BusTalk Forum Index BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
 
 BusTalk MainBusTalk Main FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups BusTalk GalleriesBusTalk Galleries   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Clunkers Trade in Program Has some Flaws
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    BusTalk Forum Index -> General Transportation - All Other Modes
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dieseljim
Deceased



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:10 pm    Post subject: Clunkers Trade in Program Has some Flaws Reply with quote

While the CARS program for trading in gas guzzlers for more efficient cars and trucks is laudible, I see a couple flaws in an otherwise good program. One is that it does not include trading for good used cars that get decent mileage. Another is that perfectly good engines have to be destroyed when some of the parts may be needed to keep other older vehicles running. It also failed to consider the fact that not only are many people not able to afford new cars, but some of these older vehicles are all that they CAN afford. Other than that the program is not bad in the idea behind it. The conception and execution leave a little to be desired. It would have been better had these other factors just noted been factored into the conception of the CARS program.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's just a ridiculously flawed program, period. People who tried to do the right thing five or ten years ago and bought vehicles with high fuel economy are penalized, while those who have been driving big gas guzzlers get to cash in. On top of that, the fuel-economy standards for new purchases were set ridiculously low - an analysis by Edmunds.com showed that four of the top seven models benefiting from the program are the Ford Escape (SUV), Jeep Patriot (SUV), Ford F-150 (pickup truck) and Chevy Silverado (pickup truck). The list of eligible vehicles is full of larger 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder vehicles, which makes a mockery of the Obama administration's stated goal of improving the environment.

And you are correct that this program will hurt low-income buyers who cannot afford new cars, since any used cars which get turned in under the program must be destroyed. This will increase the cost of used cars and also will drive up the cost of repairing older cars still in use, since useable parts cannot be taken off those 'clunkers'. This whole program is a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gentlemen, I couldn't agree with you more!

But, I'll take it a step further! where does the money (if it should ever materialize) for the Cash for Clunkers program come from?

I'll tell you where - from my taxes - and I don't really feel like helping strangers into the driver's seats of a brand new cars! - no one helps me!

I know what it's all about but it's like emptying the ocean with a spoon!

Cows create more than triple the amount of carbon dioxide and methane than all the cars put together - I think we should get rid of cows instead!

Sounds a bit like Andy Rooney doesn't it?

Mr. 'L'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
timecruncher



Age: 67
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

C.A.R.S. is nothing more than a smokescreen that was intended to try and distract us from all of the rest of the crap coming out of Washington by the new administration.

What I don't understand is why the current Congress cannot stop spending money long enough to look at what it is being spent on -- then step back and first try to figure out how it will eventually be paid for.

I mean, we can all see that Pelosi and Reid are schmucks, and the president has surrounded himself with tax cheats and shady characters from his Illinois politics past, but how can you possibly have that many Harvard Law School grads in one place and not one of the SOBs understands or comprehends simple, basic economics?

Whether you supported the president because of what he represented or because you thought his promises and smiling face would bring the change you wanted to our country, you had best be very, very concerned about how we are all going to pay for the trillions of dollars that are being spent on various schemes that supposedly will "increase jobs" or "lower costs."

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!

timecruncher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
HwyHaulier




Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

timecruncher wrote:
...but how can you possibly have that many Harvard Law School grads in one place and not one of the SOBs understands or comprehends simple, basic economics?...

timecruncher -

Easy! Past practice! These are the later versions of the same bozos who set their collected fine minds to work on the plainly obvious (to them)
vices of the economic regulation of transport within the US. So, they set about to savage and wreck efficient, highly evolved systems. In their
heads, all of it just had to conform to classroom models...

IMHO (and with some bitterness), all if it was foolishness. It had no impact whatever on attainment of claimed savings. One possible anecdote,
though logic does not permit a causality prompted by deregulation. There is no linkage! That being: Southwest Air Lines.

SWA would have happened, anyway. Had the established regulation scheme continued, the firm would simply have bought various "weak sister"
carriers. Sooner or later, the weak lines always surfaced. (Example: Delta acquisiton of Northeast Air)...

You have made your point. Any moron can flash a degree awarded from the accepted, very finest of schools. It does not, de facto mean bearer
possesses a shred of common sense. Why should they? Claimed rigorous study has massaged them and confirmed they know it all...

...................Vern................
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shortlineMCI



Age: 49
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another classic example of goverment sticking their noses where they don't belong. Every - single - thing the government touches it fails. I still cannot fathom the fact that Hussain Obama has car czars taking control of the automotive industry, which is private industry. (yep!) we have 23 (and counting) Czars in the United States of America. One of them is an internet Czar getting ready to watch and control our internet use.

Sorry Fellas..."Change we're forced to live with"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 39
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1024
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RailBus63 wrote:
On top of that, the fuel-economy standards for new purchases were set ridiculously low - an analysis by Edmunds.com showed that four of the top seven models benefiting from the program are the Ford Escape (SUV), Jeep Patriot (SUV), Ford F-150 (pickup truck) and Chevy Silverado (pickup truck). The list of eligible vehicles is full of larger 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder vehicles, which makes a mockery of the Obama administration's stated goal of improving the environment.


But the new vehicle still had to be more fuel-efficient than than the trade-in. There would still be a net improvement in fuel economy, even if someone trades in a truck that gets 17 mpg and goes home with a truck that gets 19 mpg. It doesn't look like many people bought new trucks, though; overall, the program resulted in a net increase in average fuel economy from 15.8 mpg to 24.9 mpg. From your list of top-selling SUVs, only the Escape made the final top ten, at number ten. It averages 24 mpg - better than a Taurus or V6 Camry.

What does make a mockery of the goal of improving the environment is the pollution caused by manufacturing new vehicles and scrapping old vehicles. I would have much rather seen $3 billion spent on mass transit projects that would reduce vehicle miles than put people in new "fuel-efficient" cars (that will probably be driven more than the cars they replaced).

Quote:
And you are correct that this program will hurt low-income buyers who cannot afford new cars, since any used cars which get turned in under the program must be destroyed. This will increase the cost of used cars and also will drive up the cost of repairing older cars still in use, since useable parts cannot be taken off those 'clunkers'. This whole program is a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.


I don't think the supply of used cars for low-income buyers will be hurt that much, especially since the truly low income wouldn't be interested in cars that average poor fuel economy. The program will also result in a glut of other used parts (transmission, electrical, body, suspension) that are probably in higher demand than engine parts.

Despite the increase in average fuel economy, I don't think the program did much to help the environment, and I'm afraid it might prop up the repo industry a year from now. It certainly did what it set out to do, though, which was boost short term new car sales.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 39
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1024
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

timecruncher wrote:
...not one of the SOBs understands or comprehends simple, basic economics?

Whether you supported the president because of what he represented or because you thought his promises and smiling face would bring the change you wanted to our country, you had best be very, very concerned about how we are all going to pay for the trillions of dollars that are being spent on various schemes that supposedly will "increase jobs" or "lower costs."

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!


John Maynard Keynes would disagree. Deficit spending is appropriate in a recession. What I can't fathom is how many of the current administration's detractors thought nothing of spending trillions of dollars we didn't have on a country halfway around the world when we were previously running a surplus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 39
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1024
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Linsky wrote:
Cows create more than triple the amount of carbon dioxide and methane than all the cars put together - I think we should get rid of cows instead!


Cows don't emit a significant amount of carbon dioxide. The numbers oft-cited in the press about "cow emissions" includes the fuel burned to clear pastures, produce feritilizer, grow and transport feed, slaughter cattle, and transport meat. That's a lot more vehicular emissions than a single SUV.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 39
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1024
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:37 am    Post subject: Re: Clunkers Trade in Program Has some Flaws Reply with quote

Dieseljim wrote:
One is that it does not include trading for good used cars that get decent mileage. Another is that perfectly good engines have to be destroyed when some of the parts may be needed to keep other older vehicles running. It also failed to consider the fact that not only are many people not able to afford new cars, but some of these older vehicles are all that they CAN afford.


I agree; it would be nice if there were a provision where I could swap my '93 Grand Caravan that gets stuck in second for a newer "clunker" that doesn't, thus resulting in an even greater net environmental benefit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shortlineMCI



Age: 49
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Consider that this environmental garbage is eminating from pure junk science fabricated from Al Bore. This too much carbon dioxide hype is the funniest of them all right next to Global warming which does not exist. Warming and cooling is a natural cyclical event and not a damn thing anyone can do about it. There will be another ice age from the likes that we will not be here to witness unless your gonna hang around for 10,000 years Smile.

Basic science. What is Carbon Dioxide? It is water vapor! Carbon dioxide is needed to keep the sun's harmful UV rays away. But Mr. Al Bore actually has us all believing that Carbone dioxide is this really bad thing that we HAVE to get rid of. Makes me laugh.

And in the face of AL Bore..I just bought a 2000 Dodge Durango with the Magnum V-8 360 Ci that gets about 19 MPH.

Global Warming. HAHAHAHA Another distraction from this Rogue administration. Look at this past summer for instance. It's been cool all summer long and don't tell me that's from global warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
timecruncher



Age: 67
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Cow emissions" are mostly methane. Burns pretty good if we could figure out how to harness the stuff.

Gotta feed 'ol Bossy some wheat germ or something like it to create that gas!

timecruncher
Hey - did you see the South Park episode on global warming? Priceless!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 39
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1024
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shortlineMCI wrote:
Basic science. What is Carbon Dioxide? It is water vapor!


I think you're mis-remembering what you learned in junior high science. Water vapor is water. There's no carbon in it. Water vapor AND carbon dioxide are the products of the combustion of a purely organic compound (and by "organic," I mean containing carbon atoms, not grown without pesticides).

Quote:
Carbon dioxide is needed to keep the sun's harmful UV rays away. But Mr. Al Bore actually has us all believing that Carbone dioxide is this really bad thing that we HAVE to get rid of. Makes me laugh.


True, but greenhouses gases work both ways - they reflect solar radiation out into space, but they also reflect infrared radiation back down to the earth's surface. No one is saying we have to "get rid of" them, because without greenhouse gases, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Quote:
And in the face of AL Bore..I just bought a 2000 Dodge Durango with the Magnum V-8 360 Ci that gets about 19 MPH.


That's better mileage than my Grand Marquis, but I don't use it for commuting and only fill the tank once or twice a month. I probably emit less than my neighbor who's tooling around in his Prius all day.

Quote:
Global Warming. HAHAHAHA Another distraction from this Rogue administration. Look at this past summer for instance. It's been cool all summer long and don't tell me that's from global warming.


A local seasonal variation doesn't prove or disprove a global phenomenon. In fact, cooler temperatures in our part of the world this year are a result of changes in pressure systems brought on by record high polar temperatures and early ice breakup.

Whether you believe man-made global warming is a major contributor to this or that it's a myth (I believe that we don't have enough reliable historical data to examine such trends), there are enough other reasons why we should try to control pollution (asthma, cancer, dependency on foreign oil, ground and water contamination, aesthetics, efficiency of land use, and on and on).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shortlineMCI



Age: 49
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ripta42 wrote:
shortlineMCI wrote:
Basic science. What is Carbon Dioxide? It is water vapor!


I think you're mis-remembering what you learned in junior high science. Water vapor is water. There's no carbon in it. Water vapor AND carbon dioxide are the products of the combustion of a purely organic compound (and by "organic," I mean containing carbon atoms, not grown without pesticides).

Consider that what we breath out is Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is a major component of the carbon cycle. Also, Small amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes. Carbon dioxide is one of the most abundant gasses in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide plays an important part in vital plant and animal process, such as photosynthesis and respiration.

Quote:
Carbon dioxide is needed to keep the sun's harmful UV rays away. But Mr. Al Bore actually has us all believing that Carbone dioxide is this really bad thing that we HAVE to get rid of. Makes me laugh.


True, but greenhouses gases work both ways - they reflect solar radiation out into space, but they also reflect infrared radiation back down to the earth's surface. No one is saying we have to "get rid of" them, because without greenhouse gases, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

You and I are in total agreement for sure.

Quote:
And in the face of AL Bore..I just bought a 2000 Dodge Durango with the Magnum V-8 360 Ci that gets about 19 MPH.


That's better mileage than my Grand Marquis, but I don't use it for commuting and only fill the tank once or twice a month. I probably emit less than my neighbor who's tooling around in his Prius all day.

Oh..totally..also, aside..when you see someone who drives a Prius they say to you..."I'm a good boy and I'm doing the right thing and I"m saving the planet." Mmhhmm. Fine with me. Anything that keeps people out of trouble is fine with me Smile

Quote:
Global Warming. HAHAHAHA Another distraction from this Rogue administration. Look at this past summer for instance. It's been cool all summer long and don't tell me that's from global warming.


A local seasonal variation doesn't prove or disprove a global phenomenon. In fact, cooler temperatures in our part of the world this year are a result of changes in pressure systems brought on by record high polar temperatures and early ice breakup.

Ice has been breaking up and regrowing for ions. Climatologists took ice depth readings and compared them with their readings from ten years ago and thy have found no significant changes. What the Al Gore robots show you are only the one part of a cycle of ice breaking up and falling into the sea, but they will fail to tell you during the natural warming period, these things happen naturally and he'll even put scary music in there to add to the effect.

Whether you believe man-made global warming is a major contributor to this or that it's a myth (I believe that we don't have enough reliable historical data to examine such trends), there are enough other reasons why we should try to control pollution (asthma, cancer, dependency on foreign oil, ground and water contamination, aesthetics, efficiency of land use, and on and on).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
timecruncher



Age: 67
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I betcha Al Gore doesn't drive a Prius...

timecruncher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    BusTalk Forum Index -> General Transportation - All Other Modes All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group