severine
New member
So if your car isn't fuel-efficient, you're a bad person? :-?
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
$$$$$ for clunkers passes
- Thread starter campgottagopee
- Start date
campgottagopee
New member
I'm sure they're considering emmissions as well, but I hear ya. Again, I don't think there are too many 25+ yr old cars that are still on the road to be traded for this credit, or at least in the Northeast there isn't.
mondeo
New member
Way I read it was dealers just had to show cars less than 25 years old ended up shredded. So a 1990 MY car is eligible, just has to be destroyed with proof.
eatskisleep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,551
- Points
- 83
Of course I don't mean it that way. My truck gets 12-14 mpg, and I don't consider myself a bad person. I just meant "good" in terms of the governments definition and their "go green" eyes.
Paul
New member
Some of you people need to RTFA.
You can't go buy a $50 clunker and trade it in for a $4500 credit towards a new car, the car needs to have been registered to you for at least one year. This program is only good for a year.
I agree with Camp's point, It is the Manufacturers and/or Dealers that should be offering this type of incentive. This should NOT be funded by taxpayer $$ That's part of the whole "Free-Market" thing.
As far as "bad choices" that's just plain bullshit. What about builders, contractors etc... that need large vehicles? What about folks who buy used due to not having sufficient credit or cash-flow to afford a new vehicle? If you want society to move to more "eco-friendly" vehicles, give them a reason to do so. This whole idea is completely myopic, keep developing better fuel efficiency in new vehicles going forward and the older gas-guzzlers will fade-out through attrition.
The problem with our society is that we just don't understand that paradigm shifts take time, you can't fix these problems overnight, or legislate them away.
You can't go buy a $50 clunker and trade it in for a $4500 credit towards a new car, the car needs to have been registered to you for at least one year. This program is only good for a year.
I agree with Camp's point, It is the Manufacturers and/or Dealers that should be offering this type of incentive. This should NOT be funded by taxpayer $$ That's part of the whole "Free-Market" thing.
As far as "bad choices" that's just plain bullshit. What about builders, contractors etc... that need large vehicles? What about folks who buy used due to not having sufficient credit or cash-flow to afford a new vehicle? If you want society to move to more "eco-friendly" vehicles, give them a reason to do so. This whole idea is completely myopic, keep developing better fuel efficiency in new vehicles going forward and the older gas-guzzlers will fade-out through attrition.
The problem with our society is that we just don't understand that paradigm shifts take time, you can't fix these problems overnight, or legislate them away.
eatskisleep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,551
- Points
- 83
Totally agree.
ctenidae
Active member
Sometimes there isn't time to wait for a slow paradigm shift.
riverc0il
New member
Which is a HUGE difference. Not even comparable.
riverc0il
New member
It is absolutely NOT bullshit. It is the very foundation of the current economic crisis. Buildings, contractors, etc. who need large vehicles to run their businesses are not included with the "bad decision" crowd. That is the exclusive providence of those that bought more than they could afford. And that isn't just about cars. Though in reference to cars, if gas prices going up $1-2 per gallon brakes the bank... then yes, that was a bad decision. If you are that close to the edge, a cheap fuel efficient car would have been a better option.
--Different thought...
SUV drivers can have your SUVs. I don't give two craps what you drive (in so much as it effects me... I DO care that it increases gas consumption i.e. demand and thus increases prices, etc.). But I do take issue with folks getting free money in the name and way this program is structured. What I am talking about is why do folks that drive gas guzzlers need $3500 to scrap a car that is worth nothing? In two years... my 35+ MPG light weight car bought for $8k is going to be worth $500 trade in at best when it reaches 200k. Where is my $3500 to scrap the car? Not that I would want it, cause the program sounds whacked.
I would like to see less hostility towards those suggesting this program is wrong and more defense of the program from those who disagree. Let's stop attacking semantics and argue the issues here.
Paul
New member
Most times there isn't. Unfortunately, trying to force it can cause more harm than good. Of course, the change does happen, there's just a lot of pain during the process.
JMHO, but I don't think the government getting directly involved in private business is the best solution.
See: USSR
mondeo
New member
Light rail isn't an alternative, in most cases it's probably worse; it's just so massively subsidized that its use is affordable.
But no one wants to think about the real alternatives. Stop driving unless absolutely necessary. Move closer to work. Carpool, bike, etc. 8000 mi/year should cover getting to and from work for most people, and hiked gas taxes would encourage conservation.
For some reason the burden of change can only fall on those who are deemed able to afford it.
This seems like the wrong way to go about a problem that needs to be addressed.
I'm probably a small a minority to think that we need a much higher tax on gasoline (maybe ease off for business?). Expensive gas will definately change our ways faster and more dramatically. Money could then be used for jump-starting "green economy".
I'm still rooting for 5$ a gallon gas.
I'm probably a small a minority to think that we need a much higher tax on gasoline (maybe ease off for business?). Expensive gas will definately change our ways faster and more dramatically. Money could then be used for jump-starting "green economy".
I'm still rooting for 5$ a gallon gas.
eatskisleep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,551
- Points
- 83
If you were forced to drive a vehicle that takes a lot of gas, like a truck to ship good, or whatever, dump truck for construction, etc you would NOT be rooting for $5 a gallon. It is killing the small companies.
mondeo
New member
But if we're saying people should back off on energy consumption, then it shouldn't be just be taxing personal gas consumption; it needs to be extended to the energy that goes into the stuff you buy. Best way to do that is to tax the final sale of energy in general; sales of diesel for trucking, coal and oil to power plants, etc.
It'll force a few companies out of business and shrink the rest, the ones remaining will then be able to raise their prices and regain profitability due to reduced supply. Consumers pay more, suppliers get less, that's a tax for ya. But then taxing gas for everyone will reduce discretionary spending that way. All taxes hurt the economy. That's all there is to it.
This is what I think about the abundance of politics going on in this thread
four words, "It don't mean shit"
whether it's health care policy or car credit policy, "It don't mean shit"
The 'clunker' credit is no more going to help people that are for it than it's going to hurt people and bankrupt the grandchildren of those who oppose it. I'm not saying that people should be apathetic and not be engaged and voting on such issues, but the older I get, the more sensationalistic it all seems to me.
The one argument I HATE, whether it's a war, universal health care, business sector bail out, clunker credit, pretty much anything is an opposing argument that, 'Oh we definitely can't do this because our grand children are going to be paying out their teeth for this choice'
BULL SHIT
When my grandfather was old enough to vote, he was driving a jeep for General Patton in the desert of North Africa and listening for plans for D day. (By the way, General Patton had girlfriends in every village and had a thing for red heads in case you were wondering). At about the same time I'd imagine that maybe a third of Americans even had a car. Since then there's been the Korean War, Vietnam, Civil Rights Movement, Cold War; Gulf War, Isreal wasn't even a country back then.....countless changes/big moments in history. Things change a lot more quickly than most care to admit..
So, if you're worried about a policy affecting your grand children, don't. As smart as you are, you have zero idea what this world is going to be about when your grandchildren have to pay for it. Chances are they will be better of for the most part. As much as certain vocal people try and lead you to believe differently, throughout history, the quality of life when taken as a whole, is drastically better with each passing decade..
Again, I'm not saying people should disengage themselves about what's going on around them. I just think that everyone should make decisions on what's in their individual and societal best interest for the next five years maximum. Beyond that, hard to tell what life will bring.....
four words, "It don't mean shit"
whether it's health care policy or car credit policy, "It don't mean shit"
The 'clunker' credit is no more going to help people that are for it than it's going to hurt people and bankrupt the grandchildren of those who oppose it. I'm not saying that people should be apathetic and not be engaged and voting on such issues, but the older I get, the more sensationalistic it all seems to me.
The one argument I HATE, whether it's a war, universal health care, business sector bail out, clunker credit, pretty much anything is an opposing argument that, 'Oh we definitely can't do this because our grand children are going to be paying out their teeth for this choice'
BULL SHIT
When my grandfather was old enough to vote, he was driving a jeep for General Patton in the desert of North Africa and listening for plans for D day. (By the way, General Patton had girlfriends in every village and had a thing for red heads in case you were wondering). At about the same time I'd imagine that maybe a third of Americans even had a car. Since then there's been the Korean War, Vietnam, Civil Rights Movement, Cold War; Gulf War, Isreal wasn't even a country back then.....countless changes/big moments in history. Things change a lot more quickly than most care to admit..
So, if you're worried about a policy affecting your grand children, don't. As smart as you are, you have zero idea what this world is going to be about when your grandchildren have to pay for it. Chances are they will be better of for the most part. As much as certain vocal people try and lead you to believe differently, throughout history, the quality of life when taken as a whole, is drastically better with each passing decade..
Again, I'm not saying people should disengage themselves about what's going on around them. I just think that everyone should make decisions on what's in their individual and societal best interest for the next five years maximum. Beyond that, hard to tell what life will bring.....
mondeo
New member
I've tried to take on the Chinese attitude. You're one voice in a sea of 300 million/6.5 billion, so you might as well not care because your opinion doesn't matter anyways.
Really, it's entertainment to me more than anything. Thought experiments and the like.
You're missing the point. I mentioned at least twice that I'm not saying people shouldn't be engaged and ignore their right to vote.. I just think politics / decisions backed up with claims of how the sky is going to fall 20 years from now are proven time and time again to be arrogant sensationalist bullshit. Obama's universal health care plan and it's costs is going to be forgotten like opposing colored chuck taylor sneakers in fifteen years.
drjeff
Well-known member
The SCARY thing about the universal healthcare plan conceptually for me atleast is, if the gov't can't successfully run the VA healthcare system, how the heck will it be able to tackle this much more massive proposed system??? Atleast if they're going to do it, figure it out 1st with the VA and then scale it up nationally
So you want to turn this from a recession to another Great Depression?
Marc
New member
Kinda like how Social Security, enacted in our grandfather's age, is going so well....
/Sorry, DHS, that was low hanging fruit, nothing personal
//Really not that political, can't bring enough change on that front to be bigger than the other fish I've got frying
Similar threads
- Locked
