The Truth About Cash For Clunkers?

Hemmings

With no apologies to Farago for the title, we continue to round up reactions and arguments for/against cash for clunkers. If by now you haven’t seen that this is the most ill-begotten, shortcut-derived piece of legislation on Congress’s plate at the moment, then perhaps you need to read deeper.

First, John Voelcker over at GreenCarReports continues his patsyism for cash for clunkers. He goes after one of the environmental arguments against cash for clunkers, pointing out a Duke University study that claims to calculate just how much of an increase in mileage a car needs to offset the energy expended while producing the car. If the math behind the study escapes you for the moment, don’t worry: It’s simply not necessary. The study misses the point of the environmental argument that creating more and more new cars by artificially shortening the lifespan of old cars generates pollution and waste of energy, while keeping an old car on the road simply does not. The longer one can keep an old car on the road, the fewer hits the environment takes during a new car’s production. Continue reading at Hemmings

Permalink:

Posted at 9:15 am in Cash For Clunkers, Hemmings

Comments

chevyman327nova
May 17, 2009 at 11:33 am

this is all a stupid ass scam stay strong gearheads dont give in and for the record i an s10 that has over 300,000 on it and still runs fine

Shmak1982
May 11, 2009 at 5:38 pm

2006 Chevy Aveo “Scrat”—14,000 miles
1979 Pontiac Phoenix “Phoenix”—62,000 miles
1975 Trans Am “Beast”—89,000 miles
1990 GMC Sierra “Sizzle”—175,000 miles
1995 Olds Cutlass Ciera “Bob”—181,000 miles
1989 Izuzu Pickup “Wink”— around 215,000 miles
1987 Dodge Ram D100 “Mountain Goat”—46,000 miles

I have several more, but don’t know the mileages on them. If you count daily drivers, weekend play toys, my 3 parts vehicles, and my girlfriends 2 vehicles, we have a total of too damn many to count right now. Lol. I tried to count them in my head, but I have to list them to get it right or I’ll always leave something out…

1975 Trans Am
1979 Phoenix
1989 Isuzu truck
1988 Isuzu truck (parts truck)
1984 GMC S-15 (bought for a parts truck, but runs too damn good to take apart)
1985 GMC S-15 (parts truck/scrap metal)
1986 Chevy S-10
1987 Chevy S-10 (parts truck)
1986 Camaro Iroc (future dirt track car… hopefully)
1995 Cutlass Ciera
1990 GMC Sierra
2006 Chevy Aveo
1987 Dodge D100
1990 Chevy Silverado (Heather’s truck)
2000 Chevy Cavalier (Heather’s car)

Ok, that’s 15. Anyhow, the point is I have 14 cars older than 10 years, so I could get enough vouchers to buy a damn new Denali with no cash, but Obama can kiss my ass because I’m keepin ALL of my old junk and I’m probably gonna collect some more in the future. I love older cars, and don’t like new ones much at all. People are already having so much trouble paying their bills, and Obama’s big solution is to get our nation’s citizens deeper in debt by encourageing them to go buy a brand new car with a little voucher as a down payment. What the hell kind of solution to our problems is that? We should be encouraging our nation to get OUT of debt, but instead we tell them to get rid of their old reliable FULLY PAID OFF vehicle, and go finance something they can’t afford. Lets face it, if they could afford payments on a brand new vehicle, wouldn’t they have one already?

I hate this bill for 2 reasons. First, as a car guy, I HATE to see anyone be givin a reason to intentionally destroy perfectly good cars simply because they’re “too old”. But more so than that, I do not believe in debt. That is why I don’t have any eye-catching kick-ass vehicles. I don’t have the money to restore them, and I refuse to borrow it. I currently owe $4600 on my Aveo and $4700 on my land, and when those are paid off I’m gonna borrow for a house, but I hope that’s the last I ever have to borrow. Sorry, I got off the subject a bit, but that’s how I feel. When it’s all paid for, my $12,000 Aveo will have cost me around $19,000. That’s $7,000 that I could have used elsewhere if I had been smart enough to wait till I had cash to purchase, but I didn’t. So anyhow, I’m done now.

Biggunna
May 9, 2009 at 12:53 am

Another thing in that math is probably wrong about the SUV subject. This is starting to sound like a hidden agenda to push money into car companies. Get a voucher for 4,500 buy the newest model for 24,500 minus the 5,000 dealer markup. Keep yourself in debt but feel good about the environment, very tricky bastards

4Motion4g63t
May 8, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Nothing Under 17k For My Herd Of Cars…..

04 Chevy Silverado Ex Cab 18k…
91 Talon AWD 180k
96 Honda Accord EX 177k
86 Nissan Hardbody EST. around 300k !!!!!!
Speedo Has Not been fixed since 250k..10 years Or so after TWO teen Got THERE “1st Car” .SO who KNOWS!
I have Cardomains for all of them….Check em out…

retroman
May 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Cristina is 16yrs old, and she just hit 142,000 miles and she’s ready for another 142k. I plan to keep her forever. I’m gonna throw a car party when she makes 150k. Let’s give it up for high mi beaters!!! Anyone out there got 200k on the clock???

oldscoob
May 8, 2009 at 1:47 pm

I agree about keeping one going. for some yime a 25mpg v8 coupe was going to be my car forever, until the math of a 3 main bearing boxer proved king of the world on this very subject. Keep the retarded opinions, and keep a good car factually. Alot of cars do have to go however, unless backyarded into masterful, unlike thier origins. and that is rare enough to think up legislation like this…