Bill H. Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Pimp My ClunkerBy Nick Sorrentino“UncleSam is helping you buy a new car.” The ad says. “You could get $4500from the government just for trading in your old gas guzzling car,truck, or SUV.”Well that’s just great. What I wonder is whyUncle Sam doesn’t just buy me the car outright. Forget the incentive.If I bring in a clunker, give me a Chevy econobox in return. Seriously.If cash for clunkers is such a great idea, why not go all the way andjust buy the car for me. That way I won’t be in debt to a bank. I’lljust tack on the cost of my car to the federal ledger. I’ll have a newcar. The factory workers get to keep their jobs. And since it’s a GMproduct my new car will likely fall apart in 3 years time, thusproviding jobs for unionized workers down the road.Why make meget a loan at all. In this Brave New World money doesn’t mean anythingright? So just trade me a crappy car for my continued servitude.Butmoney, even paper money, does mean something. With the CARS programmany people are jumping back into debt because they see it as anopportunity. But if a minivan is $35,000 when it should really be$25,000, is that really such a good deal? So what, you get $4500supplied by your fellow hardworking taxpayers, but you’re still buyinga product that will to keep you in debt.What would you do ifyou had no car payment? What would you have to do if you had another$400 going to the bank every month in the form of a car note?Trustme. I understand. It’s tempting. I’ve got a real clunker. It leakscoolant and has a loose bolt somewhere in the engine so it makes allkinds of neat noises. But it doesn’t have a payment and I like that alot.As I did the cash for clunkers equation, I figured that theamount I would pay for a new minivan would over 3 years equal about$31,000 even with the taxpayer paid subsidy of $4500.So I haveinstead decided to “pimp my clunker.” That is, I am going to fix thatcoolant leak and loose bolt and maybe jack up the air conditioningsystem a bit. I’m even going to get the beast repainted. No flamesthough. In the end it’ll cost me maybe a couple thousand, versus a newobligation to pay $31000.Now, I love new cars. I am a huge fan.But when I do the math, even with the “free money” from the tax payer,er, the government, that new car is still damned expensive. So for now,until the book advance arrives and I can justify it, we will continueto cruise around in the 2000 family truckster. But no, I won’t betaking the tribe cross country in it. Posted byNick Sorrentinoat9:02 AM Labels:cars,cash for clunkers,gold ron paul taxes obama's plan raise taxes AIG Citi libertarian lew rockwell daily reckoning daily rofile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Dont understand why they dont give the dam clunkers to the really poor people who need a car to get back and forth to WORK???? I don't know the legislative history behind this program, but it seems to have 2 purposes: (1) as a part of the stimulus program to boost the economy by replacing some of the reduced demand from the recession (cars, dealers, parts, etc., have been a BIG part of the US economy for decades); and (2) reduce US oil consumption. I'm sure the first amounts to more Note that ours isn't the only country to have such a program.It's not a program for the poor. Like most programs. If it were, I can just imagine criticism of helping the non-poor first with trickling-out leftovers to the poor. Might as well give $4,500 directly to the poor to buy their own clunkers, and I don't think that would be very popular. Although that might not be a bad idea. I'd keep the two ideas separate, though. And, of course, it wouldn't get gas-hogs off the road -- it would increase, not decrease, oil consumption. I can hear critics on that one, too. This is a market-oriented program -- only people who would are ready to be "tipped" into buying higher-mileage vehicles will participate, and those with perfectly fine vehicles they're happy with are left alone. AND it requires much more financial outlay from the buyers than the gov't is furnishing, so it brings out major consumer spending. This writer sees suppliers being helped, not hurt by the program: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/09/hidary.cash.clunkers/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ69 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I'm sorry, but giving my tax money away so somebody can buy a new car is just wrong. What's next, big screen TVs? This really has my panties in a bunch. Thanx, Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg928gts Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 What's next, big screen TVs? Energy efficient appliances. Sure, why not? Let's just spend a few billion more. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Energy efficiency is a laudable goal. Let's just do it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Back on topic, the Germans had a clunker trade in program that was wildly successful. What was different about theirs compared to ours? I don't know but I suspect it had something to do with a clear reason for why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.