity. They have a dumpster and an old car sticking out of it to entice people who were going to trade in their cars anyway to trade in their cars. I thought it was funny the first time I saw it and mildly annoying the second time. Now that I have seen a dozen examples of this joke I am so angry that I have decided to keep my Crosley CC just for spite.

 

[mgb_phys]

And finally some good news for the RV business - pilots have somewhere to live convenient for the airport.
http://www.rvbusiness.com/tag/los-angeles-international-airport/

 

[russ_watters]

The auto company bailouts were unpopulare because they are anti-capitalist. This is just a clever way around that - it is an extra bailout for the auto makers, but this time, car owners pay 3/4 of the cost directly!

 

[Al68]

The auto company bailouts were unpopulare because they are anti-capitalist. This is just a clever way around that - it is an extra bailout for the auto makers, but this time, car owners pay 3/4 of the cost directly!

Well, if you include all car owners, we're paying for 100% plus. The (reduced) cost of the new car, the cost of the bailout, plus the loss of the additional wealth that would have been created with the money if not taken from taxpayers.

 

[j93]

On the other hand this type of program is the pro-middle class politics that is always being promised by the Republicans were as historically Dems were all about focusing on the lower income folks and Republicans on the higher income folks leaving the middle class stranded.

 

[Al68]

... as historically Dems were all about focusing on the lower income folks and Republicans on the higher income folks...

Yeah, according to the historically delusional logic and fraudulent claims of Dems.

 

[j93]

Yeah, according to the historically delusional logic and fraudulent claims of Dems.

Regardless of what you may think of the welfare program it is a program aimed solely at the poor that was passed under Democratic leadership as well as the Section 8 program.

 

[Al68]

Yeah, according to the historically delusional logic and fraudulent claims of Dems.

Regardless of what you may think of the welfare program it is a program aimed solely at the poor that was passed under Democratic leadership as well as the Section 8 program.

The delusional logic and fraud refer to the claim that opposition to such programs is due to being on the side of the "higher income folks", against the poor.

 

[mgb_phys]

According to the website Autobytel.com - who have a search page for 'does my car qualify for a trade in' the most searched for vehicles are:

Ford F-Series
Ford Explorer
Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Ram
Chevrolet Blazer
Jeep Cherokee
Dodge Grand Caravan
Dodge Dakota
Ford Ranger

Of course - this doesn't mean people aren't replacing them with the equivalent new SUV/pickup, but it does suggest that people are getting rid of large vehicles rather than just trading in real 20 year old clunkers.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/07/68495642/1

 

[OmCheeto]

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com...nate-passage-of-cash-for-clunkers-extension/"
August 6, 2009
...the initial transactions are generating a more than 50% increase in fuel economy; they are generating $700 to $1000 in annual savings for consumers in reduced gas costs alone; and they are getting the oldest, dirtiest and most air polluting trucks and SUVs off the road for good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32313464/ns/business-autos/"
Through late Tuesday, the most recent data available, more than $775 million of the original $1 billion had been spent, accounting for the sale of nearly 185,000 new vehicles. Administration officials estimate the new money will last into Labor Day and could prompt another 500,000 vehicle sales.

By my calculations, that's $1.5 billion dollars in fuel savings per year.
Perhaps they should have named it "The War on Gas Hogs".
For some reason, spending money on wars seems more palatable to some people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some auto dealers are running out of inventory.

Another 2 billion was approved.

I do believe that this is about the most popular and successful government program that I have ever seen initiated. And God forbid that we invest a few billion in the US [money that we get back by not paying OPEC anyway] - a few tenths of a percent of what we have spent in Iraq.

Why do so many people on the right think the Iraqi people are more important than Americans? Apparently this is the case. The only spending favored is spending for wars [and one we didn't even need to fight].

What is the value of ending our reliance on foreign oil? How much do we spend on the military to protect our oil interests? The benefits from this cars program is manyfold.

This is not just a bailout because it pays back in reduced oil imports and it helps to improve the US position globally. The less we need foreign oil, the greater our latitude of options.

 

[mgb_phys]

And at least this time congress are showing the way, they are trading in their old clunker executive jets for shiny new ones.
No word on mpg or how much rebate they get but it might be of interest to mentors wishing to trade in their PF issue Learjets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And at least this time congress are showing the way, they are trading in their old clunker executive jets for shiny new ones.
No word on mpg or how much rebate they get but it might be of interest to mentors wishing to trade in their PF issue Learjets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html

That has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[mgb_phys]

Neither has the "historically delusional logic and fraudulent claims of "
It was a light hearted aside.

 

[mheslep]

Why do so many people on the right think the Iraqi people are more important than Americans? Apparently this is the case. The only spending favored is spending for wars [and one we didn't even need to fight].

Save that thought. The next time someone proposes a tax cut to let Americans keep more of their own money come back here and dig it up.

 

[Al68]

Why do so many people on the right think the Iraqi people are more important than Americans? Apparently this is the case.

Ivan, the forum rules can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

Is there a single one of them that you don't violate blatantly and regularly?

 

[j93]

What is the value of ending our reliance on foreign oil? How much do we spend on the military to protect our oil interests? The benefits from this cars program is manyfold.

This is not just a bailout because it pays back in reduced oil imports and it helps to improve the US position globally. The less we need foreign oil, the greater our latitude of options.

I doubt anybody has a problem with reducing our dependence on foreign oil or are rate of emissions. I think people have a problem with taking a page from P. Diddy and deciding we could solve our problems without thinking just by throwing a lot of money at it. Scientist seem to agree that this is not the best dollar for dollar way to reduce emissions. It seems this is just a bailout wrapped around an emission saving premise that gives a select group of taxpayers (really another tax break)money back, I rarely condone a tax cut but if you just want to put money back in peoples hand just give them another tax break and if youare worried about emissions then don't give them a tax break and use that money in a better dollar for dollar way of reducing emissions.

But some energy experts say the country is overpaying for the pollution reductions, mostly because cash for clunkers is more about stimulating the economy than cutting pollution.

Paying up to $4,500 per clunker means the government is spending more than $160 for every ton of carbon dioxide removed over 10 years, said MIT's Jacoby, co-author of the book "Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World."

That's five to 10 times more than the estimated per-ton cost of carbon dioxide for power plants in the cap-and-trade system passed earlier this year by the House.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32290028/ns/us_news-environment/page/2/

 

[mheslep]

According to the website Autobytel.com - who have a search page for 'does my car qualify for a trade in' the most searched for vehicles are:

Ford F-Series
Ford Explorer
Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Ram
Chevrolet Blazer
Jeep Cherokee
Dodge Grand Caravan
Dodge Dakota
Ford Ranger

Of course - this doesn't mean people aren't replacing them with the equivalent new SUV/pickup, but it does suggest that people are getting rid of large vehicles rather than just trading in real 20 year old clunkers.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/07/68495642/1

Here's actual vehicles-sold count from Edmunds (via CNN):
1 Ford Escape (4WD SUV hybrid)
2 Ford Focus (sedan)
3 Jeep Patriot (4WD SUV)
4 Dodge Caliber (4WD)
5 Ford F-150 (4WD Truck)
6 Honda Civic (sedan)
7 Chevrolet Silverado (4WD Truck)
8 Chevrolet Cobalt
9 Toyota Corolla (sedan)
10 Ford Fusion (4WD hybrid)
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm

Note this list differs substantially from the one offered by the government, presumably because the government list counted the sub-models as different vehicles (i.e. Focus S, Focus SE, Focus SEL, etc)

 

[bleedblue1234]

The CARS program is absolutely idiotic:

1) We are taking perfectly drivable cars, that work perfectly fine, and DESTROYING them and turning them into scrap for the benefit of new car dealers...

2) We are mostly purchasing foreign cars with these incentives.

3) We are piling more debt onto a consumer already crushed by debt... and taking cars that are already payed off, destroying them, taking money from ourselves and giving people money to buy new cars...

4) We are hurting the used car market SIGNIFICANTLY as cars are being DESTROYED rather than sold.. and auction prices for used cars are going up to reflect this...

5) With the amount of debt and issues the economy has now, we need to drive our cars until the engines fall out...

End of Story...

 

[mheslep]

...
2) We are mostly purchasing foreign cars with these incentives.

Do you have any reference for that claim? I believe the reverse is true given the Edmunds list.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Do you have any reference for that claim? I believe the reverse is true given the Edmunds list.

Foreign makes, not foreign cars.

CARS vouchers in Week 1 helped consumers buy 184,304 new vehicles, more than half of which were foreign makes, mainly Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai, according to the US Department of Transportation.

Of those foreign cars and trucks, more than half are made in the US. Best sellers include the Toyota Corolla, the Ford Focus, the Honda Civic, and Toyota’s Prius and Camry.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/08/07/cash-for-clunkers-is-popular-but-is-it-truly-a-us-stimulus/"

 

[mheslep]

Foreign makes, not foreign cars.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/08/07/cash-for-clunkers-is-popular-but-is-it-truly-a-us-stimulus/"

As I indicated above, the DOT count (used in your CSM reference) is misleading. Toyota is not in the top five of the clunker replacements. Most of the replacement cars are domestic makes per Edmunds.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Do you have any reference for that claim? I believe the reverse is true given the Edmunds list.

As I indicated above, the DOT count (used in your CSM reference) is misleading. Toyota is not in the top five of the clunker replacements. Most of the replacement cars are domestic makes per Edmunds.

You asked for a reference and you got a reference. What is the Edmunds list? Are you referring to the autobytel list? Why do you think the DOT count is misleading? Are their figures incorrect?

The question is not "Which particular model is the most popular", it is "Are more US makes sold, or more foreign makes.". It turns out that foreign makes comprise 55% of the market in general and it should come as no surprise that they would comprise 55% of the C4C program.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html"

Actually, the question is "are more us cars sold, or foreign cars". The answer is US cars since the foreign makes are built here.