Cash for clunkers question..........

[Harry P.]

Remember when the government thought it would be a great idea to make home ownership available to more people... so they forced the banks to make loans to home buyers who really didn't qualify and really couldn't afford the payments? And remember how that lead to massive home loan defaults all over the country? That plan really worked well, huh?

Well now... I have to wonder how many people who owned old beaters and clunkers, and who can't really afford car payments, were lured into buying a new car under the "Cash for Clunkers" program? How soon will it be before many of the cars bought under the program begin to be repossessed by the banks?

[Modelmartin]

I didn't like the cash for clunkers for many reasons. It rewarded previous "anti-social" behaviour i.e. buying a gas guzzler. My biggest objection is that it rewarded people who can afford a new car anyway. I can't! I subsidised someone better off than myself to buy a new car!! That is rotten. There was no option to trade for a used car!!!

The program also removed a lot of affordable if still gas-guzzling vehicles from the used car market further penalising less affluent people.

As far as Foreign makes being the most popular makes traded for, there are a lot of American workers, vendors and suppliers that are happy about that!

[hippie6]

I work at a Chrysler dealer and this is what I understand:

The engines are to be destroyed by draining the oil and running the engine with a compound to seize-up the engine. The salvage yards have a set number of days (90 days I thought) to sell body panels/ parts. Then whatever remains must be destroyed. The salvage yards "buy" the cars from us. If you get caught re-selling the vehicle to the public its a $20,000 fine, per vehicle.

I've never heard that at any time are these vehicles government property. I thought the gov. just supplied the $$$ to make the cars more affordable.

We only had 50 vehicles left on or lot at the end of the program. We nornally have more than that just in Ram trucks. We moved a BUNCH of cars. Another local Chrysler dealer sold EVERY car they had.

We have several cars in good condition. '92 Lincoln Town Car 40k miles. '02 Windstar. '02 Explorer Sport Trac. And I have seen a early '80's Chevy pick-up that didn't have a scratch on it, 30,000 miles in the salvage yard, ready to get shredded. I agree.. its a great program. NOT!!!

Almost none of the 60 plus clunkers sitting on our lot has a radio in it. Very few have any fuel left in it. They all have junk tires. See where I'm going with this??....

What is a foreign automaker?? Ford Crown Vic's are assembled in Canada and considered imports. What about the Honda's assemblied in the factories in the U.S. ???

Just my 2 cents worth

[BigGary]

The hippie is right. The definition of "domestic" cars is kind of clouded with Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan, Mercaedes, etc. making cars in the U.S. that would be considered "foreign". Toyota in NASCAR? Who woulda thunk it?. Who's next? Since Obama's boys and the Unions have there hands in the GM pie, how long before they say "No more racing involvement"? Jimmy Johnson was at the White House a while back, but you can't tell what those arrogant bast**** are going to do next.

Gary

[E St. Kruiser50]

This is just a hypothetical question I wanted to throw out and listen to your opinions on. It concerns the recent "Cash For Clunkers" program, that I was very much against anyway....but what do I know?

Anyway....according to the program, the vehicles traded in are to be crushed....not parted out or resold....CRUSHED.

Lets say Joe Grasscutter is cutting grass at a Toyota dealer. Ol' Joe has an '88 Ford pickup he tows his lawn mower with. Once, ol' Joe let his drunk brother-in-law borrow his '88 Ford pickup and he backed it into a pole...caving in the tailgate.

Ok...ol'Joe is cutting the grass here and notices an '88 Ford pickup that was traded in....in the Cash For Clunkers program. It has a PERFECT tailgate, and the same color as Joes. Joe figures its gonna get crushed anyway, so while no one is looking, he swaps his bent tailgate for the good one. Now, his truck is fixed for free, and the clunker thats getting crushed is STILL, technically, complete. All his friends pat him on the back, and say "way to go, Joe! Smart thinkin!"

Is what Joe did ok?

WHEN I WAS A KID EVERYONE KNEW THE ANSWER TO THIS.

LIFE WAS ABOUT INTEGRITY, SELF-WORTH AND REPECTING OTHERS POSESSIONS.

I was raised "OLD SCHOOL" and so were my kids.

TO ME THE QUESTION HERE ISN'T ABOUT WHO OWNED THE TRUCK TAILGATE.

THE QUESTION SHOULD BE WHO DIDN'T OWN IT.

WHEN YOU STEAL, IT'S TAKING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU - PERIOD, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF SOMEONE ELSE WHO OWN'S IT - NO MATTER WHO THE OWNER IS, WHETHER YOU KNOW OR NOT, "IT'S NOT YOURS - PERIOD.

DOESN'T MATTER WHO OWNS IT OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO IT, IT'S STILL NOT YOURS - PERIOD.

THAT'S JUST SPLITTING HAIRS TO JUSTIFY THE CRIME.

I've seen this kind of "ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY" growing over the years, and your story is just another example of ENTITLEMENT AND CRIME BY JUSTIFICATION.

OR CRIME AND JUSTIFICATION BY ENTITLEMENT.

The problem today is the same as it's always been.

YOU HAVE HONEST PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE THIEVES - PERIOD.

HONEST PEOPLE WOULD NEVER THINK OF TAKING THE TAIL-GATE because it goes against their >CORE VALUES< - SOMETHING THAT MORE AND MORE SEEMS TO BE DISAPPEARING.

THE GUY WHO TOOK THE TAIL-GATE HAS MOST ASSURADELY STOLEN BEFORE AND JUSTIFIED IT, AS SOME HERE PROBABLY HAVE TOO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU AGREED THAT TAKING IT WAS O.K.

THE OTHER QUESTION SHOULD BE - DO YOU RESPECT OTHERS PROPERTY, NO MATTER WHO'S IT IS, THE SAME AS YOU'D WANT YOURS RESPECTED.

BY THE ANSWERS I'VE READ HERE BY SOME OF YOU, I'D HATE TO LIVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD !!!!!

WHEN I WAS A YOUNG MAN, THE THIEF WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH HARSHLY BY >ANYONE< SEEING HIM DO IT.

TODAY NOBODY CARES, AND EVEN AGREE'S IT'S O.K. - CHANGING CORE VALUES.

JUST ANOTHER CASE OF "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" .

Edited September 7, 2009 by Treehugger Dave

[Joe Handley]

I guess depending on how you look at it, since it's our money that funded this program, wouldn't those be our cars?

[Harry P.]

Too bad the government doesn't offer a "Cash for ex-wives" program. I could use the money!

[Modelmartin]

Too bad the government doesn't offer a "Cash for ex-wives" program. I could use the money!

You must be so proud!!

[Modelmartin]

WHEN I WAS A KID EVERYONE KNEW THE ANSWER TO THIS.

LIFE WAS ABOUT INTEGRITY, SELF-WORTH AND REPECTING OTHERS POSESSIONS.

I was raised "OLD SCHOOL" and so were my kids.

TO ME THE QUESTION HERE ISN'T ABOUT WHO OWNED THE TRUCK TAILGATE.

THE QUESTION SHOULD BE WHO DIDN'T OWN IT.

WHEN YOU STEAL, IT'S TAKING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU - PERIOD, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF SOMEONE ELSE WHO OWN'S IT - NO MATTER WHO THE OWNER IS, WHETHER YOU KNOW OR NOT, "IT'S NOT YOURS - PERIOD.

DOESN'T MATTER WHO OWNS IT OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO IT, IT'S STILL NOT YOURS - PERIOD.

THAT'S JUST SPLITTING HAIRS TO JUSTIFY THE CRIME.

I've seen this kind of "ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY" growing over the years, and your story is just another example of ENTITLEMENT AND CRIME BY JUSTIFICATION.

OR CRIME AND JUSTIFICATION BY ENTITLEMENT.

The problem today is the same as it's always been.

YOU HAVE HONEST PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE THIEVES - PERIOD.

HONEST PEOPLE WOULD NEVER THINK OF TAKING THE TAIL-GATE because it goes against their >CORE VALUES< - SOMETHING THAT MORE AND MORE SEEMS TO BE DISAPPEARING.

THE GUY WHO TOOK THE TAIL-GATE HAS MOST ASSURADELY STOLEN BEFORE AND JUSTIFIED IT, AS SOME HERE PROBABLY HAVE TOO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU AGREED THAT TAKING IT WAS O.K.

THE OTHER QUESTION SHOULD BE - DO YOU RESPECT OTHERS PROPERTY, NO MATTER WHO'S IT IS, THE SAME AS YOU'D WANT YOURS RESPECTED.

BY THE ANSWERS I'VE READ HERE BY SOME OF YOU, I'D HATE TO LIVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD !!!!!

WHEN I WAS A YOUNG MAN, THE THIEF WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH HARSHLY BY >ANYONE< SEEING HIM DO IT.

TODAY NOBODY CARES, AND EVEN AGREE'S IT'S O.K. - CHANGING CORE VALUES.

JUST ANOTHER CASE OF "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" .

Dude! I'm not even on your lawn!!

[James Flowers]

WHEN I WAS A KID EVERYONE KNEW THE ANSWER TO THIS.

LIFE WAS ABOUT INTEGRITY, SELF-WORTH AND REPECTING OTHERS POSESSIONS.

I was raised "OLD SCHOOL" and so were my kids.

TO ME THE QUESTION HERE ISN'T ABOUT WHO OWNED THE TRUCK TAILGATE.

THE QUESTION SHOULD BE WHO DIDN'T OWN IT.

WHEN YOU STEAL, IT'S TAKING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU - PERIOD, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF SOMEONE ELSE WHO OWN'S IT - NO MATTER WHO THE OWNER IS, WHETHER YOU KNOW OR NOT, "IT'S NOT YOURS - PERIOD.

DOESN'T MATTER WHO OWNS IT OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO IT, IT'S STILL NOT YOURS - PERIOD.

THAT'S JUST SPLITTING HAIRS TO JUSTIFY THE CRIME.

I've seen this kind of "ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY" growing over the years, and your story is just another example of ENTITLEMENT AND CRIME BY JUSTIFICATION.

OR CRIME AND JUSTIFICATION BY ENTITLEMENT.

The problem today is the same as it's always been.

YOU HAVE HONEST PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE THIEVES - PERIOD.

HONEST PEOPLE WOULD NEVER THINK OF TAKING THE TAIL-GATE because it goes against their >CORE VALUES< - SOMETHING THAT MORE AND MORE SEEMS TO BE DISAPPEARING.

THE GUY WHO TOOK THE TAIL-GATE HAS MOST ASSURADELY STOLEN BEFORE AND JUSTIFIED IT, AS SOME HERE PROBABLY HAVE TOO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU AGREED THAT TAKING IT WAS O.K.

THE OTHER QUESTION SHOULD BE - DO YOU RESPECT OTHERS PROPERTY, NO MATTER WHO'S IT IS, THE SAME AS YOU'D WANT YOURS RESPECTED.

BY THE ANSWERS I'VE READ HERE BY SOME OF YOU, I'D HATE TO LIVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD !!!!!

WHEN I WAS A YOUNG MAN, THE THIEF WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH HARSHLY BY >ANYONE< SEEING HIM DO IT.

TODAY NOBODY CARES, AND EVEN AGREE'S IT'S O.K. - CHANGING CORE VALUES.

JUST ANOTHER CASE OF "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" .

I agree with you all the way.

[James Flowers]

It will be interesting to see how many do default on their new car loans. Now they are going to do it for appliances . Just love it when they give our tax dollars away. Cut personal , cut pay, close banks,close factories and cut benefits and so on. So lets solve the problem Give corporations free money. Remember if its not yours DO NOT TAKE IT. With our government they need to learn to not give our money away to save a business no matter how big it is.

[58 Impala]

I wish the government would quit trying to fix everything by throwing money at it. Those idiots in DC don't have a freekin' clue.

[LDO]

Remember when the government thought it would be a great idea to make home ownership available to more people... so they forced the banks to make loans to home buyers who really didn't qualify and really couldn't afford the payments? And remember how that lead to massive home loan defaults all over the country? That plan really worked well, huh?...

No. I don't remember. Can you provide a cite to back up your claim that banks were forced to make risky loans against their will?

[Rob Hall]

smart idea of the millenium? let's stimulate and improve the economy of the United States of America by putting it's citizens even deeper into financial hardship and in the process take away all of thier personal privacy as well. once the goverment owns everything including you we will be living just like those in Communist Russia. might as well set the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on fire with a burning U.S. flag

Dave

Now that sounds like delusional right wing ranting to me.. please, leave that nonsense to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the other wackos out there...

[Modelmartin]

No. I don't remember. Can you provide a cite to back up your claim that banks were forced to make risky loans against their will?

I'm with you on this one. It seems that the banks were plenty willing to make shaky deals with anyone who walked in the door and whispered sweet little nothings in their ear without having been"forced"by the "Gummint"!!

[Scott Colmer]

Yeah, it stimulated car sales alright... foreign car sales! Of the top 10 cars sold under the "Cash for Clunkers" program, eight were Asian makes, two were Ford. GM and Chrysler had none in the top ten. So much for helping out our auto industry. Our government just spent billions of our tax dollars fattening up the bottom line at Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai.

Harry,

The 3 american majors did see a increase in sales from the CfC program. But only Ford saw a real increase. Why? - the Escort. GM and Chrysler did not gain as much because they still haven't hit the mark on the american public needs. That's not Japan's fault. And I DO want to see the US lead in the auto industry again.

Scott

[Rob Hall]

Harry,

The 3 american majors did see a increase in sales from the CfC program. But only Ford saw a real increase. Why? - the Escort. GM and Chrysler did not gain as much because they still haven't hit the mark on the american public needs. That's not Japan's fault. And I DO want to see the US lead in the auto industry again.

Scott

You mean the Focus? Ford hasn't had an Escort in probably 10 years...

[B_rad88]

THE GUY WHO TOOK THE TAIL-GATE HAS MOST ASSURADELY STOLEN BEFORE AND JUSTIFIED IT, AS SOME HERE PROBABLY HAVE TOO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU AGREED THAT TAKING IT WAS O.K.

THE OTHER QUESTION SHOULD BE - DO YOU RESPECT OTHERS PROPERTY, NO MATTER WHO'S IT IS, THE SAME AS YOU'D WANT YOURS RESPECTED.

BY THE ANSWERS I'VE READ HERE BY SOME OF YOU, I'D HATE TO LIVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD !!!!!

ok, first off, i never said it was ok, and i never have stolen either! i know its wrong, but have you tried to find parts for a 5-door geo metro wagon? it took me 7months just to find the passenger door window! and it had cost me $250 for it! not to mention the rear hatch whitch with glass on it and the wiper assembly and wireing thats had cost $574 and a year to find it! and yes i do respect other people property, UNLESS they don't respect mine! then its game on!

and no, you will hate to live in my neighborhood! for one its in the ghetto, so if you look at someone the wrong way, you will get shot at! my neighbors to the left of me is mentaly retarded, and to the right its the main road through the island! and i also found out my neighbors acroos the street just went to the hospital with the swineflu! so its bad here, and not to mention, its the boom-boom rap music all over the place! rattling my windows everyday! so i know you would hate it!

[Harry P.]

No. I don't remember. Can you provide a cite to back up your claim that banks were forced to make risky loans against their will?

You're right, they weren't forced. They were "encouraged" to do so by the government loosening standards and deregulation of the financial industry. Banks began writing sub-prime loans by the millions to people who would not have qualified for the loans under the old rules. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac invested hundreds of billions of our money in these risky subprime loans. We all know what happened next.

So you're right, it's not that the government "forced" the banks to offer risky loans... they just did everything possible to encourage that type of lending. They deregulated the industry, allowing lenders to make loans to unqualified people, then everyone jumped in and began investing in these bad loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac invested hundreds of billions of dollars on the subprime loan racket. Instead of keeping a tight rein on the rules and regulations, government relaxed the rules, let the banks and investors do things and make deals that had previously been not only financially unsound but even illegal, and then they jumped right into the game themselves.

[Rob Hall]

Rob, did you know that when you traded your "clunker" in for that sweet cash break towards the new car that in the fine print you also signed an agreeement that the government has complete access to your personal computer? if that computer is a "shared" computer you also gave the government access to whomever else uses that computer. no delusions, that's for real.

Dave

I didn't trade anything. And the government doesn't have access to user's computers through this...what you are talking about is a standard website EULA. That's just propaganda being spread by delusional anti-government right wing nut jobs, which the US has way too many of.

[Zoom Zoom]

Who spiked the Kool Aid?

[Scott Colmer]

You mean the Focus? Ford hasn't had an Escort in probably 10 years...

My bad - Focus is correct. Thanks

Government access to your computer for taking the CfC rebate? Come on. Just to encourage research on such claims, I'll send anyone a "clunker" model of mine who can post a scan of that portion of the contract.

Scott

Please note that terms such as Liberal and Right wing have been omitted from this post. Let's see if we can have a debate without applying labels.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Scott Colmer

[LDO]

You're right, they weren't forced. They were "encouraged" to do so by the government loosening standards and deregulation of the financial industry. Banks began writing sub-prime loans by the millions to people who would not have qualified for the loans under the old rules. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac invested hundreds of billions of our money in these risky subprime loans. We all know what happened next.

So you're right, it's not that the government "forced" the banks to offer risky loans... they just did everything possible to encourage that type of lending. They deregulated the industry, allowing lenders to make loans to unqualified people, then everyone jumped in and began investing in these bad loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac invested hundreds of billions of dollars on the subprime loan racket. Instead of keeping a tight rein on the rules and regulations, government relaxed the rules, let the banks and investors do things and make deals that had previously been not only financially unsound but even illegal, and then they jumped right into the game themselves.

No, Harry. It was nothing but greed on the part of the lenders. They didn't need any arm-twisting by the government.

[Harry P.]

No, Harry. It was nothing but greed on the part of the lenders. They didn't need any arm-twisting by the government.

But it was the government who made it possible for the lenders to do what they did. In the past, lender's greed was kept in check by strict federal regulations. For a long time lenders weren't even allowed to offer adjustable-rate loans, let alone adjustable rate loans to people who clearly weren't qualified. When the industry was deregulated all hell broke loose.

There are clearly some cases when government intervention is a bad thing (trying to run the car companies, for example) and when government intervention is a good thing (keeping the financial industry legitimate).

[LDO]

But it was the government who made it possible for the lenders to do what they did. In the past, lender's greed was kept in check by strict federal regulations. For a long time lenders weren't even allowed to offer adjustable-rate loans, let alone adjustable rate loans to people who clearly weren't qualified. When the industry was deregulated all hell broke loose.

There are clearly some cases when government intervention is a bad thing (trying to run the car companies, for example) and when government intervention is a good thing (keeping the financial industry legitimate).

Well we've come a long way from banks being forced to make risky loans, haven't we?