Cash for Clunkers Program

[lumberjim]

[sugarpop]

bwahahahahaaa

[lumberjim]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

yea. Lucky me.

Don't worry, you are not the first, nor will you be the last.

[glatt]

LJ, how's it going for you? Has this Cash for Clunkers program boosted your business? It's been almost a week.

[lumberjim]

been too busy to read the cellar.

i'm off today, but i have to get shit done around here too.

we've done 20 C4C deals since Friday. The claims process is daunting. Guess who gets to deal with that nightmare.... We have to scan a shit ton of documents, and fill out multiple page forms on the site, submit the claim, then go back in and submit the scrap certificate.....etc.

plus, we're freaking jamming busy all day. no time no time

[Shawnee123]

I didn't think of that. We, too, get to bear the brunt of new government programs. It's like "here's what WE'RE gonna do...it's gonna be freaking GREAT. Now, YOU figure out the nightmare of administering it within our sketchy and complicated regulations. Guidance? You don't need no stinkin' guidance."

Hang in there!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

plus, we're freaking jamming busy all day. no time no time

BUT, that's better than the alternative.

[monster]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

This is the part that concerns me:



ok....so...like....how do you know when they run out of money? it's going to take a few weeks for the dealer to get paid after the deal is done..... scary

There's a cash-left-ometer on the page you linked to. Currently at $858M

[xoxoxoBruce]

The meter is probably approved claims, I wonder how much is in the pipeline?

[monster]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

it is a bad bill. First of all, you have to buy a new car, you can't get a used one.

Why does that make it bad? it's only very recently that manufacturers here have really been attempting to reduce the MPG, so a new car is likely to be more fuel efficient than a used one. Also, surely, we're only guessing at the MPG of a used car. Which is fine if you're getting rid of a probable gas-guzzler, but to be certain you're replacing it with something significantly more efficient surely it needs to be new which a known mpg? I suspect if the scheme were opened up to used cars, there would be much shennanigans afoot.

Also, you poo-poo the 1mpg improvement required for trucks, and yet if they are only getting 15mpg, that's 6.7% which is not insignificant. Plus clunkers are probably getting far less than that which of course increases that percentage. From what I could tell from the tables linked to in the OP, the mpg for these vehicles does not appear to have improved that much. I would say it's pretty safe to assume that most of these vehicles are on the road because either (a) they are needed for what they are used for -in which case if they are replaced it's going to be with much the same thing which is going to be impossible if you make the required mpg change much higher, or (b) they are vanity vehicles in which case their owners likely have more money than sense and are not likely to be interested in replacing them with smaller vehicles for a few grand discount -which is the only way you'll get a bigger mpg reduction. So although it doesn't sound much, maybe it's the best that can be realistically effective, and is enough that it's better than nothing? I agree that on the surface 1mpg seems like a measly figure, but i think it's a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss it out of hand. 1% is often insignificant, 1 elephant is usually not. It's all relative. and I could be stupid.

. . .

as an addendum, I may not have Jim's finesse, but I do agree that it's somewhat rude to post that you don't have time to read the link but then take the time to give your opinion on what you think it probably says, especially when your opinion -valid though it may be- is about the worth of the program and not it's workings, which was the point of the OP. It's almost trolling. You're not the only one who does it by a long way, but I generally expect better given the usual quality of your posts. Just sayin'

[monster]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The meter is probably approved claims, I wonder how much is in the pipeline?

If it's approved claims, then they must be going through pretty quickly. I reckon it might be submitted claims.

[Aliantha]

Plenty of people post their opinions around this place without reading whole links. In fact, I'd say 100% of people around here have done. I'd be extremely surprised if anyone other than perhaps UT and maybe Bruce actually took the time to read every detail in every link before they post every time.

I'd also say that thread drift is going to happen. Just because the author of the OP doesn't happen to like the particular direction the thread has drifted to is no reason to get stuck about someone discussing a different aspect.

Should we have several threads about this one subject just to keep the pedants happy instead or just discuss the topic in one thread?

I don't think sugarpop deserves the comments she's received here, and I also think some of the points she's raised are valid regardless of whether or not they were points the author of the OP wanted raised or not.

[Shawnee123]

Ms Pop directed me to the first information I read about the Cash for Clunkers program. When I posted what I'd read, from the link she directed me to, she completely changed her perspective. Not because of me, mind you, but because she forgets from one minute to the next which side she is on.

[Aliantha]

I don't think she forgets. I think she tries to see things from different perspectives.