Slashdot Mirror
Feds To Offer Cash For Your Clunker
coondoggie sends along a NetworkWorld piece that begins, "The government... wants to motivate you to get rid of your clunker of a car for the good of the country (and the moribund car industry). A 'Cash for Clunkers' measure introduced this week by three US Senators, two Democrats and a Republican, would set up a national voucher program to encourage drivers to voluntarily trade in their older, less fuel-efficient car, truck, or SUV for a car that gets better gas mileage. Should the bill pass, the program would pay out a credit of $2,500 to $4,500 for drivers who turn in fuel-inefficient vehicles to be scrapped and purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle."
I don't see this helping the Big Three very much. Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Regardless, encouraging sale of old vehicles to scrapyard means that people will buy new cars. A portion of this will go to the domestic manufacturers, who at this point are not as worried about selling more cars than their foreign competitors, but rather just selling more cars.
I knew I should have held on to that rusted out 95 Grand Am a little longer.
Only got a couple hundred for it, and $100 of it was a new battery and a full tank.
They need to sub out the city buses instead, those things are a pollution nightmare
Frankly, I think the 'ism supported here is consumerism, not environmentalism. Let old cars die their natural death.
My '93 Corolla gets 34mpg. Not too many cars made today get better than that.
I am totally opposed to this bill. As a hot rodder the last thing I or my fellows want is for everyone to turn their old cars in for scrap. It is better for them to remain in junkyards where they can be used as spare parts to keep other old cars in good running condition. Really guys, there are not THAT many older cars on the road compared to newer ones, so the older cars really aren't contributing a whole lot to emissions. If all these cars are scrapped then the result in millions of car enthusiasts will have a tough time restoring their older cars, all the scrap steel will go to China, and you and I will have to foot the bill for it all through taxes.
By making it less and less efficient! Yay for progress!
I'm no eco weenie, but this is total madness... the manufacture of a car creates SIX TIMES the CO2 that the average car will emit in its lifetime... the government should be encouraging people to keep their cars for longer, not pointlessly bail out a few failed car makers...
Is this the first time the US goverment give helps to replace old cars? In Europe is a common practice and I though it was a worldwide routine.
(If I recall correctly, it started here in mid 80s to help the transition from leaded to unleaded gas and to improve the general safety of the cars - you know, in those days people drove those 70's tiny tin-'cubic'-car with sharp edges and no safety belt)
as in Germany - trade in your older clunker - 9 years or older - and get a better car for Eur 2,500.
Only problem is that many 9 year or older cars sell on the market for more than Eur 2,500, so - who wants the bonus if you can sell it for more?
Maybe older cars are cheaper in US?
Who told you that CO2 is the only emission that we should be concerned with? Personally, I've never caught a whiff of CO2 and thought to myself "Ack. My lungs!" Honestly, there are worse emissions, albeit possibly in smaller quantities. I'm certainly no expert on the matter.
Insert self-referential sig here.
"Should the bill pass, the "Cash for Clunkers" program would reimburse drivers with a credit of $2,500 to $4,500 for drivers who turn in fuel-inefficient vehicles to be scrapped and purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle."
Sounds like an automotive version of gun buybacks, and equally as silly.
If the goal is to save the environment, tying the credit to the purchase of a new vehicle just takes a perfectly good car whose environmental costs have already been incurred out of circulation.
If the goal is to reduce oil consumption, using taxpayer money to fund the purchase of new cars, instead of getting affordable, useful mass transit, seems like a horrible waste of money.
Clearly, this is designed to prop up the auto industry. By reducing the number of used cars on the market, which compete with new cars, and using taxpayer money for what normally would be the trade-in value of their car, they're artificially reducing the supply of cars in the country in order to drive sales of new cars. This has the effect of screwing over people who would never be able to buy a new car, since there will be a reduction in the supply of used cars.
But that's ok. The government wants you to get deeper into debt to buy things you can't afford. That's the ticket out of this recession!
To encourage car owners to scrap cars before 10 years, we have
1. Road tax increases for cars > 10 years old
2. Rebates for cars unregistered before 10 years
The majority of the cars on the roads here are 10 years old. Cars unregistered are either scrapped or exported to another country for resale.
Back in 2000, I bought a Toyota Echo that gets about 40 miles/gallon. In 2002, even though I could have afforded more I bought a small condo, skipping out on an ARM to get a 30 yr fixed rate. Now I'm learning that I should have bought a gas-guzzler so I could get free cash down the road, I should have taken out a huge ARM on an overpriced house because the gov would get my lender to reduce the principal anyway, and maybe I should have tried to run a company or two into the ground to get a mammoth bailout. Why is the government trying to take away every incentive to act prudently and responsibly?
So they're going to offer us our own tax dollars we've paid them, to get rid of the cars we have?
May I humbly submit that a bit of money invested in public transport infrastructure, could pay off handsomely in terms of quality of life? Less people would even need cars, which would save them money. And it would help to decongest the roads, so people would get to work faster.
The huge decrease of pollution and need for fossil fuels is just an added bonus.
I don't say this works everywhere in the US, but certainly it would work in many cities.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
So we have a program (paid for by all tax payers when the government is already hard at work trying to bankrupt the whole country) that rewards the people who have been running around in gas guzzlers, but is not available to fuel efficient car drivers (let alone those peddling bikes or otherwise not wasting fuel). Am I the only one that sees this as vastly unfair?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
[citation needed]
The average is in the range of 10-15%, which is about one sixth the lifetime emissions of the vehicle. Perhaps you got your numbers mixed up.
Here's a good Google Answers article with lots of references:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981
To shut up the whiners who didn't act prudently or responsibly?
Unfortunately, the majority of the US population are children over the age of 20.
The real cost is that many old vehicles aren't safe to drive. Steering, brakes, crash test ratings, restraints, airbags, etc are all much better today than they were 10, 15, 20 years ago. In addition to fatal accidents, there are many accidents with hospitalizations or permanent injuries, or even just property damage to other vehicles.
We're talking about on the order of $300 billion a year in economic losses from auto crashes. I don't know what percentage of that is due to old vehicles that would be traded in, but if 1% of it is, that's enough to justify taking a million of these vehicles off the road.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
So those of us who already made a choice to purchase an efficient vehicle aren't getting any incentives.
I am barely scraping by with my mortgage, but because I am not in arrears, I get no assistance. This is so similar, why are we coddling the idiots of society?
I thought Idiocracy was a fictional movie, not a crystal ball into the future.
If this was about reducing emissions, they would pay more to get older, dirtier, and less fuel efficient cars off the road. The worse the mpg, the more they would pay. This is about encouraging people that proved they have the money to buy a newer car to cycle into another newer car a lot sooner than they would. It's proof this is about encouraging consumerism, not ecology.
Ok, so you bought a super inefficient SUV, and now you are rewarded for buying something new! But if you bought a Prius, you are not. Of course, we want to get everyone in to more fuel efficient cars. But this bill wouldn't do that, because it appears to give you the reward regardless of how fuel efficient your new car is. This is only beneficial if you must buy a new car that is MORE fuel efficient...
Here in Norway, the car wrecker (companies selling used car parts) will pay NOK 1500,- (around USD 180) for a car wreck. The funding for this come from the covernment. It is called "vrakpant". The car wrecks are then taken apart and the parts sold. The motivation for this arrangement is to get cars that are no longer safe in trafic out of commision.
More info on this is available from
http://www.toll.no/templates_tad/subject.aspx?id=44782 and
http://www.sft.no/artikkel____34484.aspx (Norwegian only).
Petter Reinholdtsen
Chevy has more models on dealers lots now that get better than 30 mpg than any other seller in the US. Simple data, look it up. That's more than toyota and honda for example.
With that said, we had a lot better mileage with early 80s cars by and large, at least the choices, then what we have now. All the cars got bloated with 18 channel sensurround heated massaging dvd players and such like total metrosexual nonsense. They cost more, don't really work any better as transportation, are only *marginally* safer and only *marginally* cleaner for double the money and quadruple the insurance. You want a solid car, look for an early 80s model car, plenty out there that did better than 30, and 40+ mpg was common as well, all the way to a few that cracked 50 all the time, vw rabbit, honda crx, etc. Then fix what needs fixing as soon as you buy it, and you'll come in a lot cheaper than a new car and any problems will have long been figured out. If you need a solid full sized pickup that can actually do work and get fair mileage and last for hundreds of thousands of miles without constant repairs, look for a 90s dodge wth the cummins diesel. After 2000 they went to suckage, before then, top notch.
I'd be more than happy to give them mine, it just sits all the time.
Occasionally I push it around the parking lot so the front office doesn't harass me, but it really isn't worth keeping.
I'll take the Apple II out of its trunk, give it to them, and instead of a voucher I'd be happy to take cash.
With which I will buy one of those stackable Japanese pieces of shit that you can fit in a walkin closest that they call a car.
Seems like a good plan to me.
You can't take the sky from me.
This bill offers money to people who drive inefficient vehicles in order to get them into new vehicles. But it need to ensure that the new vehicles are MORE efficient than the vehicle they are replacing. For example, suppose someone with a 15 MPG SUV gets rid of their SUV and uses the money plus the incentive to buy a new 12 MPG SUV. This clearly has not helped the environment (and in fact, has probably made it worse because of the additional energy and emissions required to produce the new vehicle). Additionally, it rewards people who bought the most fuel efficient vehicles possible for making a poor choice while giving no reward to people who did the right thing and bought an efficient vehicle to begin with. I propose the following changes to the measure:
-Offer people a reward based on the amount of *increase* in fuel efficiency of their new vehicle over their old vehicle. That cuts out the incentive for people who buy a less efficient vehicle, and rewards people more for buying more efficient vehicles while still providing an incentive for people who own an older fuel efficient vehicle.
-Weight the incentive so that the better the fuel efficiency of your new car, the better the incentive that you get. In other words, if you get rid of an old 15 mpg car and buy a new 16 mpg car, you get very little incentive. If you sell a 39 mpg car and buy a new 40 mpg car, you get a much higher incentive. This gives the best incentives to people who buy the most efficient cars.
-Offer the highest incentive for people who get rid of a car altogether. The bill appear to be offering a public transit incentive, but it is lower than the incentive to buy a new car. But we get a much greater environmental benefit if people take public transport.
-Also tie the size of the incentive to the improvement in emissions of the new vehicle over the old one. Old cars pollute much more than new ones. Getting cars with higher emissions off the road will help significantly in the fight against global warming. Thus, it makes sense to reward people for choosing the cars with the lowest emissions.
This has nothing to do with the environment. It is simply a greenwashed incentive for boosting the ailing auto industry. Not that there's anything wrong with that given our economic woes, but it's kinda dishonest. Not only does the production of a new car produce more pollution (as another commenter pointed out), but many older cars are still fuel efficient, especially small ones that are well maintained, while new cars other than hybrids are no more fuel efficient than they were a decade ago. My aging stick-shifting Saturn, for example, still gets around 40 mpg on the highway even though it is now 11 years old. If they were really interested in environmental issues, they would instead propose an investment public transportation and give those who scrap their cars free train/bus passes. In most cities public transport is a joke. There's limited or no rail service and a network of depressing buses. Would I scrap my carbon belcher for a few years of free rides on an expanded and convenient public transit system? Maybe. But is this the point of this bill? Probably not.
Dear Fellow Enthusiast, As a SEMA Member Company, we have received an Urgent Legislative Action Alert from the association. You may be interested in this legislative alert and the possible impact it will have on your hobby. The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) is a non-profit trade association composed of more than 6,800 member companies involved in all aspects of the automotive industry, from manufacturers to car clubs and race teams. The SEMA Action Network (SAN) protects your hobby from unfair or unnecessary legislation on national and local levels. Through distribution of information and the collective voice of automotive enthusiasts and businesses, the SEMA Action Network has successfully impacted legislation concerning scrappage laws, equipment standards, registration classifications, emissions regulations, and more. The following information is directly from SEMA. If you would like to contact the lawmaker, follow the instructions in the alert. Thank you for your time, Your Friends at Summit Racing Equipment Washington lawmakers are drafting a large economic stimulus package to help create jobs and rebuild infrastructure. They want to include a nationwide scrappage program which would give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in older cars to have them crushed, as a misguided attempt to spur new car sales. The lawmakers need to scrap this idea. The stimulus package is being drafted right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants to introduce the bill on January 6 and have it approved by Congress by January 20, so that President Obama can sign it into law after he is inaugurated. Contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi IMMEDIATELY To Oppose Cash for Clunkers! Call: 202-225-0100 Click here to send an electronic message: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
The game.
perversely to what you would think, less-safe cars encourage safer driving, so REDUCING crashes
when drivers are concerned about what will happen if they crash, they tend to drive more slowly, leave a bigger gap in front, and generally behave themselves. similar trends happen when drivers don't wear seatbelts, etc.
look up any risk research by John Adams for more information
Really? You know, a reason most people I know drive older cars is because you don't have to worry about car payments and premium insurance. Not saying I couldn't afford it, but it's nice not having to worry about it.
Another (fairly large) reason I, personally, a drive 1986 nissan pickup 4x4 (just getting broken in at 227,000 miles) is because it still gets OK gas mileage,it was all of $1500, and I can fix most anything on it myself. Good luck doing that on a new foreign or domestic car. It's alos become evident - to me at least- that picking up a 80s or 90s foreign car or truck for a few thousand in decent shape and spending a few hundred bucks to fix it every year is a helluva lot cheaper than blowing a ton of money on car payments & insurance.
Oh yeah all these 'ancient' cars still get comparable gas mileage to new vehicles. My Nissan gets around 20 mpg in the city ... all of 1mpg less than the 2009 ford ranger (http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/ranger/).
Exchange them for something other than coal burning steam turbines.
Basically antiquated technology.
Reform the coal into hydrogen and build giant fuel cells.
Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
Not really. Japanese companies are putting more emphasis on hybrids (and have better developed hybrid-tech), and so they get a lot of press in that regard, with some models topping 50mpg in fuel economy. But most cars sold are still conventional gasoline models, and in that regard, Japanese and American models are broadly similar in terms of fuel economy. Compare for instance, two competitors in the sedan market, a 2009 V-6 Toyota Camry, and a 2009 V-6 Ford Taurus. The Camry gets 19/28 mpg, and the Taurus gets 18/28.
As for the "more variety"... where? The beauty of Japanese car company philosophy is that they offer few models. Instead of offering vehicles for every possible niche, the Japanese companies have a few, well-designed and well-built models. Part of the problem that American companies have(and especially GM) is that they'll sell 3 to 5 versions of the same car, sometimes with little difference in the sheet metal. American car companies take "platforming"... using a base car platform to make multiple models... to ridiculous extremes.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I can see all kids just getting their license cry in horror when they notice there isn't a car for sale for less than $2,500.
Ah well I guess they'll have to get a job and save some money.. oh wait there are no jobs.
This is already being done in Texas, see the below link for more info:
http://cashrunner.net/2008/01/11/texas-3000-voucher-for-recycling-your-old-car/
Except driving a less safe car doesn't stop the asshole whose going to run into you from running into you.
Public transportation doesn't work in the suburbs nor in rural areas, which a lot of the US is composed of (although public transportation should be used in heavily urban areas). And don't even say "burn down the suburbs" or some bullshit like that, because it ain't going to happen. You'll see an electrification of transportation over the next decade, which gives you the benefit of being able to use renewable energy to power your vehicle while having a level of mobility unattainable with public transportation.
Care to explain why public transportation doesn't work in rural/suburbs?
Seems to do just fine here in Europe...
And in Cleveland, New York City, Washington, D.C, etc. The only place I've seen that doesn't have effective public transportation to the suburbs is Indianapolis.
What the fuck happened to the concept of limited government? 50+ comments on here, and not one asking what business is it of government to make people's decisions for them? I understand that /. tilts way to the left, but a total lack of outrage or even acknowledgment of the underlying problem here is just depressing.
Let me use an example. The Chicago suburbs (one of which I live in). Public transportation from the 'burbs to downtown is easy. Anyone can do a hub and spoke light rail system (called Metra in our area). But how do you get around using public transportation from suburb to suburb? Bus? Doesn't happen. You can't cover hundreds of square miles with public transportation, becasue public transportation is built specifically for high density areas (for our purposes, I exclude things like Amtrak, the bullet train in Japan, and other long haul public transportation options).
I live in Tucson. It's a medium sized city sprawled out over many miles of area. The cost per capita to truly cover the grid that is Tucson and the surrounding areas well enough that people would not need cars would be enough to bankrupt very individual living in Tucson. Instead we make do with some bus lines that move along major routes to a few major locations and it will take you a couple of hours to get across town.
Prudence and responsibility mean independence. Governments want power, which requires dependence. I hope that answers your question.
Of course, by having a 40mpg car you have saved 8-9 years worth of gas money over those people with the guzzlers. I can't speak for your experience, of course, but I have a similar car and I have saved a LOT more than $2500 by now. Let's just take my commute, which is a lot shorter than many people I know.
-I commute ~20 miles/day - 100 miles per week
-At 40 miles per gallon, that's 2.5 gallons per week
-Even just assuming the current price of $2.00 in my area, that comes to ~$5/week, ~$260/year,
~$2340 since 2000, assuming 9 years of ownership.
That's not counting trips to the grocery store, friends houses, entertainment, the annual trips to my parents house several hundred miles away or the two trips I took from southern to northern California OR the outrageous spike in prices last year.
If you're feeling left out in the cold by something like this, I suggest you go take a look at your odometer, and think hard about the amount of money you still saved compared to Joe-sport-utility-vehicle and calm down, knowing that you definitely got the better deal.
This is because Americans spend a lot more time and effort telling themselves that public transportation can not work and is frequented by people outside of my race & social status, when compared to Europeans.
For what it's worth: I am an American expat living in Europe.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
One thing I've alwasy thought would help a lot would be better traffic control systems. Governments don't really have a big incentive to really optimize these systems and I think that great strides could be made in improving them. I always wind up spending several minutes every time I go to work sitting at lights when there is no traffic going the other way. That should never happen. Better and more intelligent systems would mean faster commutes, less idling at red lights, and fewer cars on the road at any one time since travel times would be shorter.
unless the replacement is built in the us theres really no point in sending the money over seas.
Sweden disagrees being the 4th largest country in Europe with only 52 people per square mile. Unless you live alone in the middle of nowhere there's always public transportation within reasonable reach by foot.
I knew that it was a good idea to put that old, rusty Chevy up on cinder blocks in the front yard, like all my neighbors do.
$1500? Yoo-hoo!
When is the government going to start paying me for all those broken toys, that I also keep in the front yard?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Don't burn the suburbs, just plan them better. Transit can work in suburbs, but the suburbs have to be designed with transit in mind. It's true, suburbs cannot usually support the comprehensive transit systems that cities have, such as grids, where you can get from ANY point A to ANY point B with relative ease. But suburbs can at least support commuter routes IF there are well defined job centers. In that case you can funnel people from the suburbs via buses into job/shopping centers on a limited schedule (buses in the city run every 15 minutes, buses in the suburbs run every hour, for example) - or perhaps run a light rail and provide generous parking at stations. However, many places are not planned very strategically, so there are no destinations, every person is headed from some random point A to another random point B.
I would also say that although it would not be practical or useful to "burn the suburbs," as you describe, we COULD stop subsidizing them. A lot of places grow outward instead of inward because government is more than happy to run brand new highways and civil services to rural areas.
When did Europe become a country? Sweden have half the population density of America with public transportation everywhere.
I too was always shocked at the quoted American miles per gallon figures until I realised that the British figures were using the Imperial gallon (4.55 litres) compared to the American figures using the US gallon (3.79 litres)
Therefore, a car doing 34 miles to the (US) gallon is equivalent to a car doing 40 miles to the (Imperial) gallon.
I think you exaggerate a little. I doubt a car built in 2009 is likely to be much safer than a 1999 car. Going back another 10 or 20 years past that though and you've probably got a good point.
However, I think replacing older less safe cars is a very cost inefficient way of improving safety. To be honest once you're in a crash you've already lost. Much better to spend that money on preventing the crashes in the first place with improved road design, driver education and a greater willingness to prohibit drivers who refuse to drive safely from driving.
Nice to see someone else here that can see what is happening. When they offer free property, does anyone question the legitimacy of taking it away from someone else?
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/17/supreme-court-accountablity/
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Density is irrelevant. It's the distribution that matters.
There are much better ways to accomplish this without costing the taxpayers so much.
For instance, why not offer lower interest loans to those who trade in a less efficient car for a newer one? True, it would cost right out, but the money would be paid back later with some extra added in.
And if we are truly worried about emissions and fuel efficiency, why has nothing been done about all the semi trucks on the road that blast nasty smelling black air every time they start going again after a complete stop, if not even more often? I found that strange when all the laws came into effect for cars, but yet again it just shows that no, we don't really care about the environment, we just want to get the serious clunkers off the road so people will buy newer cars.
Yeah, heaven forbid the corporations would have to pay some extra bucks to fix up their trucks. Of course we all know that won't come out of the pockets of th CEOs, it will just result in increased cost of goods and less wages and benefits for the workers.
From TFA:
The catches:
* The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon;
* Auto needs to be in be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at least the past 120 days;
* The voucher needs to be used towards the purchase of a vehicle that has value of less than $45,000, is model year 2004 or later, and meets or exceeds federal emissions standards;
* Vouchers could also be redeemed for transit fares for participating local public transportation agencies.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 2002 and later, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $4,500; the purchase of a used vehicle: $3,000; a transit fare credit: $3,000.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1999 - 2001, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $3,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $2,000; a transit fare credit: $2,000.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1998 and earlier, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $2,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $1,500; a transit fare credit: $1,500.
So... you are free to buy a USED car as well - only you get less cash for that. Then again - a used car WILL be cheaper.
And you can even use the money for public transport - if you want to go really green and give up your car completely.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So, the program wouldn't really replace those fuel efficient cars with gas wasters. Additionally, emissions are a priority in this program. Although those old civics, etc. were super light and nimble, many of them have been poorly maintained over the years and the piston rings are worn, etc. which reduces fuel efficiency and increases their emissions footprint.
I agree, though, that I'd really enjoy a mint 1989 Civic hatchback.
The state of Texas has a similar voucher program that's been in place for a while now. Residents can get a $3,000 voucher for replacing a 10+ year-old car with a three-year-old or newer car. Perhaps I'd be able to double-up on the vouchers and get something like $7,000 for my 1988 Ford Ranger. Unfortunately, neither the proposed federal bill or the existing Texas program offer vouchers for automobiles that are replaced by motorcycles or scooters.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
You're forgetting that fuel efficient cars are often more expensive than guzzlers. I read recently that, over the life of the car, the greater efficiency of the Prius still does not offset its bigger price tag. Still, I prefer not to kill everyone slowly with my fumes...
To do list for Windows
This reminds me of a program the police had in California to reduce guns by offering several hundred bucks, no questions asked, for each firearm turned in by a citizen. People were going out to Walmart, buying all the cheapest rifles in stock, and exchanging them for bundles of cash. I think the program went bankrupt (having burned through all the taxpayer money available) without actually reducing the number of weapons owned.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Well, that's not a fair comparison. You can't count 80% of the country as inhabited for public transport purposes. The density of actually inhabited areas in Sweden is much higher than the US. The city models are just different. In the US, especially, the West coast, cities were designed with the car in mind, and that inertia is hard to beat.
To do list for Windows
I am an European expat living in California, and I can attest for that. I found it intriguing that my college roommates would refuse to ride the bus on the principle that buses are for losers. I know they were half joking, but there's a kernel of truth to it (that they believe what they joke around, not that it's actually true).
To do list for Windows
You can only qualify if the car you're trading in gets no more than 18 mpg. So you can relax, it actually makes sense.
you yanks are convinced that 30mpg is some sort of decent figure for fuel economy
Them pesky Yanks have smaller gallons than us. One of their cars would go further on a British (Imperial) gallon.
A car that does 30mpg in the USA would do 36mpg here in Blighty. Our gallons are 1.2 times the size of an American gallon.
So your 50mpg Diesel taken to America would only get about 42mpg in the USA.
Stick Men
Quote: "It's actually quite a smart move."
It's NOT smart. Giving away free money just makes prices rise. Those buying new cars will pay more. Why would a car company give a discount when the extra money is free?
The U.S. government has NO money. The U.S. government is DEEPLY in debt, more in debt than any organization has ever been in the history of the world. This bill would be funded by the Chinese, Saudi, and Dubai governments, among others, and eventually by inflation of the U.S. dollar. Inflation makes everyone pay more, forever.
Have you checked the prices of used SUV's lately? The prices for used cars have gone UP, because people don't want to spend the money for a new car.
Many people with old cars drive old cars because they drive very, very little. There's no yearly mileage requirement in the bill. The fuel economy will not be what the bill's sponsors say.
Someone who drives an "old clunker" now will not want to buy a 2004 or later model car, and probably would not be able to buy a car that expensive. Also, there are many small old cars that get close to the 18 miles per gallon specified in the bill, and many 2004 model year or newer "fuel efficient" cars that get not much more. Someone could, for example, trade in an old Toyota and buy a 2004 SUV or pickup that gets worse gas mileage, but still good gas mileage for that "class" of an SUV or pickup.
Someone who gives a 1998 car to the recyclers that runs fine but gets 16 miles per gallon and buys a far, far more expensive 2004 or newer car that gets 28 miles per gallon, and drives 5,000 miles per year, saves 133 gallons of gas per year. Under the bill, that person gets a $1,500 credit.
That 1998 car doesn't get "recycled" of course. If it runs well, it becomes part of illegal traffic in inexpensive cars for people who don't have jobs. Or, it becomes illegal traffic to Mexico. Cities and states will hire more policemen to prevent the illegal activity.
To get the $1,500 credit, the owner gave a car worth $3,000 or more! That's if the car was in a condition that it was actually being used. Obviously, no one will do that.
What will mostly happen, of course, is that people who want to buy a 2004 or newer car will first buy a damaged car in "drivable condition" that has been sitting in someone's driveway not being used. The buyer will give the junker to the recyclers and will use the free money from the U.S. government to save a little on the newer car. But the savings won't be much, because the prices of all cars will rise.
The biggest effect of that bill, other than lowering the value of the dollar and raising the price of newer cars, would be to cause the price of worthless cars in "drivable condition" to go up enormously.
Limited government turned out not to work, owing to greed. I'm afraid that the world turned out to work differently from the way the Adam Smith Institute and the Cato Foundation thought, get over it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
There are places like Dallas Texas that are now using cameras and not timers or current loops to determine when cars are approaching so they can do smarter things. Does anyone know who makes those systems?
Maybe it does not lend an astonishing improvement in fleet efficiency but it does spark car sales.
If you want to promote a measure to "spark" transactions in the market, you have to be very careful that your measure won't cause a perverse effect due to the broken window fallacy. When money changes hands for the sake of money changing hands, it distracts the people involved from actually putting value into their products or services.
Why is the government trying to take away every incentive to act prudently and responsibly?
Because more people (aka voters) do not act prudent and responsible.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Third, if the cars are no American (as most low-cost eco friendly cars are) then how is that helping the economy?
How do you define an American car when Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, and Hyundai have plants in the United States of America, and Ford has plants in Canada and the United States of Mexico? It's like the difference between gross domestic product and gross national product. Is there a standard definition of "American automobile" that I should already know, other than perhaps the one in the Buy American Act?
there are many vehicles across the years, but most here are new enough to have decent control(except for the mud boggers).
I believe it is simply a ploy to drive the price of used cars up, as well as you say, other industry, state sales taxes on every transaction, and registration and license fees (tied to the now higher auto value).
If that bill passes, there will be situations like this:
80-year-old man to his 78-year-old wife, Maude: "Maude, maybe we should get rid of Herman and get a newer car." [Herman is their name for their 1978 Ford Galaxy.]
Maude: "John, we only drive 800 miles a year. Besides, I like Herman."
John: "Maude, the guv'mint is giving away free money again. We may as well get some of it. We can get $1500 for Herman."
Maude: "Yes, but what will happen to Herman?"
John: "He would go to the junkyard."
Maude: "That's no way to treat a friend."
John: "We can get a 2004 Ford Taurus for $3,600. We would pay only $2100."
Maude: "It's probably no good."
John: "I think we should buy it."
Maude: "I think you shouldn't be driving. You don't hear well, and you don't see well either."
John: "Oh Maude, let's not start that again."
I always wind up spending several minutes every time I go to work sitting at lights when there is no traffic going the other way.
Cities put traffic signals on timers because their inductive car sensors are miscalibrated not to pick up bicycles. I was biking to work one day this past October, and I put my bike directly over the side of the sensor loop as most of the web sites that I've read recommend. But the light to turn left (we drive on the right in the US) from a side street onto a collector street wouldn't turn green. I sat at the light for ten minutes (according to my stopwatch) until I backed up, changed lanes to the right, turned right on red (legal at most intersections in the US), turned left into a parking lot, U-turned, and turned right onto the road. In fact, I think it would have stayed red until an SUV pulled up behind me. The next Monday, I reported the malfunctioning sensor to city traffic engineering, and I just avoided that intersection.
Sadly, it's more like children over the age of 40.
I keep saying we need more roundabouts. There's a few lights I always end up sitting at with no cars coming, so tempting to just run the light.
In some places, like downtown areas, lights are intentionally timed to make you stop at every one, either to deter you from driving there, or to make you angry enough to run the red light and be caught by one of the red light cameras.
In a recent German test they took one of the first Volkswagen Golf Diesels and put it up against the latest model. On the same trip the older Diesel used far less fuel than the modern one... Most fuel economy problems come from the weight of the modern cars. The new Golf weighs almost twice as much as the old one and because it weighs more it needs a bigger engine to get any decent performance out of it and a bigger engine means more weight... ad infinum...
Why is it so hard to create a (good looking!) safe vehicle which can carry 1 to 4 persons under 1000 kg ??
How the fook does an American — born-and-raised in this country, with all its vast advantages over millions of people elsewhere in the world — justify not being able to afford a $12K upfront for a new car? Not even the $2500 of a down-payment? What's wrong with you, people? How do immigrants, coming here (legally and otherwise) do it, without the head-start of knowing the language, the culture, and being legally allowed to earn living?
Kick in the butt is something, that parents are supposed to administer once in a while. But the government is neither your mommy nor daddy. And if free money is your idea of a "kick in the butt", then I'd rather you not be involved in raising children, including your own.
And I — a taxpayer — am not your rich uncle.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Don't worry. Obama is going to give free money to everybody. They're printing it up even as we speak.
I wonder about imperial vs. U.S. gallons, which is important.
But even so, if the Daihatsu girl car drives 10,000 miles per year, 40 MPG vs. 34 MPG provides a fuel savings of about 45 gallons of fuel, right? Even with gas at $5.00/gallon, which it currently is not, that's only $225/year.
If 100,000 people suddenly did just pick up and follow your advice, you'd probably see a maximum savings of 200,000 barrels/year of crude, depending on how that crude is refined into fuel.
Assuming the Corolla is paid for, and given that a 2009 Passo (fwd,1.0) would run you about $13,400 plus taxes plus overseas shipping and insurance (given that you can't buy one at a dealership in the U.S.) plus the annoyance of a weird warranty situation and never having parts in stock, the financial break even point is far, far, far out versus keeping the Corolla and paying for its maintenance and the pittance more in fuel.
I know I'm kind of diverting from your actual argument here. Your point about advertised fuel economy for the American Big 3 Auto Makers is true and well-taken. I chuckle at their television ads touting "best-of-class" fuel performance of 30MPG. But when I look at things holistically, this big picture keeps me from doing any reveling. The amount you would have to spend in order to "save" doesn't warrant making any changes right now, especially given that the Corolla wouldn't be eligible for this theoretically federal voucher because it has a a fuel economy better than 18 miles per gallon.
From TFA:"The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon".
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Ahh public transportation. They age old rallying cry of the woefully ignorant!
I live in Pittsburgh. We have pretty decent public transportation. Here are my experiences:
Traveling: First walk to bus stop (~20min) or drive (~10). Then go downtown. Then wait. Then take another bus/train. Then walk some more.
Typical leg traveling time is 20-45 minutes. Longer if you are going really far. Typical downtown layover is 10-60 minutes. Sometimes the bus you need only cycles through every 2 hours. Sometimes the bus comes 10 minutes early. Sometimes more than 30 minutes late. Sometimes not at all. Plan ahead. Working weekends sucks!
No, there is no sitting down to wait. Well, there are places you could sit, but they're filthy.
Enjoy walking past puddles of blood and urine. You will get crapped on by the pigeons. Try to outrun the muggers. For bonus points, avoid the gangs. Those guys really appreciate your employer's ban on weapons!
Now lets talk about rain: Rain, sleet, snow, hail, wind, temperatures below 0 Fahrenheit, and wind chill! We'll have plenty of time to discuss it while we're waiting out there for hours for the damn bus to come!
Time to drive to work: 25 minutes.
Time to bus to work: 1.5 hours. Over 2 hours on weekends.
That's each way! A difference of 2 hours a day on weekdays, 10 hours a week, even more if we count weekends!
The money will likely be coming from China, and if these are driving clunkers due to lack of cash, they will have to buy the lowest end car; That is NOT big-3. It is Chinese or Korean. We are likely to see China (and maybe tata) rush in with cars. Since China and India have trade barriers in place (not 2 way trading), any sale of vehicles really does not help America, let alone jumpstart the global economy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"but a £50 test every year to meet a minimum safety and emissions standard can only be a good thing."
Two things to think about: (1) it doesn't make any sense for most cars (2) Most states require this sort of thing either semi-annually or when the car is sold.
Let me cover the second point: every car is liable to be tested for emissions, but it is done at the state level. As someone earlier pointed out, since it is not the job of the federal government to license or track automobiles, it makes practical sense for the state to implement federal mandate regarding emissions and safety. This is either done at public testing stations or is further pushed to private companies (i.e. filling stations). Some states have mandatory annual, semi-annual, or bi-annual safety tests, others test for safety when the car is sold. Regardless, the car is tested.
Now onto the first point. It is a requirement that all cars sold in the United States be warranted to pass emissions standards for a fairly lengthy period of time (several years and many thousands of miles beyond the normal warranty). The manufacturers readily agreed to this because it is easy for a new or newish ( 7 years: No testing
7 -> 10 years: Testing every 2 years
10 -> 15 years: Testing every 1 year
older than 15 : Offer increasing incentives to remove from road
I want everybody to think about something else. While you might think a 25 year old car has bad tailpipe emissions, that car produces less pollution than the production of a new car.
You've got to think holistically about this. Is the aim to make us feel good and provide incentives to the manufacturers and owners? Or is it to minimize the total overall pollution? Because society is probably better off using the old stuff rather than making new. Not to mention that only dumb people trade cars that frequently. If you're getting rid of your car before 10 years (or so) are up, you're pissing away your money.
For years in Portugal...
And it's a very good program.
japanese manufacturers have shown the big 3 that cleaner alternatives IS the way. one does not need a pickup truck for all occasions. and you certainly dont need a hummer with all its super capabilities to move around on perfectly laid out roads, with the best of conditions!
its high time the citizens switch to cleaner alternatives. it does not need a sensible president to wake everyone up. plenty of people already are shifting.
its about time dollars aren't parted easily to oil companies, to the gulf, to con-men in high corporations, to corrupt politicians, and the list is long.
its abt freaking time that USA showed the rest of the world that they dont represent george bush. the world will believe the people of USA when they actually walk the talk. actions speak louder than words. i wish george bush dint win the first time - the world would have been a saner place.
Population density. The European definition of suburbs is much closer to the city center and has a much higher population density than the American definition of suburbs. That's why when people always say "But look at Europe's public transportation" it's because they fail to realize that while Europe has 82 Million people living in Germany, the US has a little over 3 times that many people living in a country more than 10 times the size.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Does destroying an old car, that by today's standards only gets marginally better gas millage, really save resources? I don't know.
Instead how about running an old car in to the ground for another year or more, where the resources such as metal, electricity, gas, have already been spent to produce it, and instead produce one or two less cars. How about retrofitting cars, or just a tuneup bonus to keep the car running correctly.
Better yet, how about uninstalling AC from all cars? How about a tax deduction for running a car without AC? Remove all the automatics and force people to drive sticks.
I had an 82 dodge charger (Mitsubishi engine) hatchback when I was in School. After stripping all the unneeded stuff out of the engine such as AC, I was able to get better than 32 miles to the gallon out of it, and up to 38 miles to the gallon if let it drop in neutral and cost when possible. I ran it to well over 250,000 miles by religiously changing the oil, and I was the third owner. It had at least one more owner after me. Well built cars from the start.
The problem with that car was it was American car with an Asian Engine. Every American part broke on it. Luckily at that time only things like the door handles where made in the USA.
I think the USA should give up making cars for everyone's well being.
Living in Chile
In the past year, I've bought two new cars (well, one new, and one 7500 mile used car)... the cars we unloaded were 10 years old and falling apart. The first one was sold to basically be chopped for parts when the dealership offered $500 on a trade in, and the second one was traded in for $750... cars depreciate towards 0 within 8-10 years, despite a life span of 15 - 20 years... in those back years, used car dealerships make a lot of money, because you can buy for $500 and sell for $1200 - $2000.
Getting these credits in there will clobber that part of the used car market... except most of the customers are teenagers/immigrants buying their first car. This could get people to buy newer cars... get trade ins from those of us that normally run our cars into the ground (a one time opportunity to get $2500 + the trade in value prompts people to move) and might help get cars sold.
Given the pathetic business models of the big 3 on cars, particularly fuel efficient ones (they lose money there, make it on luxury sedans and SUVs), and I'm not sure how getting people to buy fuel efficient cars HELPS the big 3... but at least this plan HELPS ordinary, low income tax payers (and eccentric upper income tax payers) and indirectly helps the Big 3, instead of the other way around.
Undoing accidental moderation, please ignore.
(I pressed Page Down, but the moderation control had focus, which selected Offtopic)
...I need credit. I'm a student whose made some poor decisions and my credit is in the pooper. It's getting better, but not better enough to the point where I can take out a loan for a car. Which would be really nice, honestly.
Informatus Technologicus
There is nothing wrong with an ARM. I have one and we have very favorable rates. My rate actually went down from 4.75 to 4.5 last year when everyone was scrambling to get out of the sub prime 2 year BS crap. My 5/30 ARM was traditional, and its interest rate is capped at 10% and can only increase or decrease 2% per year and that value is based on what the prime rate is.... Looks like the prime rate ain't going anywhere except maybe to zero.
Or will we just continue to heap it onto the debt with promises of paying it off some nebulous day in the future?
Why not spend that money on a plane ticket? America's democracy isn't what it used to be. There is almost no privacy, the government can snoop on and detain you for no reason. Human rights, is a very strong point either after abugraib prisons an the use of torture. Wealth, or jobs isn't a reason anymore to stay. Leadership also a little to late. America is bankrupt, there is no way the country can pay it's debt.
Why not take a plane ticket to Europe?
The same senators also suggested: Turn in your clunker of a Windows PC for the good of the country (and its moribund manufacturer). Get a voucher for $2.5K-4.5K off a Mac!
I understand they will not put old cars in a blender.
I'm sure that Tom Dickson would like to have a go anyway.
Maybe the person with the junker will buy a used car that costs them about how much they're being reimbursed by the government for
If it's anything like similar schemes in europe, you only get the voucher for buying a NEW car. At one point the italian "left-wing" government gave you a 1-year public transport pass if you trashed a car and did NOT buy another one, just to make believe this was about ecology and not about backwards robin-hooding.
But from the ecological point of view, I am told the ecological impact of building a car is in the same order of magnitude of that of driving it around for most of its lifetime, so encouraging people to trash still usable vehicles may not be the best idea...
Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
Not really (...)
Actually, pretty much all companies that operate in both US and EU markets have different models for each market, with a BIG difference in fuel efficiency. This includes american companies... At least, Ford has a decent market share in Europe and the cars it sells here are "european" cars, meaning that they go by european standards of size and fuel-efficiency... But even the asian car-makers sell huge boxes in the US that nobody would buy here in europe.
By the way, last I read the auto fleet in europe is currently about TWICE more fuel-efficient than the US fleet... although the numbers themselves are not that impressive. I think it's about 14 vs 7 km/l.
Uncoordinated lights cause all kinds of problems: traffic congestion, excessive idling, jackrabbit starts.
I usually avoid the most direct road to work because it has 12 uncoordinated lights in a single 1.5 mile stretch. Well, the bastards closed my normal road for a month so now I have to go the other way.
Last week, I left for work after the normal morning rush and sat at one particular light for three and a half minutes. I timed it. During that time, I counted ten cars coming the other way. The light was already red when I pulled up so God knows how long it actually stayed red in total. My normal longer commute takes me 12 minutes. I am now lucky to make it in 20.
Back in 2000, I bought a Toyota Echo that gets about 40 miles/gallon. In 2002, even though I could have afforded more I bought a small condo, skipping out on an ARM to get a 30 yr fixed rate. Now I'm learning that I should have bought a gas-guzzler so I could get free cash down the road, I should have taken out a huge ARM on an overpriced house because the gov would get my lender to reduce the principal anyway, and maybe I should have tried to run a company or two into the ground to get a mammoth bailout. Why is the government trying to take away every incentive to act prudently and responsibly?
Right there with you. I have a 30 year fixed on a small place we can afford, and have always bought cars with cash (you know, actually saving money before buying things). We pay off our credit cards in full every month. The only debt we have is student loan (small amount, but it's low rate and tax-deductible so we haven't paid it off) and mortgage. That's it.
People like you and me will get no benefit from the current legislation, but we'll be sure to get taxed to the hilt to pay for all these irresponsible morons. So there's that to look forward to.
We need to see some candidates in the midterm elections who start listening to people who didn't screw themselves instead of throwing more money after bad. I'm sick of this crap.
I also want to see how long Obama sticks to the whole "only couples making more than $250,000 will see a tax increase" promise. Read my lips, right?
> We have pretty decent public transportation.
No you don't. You have appalling public transport, as the rest of your comment serves to illustrate.
Sounds like an automotive version of gun buybacks, and equally as silly.
Just to drive the point home, the USA is the world's largest arms dealer. We sell guns to countries and occasionally we have Oliver North or someone like that go sell them to some terrorists, just to keep things interesting. (Got to make those ends, you know. Side note - when did money become the ends and not the means? So sad.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My 1998 Ford F-150 pickup which is in pretty good condition can be sold on the street for about $3000 but the voucher system would only give me $2000 for it. Hmmm, should I sell it or take a $1000 loss on the voucher? That being said, I've been looking for a high milage utility vehicle for the last five years with no luck. I keep thinking a Geo Tracker with VW's diesel would be a great combination but I doubt I'll ever see it.
Dyslexics Untie!
Seriously people... The "Fed" is YOU AND ME.
The "Fed" has no money, it is our tax money. So some idiot elected official wants to take your money and pay someone for their old car.
Is this really Capitalism?
To repeat again, someone is going to take your money and give it to someone else for a reason that most of you don't want. This is why taxes must be cut. If these idiots don't have our money then they can't do idiotic stuff with it. If they have the money, they have the power. Simple as that.
Now this shouldn't be surprising given that the Democrats have controlled two branches of the government for a while, and are about to control everything. That and Bush hasn't acted at all like a conservative has put us in this mess.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
I'm going into the crappy old car scrapping business. Find some old LTD somewhere for $200, get it running long enough to turn it in, collect $2,500.
If you're in Southern California, nobody rides the bus because it's fucking useless. If you're in Northern California, you met an atypical group of college students.
Hell it worked for the dtv converter boxes, right? They're worth about $20, but given the coupons they cost $60. Won't car dealerships just raise the price of the car you want by the same amount?
I realized I left part of a sentence out in my previous post. It should have read. . . ...trillion dollars of borrowed money, which the US Taxpayers (that is, you and I, if you live in the USA) will have to pay back in higher taxes for decades, to try to keep the economy. . .
Currently, many people get rid of their old cars by donating them to charities. After donating the car, you can take a tax deduction based upon what the charity was able to sell it at. http://www.edmunds.com/advice/selling/articles/48930/article.html. In most cases the Charities are fixing them up and selling them to people without cars or who could not afford a car on the open market.
Here's the catch, you're not going to be able to deduct $2,500 to $4,500 based upon your tax bracket. So if this bill passes we could see people giving their cars to the gov't rather than to a charity.
Also FTA, the older your car is, the less you get from the gov't as far as vouchers is concerned. Surprising.
so now people can go and buy a 2009 gas-guzzling POS big 3 FUV and immediately get money to trade in the POS and get a fuel efficient foreign car!! can't wait until the big 3 are finally buried.
Well heck, my 1986 Volvo 240 DL (that I paid $600 for in '05) gets about 27 mpg on average. So by the bill's definition(I have not read it), is my car NOT a clunker?
-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
I too am an expat living in Europe / Holland...
;\
Just look at the Dutch Transit System. I live in a Suburb of Utrecht. I can Catch a Bus thats 3 mins from my house, a Tram thats 7 mins, 2 other buses within 15-20 mins and get to Utrecht Central within 20-25 mins, where I can take a train anywhere or mass transit on the other side. In the Spring I will just take the 30 min bike ride into Utrecht directly from my house for FREE.
A car can do it.. in 20 mins... when there is NO traffic. Even with normal traffic takes more then 30 mins. Plus then you have parking, petrol, and headaches... The US could put money into light rail, efficient buses, and Rail infrastructure to connect those satellite communities. Probably be cheaper then buying everyone a new car.
It's not PERFECT but the system here works. The problem is Americans refuse to believe it's possible. They like the FREEDOM a car provides. The American government is willing to pander to that, because the voting populous are children. They want THEIR WAY and they want it NOW! Give us cars, big screen TV's, 4000 sq ft. homes, and 3 squares a day out to eat. In Europe the attitude is; Keep me with a roof, food, and healthy. Let me have a shot at a job, but when I can't work help me out a bit. When I work, I will worry with my CASH ON HAND *not credit* about TV's and such... after I pay my slightly higher taxes. Americans scream SOCIALISM... EVIL... but really in the US they are already socialist... Instead of living welfare though they have Comfort Welfare.
This whole Economic recovery is ILL conceived as it's just handouts... not even to people who REALLY need it. Stop buying your damn children toys America... buy them some shoes instead!
Damn sorry this has turned into a rant
How available is diesel here in the US, though?
I see a lot of places that carry it with an eye towards the 18-wheeler-truck market, but that's certainly not every filling station.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
This voucher program reminds me of THIS.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am in SoCal, and I disagree that it's useless. Ok, I'll give you that for the OCTA, but I've spent enough time in LA doing my complete daily routine using only DASH buses, and I can't complain. They're frequent enough, they run non-stop and the lines reach every corner in the city with no more than 10-15 minutes walk even if you're in the boondocks. If you account for the time it takes to find parking in places where you'd want to go by car anyway (work mostly), then DASH is a sure winner.
To do list for Windows
..and that's exactly what this proposal is.
Responsibility is a trait held by the minority. That said, responsible people can be very hard to leverage. In a field full of highly-responsive, skittish bunnies, they are slow to chase carrots, and equally slow to heed looming sticks. They can be massively frustrating; there's a lot of wealth and energy tied up there, which never seems to be available for the rest of the field (for reasons all too apparent to the responsible person).
Here's the question, and do not take it the wrong way: what have you been doing with the money you saved on the condo and your not-brand-new car? That's 6 years in which you've had more liquid assets to your name than your same-salaried co-worker who bought the colonial two-story and the sports car. Theoretically, you should have earnings on your savings, where the co-worker should have a fistful of depreciated assets. Did you buy some education for yourself or your kids? Stocks/funds? Did you start a business (however small or supplementary)? Were you able to work less overtime and spend more time with family, pursuing your own interests, or working on meaningful societal projects?
If you can't account for where your savings went, you're only being halfway responsible. If you can, then you're just grousing. Use your keen senses to find opportunities that the new climate presents and use your larger liquid assets to capitalize on all the dumb bunnies that are frantically chasing government handouts. You want a piece of this pie? Get ready to sell that Echo. If the bill passes, there will be a stampede of clunker-deprived morons running around with their freshly-stuffed wallets in their hands reckoning they've just been handed their meal ticket. Ka-ching! You've just earned your next modest, down-to-earth vehicle. Now how hard was that?
It is easier to be stupid than to be smart, right? If smart living was easy, it wouldn't be called "smart." When you take responsibility for what you do, you're taking your future into your own hands. The government's job is to keep the irresponsible people from driving the whole endeavor off a cliff. The responsible people are assumed to be taking care of themselves, finding their own methods, and advancing through society more quickly than the silly rabbits.
... the entertainment factor.
The worst timing mess I've seen, by far, is the public street running right through the middle of the Microsoft campus in Redmond. The lights are unsynced and timed too fast. The end effect is that they give pedestrians crossing between the two halves of the campus too little time to cross, in exchange for more frequent crossings.
There is nothing funnier (for someone like me with a morbid sense of humor) than watching some s/w developer who lives on soda pop, pizza and long days of inactivity in front of a PC, try to waddle across the street before the crossing light changes against them.
The city is aware of the situation. They appear to be using pedestrians as 'traffic calming devices', like putting in speed bumps. So its unlikely the situation will ever change.
Have gnu, will travel.
I can see this slowly morphing from a 'reward responsible citizens' to 'penalize the bad people that don't care about the environment'.
If you keep your old car because you like it ( or cant afford a new one ) you will be demonized, penalized, and eventually it might even be taken from you.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Great, lets "common sense" our way into telling others what they can and cannot drive. To hell with that plan, I'd rather die inhaling particulate matter in exchange for your and others freedom to drive whatever you want to drive.
I guess you must have a pretty tight definition of 'loser', or you don't ride the bus much. Fact is, people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are most commonly found on the bus.
and trade for $1200 in free transit.
Finally, a program to get tax dollars in the pockets of people who will SPEND the money rather than tax breaks for the rich who just invest it which doesn't help the economy nearly as much as spending it.
Here in Chicago we have what I would call a plague of old gravel or dump trucks.
If you watch these old trucks take off from a standing start, they will literally send a gigantic putrid jet-black cloud of toxic shit into the air.
I have never seen even the oldest of cars pollute the way these things do
That's the point - these old trucks actually VISIBLY pollute like crazy. Eliminating these things would go a long way towards cleaning up the air
Anyone that lives in this perpetual construction zone known as Chicagoland knows what I am talking about
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Under the plan, you wouldn't be able to get a new car that got 28 mpg at all:
"Eligible drivers would receive a reimbursement voucher for the purchase of a new or used vehicle with a fuel economy rating that exceeds the CAFE target for that class of vehicle by at least 25 percent."
CAFE for passenger cars as of 2007 was 27.5 mpg. So that +25% is about 35 mpg. I think you'll find your car selection quite restricted with that kind of demanded efficiency. You couldn't even buy a decent midrange sedan with a good safety rating and fuel economy, like an Accord.
UK and US gallons are different. I can't count how many times daft Europeans have made this mistake.
One thing I've alwasy thought would help a lot would be better traffic control systems. Governments don't really have a big incentive to really optimize these systems and I think that great strides could be made in improving them. I always wind up spending several minutes every time I go to work sitting at lights when there is no traffic going the other way. That should never happen. Better and more intelligent systems would mean faster commutes, less idling at red lights, and fewer cars on the road at any one time since travel times would be shorter.
I agree.
When I heard they were going to put some sensors on a couple of the busy intersections by me I was thrilled. I though it would do the perfect option: intelligently manage the lights so people aren't waiting when nobody is coming from the perpendicular direction.
Fast-forward to a few months later and it's a joke. The lights tend to favor the "main" road, meaning that the lighter road now waits a LONG time until X cars approach the light on it.
While on one hand this makes sense, it sucks after rush hour when there's nobody on any of the roads and you're stuck waiting on the lighter road's light for 3x as long even though nobody is coming perpendicularly.
It sucks waiting there an ungodly amount of time at 11PM, praying that some more cars will approach the red light to cause it to trigger.
Well put. Its beginning to look like a 'cryocracy' here.
You are a winner sir!
Of the 75% comments above yours I perused, you're the first (maybe second?) to mention the insurance factor! These old "clunkers" insure for far cheaper because some insurance companies bury subsidies into their rates for the collision coverage even if you don't have it.
So if your clunker is some 1983 Buick Cutlass or something, it's way cheaper to insure than a spicy new-ish $17,000 2006 model. I'm guessing some $400 per year! There goes your voucher.
Yep. This is another handout merged with a "forced buy" clause like a store credit gift card. It can't be great economics to trash working pieces of utility just for some borderline improvements in mileage dollar savings. (Oh look, the price of gas dropped from $4.70/gallon to say $1.80 or lower depending on your area.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Damn Mr. AC, you found another one.
With all of these "clunkers" being turned in, does that hose the owners of inventory stock in repair parts for said clunkers? Salvage yards, Joe's Auto Fixin' and the rest?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It is true that this will cause inflation - but my guess is that it is exactly what the government wants. Inflation and unemployment rate are closely linked, higher the inflation, lower the job losses. What the government seems to have decided is that it is OK to risk inflation to prevent sudden job losses. And currently US has negative inflation (arguably largely due to falling house prices) and Fed does not seem to care about a possible inflation.
And stop worrying about US debt or consumer debt. US debt is denominated in dollars and all US has to do when called upon is to print more of that stuff. It virtually cannot default. Sure, it will cause inflation again, but then a debtor nation with a debtor population should be happy in such a case since your debt is devalued!
More worrying is the scenario where all countries of the world try to devalue their currencies and end up in trouble. China seems to be experimenting with this, Britain has devalued Sterling to close to Euro-parity and the developing world is joining in too.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Crackerjacks, this gets scarier the more I look at it.
"Let's trash the car you own, give you $3000 for it, urge you to buy ... er, *plan* to buy a nice cheaper $8,000 2005 model or so... in the worst economy slump in 7 years!"
"Sure! Hi ho, Hi ho its off to ... uh... where do I go again to pay for this?" ::Crickets::
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You may as well specify a unicorn.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Maybe this is just one of my burning pet peeves, but why do we ignore the fact that the US and state gov'ts have subsidized the auto mfrs to the tune of billions of bucks every year since maybe the 1920s? If auto companies had to build and maintain the road structure that cars (and trucks) drive on, things would be way different. This isn't pure fantasy: the railroads owned and maintained their own rails. Yeah, I know they mostly got sweeheart deals to buy the land, but that was a one-time gov't screwjob. We deliberately designed and built up a massive road system to support the auto mfrs, and are now stuck in our own design, having become completely dependent on roads to get to work, deliver goods, etc.
It didn't have to be that way. Heck, even the airlines (or to be exact, their customers) pay all sorts of fees to the airport managers.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
And maybe the fact that the damned bus comes once every hour, and is frequently late. The last "public transport" on saturday evening goes at 6!
In the freaking Los Angeles metropolitan area (Irvine)!
I want to be back in Berlin. Buses every 10 minutes, a great subway system, express buses that get you to places fast. All the night...
Heck, in my neck of the woods (region of Stuttgart, but rather far away), the train is more frequent (once every half hour) and runs longer (until 0.30 am) than the bus here.
That's right... ARM was blamed for a housing bubble when the real problem was speculation and bad loans. I am sure ARM hurt some buyers temporarily, but that was a symptom of being over-extended and uninformed to begin with.
People entered into long-term debt obligations because it looked like they could afford it in the short-term during the peak of the bubble and its irrational exuberance. It is similar to folks who plan a retirement to run out of money on their deathbed, based precisely on today's costs with conception of the impact of inflation or unplanned emergencies.
Looking at the mileage is not a direct correlation to emissions.
Some older vehicles had reasonable fuel efficiency but generated a much broader mix of partially burned hydrocarbons. The rules have been progressively clamping down on these to control smog and other health issues, and that leads to higher costs but also with clear social benefits.
The recent CO2/carbon footprint fad should not be such a focal point that we forget all the other concerns about vehicles.
I think the single biggest flaw in the US regulations is the distorted SUV market that allows large passenger vehicles to be classified as trucks to escape much of the tax, mileage, and safety standards meant to improve the highways. A real standard wouldn't even allow trucks to be classified as such, unless registered for use with a farm or business that needed it!
Because it is imprudent and irresponsible.
Where's the money coming from? We're spending so much money even drunk sailors are embarassed. Moreover, we're spending money we don't have. Niether party is showing any hint of restraint, and the incoming president is worried we aren't unrestrained enough.
Subsizing new cars is the LAST thing we need at this point! Instead of taking the bottle away from the drunk, we're giving him a Stoli IV drip!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
In most of the USA, the philosophy is that you are responsible for maintaining your car in a safe condition. If you fail to keep your car in good condition, and an accident or injury is caused because of that, you can really get in trouble. People have gone to jail because their unsafe vehicles injured or killed someone.
I have a friend in the UK who bought a car from a dealer who had used the car as a demonstrator model for people to test drive (which is strange, because I always thought people test drive the actual vehicle they're going to buy, and not an example vehicle). Apparently the dealer had modified it to produce much more power than that model usually produced.
Anyhow, my friend said he took his car in for the MOT, and it failed. Not for any safety reason; he said they told him it produced too much horsepower. There was no problem with the emissions.
I still have a hard time believing that this is a valid reason for a test failure. Is it?
In the USA, I've taken cars I've modified for more power in for the emissions test, and I take the test as a challenge to see how low I can get the emissions. So I've usually gotten two comments from the tester - "The emissions are really low", and "This car must be a lot of fun to drive".
I remember one car in particular that I ended up putting a really loud exhaust on because it made so much more power and actually helped the fuel economy. When the tester drove it on the dynamometer during the emissions test, the noise actually drew a crowd. A couple of the guys were disappointed when the test ended after only 30 seconds - the car's emissions were low enough that the car received a "Fast Pass" and it didn't have to run the entire test.
Putting moderation advice in your
In the freaking Los Angeles metropolitan area (Irvine)!
Irvine? You don't live in a city you live in a corporation. Irvine has one of the highest median incomes in the United States where people can easily afford to buy and drive cars - being Southern California having a nice car is a status symbol.
I live in Los Angeles - 5 miles from downtown. I take the bus to work once a week and I have to wait maximum 5 minutes during rush hour. It takes me 10 minutes to get the office and during peak times the buses are crowded. I also take the subway from my office to clients in downtown 2 or 3 times a week. I would take the subway more if the route to Pasadena was more direct from my office and if it went to the west side of Los Angeles where it is desperately needed.
The initial wording of the bill puts these restrictions on it.
Only in 2009 can they buy car and get the federal rebate.
They must have owned the previous car since before Dec. 31st 2008.
The new wording puts a spin on this.
The rebate goes from 1500-4500 depending on how much cleaner the new car is in comparison to the older one.
Personally, I think the US should lax up on safety regulations and work with the EU to make a worldwide standard on auto safety regulations.
That way, auto manufactures can create vehicles that meet the minimum safety requirements and produce fewer emissions than older vehicles. While at the same time offering premium demanded vehicles that offer greater safety for consumers.
Quote:
Many people with old cars drive old cars because they drive very, very little. There's no yearly mileage requirement in the bill. The fuel economy will not be what the bill's sponsors say.
Someone who drives an "old clunker" now will not want to buy a 2004 or later model car, and probably would not be able to buy a car that expensive. Also, there are many small old cars that get close to the 18 miles per gallon specified in the bill, and many 2004 model year or newer "fuel efficient" cars that get not much more. Someone could, for example, trade in an old Toyota and buy a 2004 SUV or pickup that gets worse gas mileage, but still good gas mileage for that "class" of an SUV or pickup.
I drive a 15 year old car not because I drive very little(actually, I commute 50+ miles daily for school) but because I am a single male, full coverage insurance is a rip off. It would cost me more to insure my car for a year than my car is blue-booked at. As it is, I pay enough for just liability when I have a pristine driving history. I know I am not the only person who drives an older car because it is paid for and insurance is too expensive on a financed car.
So... If I am in the market for a new car I can go out and buy a $500 junker, then flip it through this program and I divert at least $2,000 of my new vehicle cost to taxpayers?
Yeah, we do have that here. We call it personal responsibility.
That's the difference. In the UK the State will make sure you're responsible, so the people don't even have to think about it. It's just another government requirement to either comply with or try to get around.
In the US, you'd better think about it, because if you're not responsible and you drive an unsafe vehicle and some gets killed or injured because of your lack of responsibility then you'll really get in trouble. I remember back in the 1990s around here some truck driver and his boss were sent to jail for killing someone when a faulty U-joint flew apart at 60 MPH, went through a car window and hit the victim in the head.
Most of us just consider it "the right thing to do" to keep our cars safe. I suspect in UK people think that their neighbours might not bother with safety if they weren't being watched over by the nanny state.
Is this the programme that rednecks all across America have been hoping for. Trading in all of those cars on the front lawn for a brand spanking new Caddy (with a gun-rack, obviously :)
A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
I am someone who drives an older vehicle because I drive very little. It takes me about 20 years to get enough miles on a vehicle to wear one out. I live next door to where I work and the grocery store is only about 3 miles away, so I do not need to drive much. My early 1990's GMC Sierra truck has 145,000 miles on it, but still runs reliably, still looks respectable and has never been in an accident. The truck does not have any rust, because I live in Arizona.
It has a V-6 and 5-speed and gets about 19 MPG on the highway, but it does not actually matter to me what kind of mileage it gets, since I do not drive it far enough, per week, to matter. About once a month, I refill it with gas.
For an early 1990s vehicle, the proposed bill would offer to give me $2,000 towards the purchase of a newer more fuel efficient vehicle, if my old vehicle's gas mileage is less than 18 MPG. My 19 MPG truck would not qualify. I recently had my truck repainted for $2,500 and it is worth more to me than the $2,000 they are offering. Whenever the engine wears out, I plan to either have the engine overhauled or buy a brand new engine from GM (if they are still in business at that time). I then plan to keep driving the truck for another decade or two.
Hot Rod & Muscle Car fans saw this coming...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
It's quite simple, really. An intelligent, responsible and independent person is an enemy of a government nanny state and a risk to the power structure being established. Your government should be your Mammon, and shame on you for not suckling at her teet.
Brilliant. Thank you.
However, you do have time to buy the gas guzzler and then head to the govt money trough
I would take the subway more if the route to Pasadena was more direct from my office and if it went to the west side of Los Angeles where it is desperately needed.
I believe the plans for a subway/light-rail to Malibu are pretty advanced, so you might be lucky.
To do list for Windows
I hate to burst your bubble about public transportation, but it's not all it's cracked up to be WRT pollution and energy savings. New York City is a nearly-ideal setup for public transportation - dense population, extensive rail and bus systems already in place, overtaxed road system, public acceptance, heavy subsidies. Yet according to the MTA, the NYC public transit system uses more energy per commuter mile than the US average for automobiles. MORE. That's not to say that if all those bus and rail commuters drove instead that there would be net savings (New York being New York), but the slam dunk argument that public transportation systems are the magic solution is incorrect. Also most public transportation gets its energy from coal-fired electricity plants and diesel-powered buses. Many "clean" or "green" public transportation programs are feel-good public relations campaigns more that pollution or energy savers.
The problems with public transportation are not just technical. There are stereotypes that need to be overcome. In many areas of California, the public transportation system is most useful to the poor who cannot afford even an inexpensive automobile. Just as paying for groceries with food stamps stigmatizes the shopper, riding a means of transportation catering to the poor, and assorted misfits is not something easily accepted. Just making the service better will help, but it won't solve the perception problem.
If you want to stop all the subsidies, are you also as willing to stop all of the regulations that the auto industry is subject to? From the beginning, cars were subject to the whims of the government. Early laws required that a man waving a flag walk in front of every car in order to warn pedestrians and horse-drawn carriages. Since then, the regulations may not be as silly, but they are much more numerous. All of that affects the free-market aspects of the industry, and the net effect is absolutely not in their favor.
The road system benefits the people that use them, and surely you would prefer to travel on a 6 lane highway than a rutted dirt road. To say this was done for the benefit of the car makers is ridiculous.
You're absolutely right. But it gets even worse. Here's a stupid situation I could hypothetically be in soon: I drive an old car that is probably qualified to be traded in under this bill. Suppose it breaks down, and the repairs would cost $1000. The car isn't really worth that, so without this bill, I probably would have junked it. WITH this bill, since the "Cash for Clunkers" program requires the car to be in working condition, it's now to my advantage to get it repaired, trade it in for my $2500-$4000 federal money, and then it gets sent to the junkyard anyway. Building things just to destroy them - THAT is government destroying an economy.
The worst mileage cars in our country today (generally) are OLD clunkers which pollute like crazy (manufactured before 1982) and SUVs, which are mostly built on truck frames.
Getting as many of the first off the road is in our general interest. It reduces asthma and generally cleans the air. One of these cars produces as many as (pulling a number from the air) 20 modern cars. It's beneficial to society. Does it benefit $5k worth? I'm not sure. Very possibly, given that there are economy stimulus aspects to this project which somewhat lower that cost.
Why 1982? Because emissions haven't gone down since then, which is pathetic. http://www.slideshare.net/marcus.bowman.slides/vehicle-technology-improvement-curve-462599
Getting as many of the truck frame SUVs off the road is another benefit to society. They kill people in numbers much greater than real cars. Both the drivers and the people they hit. We pay for those accidents via higher insurance costs.
If the $5k is for replacing either of these with a modern, non truck frame vehicle, it's probably worth it. If we're replacing a 1992 SUV with a slightly smaller one, it's not benefiting anyone outside of the auto industry very much.
Georgia has a mandatory annual emissions check. It's a dreadfully stupid affair. In the name of curtailing emissions, every year I have to drive to a place that does the check, and pay them (I bet somebody in the auto industry lobbied pretty hard for this) to run my car for a while and give me a piece of paper with almost exactly the same numbers on it as last year's test. Every few years, the gas cap fails the test, and I need to buy a new one that conforms to whatever regulations got put out this year. Yet another law that never should have existed.
After reading through some of the comments here, I see a lot of people convinced that this is a terrible idea. Some argue, on ideological grounds, that the government simply shouldn't be involved in this sort of program. That's fine, but it won't convince me or other people who have different ideology. The most effective arguments against this would be explanations of why either this won't have the intended outcome, or why the intended outcome is undesirable.
It is clear that (no surprise) most of you have not read the article. If you had, you might have noticed that it references a report but does not link to it. Fortunately for you, I have saved you the 30 seconds of effort required to find it. The report is 18 pages long, 10 of which are tables listing eligible vehicles for purchase.
Now I will point out how many of the arguments posted here are addressed:
Fine, then this program isn't for you. It only applies to vehicles that, when new, had an EPA "combined, unadjusted" fuel efficiency rating of less than 18mpg. The report states that these are nearly all pickup trucks or SUVs.
The plan calls for vouchers that, in addition to new vehicles, have the option to be spent on used vehicles or on public transit (although in the latter cases the voucher's value is slightly less).
What, do you think the people who design these programs are stupid? This is taken into account in the report's projections. On page 5 of the report, there is a table stating "Estimated Percentages of Inefficient Vehicles with Trade-In Value less than Voucher Value".
For this, I will quote from the report, page 8:
Now if there are any serious arguments against this program, please help me see why this is such a terrible idea.
Because they want to increase their own power. Haven't you ever read Machavelli?
They certainly have.
Call us back in two years when they look like Iceland.
It is precisely because the Federal Government is so damn large that we have the financial problems we have today. They meddle with every part of society and never is the case where it all works out. They created the financial mess with the mortgage market by having conflicting rules and regulations.
It is time for SMALLER government, both State and Federal. Get them back to doing what governments should be doing, not playing the income redistribution game. Frankly I think the next four years will be worse as every damn looter comes forward for the money the producers make. Go look at the big cities and states with major financial problems, they drove the businesses and productive people out in droves with horrid tax schemes and nepotism.
Just like this half baked idea about buying older cars. The simple fact is, WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO WASTE ON THIS AT THIS TIME.
Get over it, we are broke. We are broke because we created a government which spends more than we can produce. It is a drag on the economy and the spirits of Americans.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They're doing it wrong. A well designed system would not 'favor' a road based on anything other than the current traffic loads. The designers were too clever and designed a system that tries to second guess by previous patterns what it should do. A much dumber sensor driven system would work a lot better.
There is a form of public transportation under development which could be used for 90+% of the American population, including everyone in the suburbs. It would be just as nice as a personal car, and much better in many ways: no stop lights, 100-150 mph speeds, and automated driving. To allay the fears of people (including myself) who avoid buses because of the other people on them, you would never have to sit next to some smelly freak you don't know. However, this public transit would not involve trains, subways, or buses.
Go here.
This is a perfectly good reason for NOT riding the bus. Why spend 30 minutes sitting next to some smelly freak if you don't have to? Obviously, millions of people are willing to spend their hard-earned money so they can have a personal car and avoid that experience every day.
The solution is here. Public transit will never work that well unless it becomes personal, and isolates people from each other.
Sounds like what you have in Singapore is less freedom than in America. How about telling your government to fuck off and let you drive whatever the hell you want instead of trying to run your life?
I simply cannot understand why the people of the world are so willing, even eager, to let others run their lives, and act as if it's something to be proud of.
Besides, the minuscule pollution which may or may not be caused by >10 year old autos pales in comparison to millions of tons of filth spewed by the heavy industry of China.
I'll take someone in an old car who actually knows how to drive any day over one of these idiots you see running red lights and swerving in and out of lanes in a new "safe" car. People like that tend to cause accidents, not their vehicles. Vehicle quality is always secondary to driver competence.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
You don't understand much about fiscal policy, do you? Or for that matter the government's role in manipulating the money supply.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Show me a real-world working PRT system. Then go read monorails.org
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
1) No buyout of any vehicle purchased within 3 months (prevents acquisition of vehicles just to sell them to the program)
2) No buyout (receipt required) of any vehicle that was purchased for less than then the buyout amount (prevents any profit from vehicles worth even less than the program value). This is problematic in that some of these will be the worst offenders, ideally the program would have a "Kelly Bluebook"-type valuation system that can put a value on any make/model/year on a sliding scale. Then, no swap on vehicles sold below it's target value.
3) Vehicles must be in running condition. (If they are inoperable wrecks, they aren't going to be run and they aren't an environmental problem. Submitting these to the program is simply fraudulent.)
4) Program should be limited to no more than one vehicle per person per year (no corporations or other business entities can participate). (This prevents mass purchase of vehicles which might be used to skirt 2) on a massive scale).
5) Program should be funded by per gallon gas tax - this needs to happen soon, before price creeps back up into the range (mids to high 2.00+ dollars) where public push-back will stop it. If it's enacted while price is low, petro industry will have to adapt and incorporate this into pricing decisions.
I use the bus daily and I have to say, (while I use it because it is cheap) I hate public transit with a passion. Most bus routes run on a half hour frequency, so if miss one bus, you have to wait a half hour for the next one. Making connections is even worse because you are making a gamble that your bus isn't late and the other bus is not early. On top of that, schedule and route changes happen with no warning.
Perhaps it is different and wonderful in Europe, but here in the US it is awful.
Oil is not our most scarce resource. Time is, and much of public transit here in the States, is a big time waster.
One interesting thing that I've noticed is that Orange County's ACTA has its buses wait at every 3 or 4 stops, if necessary, to meet the schedule. This makes commuting easy to plan, but it still does not compensate for the pathetic service frequency. LA's DASH takes the opposite approach: There are sufficient buses, but often two buses come next to each other. If only you could have the best of both...
To do list for Windows
Not going to happen.
In fact, some cities will purposefully keep the lights on "red" for all directions as a means of traffic metering (Austin TX for example). The idea is to discouraging speeding in that you cannot beat a timed/synchronized light system. Never mind the fact you will stop at a red light going down-hill, and having to start climbing up-hill when the light turns green. Oh no, that can't be causing more CO2 emissions right Austin, TX? Fucking nannies!
Life is not for the lazy.
Seriously dude have you ever driven a race car?
Granted you can race anything, but by that standard 'anything' accelerates like a race car (a solar challenge race car) and the term becomes meaningless.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sometimes things are what they seem. In other words, has it occurred to you that the government (or the people behind it) doesn't want people to behave prudently and resposibly?
If so, why? Well, why do we have a huge deficit, which is the government itself failing to act prudently or responsibly?
I don't claim to have an answer. When the government acts in a way consistently from adminstration to administration, I have to wonder if they didn't want irresponsible behavior, why encourage it?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Because the majority does not act prudently and responsibly. Welcome to democracy.
Busses are often used only by the people that have no other choice.
Which means the homeless, the poor, lower class people, etc.
Now, the noble in me is going to say to treat everyone equally. Which I try to do. However, the realist in me knows that my co-workers and boss aren't going to care where I got that urine stain on my clothes, just that its there. They also won't care that I missed the bus because it came thirty minutes early, forcing me to wait an hour for the next one.
The only thing they'll care about is that I have a way to get there, but chose not to use it in favor of a less reliable method.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Amen. I'll just add that when I asked coworkers (years ago) how they afforded the cool sports cars right after collect, it turned out they were avoiding the 401k option. To summarize:
1. don't save for retirement
2. buy a gas guzzler
3. buy a home you can't afford
4. profit!
Your monitor is staring at you.
One other effect should not be ignored. The old clunkers have worse emissions than anything newer. So you would be cleaning up the air a bit too. Quite a bit if the new car gets better mileage AND has lower emissions beyond that.
Not to mention I'll have to dodge fewer mufflers that finally rust off during the winter.
Please help me. I did not see any indication whether or not I can turn in my old clunker and then use the money to buy a bicycle?
You know, one of those things that you power yourself and don't need oil to power?
Luv
Cleara
Cleara
I just read TFA, and here's the fine print:
*snip*
The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon; Auto needs to be in be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at least the past 120 days; The voucher needs to be used towards the purchase of a vehicle that has value of less than $45,000, is model year 2004 or later, and meets or exceeds federal emissions standards;
Vouchers could also be redeemed for transit fares for participating local public transportation agencies.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 2002 and later, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $4,500; the purchase of a used vehicle: $3,000; a transit fare credit: $3,000.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1999 - 2001, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $3,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $2,000; a transit fare credit: $2,000.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1998 and earlier, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $2,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $1,500; a transit fare credit: $1,500.
*/snip*
I keep cars until they require a repair costing more than their own blue book value. Two years ago, I had a 1993 Ford Taurus that needed a $4000 engine replacement due to low oil pressure. I gave the car to the American Cancer Society, since its Blue Book value was $400. That car's EPA rating is 21/30 old scale, 18/27 estimated new scale. So "Cash for Clunkers" might have worked for me.
However, this is a regressive program, similar to the $3000 tax credit for buying a hybrid car: the higher-income will reap the most benefit. I see this as a bailout for a class of people I call the "rich and dumb", that is, people who bought SUVs because they could afford them, and those who bought them because the dealer was financing anyone who was alive.
- Lots of folks bought SUVs during the SUV craze, and they're not exactly worth a lot today. It's also a guaranteed business stream for auto recyclers, which have likely been having slow business since consumers aren't just turning over cars every few years like they used to. I also saw an article about accident rates dropping, since drivers are driving less and more slowly due to gas prices [at least when it was $4], which could also slow down business for scrapyards.
- You get more money the newer your car. In other words, the newer your mistake [the richer or dumber you are], you get more money.
- If you do decide to take part in the program, you get MORE money for a new car than if you buy a used car or just take the transit credit. Once again: it benefits the rich and dumb.
If this does pass, I am glad of one thing: the 18 mpg cap. A lot of cars out there get better than 18 mpg, and these cars will continue going to dealers instead of scrapyards. Thus, the student, frugal person, or underpaid worker will still be able to go to the "little" dealers and buy a working $3000 car.
Think I should look for an awfully polluting old car for a few hundred bucks on eBay now to get the voucher?
Seriously, when will the government realize that they can not make the situation better by making even more invasive acts in the economy. It is supposed to be a god damn free market. They should just keep the fuck out of it already. (Yea, I know, they won't).
Can I trade in my hemi? Ok, so it's not so old at 2007. But it consumes a lot of gas. And for the good of the environment, it should be off the road. I can and should be able to find a more fuel efficient work truck. So can I get a voucher for fair market value of my hemi?
Cars may not be sold in the USA if the crash protection is worse than a beer can.
-- This bill would be funded by the Chinese, Saudi, and Dubai governments --
Dubai is not a nation. It is a city in the nation of the United Arab Emirates.
Can someone cite where in the Constitution that this sort of action is allowed?
Libertas in infinitum
Why is the government trying to take away every incentive to act prudently and responsibly?
I too have been asking the same question for years and it is only getting more and more pertinent as time goes on and the recessions and bailouts get larger and larger. I *really* hope that Obama doesn't "keep homeowners in their homes" by supporting sagging home values (which are still too high btw) with a price floor. Again, that would reward the spendthrifts and idiots while kicking away the ladder for all of the prudent people who didn't make a big dumb home purchase with an NINJA loan. I swear, it is like Uncle Sam takes savers and other prudent types, grabs them by the nose and then kicks them in the ass for not being spendthrift consumers like the rest of the idiots out there. It almost couldn't be worse if the government tried on purpose to enact policies which encourage people to save as little as possible, take on as much debt as possible, and push the dollar down the road to being worthless. If there are any Americans out there who still care about this country then I would urge them read The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul and then to follow it up with The Bailout Reader on mises.org. Everyone who values freedom and wants to learn the truth about our monetary system and the roots of the present crisis owes it to themselves to read these books.
my 1991 nissan has taken me 347,000 miles so far. My last car payment ever was in 1996. My only mechanic can print out my entire car's repair history, my 18-year old 4 cylinder 28mpg car averages $500 a year in repair maintenance costs.
That's a single monthly payment for some.
And we both still have to pay for gas, oil, tires, registration and insurance. Since I do not carry a loan note, I'm only required to maintain liability insurance. ($35 per month)
That extra money I save has helped alot of friends and family the past decade.
I ain't buyin' it.
I am in the US and own, for all intents and purposes, a European car. My 1996 Ford Contour differs little from the Mondeo they sold at the time in Europe. So the manufacturers could, and did sell the same car in multiple locations. VW did this with the beetle for ages.
It's a good thing for me too. Because my "ancient" car gets 33+MPG on the highway, is well maintained and in good shape, I wouldn't consider trading it in. Most new cars I've looked aren't nearly as efficient. Even as my maintenance costs rise with the age of the vehicle, I'm still paying less than I would for a new car, even with some freshly printed government credit.
Ford did a great job with that car. If/when I have finally run this car to the end of it's life, I'll be looking for another car that was designed to be sold worldwide. I'll avoid cars that are created to squeak by a single governments restrictions.
Rather than changing the "styling" of their models every year, manufacturers should get lean and efficient. Changes should only be made to advance the state of the art, to improve safety and efficiency. Manufacturers would then cut their costs. Consumers would have to pay less, if they can learn to quit buying based on style. I believe there are environmental benefits to this as well.
That said, Ford should bring back the Mondeo/Contour. VW should make a few improvements to that little air cooled four banger and bring back the beetle.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
As someone who has followed the ideals brought forth by Ron Paul in the campaign, and as much as I corroborate in the knowledge that our elected politicians walk regularly over the Constitution, they are attempting and failing to operate appropriately with some liberties and unwritten obligations that may exist that you may have not considered.
I implore you to read this bit by Jefferson:
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless *one* of the high duties of a good citizen, but not *the highest*. The laws of necessity, self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger are the highest obligation.
To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. ...
In all these cases, the unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, and of the public safety, control the written laws of meum and tuum.
The insanity is that the country is always in a state of danger and needing to be saved from something; real or imagined. Their shared delusion is that the sky is falling, and when the sky falls it creates more government largess. We need to vote these bums out of office, because we cannot share in their delusions that we are always in a state of danger that requires more expensive self-preservation.
Round and round we go.
When the nation was born it was a great 'experiment' of freedom, liberty, and representation in a time which the majority of people living would be honored to serve their local militia and defend their ideals. This level of stewardship over time has been diluted to the point where more people want to let the government be their nursemaid than to take up for their own.
We've given them so much power that they have gotten carried away with it, and there is no easy way to put the genie back in the bottle.
Dubai World sovereign wealth fund invests in other countries. See this article: Dubai fund hits back at criticism. The last sentence is "Dubai is one of the seven self-governing emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates."
All Ponzi schemes eventually crash. I'm not the only one who thinks that.
I see the figure of 10 year old cars being thrown around, but is that what this is referring to as a clunker? A 10 year old car is not really that old. When I heard of this what came to my mind was people still driving '78 LTDs and '74 Torinos and such.
Instead of giving a whopping 50 billion dollars to the car industry for mismanaging their moneys and what not, they could have instead given more incentives for people to want to buy a new car....so instead of giving Chrysler 10 million, give the PEOPLE of USA some program they can get a mail in rebate for the car of maybe 5000 $ aside from this now supposed other idea.
Not only would this help re stimulate the economy, but also, it would have made people slightly richer, as well as the car makers, because in the end they still sell their cars. No instead we give money freely, then say hey wait a minute we forgot the person who is needing to buy the car, can't afford to anymore, so we have to dig in deeper again....
What dolts.....Bush really screwed us, I hope Obama really cleans house in this one!
Yes, because everyone knows that the plants where they build cars are fuelled by gasoline.
While in some cases they may be fueled by rather environmentally unfriendly sources such as coal, etc, I'm guessing that a good number are powered by sources such as Hydroelectric, Nuclear, etc, which are going to offer a lot less pollution than burning gasoline.
Damn wrong. There's two possible situations: you are in a rural area, and there is a small risk of any given fire spreading off a property. These are handled by volunteer depts. Due to the fact that they don't have much pull on the town budget, these depts are usually are stuck putting out barns where the is a significant loss (eg. ~1k of cattle are already dead).
The other situation is that it's an urban area, in which case, there is a lot spent on fire prevention. This is because there is very, very good reason not to let ANY fire spread beyond the building. The very, very good reason is that the insurance company is going to be obligated to pay for what the fire dept didn't do.
In either case, it's better for the company to fund the dept, in the former because they can mitigate damages, and in the latter because a single decent fire would bankrupt them.
Dude, Here in America they pull you off the subway and shoot you in the freaking back. Google BART shooting.
The problem with cash for clunkers programs is that they ignore the environmental impact of making the vehicles. Compare changing cars every 3 years, each time getting a progressively more fuel efficient car, with keeping the same inefficient clunker for 12 years. The carbon footprint of extracting the materials that went into making the car, especially a hybrid, cancels out any gains you might have made from fuel economy. Then, too, are we recycling the clunkers, or are we dumping them?
No, traffic circles are the absolute worst traffic device ever invented.
If you're sitting at a light with no cars coming, it's because the "traffic engineers" in your city are morons. Unfortunately, most traffic engineers in most cities (in the US) are complete morons, so there's really not much you can do about it. But traffic circles are not the answer.
I definitely agree.
I'd imagine a good system would count the number of cars that have passed through the green and the number of cars waiting at the red, and toggle accordingly.
This one just stinks, and it's not like the lesser-road is a dirt road. Though only 1-lane each way, it has the same speed limit and is one of the 2 ways to get to the flippin highway.
A friend says he thinks they've changed something, but I don't know as I avoid that light like the plague. I'd rather take the other way to the highway if that's how they're going to be.
A great big tin of Vaseline.
Yay!
Since the government has no money except tax collections, they are simply taking money from one taxpayer to give to another. So unless you are going to take advantage of this program, you will be paying for it.
My '98 Nissan 200SX rustbucket gets 40mpg.
At LEAST 40MPG on EVERY tank.
No "hypermiling" BS; just keep the tires inflated and drive the speed limit.
12 years later, I have to buy a hybrid to get that mileage!
Something is wrong here.
It's paid for, the insurance is cheap because it has almost no book value, it's already a POS, so I never have to wash it. When I get pulled over for speeding, the cop feels sorry for a 42 year old man driving a pile of rust with hard-hat and steel-toes in the back seat, he lets me go.
When it finally does die, I'll have to buy new (to me) car, but I expect be hard pressed to find anything close to its replacement.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
But if we can't get credit to pay for the rest of the car's price, what good does this do for anybody?
I have a perfectly good '95 Buick Roadmaster I inherited from my grandmother. Sure it only gets 19 mpg, but I only drive it to and from work. Last time I asked a dealer how much he'd give me on a trade, he told me $800. The car is worth a lot more than that to me, I told him where to stick his offer.
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
Of course the SkyTran isn't a "real-world" system, because no one's deployed it yet. But if they said what you just said before the Moon landings, we never would have gotten there.
As for monorails, they're just glorified light rail systems, with most of the same problems. They have one at Disneyland, and that's about it, because they just aren't practical for many places. Lots of big problems with them: 1) they're expensive as hell, since they're not only raised, but built on-site. 2) they're inefficient, because they use huge long trains, and only go in one line, and can't travel in a 2-dimensional grid like most cities are laid out. The huge train thing is a problem because that depends on lots of ridership, and means you have to wait between trains. And 3) you have to sit next to smelly people.
SkyTran solves most of these problems quite easily. 1) It's cheaper, because it's based on maglev rails and utility towers. The maglev rails can be built in factories, and then assembled on site. Utility towers are common, built in factories, and easy to install. Building stuff in factories is almost always much, much cheaper than building things on-site, and the quality is usually better. In fact, SkyTran has the potential to be much cheaper to build than regular roads for cars. 2) SkyTran rails can be routed easily along major roadways, and have interchanges so that individual cars can take different paths. SkyTran cars are personal (2-person), so you just hop in a waiting car and go, instead of waiting around 15-30 minutes to fill up a train with riders. 3) Again, SkyTran cars are personal, so you can share with 1 friend if you wish, or go by yourself. No sitting next to smelly or perverted strangers.
The only real problem with SkyTran is that the cars, while personal-sized, are owned by the system and shared by all, so if the person who used yours before you throws up in it, you'll have a nasty surprise when you get in. They'd probably have to put a "maintenance request" button inside to send it off for maintenance and cleaning. But if they track usage, they should be able to track down the person who messed up the car and bill him for the cleaning, and fine him too for not reporting it himself instead of letting someone else find it. Presumably, the whole system would be run by a private company (much like the MTA in NYC), rather than the actual government, and people would pay per ride, or have a weekly pass, again much like the MTA in NYC. It'd never work if it was a free-for-all and anyone could just hop in a car and take a joy ride without paying.
This is because Americans spend a lot more time and effort telling themselves that public transportation can not work and is frequented by people outside of my race & social status, when compared to Europeans.
And that proves what?
I grew up in San Francisco in the 50s, when even kids could go around on public transit late in the evening with no problems.
Let me tell you what you have to put up with nowadays in the same city.
In one case, I took a trolley, during the day, from downtown San Francisco with my eighty-year-old mother. At the entry to Twin Peaks tunnel, which is at the hub of SF's gay community, we were treated to the sights and sounds of a bunch of young black punks yelling faggot, homo and fudge-packer (at best) at people entering or leaving the trolley.
On another occasion, I was coming home from work at around ten at night. When I changed from the subway to a bus, a young man in a wheelchair boarded the bus using the driver-operated electric lift. The (black) bus driver, by law, had to flip up a special seat and attach straps to each side of the wheelchair to keep it in position in case of an accident. The driver, who should have had some training, kept fucking around with the straps and fittings for close to ten minutes, attaching and disconnecting them because he didn't know (or wanted it to appear that he didn't know) how to install them properly and quickly. As time went on, the usual crew of young black teenagers in the back seats (their choice) started getting restive. By the time the moron driver got it all together, they were clearly ready to come to the font of the bus and throw the handicapped young man off the bus so they could get on with their own important schedules.
So yeah, you smug son of a bitch -- I'll go to some serious lengths not to put myself into situations where I'm surrounded by young savages.
Why the hell don't you give up your foppish "expat" status and find out what really happens over here, instead of mouthing off with your simpering, wannabe-eurotrash platitudes from a safe distance?
yay for acting responsibly! I wonder how the "economy" would be different if more people acted this way.
Sorry for replying to myself, but I looked a little more at your silly monorail page. According to it, monorails can be manufactured off-site and assembled in place, just like the SkyTran, so that's a big benefit vs. light rail. Here in Phoenix, we just installed a stupid light-rail system. It was expensive as hell, it share the same streets as cars and crosses intersections, causing lots of confusion and has already had several accidents even though it's only been operating for about a month. It put lots of businesses out of business because of construction. Everything your monorail page says is wrong with light-rail is exactly what went wrong here with our stupid light-rail.
That said, monorail still suffers from the problem of smelly passengers, inconvenient operating times and schedules, and inability to travel 2-dimensionally. Train-type mass transit systems work well in cities that are long and narrow, like Manhattan Island, but not in typical American cities with lots of suburbs and sprawl, which are not laid out in a line. The monorail page's example of Tokyo as a successful monorail again, is not a very good example, as Tokyo is not a typical city for anyplace in the world. For one thing, Japan doesn't have all the problems with smelly derelicts, drug addicts, perverts and criminals and gangbangers, and other such people that Americans have to deal with when they try to use public transit in places where extremely high prices don't keep these people out.
You also need to remember that, in discussing public transit in America, you're dealing with a problem where people already have a transportation system in place that works: cars. It's not perfect, and certainly has its problems (cost, maintenance, pollution, giant parking lots, accidents/deaths, etc.), but for most of society, it works reasonably well, and people in this country overwhelmingly prefer it to the typical alternatives, no matter how much that bothers car-hating liberals. So if you want to get people to move to a system that's more efficient and reduces or eliminates most or all of the problems I just listed, you need to come up with a system which can actually do that, which 1) can feasibly and cost-effectively be implemented in today's American cities, without telling everyone they need to bulldoze the suburbs and move to high-rise housing downtown, and 2) people actually want, and that means, in this society, something where people don't have to share the bus/train with people of the bottom classes who they'd prefer not to be near during their morning commute.
Not to keep repeating what has probably been said a few times already, but... A lot of the people driving those clunkers (myself included) simply can't afford a new car. Sure, it may eat a lot of gas, but it's my only way to commute to work. Don't get smart and say anything about public transportation or carpooling, because those options aren't viable where I live. Either way, the money they're willing to give up isn't going to buy a new car. Down payment, maybe, but that goes back to the original problem: They can't afford a newer car in the first place. This seems like a typical used-bandaid economic fix to me.
The effect of this is that people who bought their Gas guzzling Escalades and Suburbans can now get a nice discount on their new Teslas.
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
I see and agree with the points made about this just trying to help prop up the U.S. car industry. I agree that it is a terrible idea to allow taxpayer money to be used for this endeavor. I also agree that the direct positive environmental impact would be negligible. The thing that occurred to me when I read this first though, was about my credit. I own my vehicle. It gets a respectable 28mpg, and has extremely low emissions, which is amazing for being 13 years old. I don't make payments and I don't have a loan to pay off for it. The primary reason I do not want to buy a new car, especially with the shaky economy, terrible job market, and banking institution fiasco, is that I don't want to be in-debt. With a growing percentage of unemployed and with a large percentage having poor or bad credit, I see just this working to cause more financial and credit woes. Just my opinion.
20 in the back yard = new hummer,, sweet
Proudly Butchering code for 20 years