var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
duffman13
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Honestly I beleve it did little to nothing besides moving up some people's potential purchases by as much as a year.


Question about the graph though, what caused the spike in September 01? did 9/11 cause reactionary car-buying or something? or was there some other external factor?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@duffman13: I guess it was the Fox News watchers who obeyed Dubya when he told them to go buy stuff.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Changed my name to \"I like potatoes\"
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: I think it had more to do with almost every American car company (and some foreign ones) offering 0% financing deals. I remember that quite well.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: People still had money to spend in 2001. They don't now. Big difference.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoctorMD
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@duffman13: So Bush just told people to buy cars and they did. Obama had to bribe them off with $24,000 to get the same result.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
brettshow
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@duffman13: In September of 01, GM had the get \"let's roll\" campaign and all the domestic companies slashed their prices. The interest rates were knocked down to 0, the President was telling people to shop for the good of the country, it was kind of a mix of external factors that played into it. Maybe someone else can help fill in the blanks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GreatGerm
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@duffman13:

That was part of it. I remember reading a car magazine around that time where the overwhelming response to a reader poll was that people would much rather drive across the country than fly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harvey_birdman
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@brettshow: I think you're on the right track. We were told to spend our way out of terrorism and to fight those evil oil-producing Muslim countries by purchasing large SUVs with poor gas mileage.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Quake 'n' Shake
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Jeez... good thing Edmunds didn't try to get Glenn Beck to contribute to their story, otherwise the White House would have completely shit a brick.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YardanCabaret: Amen brother. I think Beck was the product of some crazy German genetics lab, injecting his mother with all kinds of stuff. He just...gives that impression when you analyze the crap on his show.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: Glenn Beck is the inevitable result of drug abuse during pregnancy. Ever see a crack baby? Not much difference.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hypochondriac
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My opinion is that it mostly moved purchases up. Fewer people who had no plans bought cars just because of the rebate

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
MentallyRetired
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypochondriac: If it mostly moved purchases up, you would expect sales after Cash for Clunkers ended to plummet right? That didn't happen in September, and we'll see next week what happened in October (earlier this week GM announced that they expect their October sales to be up year over year)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Unsolicited Advice
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MentallyRetired:


What? SAAR for vehicles dropped to 9-something in September. Do you have facts, or is that analysis by hope?


CARS had a very clear negative impact on the September sales month.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MentallyRetired
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Unsolicited Advice: 9 automakers posted year over year sales increases September 09 over September 08. We'll see next week how October was, but GM has already publicly announced this week that it expects sales to be up year over year for October.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypochondriac: i'm pretty sure you're right. The problem with this, though, is that they cannibalized sales from later on, to have a high 2-month sales period, and lower sales later.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein_has joined the star bandwagon: @duffman13: Part of stimulating the economy back into a stable position is getting people to buy sooner than later and to do it in such a way that you get A LOT of people to buy sooner than later.

The theory is that the large increases in revenue allow businesses to both retain jobs and to create more jobs rather quickly as opposed to letting things just run their course naturally (in other words, it could still take a couple years). In turn, that allows more consumers to obtain steady streams of income and spend more as a result.

So yes...in some sense it \"cannibalized\" some sales as you put it, but if more jobs are saved and/or created as a result it should also create some sales which would not have occurred otherwise in the future.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amish Undercover
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: Additionally, the program removed cars from the road that might have been driven for another 0k-75k miles had each of those used cars been resold. That is, it moved up new car sales while not creating a larger used car market. It stands to reason the program even reducing the used car market by preventing those cars from ever making it to that market.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Yebo
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm still waiting for Cash for Chest Hair. I'll be rich I tells ya

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
FatLynn
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I suspect Edmunds is right on this one. People do not go out and buy a whole new car because they are getting a tax credit that may not even be that much more than the trade-in value of their car.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NICU
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cash for clunkers took money from tax payers and gave it to car companies (some of which already got bailouts).

Cash for clunkers required that traded in cars be destroyed - so it negatively impacted used car sales.

Cash for clunkers did nothing positive for Americans, it took money from me and bought vehicles for people who are well off enough to afford a new car purchase, while taking working viable cars out of the used car market. It was a temporary fake increase in sales that will only plummet back to the levels they should be at considering the state of the economy.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NICU: Uh, I'm pretty sure they only required the engine destroyed. Everything else could be resold for all the government cares. And I will maintain that there are more than enough used cars to go around. It's just that the US government likes to block access to a large part of them due to protectionism (example- older Nissan GT-Rs, widely available in Canada, barely available in the US).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jamar0303: Rendering the engine inoperable is only the first step. The CARS site makes it pretty clear that \"These certifications, which are legally binding on the disposal facility, include a certification that the CARS trade-in vehicle will be crushed or shredded onsite within 180 days of receipt of the vehicle...\"
[www.cars.gov]

Also, older Skylines can't play in the US for several reasons, most of them being the same reasons that many US cars can't play in foreign countries.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FooSchnickens - Forklift Dirver Extraordinaire: And the bit about \"salvage auctions\" right below that?
...and it's far easier to bring US cars to foreign countries than it is to bring foreign-market cars to the US. Witness all the other cheap-ish Japanese imports to Canada (which has much looser rules on bringing in cars 15 years or older) due to the Japanese car inspection system basically harassing you for owning any car older than 3 years. In America you only have a handful of R33s due to someone submitting a couple of those for crash-testing. Maybe there wouldn't have been any need for CARS if there were plenty of older cars to go around which could have got the same mileage (well, apart from the auto industry bailout bit).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sir_pantsalot
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NICU: \"it took money from me and bought vehicles for people who are well off enough to afford a new car purchase\"

I agree with you except one thing. I have found it is easier to qualify to buy a new car than it is to buy a used car. I think we will see some of the people who purchased a car hurting real soon when they can't afford the payments the dealerships got them into.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sir_pantsalot: I disagree. The banks are still being stingy with credit. They only gave loans to those that could afford them. If the future involves these consumers hurting it will not be because of \"the payments the dealerships got them into.\" It will be because they were able to afford it at the time with no problem, but struggle in the future due to job loss or having their pay dramatically decreased by their employer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Adhominem
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: \"The banks are still being stingy with credit. They only gave loans to those that could afford them.\"

I thought that we're in this mess exactly because banks weren't being stingy with credit?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Adhominem: That is part of it, but there is a much more to it than that. Also, being too stingy about credit can be just as destructive to an economy as being too flexible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Im Just Saying
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sir_pantsalot: I venture to guess that those people who are \"well off enough to afford a new car\" probably had more money taken from them than you did to pay for the program.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
joecartoon22
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

in the end cash for clunkers was a way another way to bail out detroit because losing that many more jobs would've made that city ripe for chinese invasion

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@joecartoon22: The Chinese probably don't want Detroit either unless as a toxic waste dump...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Riff Raff
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I, like many others, was penalized for already having a fuel-efficient slush box ('94 Saturn SL2). Nevermind that in its last few years the car only achieved a max of 20MPG combined, a full half dozen less than it should have gotten.

So, even though my replacement vehicle (2008 Mazda3 Hatch) is more fuel efficient than its predecessor, I didn't get any help worth jack in buying it. No cash rebates, no low-interest loan. Nothing.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Whtthfgg
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Riff-Raff: Change your oil more often.. I was lousy about it and started losing milage in its older years

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
FatLynn
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Was there originally supposed to be some type of environmental impact, as well? I seem to remember that a while back...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
stormbird
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FatLynn: Yep, the program was to take cars that pollute off the road. Whatever your opinion of global warming/climate change, the average car today produces 1/20 of the pollution that a car from 1970 did. There is the problem that new cars may pollute less but create lots of pollution to make. I've read reports that hybrids are going to end up being bigger polluters because 1) the batteries produce a lot of pollution during their manufacture and 2) you will need to replace them several times over the lifetime of the car.

In terms of pollution, a turbo diesel has better mileage and doesn't need several sets of batteries. It's also possible to run them on biodiesel. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on peanut oil. Diesel produces less pollution (most of what you see out of the tailpipe is plain carbon) than gas or ethanol.

The Cash For Clunkers program really didn't make an environmental impact. To do that, the feds would have to stop taxing diesel at a far greater rate than gas (diesel is more common in Europe because the tax on gas is higher) and consider tax breaks for diesel vehicles.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zarex42
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's stunning that no one in politics seems to understand the \"broken window fallacy\".

Tax subsidies for destroying perfectly good cars is a disgusting display of ignorance.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Archangelo
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zarex42: I have to agree with you -- a disgusting display of ignorance. And a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. I can tell from the nature of most posts around here that the majority of these folks don't pay any taxes whatsoever, so they think that anything the government does that benefits them is good. Sadly, they are terribly mistaken. If the government gives to some it has to take from others. The only way some people will gain perspective is if a universal tax is implemented on all earned income, as well as all benefits received from the government. It should be a flat tax of no less than 10%. Once a punitive tax structure impacts everyone, then everyone will begin to understand responsibility and will be less inclined to demand the establishment or expansion of undue entitlements.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Archangelo: Actually you should check out the demographics for this website.

Very likely you are personally on the low end of the income curve compared to the typical consumerist reader \"Coastal big city types.\" Educated people who live in big cities pay LOTS of taxes. The costs of living in cites makes it so they aren't rich. ( 100k in NYC or LA is considered middle income with no hope of home ownership. They are still taxed at the federal level like they live in Boise, ID. )

Without ridiculous tax shelters they are likely paying a lot in taxes. Not only that but the people here are involved in the political discourse and are educated , likely at college level.

It's not that readers here are ignorant or avoiding taxes, it is that they see an actually benefit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zarex42: EXCEPT in many many cases these where not perfectly good cars.

I would really venture to guess if your cart was \"good\" you really didnt give a shit about Cash for Clunkers. The people who got rid of their cars where driving pieces of shit to begin with.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: The only problem is, there were guidelines which PREVENTED some of these \"pieces of shit\" from qualifying.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harvey_birdman
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: Not at all true. Just because a car is 10 years old does not make it a \"piece of shit\". I've done more for the environment by maintaining and driving a two decade old Ford Taurus with 400,000 miles then you'll ever do by buying a half dozen Priuses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@harvey_birdman: Ahhh but you just ruined your argument.

\"Not at all true. Just because a car is 10 years old does not make it a \"piece of shit\". I've done more for the environment by maintaining and driving a two decade old Ford Taurus with 400,000 miles then you'll ever do by buying a half dozen Priuses.\"

You just said the magic word, you maintained your car.

I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO MAINTAINED THEIR CARS.

Maintaining your car means it is likely NOT a piece of shit. I planned on keeping my current car for 10 years myself. I am talking about those leaking fuel guzzling cars with parts falling out which where the bulk of the trade ins.

They where almost 2 decade old SUVs and trucks, likely horribly maintained to boot. We are NOT talking about a Ford Taurus which likely got decent gas millage to begin with.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: Drive a car for ten winters in the Northeast, then tell me how long cars last in some parts of the country. I have no incentive whatsoever to buy anything other than the base-level Toyota I bought this past February.

Oh, and for those of you who thing C4C was a crummy idea, I got a $1500 rebate on my Corolla, and rebates on Toyotas is virtually unheard of. When you can't sell Toyotas without bribing the customers, the economy is in seriously deep shit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: Oh and BTW, most of the cars bought for this program, where NOT hybrids. The number 1 selling car was a pretty run of the mill Ford Focus.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Radoman
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cash for Clunkers was a success by most people's standards. The most popular car to trade in was a Jeep Cherokee that got 15MPG, and the most popular American car to buy was a Ford Focus that gets 33MPG. That's a pretty significant fuel savings.

If we all use less gas, gas costs us all less. How much money did people save who didn't even buy cars, just as a residual effect of lower gas prices?

Then, look at all the heavily polluting vehicles that were removed from the road. Permanently. How many tons of carbon emissions per year have we eliminated as a direct result of this program?

You can argue that perhaps the car companies were the big winner's here, but there were definitely substantial benefits to all Americans from this highly successful program.

I'd call it one of Obama's biggest domestic success stories so far...

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
srh
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman:

Cash for clunkers was not a success by any objective measurement.

From a 10,000 foot level, the failures should be obvious. Cash for clunkers did two things:
1. Destroyed items of economic value
2. Perverted market incentives, causing people to buy things they would not have otherwise bought.

Zooming in to 1,000 feet one starts to see individual groups of winners and losers. Winners included dealers and car companies. Losers included consumers, parts businesses, taxpayers, junkyards, repair shops.

At the 10 foot level, you can see the losers. A friend of mine who is a service writer at a repair shop saw a spike in business as people towed cars in to make them sufficiently roadworthy to drive in to the dealer. However he lost his job because of a lull in business afterward.

Another poster mentioned the broken window fallacy. The logic of C4C is equivalent to the government throwing rocks through windows to stimulate spending on windows. Of course that sounds absurd -- destroying a window just so somebody has to buy a new one. This transaction clearly represents a net economic loss to the economy, and yet this is precisely what C4C does.

Regarding \"lower gas prices for all\", this is a myth that deserves to be debunked properly, but this is not the place to do it. Suffice to say gas prices will not decrease appreciably because of C4C. Usage of gas, however, will increase.

A good friend is a hiring manager for the business unit of a large company. He jokes that the one benefit of C4C is that it serves as a quick proxy for intelligence tests. His favorite question to ask in interviews is what the expected economic result of C4C would be.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@srh:
The broken window analogy only party applies.

It's paying people to replace low efficiency single pane windows with higher efficiency windows. When energy is cheap like now people call this foolish. It's foolish to save %5 on an energy bill when it's only $100 and the windows are perfectly good. It's a completely different different story when your saving 25$ a month on heating and cooling for the next decade.

Sorry about your friend. He didn't loose his job because of C4C unless an abnormally large number of the trade-ins happened in his business area. Kind of cars that needed to be repaired to qualify for cash for clunkers should have been off the road anyway.

I agree that gas prices won't go down but I'm very curious how you believe that improving the fuel economy of the american fleet will increase the consumption of gas. It's unlikely that people are going to drive 2x as much as they did before the program.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman:
Peoples memories appear to be extremely short.

I think you are right. When you look at the long term national ramifications vs the short term personal gain cash for clunkers did much more good than the edmonds figure suggests.

While the one time impact of switching from an old low efficiency car to a new one isn't that great it's important to note the long term benefits. That new car is going to be on the road a long time. As it passes from owner to owner it going to go farther and farther down the economic food chain raising the average fleet fuel economy for the nation. Likely these cars will all be on the road for 15 years.

Newer cars pollute less than the old cars that were replaced.

Gas will always go up in price until an alternative is found. Imagine 10 years ago buying a car that gets 25 mpg. At the that time why bother gas was around $1. It's not so hard to imagine with a falling US dollar and global inflation that gas could cost $5-7 in 10 years. Reducing the national demand for fuel over time is a prudent move.

This is really a program that benefitted the nation more than any specific individual. As a one time program it was great.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pot_roast
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: \"If we all use less gas, gas costs us all less.\" Except that right now we have record low usage, record high supplies, record high oil supplies, OPEC has cut production, and oil prices are *still* going up.

We get hosed anyway.

I was upset that the CFC plan didn't more closely mirror the Texas plan, including used cars that were only a couple model years old. I would have been quite happy with a used 2008 Ford Focus instead of being forced into a 2009. Oh well.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radoman
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: The environmental cost of producing a new vehicle is a one time expense. When compared with the tons of carbon that will no longer be produced by every destroyed clunker now and in every year going forward, I think this is a significant net gain for the environment.

Getting more than double an increase in fuel efficiency in your new car, as well as removing the old inefficient vehicle from the road permanently, is a huge bump in gas savings for you as well those down the purchasing line. Not only can you now drive around lots more for lots less gas in your new car, but you've eliminated the old gas guzzler from the road completely. Now no one else can go out and buy that old inefficient vehicle and use up too much gas.

Simple supply and demand. You, as a new car consumer, use less gas. You don't hand down the inefficiency, thus forcing more used car consumers to buy more fuel efficient used cars too. Because the inefficient ones were destroyed, and will no doubt be recycled and re-sold. The used car consumers use less gas too. Our nationwide supply of gas goes up. Our nationwide cost for gas goes down. It's a cascading effect that we can continue to generate.

Take a look at the huge spike in the graph on this very page for the automakers opinion on whether or not the CARS program was a success. HINT: Expect to see Cash for Clunkers 2 in the near future. Because every popular money making blockbuster has to have a sequel...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
techphets
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: You will see Cash for Clunkers 2 in the future because of the same reason auto makers had to keep offering incentives after they started: consumers will be waiting for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: While we are bringing up MPG's I would just like to point out to all the stupid Hummer lovers (the vehicle with BY THE WAY is now made in China, so you're not a patriotic American buying one any more), that the fricking Model T Ford got better gas mileage than the Hummer does.

The Hummer is pristine proof of automakers knowing how to be responsible economically and environmentally yet sticking the middle finger at both the consumer and the earth 24/7 because it's fun to be greedy and evil and sadly most sheeple will just buy it anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TuxthePenguin
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: I disagree with you 100%.

First, comparing the miles per gallon of a Model T and a Hummer right \"out of the box\" is misleading.. The Model T weighed ~1/2 a ton. The H2 (which I'm assuming you're comparing to as it has the worst MPG of the three) weighs ~3 tons. That's six times heavier. The Model T did not get six times better MPG. If you REALLY want to get technical, you should compare miles per gallon per horsepower if you wanted true fuel efficiency.

Second, the Hummer was build because people wanted to buy them. That's not sticking it to the consumer - that's giving the consumer what they wanted.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TuxthePenguin
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: As Harvey said, you forget the consumption of fuel and energy to produce and transport those new cars to the dealer, not to mention the cost to destroy the engines on those Jeeps and transport the carcass (like the pun?) to a junkyard or wherever they went.

But lets assume EVERY trade in was from 15 to 33 mpg. The average American drives 12,000 miles a year, @ 15 mpg that's 800 gallons. @ 33 it would be 364 gallons. That's an improve of 54%... but even if gas is $3 a gallon, it would take 21 years to \"save\" the gas. ($24000 / 3 / 364). Sound like a great idea now?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wei
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: Better mileage has not resulted in savings for the consumer or the environment. The better mileage has prompted many CARS participators to drive more now that they can afford to, which means they are consuming more gasoline than before and even though the emissions are better in these newer vehicles, they're not good enough to offset 150% or 200% increases in overall fuel consumption. Simply put, just because you can go farther on less doesn't mean you'll use less. It means you'll go even farther.

It's like bringing up the speed limit 10 MPH. People just go 10 MPH faster than that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harvey_birdman
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: Except that you are ignoring the enviromental cost of producing that Ford Focus instead of continuing to drive the Jeep Cherokee. Producing vehicles takes money and oil and other natural resources that would not be required if you were able to keep driving your older car. How many tons of carbon emissions are caused by PORDUCING these new cars? Is it really a significant savings compared to cost of maintaining older cars?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
White Speed Receiver
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry, White House, but I'm not buying point #2.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@White Speed Receiver: Thats too bad. Point 2 has already been proven by the major manufacturers already. They had already stated they had to ramp up production at the end of the 3rd quarter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: Didn't sales slump 30% for GM and Chrysler, and 5% for Ford, in the last month?

If there's much less demand, why increase supply?

The White House needs a couple copies of \"Economics in One Lesson\" by Henry Hazlitt.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
White Speed Receiver
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: Excellent. I like being wrong from time to time when it comes to things like this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harvey_birdman
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: Which will again lead to overproduction and inflated inventories in the 1st quarter of next year.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@harvey_birdman: I'd bet you 100 bucks you dont know what your talking about based on your other comments here.

And I know I will win it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, Edmunds, congratulations on making the Whitehouse enemies list.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773: The Obama enemies list is cute. It gets you a stern talking to and an effort to communicate.

Damn if I wanted to be in on the Bush list. That man knows how to hold a personal vendetta!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tightlines
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radoman: Sorry, this is Consumerist, you're not allowed to make positive comments about anything this administration does, only dubious claims that prove how smart you are and how incredibly dumb they are.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The White House, however, begs to differ. So how did the Obama administration respond? With a snarky blog post.\"


Ha, how classy.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you decrying that line as displaying a lack of class or the WH post as lacking? Read the blog post - it certainly is snarky. Or are you really considering buying a car on Mars?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2:


I meant the posting of a snarky blog post by the White House was less than classy.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MercuryPDX
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As far as my own reasoning, I test drove and considered a new car earlier in the year before I ever heard of Cash for Clunkers. The best the dealership would do with my 11 year old, 110k+ miles, smoked in, soon to fail everywhere Jeep was $2800. Originally, they offered $2200+, but I told him I would rather sell it on the street for $3200.

I decided to put it off for a year and started saving a larger down payment. Then C4C comes along, and I figured \"Why not? It's not like you're going to get MORE for it next year and it's a guaranteed $4500.\" and jumped all over it.

So yes, to echo some people above, it moved up my purchase date because it happened to work out in my favor. Had the C4C program been giving me $2500, I would still be in my old car.

Ironically, the calculator on Edmunds.com (Or it may have been KBB) said \"You would be a complete idiot not to trade this in. Why are you still sitting here, GO GO GO!!!\"

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Has the government even figured out how a '98 Dodge Neon and 2008 Hyundai Accent qualified as clunkers yet?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
cluberti
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm torn on the CARS program. I think Edmunds is probably right here, but I also thought the program was a good idea - not just in stimulating sales, but permanent removal of vehicles from the roads that were heavier users of fossil fuels and potentially less emissions-friendly. I suppose time will tell if any of this helped at all, but I am hoping it did.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
harvey_birdman
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cluberti: You are ignoring the environmental cost of automobile production. If it is of greater environmental cost to produce a new vehicle than it is to continue to run an older vehicle then this program did not help.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Unsolicited Advice
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

CARS ended in August.


Aug '08 SAAR was 13.87. Aug '09 SAAR was 14.09.


Sept. '08 SAAR was 12.57. Sept. '09 SAAR was 9.22


YOY, that's a 1.5% increase in August sales and a 2.67% decrease in September sales. The total Aug/Sept period was 26.44 in '08 and 23.31 in '09 - a decrease of 11.83% despite a multi-billion-dollar taxpayer stimulus.


Oh, and Japanese cars outsold American cars dramatically. Share of new vehicles purchased by the program by brand?


- Toyota 19.4%
- General Motors 17.6%
- Ford 14.4%
- Honda 13.0%
- Nissan 8.7%
- Hyundai 7.2%
- Chrysler 6.6%
- Kia 4.3%


Japan and Korea had a share of 52.6. I guess some of them manufacture in the American South. Yay?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Techguy1138
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Unsolicited Advice:

I like you never know quite how to feel about this but Japanese automakers, and some Germans. Make a lot of cars in the US out of parts made here. Somehow they can make quality cars from 'Lazy American Workers'(tm)

You have to look careful now if you want American made items. US automakers import parts from China and Mexico to assemble cars here. 'foreign' makers actually make parts and cars here.

Up is down and down is up. Toyota is more American than GM depending on the car.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.


Sure, I advanced my car purchases.


Two of them infact.


Didn't hurt the used car market one iota. My OLDEST cars and truck were traded in. They would be going to the great scrape heap anyway.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Al Swearengen
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the graph is correct, it looks like after 9/11 everyone heeded the Bush administrations instructions to go out and buy stuff to prevent the terrorists from winning.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen: If I remember correctly, there were a lot of promotions advertising 0% financing, 0 down, 0 payments for several months (or some combination thereof) going on around that time.

I've since read that Mitsubishi, who had a promotion containing all three programs, ran afoul some financial trouble as it saw a number of customers default on their financing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
marsneedsrabbits
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Stay classy, White House.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
fett387
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Edmunds.com for president!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
maltboy1
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We were already preparing to buy a vehicle when we heard of CFC. So we got $4500 instead of $180 for our 93 Mercury Villager.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hi
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Another failure of the White House. Is it too soon to dis Obama or will people still call me a racist? I mean he thinks he's been to 57 states... and has one more to go. I'm sorry but I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how many states are in America. How bout you?




+ Watch video



Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Obama administration argues that many of the vehicles purchased during the CARS rebate period weren't eligible for the program, but were purchased after publicity surrounding Cash for Clunkers coaxed Americans back into car dealerships.
So ... the program itself didn't do what it was supposed to, but the hype surrounding it, did? Ergo, the program worked as planned?

Seriously? Are they really going with that?

(Obviously they ARE going with that ... but come on, how utterly asinine!)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AngryK9
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As if anyone would be surprised by that...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder how many people on the White House staff took advantage of the cash for clunkers program? Just musing. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Archangelo
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How dare Edmunds suggest something so ridiculous? Don't they know that Obama (peace be upon him) is infallible? Edmunds is just plain hogwash ... and they know nothing about cars, either.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
lhed
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The Obama administration argues that many of the vehicles purchased during the CARS rebate period weren't eligible for the program, but were purchased after publicity surrounding Cash for Clunkers coaxed Americans back into car dealerships.\"

This is an age-old huckster tactic called \"the ol' bait and switch\". It's not very comforting to hear the Obama admin is comfortable with such tactics.

Reply
","","");