quote:

---

Originally posted by Kodie

...Here's my other question. This chemical that they are adding to kill the engine, where does it go? Does it just run off into the ground and kill plants/animals after the car is crushed or what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kodie

...Here's my other question. This chemical that they are adding to kill the engine, where does it go? Does it just run off into the ground and kill plants/animals after the car is crushed or what?

---

The chemical is sodium silicate, and it's not toxic. It's used in many common products including food processing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kodie

I thought of something else about this program that bothers me. The government is giving $4500 to a clunker owner to buy a new vehicle, but everybody knows those people are going to buy foreign cars. It should be mandated that they purchase American made vehicles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kodie

I thought of something else about this program that bothers me. The government is giving $4500 to a clunker owner to buy a new vehicle, but everybody knows those people are going to buy foreign cars. It should be mandated that they purchase American made vehicles.

---

Another thing, some of the cars they showed on the news look like they're worth way more than $4,500.. loss for whoever traded them in!

---

quote:

---

I took those pictures and posted them originally. I've looked into it further. I've been told it was traded in on a Prius, and I've also been told it was an original 30k mile car. Not 130k, but an actual 30k mile car, Carfax verified. It was picked up last night by the scrap yard. I've found it, and have secured "dibs" on the full set of seats. They are holding them for me and I will be heading out early in the morning to get them and anything else that I can't bear let go to an unpurist. I will take more pictures while I'm there and post them up.

Don't get me wrong, I will ge excited to have such a nice set of seats in my Capri, but I still don't feel this is worth it. It was a very nice car and deserved far better.

---

quote:

---

This "CARS" program is BY FAR the BIGGEST dissapointment in the history of this country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 03CV200

quote:

---

This "CARS" program is BY FAR the BIGGEST dissapointment in the history of this country.

---

Oh I disagree with that. The goal of the program was to boost new car sales and remove some "older" vehicles from the road. The program went above any beyond expectations, leading to the sale of more new vehicles than expected.

You can't blame the government if people decided to trade in a "good" car for $4,500. The vehicles traded in were entirely up to the American people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thomas86_a

Well lets see we spent far more than this bailing out the banks, then we spent far more than this with our "economic recovery program". I may be bias since I live in Michigan but this is increasing car sales which is keeping people working. It's not just the automobile assembly lines in Detroit or Kentucky you have all of the suppliers and all of the dealerships across the country. For what it was able to accomplish in a short amount of time it was probably the best $1 Billion we have spent on "economic recovery".

Is this program perfect? No but from the way the government has been spending money lately this has probably had some of the best results. If people want to trade in decent running cars that is there own problem. Some people enjoy driving older cars others do not and have taken the opportunity to get rid of their clunker even if it was maintained well. I just don't see how this was "by FAR the biggest flop of an idea our government has ever conceived." I've seen a lot in my 63 years and this is far from the biggest mistake our government has made.

And as I mentioned earlier I am bias since I live in Michigan, I want to see manufacturing in general survive in this country. Do I like bailing out banks, spending billions on economic stimulus and paying for other people to trade in their old cars? Not really but I don't think letting the banks fail and letting two of the auto companies fail would be such a good idea either.

---

quote:

---

But dealers reported problems with the government's online system to get the transactions approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is running the program.

Scott Lambert, vice president of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association, said he was "astounded" to learn at a meeting Tuesday representing about 150 Minnesota dealers that not one has had a deal approved.

"We had dealers representing 1,500 to 2,000 transactions," he said. "We asked how many had a deal approved yet, and not one hand went up."

Lambert said the government has created a program that's "so big and cumbersome that it can't find a way to accept anything. We're sending in good, reliable deals."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KOMO News on July 31. Emphasis on important parts

By Travis Mayfield & Associated Press

http://www.komonews.com/news/52216067.html

BREMERTON, Wash. -- Local car dealers are openly worried they could be forced out of business if the federal 'Cash for Clunkers' program runs out of money. Worse, say dealers, is if they aren't reimbursed by the federal government many of those clunkers that are supposed to be destroyed could end up back on the roads.

Advantage Nissan in Bremerton has dozens of cars it has taken in trade since the Cash for Clunkers program began just a few days ago.

Called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, the program is designed to help the economy and the environment by spurring new car sales. Car owners can receive federal subsidies of up to $4,500 for trading in their old cars for new ones that achieve significantly higher gas mileage.

Owner Mary Byrne said because of the backlog of registering the clunkers with the federal government, she hasn't received a penny in reimbursement.

"If this program ends and dealers are left, I guarantee you these cars will not be destroyed," said Byrne, who is also president of Washington Auto Dealers Association.

"The dealer won't have any other option, with the exception to either wholesale them or try and get rid of them in some other manner and the cars will end back up on the road," which Byrne points out defeats the entire goal of the program which was to get these cars out of circulation.

Byrne says many dealers would be facing thousands of dollars in losses for each clunker they've taken in trade for which the federal government doesn't reimburse them.

"And we can't go back to the consumer, that's against state law," Byrne said.

Byrne said one local dealership group has more than 100 clunkers in hand.

"At $4,500 a piece, that's a $450,000 exposure for that dealer," which could force owners to layoff staff or worse, into bankruptcy.

The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly Friday to rush $2 billion into the popular but financially strapped program, but Byrne said so many dealers have so many unprocessed cars she believes that money is already spent before its even been approved.

House members approved the measure 316-109 within hours of learning from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that the program was running out of money.

President Barack Obama said he was encouraged by the House action to keep alive a program that had "succeeded well beyond our expectations." Senate action is likely next week, ensuring the program won' be affected by the sudden shortage of cash.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the new money for the program would come from funds approved earlier in the year as part of an economic stimulus bill.

There had been a $1 billion budget for rebates for new car sales in the program that was officially launched last week and has been heavily publicized by automakers and dealers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted on KOMO News on August 2, 2009.

By Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -

http://www.komonews.com/news/national/52306932.html

The Obama administration will suspend the "cash for clunkers" program unless the Senate provides $2 billion more for the popular car incentive plan, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday.

He said he expects the current $1 billion pool to be exhausted by the end of this weekend. The House approved an additional $2 billion on Friday and the administration is pressing the Senate to go along before its summer vacation begins at week's end.

"If we don't get the $2 billion from the Senate ... we would have to suspend the program next week," LaHood said in an interview with C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" show. He said the administration "will continue the program until we see what the Senate does and I believe the Senate will pass this."

At least one GOP senator questioned the need to speed the money.

"This is crazy to try to rush this thing through again while they're trying to rush through health care, and they want to get on to cap and trade electricity tax," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "We've got to slow this thing down."

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said car and truck building had begun to rebound even before the program got under way. But, he added, "there is no doubt that that very extraordinary response is a very important indicator that the state of confidence in the economy is beginning to pick up." If the incentive program had gone into place six months ago, he said, "it would have probably been a dud."

Obama officials scrambled last week to add money to the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), which is designed to get old, polluting vehicles off the road and scrapped while helping car dealers emerge from the recession. The $1 billion has led to the sale of 250,000 new vehicles.

Owners of gas-guzzlers can receive rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 toward the purchase of a new fuel-efficient car. LaHood said 62 percent of the traded-in vehicles were trucks and "these people are buying cars that get much better gas mileage."

The Senate narrowly approved the initial money in June. But some lawmakers who voted for the plan, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, have said the additional dollars should push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and allow people to buy fuel-efficient used vehicles. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has said he was concerned with the way the House paid for the extension, shifting $2 billion from a renewable energy loan program.

DeMint questioned the government's role in providing incentives for auto sales.

"My children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for these cars, and we're helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren't getting the help," he said.

LaHood said dealers will be reimbursed for deals in the pipeline and that the government will make a "good-faith effort" (my $.02? This is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, GOod faith? Fat chance!) for transactions beginning Monday.

Dealers have complained of computer problems and difficulties processing their transactions. LaHood said the program's Web site - http://www.cars.gov/ - received 2 million hits and the department faced "some bureaucratic problems" in getting the dealer paperwork processed.

But LaHood said the department was working to fix the computer glitches facing dealers, an unexpected consequence to a program that took off despite sluggish car sales this year. "We knew it was going to be very popular. We didn't know it was going to be as wildly popular as it was," LaHood said.

DeMint appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Greenspan was on ABC's "This Week."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich

Who cares if it is a foreign car? Still supporting American dealers at least. Most of the Big 2.5's small cars are awful anyway, including the Caliber, Compass, Cobalt, Aveo, Focus, etc. Horrible looks, horrible fit and finish, and spotty reliability at best. The only future bright spot for American small cars is the new Ford Fiesta and new Euro Focus which should have been here years ago. I'd rather drive a golf cart than the current American small cars.

The accomplishments of this cash for clunkers is helping dealers move inventory, reduce emissions by getting rid of older cars with less standards, and improving fuel economy. Don't see what is so bad with this, at least this money is going to material goods instead of 50 billion directly into Government Motors which goes nowhere.

As for payment back to dealers, the additional 2 billion is going through by the end of the week, so I see no reason why these dealers have to worry. Just a bunch of fluff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich

The Focus is the best small American car, but not nearly as good as it should be. Cant wait for the Euro version of the Focus to make its way here, then I'd buy one. The Fiesta will be a nice small car too.

As for the CARB program... get ready to shoot me. I'm not totally against it. I suppose I am against the engine disabling part, but other than that it isnt the worst thing in the world. Cant run Crowns and Gilligs forever, it isnt practical. Newer buses are significantly cleaner, and in that state the smog and pollution is horrible. The newer buses also offer more creature comforts, including A/C, and better overall comfort for drivers and passengers.

The CARB reimbursement doesnt scare me either, in NY school districts get reimbursed on school bus purchases up to a certain percentage.

---

quote:

---

Roadblocks disappearing, the Senate cleared the way Tuesday for a vote giving eager car buyers until Labor Day to cash in on rebates up to $4,500 for trading in their gas-guzzlers for new, higher-mileage models.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared he had the votes to pass a $2 billion "cash for clunkers" measure already approved by the House. It would replenish the all-but-exhausted $1 billion program and provide rebates for up to a half-million more Americans in the next month.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 78fordwayne

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4VTSCZJnq8&feature=related
I will never understand why they want to keep 1980s on the road but destroy a 2000. Something is wrong here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven A.Rosenow

Yeah, and the future of the industry is exactly why I changed my mind years ago on not becoming a school bus driver.

I'd rather drive something built to last and has durability behind it, not something that's deemed replaceable in 10-12 years "all in the name of safety." Especially since construction standards on school buses haven't changed in 33 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich

quote:

---

Originally posted by 78fordwayne

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4VTSCZJnq8&feature=related
I will never understand why they want to keep 1980s on the road but destroy a 2000. Something is wrong here.

---

That thing is a 10 MPG pig, glad to see it gone. Probably has 200k+ miles too.

RIP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven A.Rosenow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich

quote:

---

Originally posted by 78fordwayne

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4VTSCZJnq8&feature=related
I will never understand why they want to keep 1980s on the road but destroy a 2000. Something is wrong here.

---

That thing is a 10 MPG pig, glad to see it gone. Probably has 200k+ miles too.

RIP.

---

You have no idea how stupid that sounds.

TRUCKS WERE NOT, I REPEAT NOT, MEANT TO BE FUEL EFFICIENT.

It is an oxymoron.

Try to make a truck fuel efficient. Try to. I dare you.

You'll lose just about any worth it has as far as being able to haul loads, etc. AND THAT IS A FACT.

Wanna know why Toyota trucks suck? Because they're so riddled with fuel emissions garbage they rob it of any available horsepower.

They're LIGHT YEARS behind Ford in sales because of that.

---

quote:

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_us/us_cash_for_clunkers_pollution
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – Tue Aug 4, 5:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON – "Cash for clunkers" could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren't impressed.

Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.

"As a carbon dioxide policy, this is a terribly wasteful thing to do," said Henry Jacoby, a professor of management and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT. "The amount of carbon you are saving per federal expenditure is very, very small."

Officials expect a quarter-million gas guzzlers will be junked under the original $1 billion set aside by Congress — money that is now all but exhausted.

Calculations by The Associated Press, using Department of Transportation figures, show that replacing those fuel hogs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by just under 700,000 tons a year. While that may sound impressive, it's nothing compared to what the U.S. spewed last year: nearly 6.4 billion tons (and that was down from previous years).

That means on average, every hour, America emits 728,000 tons of carbon dioxide. The total savings per year from cash for clunkers translates to about 57 minutes of America's output of the chief greenhouse gas.

Likewise, America will be using nearly 72 million fewer gallons of gasoline a year because of the program, based on the first quarter-million vehicles replaced. U.S. drivers go through that amount of gas every 4 1/2 hours, according to the Department of Energy.

For individuals, the program scores big. Vehicle owners who trade in an older, gas-guzzling truck or car for a newer fuel-efficient vehicle can get $3,500 to $4,500 in rebates. On average each year, they will save 287 gallons of gas, more than $700 in fuel costs and close to 3 tons in carbon dioxide pollution.

The problem is, there aren't enough of these individuals to dent the national or global energy and environmental problems.

"There's 260 million vehicles on the road and you're talking a quarter-million vehicles. It's not even close. It's just a drop in the bucket," said Bruce Belzowski, a scientist at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. "It's really small numbers. But if you don't start somewhere, where are you going to start? It heads the country in the right direction."

The House has passed a bill at President Barack Obama's request to pump an additional $2 billion into the program. If the Senate follows suit, the potential effect on pollution and energy would triple. But experts say that it is still not much compared to the overall problem.

One benefit of cash for clunkers is that it takes some of the dirtiest cars off the road for good — their engines are immobilized with "liquid glass" and the rest of the vehicle can be recycled. Otherwise, these cars could have been on the road for several more years, polluting more each year. So the pollution reductions keep adding up.

Americans are holding on to their cars longer than they used to, with the median age of cars on the road in 2008 rising to a record high of 9.4 years, according to R.L. Polk & Co.

While some people have worried that there might be an added environmental and energy cost to recycling the metal in the junked cars, experts said that is not the case. Generally, it saves energy to use recycled steel in cars rather than newly made steel, Belzowski said.

The cars being bought aren't just more gas-stingy than what they're replacing — they are 18 percent more efficient on average than other new cars, according to the Department of Transportation.

"This is a win-win program for everybody," said National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman Eric Bolton. "The program is raising the average fuel economy of the fleet while getting the dirtiest vehicles off the roads."

Bolton said there is another benefit to the program: Newer cars "are considerably safer than the old clunkers they are replacing."

But some energy experts say the country is overpaying for the pollution reductions, mostly because cash for clunkers is more about stimulating the economy than cutting pollution.

Paying up to $4,500 per clunker means the government is spending more than $160 for every ton of carbon dioxide removed over 10 years, said MIT's Jacoby, co-author of the book "Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World."

That's five to 10 times more than the estimated per-ton cost of carbon dioxide for power plants in the cap-and-trade system passed earlier this year by the House.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, who examined the clunkers program in an academic journal, said there are far better ways to cut energy use and greenhouse gases.

"It's not that it's a bad idea; just don't sell it as a cost-effective energy savings method," he said. "From an economic standpoint it seems to be a roaring success. From an environment and energy perspective, it's not where you would put your first dollar."

___

Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas in Washington contributed to this report.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrwaibel

Thats exactly what we need to do to these darn liberal knuckel headed politicians pour silica sand and water down their throat and run them full throttle on a treadmill until white smoke comes out their rear end. Then maybe they would think twice before wasting our tax dollars.

---