The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Cash for Clunkers

  1. #21
    Senior Member Bruce MacPherson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Jewell, Ore
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Just another way to get people to spend more than they can afford with money they don't have. Haven't we been here before?
    "The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Nor_Cal_Angler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburg, Ca
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce MacPherson View Post
    Just another way to get people to spend more than they can afford with money they don't have. Haven't we been here before?
    BINGO, first one to say it...

    you beat me to it...

    I cant believe people are overlooking the real issue here. You are giving up a running vehicle probally paid off, and getting 4500 dollars of your (and my) own money to put towards the purchase of a vehicle that will have a balance owed on it upwards of 20000 dollars. The government is putting us (as a nation) in further debt by the minute and asking you or teasing you with this idea all the while putting you in DEBT (now personally)further.

    On top of that they distroy a running vehicle, scraping the motor and metal sending it to CHINA, where they melt it down and turn it into something workable to SELL BACK TO US...PUTTING US MORE IN DEBT.....

    It makes no sense and pisses me off....

    give me your working vehicle, I'll give you a nice new credit debt (in these days) you probally dont need...I'll stick the bill on the american people, then give another country the oppertunity to turn our RETARDED idea into a chance make money off of...

    what was wrong with the system we had...You trade in your car..I give you a price for it, you use that towards another vehicle, plus any incentives I have (ie..2500,3000,5000 off or 0.0 financing for 60 mo.) purchase a new vehicle and THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    NCA

  3. #23
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_Angler View Post
    what was wrong with the system we had...You trade in your car..I give you a price for it, you use that towards another vehicle, plus any incentives I have (ie..2500,3000,5000 off or 0.0 financing for 60 mo.) purchase a new vehicle and THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    NCA
    What??? You gotta be kidding, right???

    Let's see, $24 billion of our tax money to GM, billions to Chrysler/Dodge....both in bankrupcy, allowed to welch on investors and creditors, forcing those people to bankrupcy....all the gripes I've heard on this forum......And now you ask "WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT SYSTEM???"

    ROTFLMFAO!!!
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  4. #24
    Senior Member Nor_Cal_Angler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburg, Ca
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    What??? You gotta be kidding, right???NOPE

    Let's see, $24 billion of our tax money to GM Didnt have anything to do with trade-ins or the system of trade-ins, billions to Chrysler/Dodge never should have happened, again doesnt have anything to do with the trade-in system....both in bankrupcy not our fault, and this new idea makes the "people" hurt more", allowed to welch on investors and creditors thats just bad business, again has nothing to do with the trade-in system, forcing those people to bankrupcy.those people shouldnt have loaned the money to a bad business model, again nothing to do with the trade-in system...all the gripes I've heard on this forum currently 90 percent justified......And now you ask "WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT SYSTEM???"Yes I am asking what was wrong with the TRADE IN SYSTEM, that was in place.

    ROTFLMFAO!!!
    ROTFLMFAO all you want, but the TRADE-IN system did not need help...the UAW that BANKRUPTED the auto indurtry, the HORRIBLE product line that was produced, and the TERRIBLE business model that the american auto industry relied on is the PROBLEM with the system....

    giving people 4000 dollars towards the purchase of a vehicle they probally shouldnt have, further putting people in DEBT...is not a wise idea.

    housing market regards,

    NCA

  5. #25
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    What??? You gotta be kidding, right???

    Let's see, $24 billion of our tax money to GM, billions to Chrysler/Dodge....both in bankrupcy, allowed to welch on investors and creditors, forcing those people to bankrupcy....all the gripes I've heard on this forum......And now you ask "WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT SYSTEM???"

    ROTFLMFAO!!!
    If "that system" was left alone, one of the weaker companies would be gone because they can't compete.

    The Feds had no business getting involved.
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #26
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    If "that system" was left alone, one of the weaker companies would be gone because they can't compete.

    The Feds had no business getting involved.
    No argument there. Big business wants capitalism and to be left alone when the money is coming in....when it's going out, all the sudden they want to socialize the loss, and have big brother infuse some cash?? Quite convenient.

    Just last night we had an outdoor concert at a neighbors house. One couple, middle-class (teacher, factory worker) said they just bought a new car with the CFC program. He said they probably wouldn't have, it not for the extra trade in value under the program. Nobody scorned him. We all know he busts his butt working, and so does she. I'd MUCH rather see my tax money going to help a neighbor than to Haliburton execs or Iraqi infrastructure!

    I believe what's good for the small guy is good for the corporation. Nobody is "too big" to fail. But if we ARE going to help GM, Ford, etc...I'd rather see the money go through the small guy on the way to the big company. More bang for the buck. Just think if that $24 billion last year went through a CFC program. Hell, I'd probably have a new truck.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  7. #27
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,891

    Default

    Based on a TV ad I saw yesterday, Ford (I think) was giving the $4500 ... in addition to the rebate they already had in place.

    What happens if the car you're trading in is worth more than $4500, even though it gets less than the mileage requirement?

    Why won't they accept a vehicle older than 1985? Some of those clunkers are much less fuel efficient, more polluting, and possibly worth more in scrap value (heavier & more metal) than some of those after 1985?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #28
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Based on a TV ad I saw yesterday, Ford (I think) was giving the $4500 ... in addition to the rebate they already had in place.

    What happens if the car you're trading in is worth more than $4500, even though it gets less than the mileage requirement?

    Why won't they accept a vehicle older than 1985? Some of those clunkers are much less fuel efficient, more polluting, and possibly worth more in scrap value (heavier & more metal) than some of those after 1985?
    To stop people from going out in the woods and loading rust carcasses onto flatbeds and wanting money for them. ie to preclude abuses. Also, as another poster pointed out, "most people can't afford them anyway"...this will limit some of that behavior. Both ends of the candle are being burnt here. The program appears to have been well thought out, and was a victim of it's own success. Hopefully, if our dear government sees fit to give corporate welfare, it will at least pass through and benefit the hands of the working class first.

    From what I've heard from car dealers, neighbors, and economists, this program has been a rare success.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  9. #29
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,737

    Default

    Looks like the gooberment is adding one or two billion more to the program which started out as a one billion program. One thing we can count on from the goobs, if they say something will cost a dollar, bet on it costing 10 dollars.

    And, anyone that thinks the gooberment will be divested of Gooberment Motors by 2012, keep dreaming.


    http://nada.org/ National Automotive Dealers Assc.
    For the skinny on the subject;
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  10. #30
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    The dealer can't steal the trade on this deal. First, most of the vehicles being turned in aren't worth $4500. All of that goes to the customer, and is put toward a new vehicle. Plus the dealer doesn't get to keep the traded in vehicle. The engine has to be disabled, and the vehicle has to be scrapped.

    One interesting thing I heard from 3 different dealers was that several of the customer that came in had vehicles that did not qualify for the program. When they found out, they decided to buy a new car anyway. I guess they were bitten by the new car bug, and had to have one.
    Where there is a will there is a way.
    No haggle pricing regards
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

Similar Threads

  1. Cash for Clunkers cost each taxpayer $24M
    By Richard Halstead in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-31-2009, 06:45 PM
  2. Clunkers.....good or bad idea.....
    By TXduckdog in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 08:10 PM
  3. Cash for clunkers benefits foreign automakers
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-30-2009, 10:35 AM
  4. Final numbers on Cash for Clunkers....GDG
    By Ken Guthrie in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-28-2009, 11:39 AM
  5. Cash 4 klunkers?????
    By Raymond Little in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 11:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •