Ah, I was wondering what the puppy was doing there.

Government subsidies of more fuel-efficient cars is a good idea in principle, but it sounds like they screwed it over pretty bad. If only the Democrats hadn’t wimped out of that political mandate they were declaring back in 2006.

I seriously don’t get the “you can only use this on new cars” provision.  How many people are actually out there driving around in old gas-guzzlers when they both want and can afford brand new cars?

a new SUV with a 2 MPG improvement, which seems, I don’t know, fucking useless

Not saying you’re wrong, but keep in mind that “2MPG improvement” doesn’t mean the same thing for SUVs as it does for cars.  Here’s a really extreme example:

Let’s say there’s an über-SUV that originally got 1MPG and we upgrade it to one that gets 3MPG.  Now, it uses 1/3 of a gallon to go a mile instead of 1 gallon.  That saves 2/3 of a gallon per mile.

Compare that to a car that gets 20 MPG and upgrade it to 22 MPG.  Now, instead of using 0.05 gallons to go one mile, it uses .045 gallons.  That only saves 0.0045 gallons per mile.

Turns out, saving 2 MPG in a car with 14MPG is almost twice as good as saving 2MPG in a car with 20MPG.

This extra set of steps is why a lot of scientists want to switch to a gallons per mile system

That doesn’t mean this is good policy, but there is a somewhat coherent rationale behind it.

The exclusion of used cars is because of the reality that there are just too many cars already sitting (largely unused) on driveways in this country and the additional reality that the used car industry is being killed by higher gas prices and a much-diminished flow of credit.  This program was designed to help carmakers, but wouldn’t have been passed if it was actually going to cost the money it would take to actually buy the gas guzzlers.  (It would be nice if Congress would actually worry about that before spending huge amounts of money we don’t have on wars and guns and agricultural subsidies and such, too.  But we live in a corporatist system, so we must know our limits.)

Ah, yes, I’d forgotten about the feature of MPG being essentially curvilinear. 

I think my objection lays more in the idea that we’re still promoting the purchase of SUVs which are well below the new CAFE standards; we’re encouraging the purchase of cars that will eventually become “clunkers” to get slightly worse cars off the road.

This is exactly what I thought when I read about this. Great! $3500 to trade in my 1998 Olds Bravada. Now, where will I get the other $15,000?

We have a regressive tax system, and people who buy new cars tend to be rich. How is this program not a case of taxing poor people to give middle-class-and-up people a subsidy?

The purpose of incentives is to encourage behavior that wouldn’t happen naturally. People who are driving a 25 year old car are very likely to buy a replacement within a week or two, or switch to a used mountain bike. A 10-25% discount off the price of a new car is a nice but not huge incentive to buy one.

In contrast, a lot of older cars are not worth $3500.  A 1995 Saturn has a blue book value of $1500. Without the new car restriction, without putting in a single extra dime, the owner can suddenly buy a car three times its value. The problem however, is that the Saturn already gets 30 mpg. Taking it off the road accomplishes nothing. Another problem is, with all that free government money available to buy them, the price of used cars would be likely to go up.

In fairness, however a Ford Explorer built the same year as the Saturn gets 15 mpg, but is also worth $1500. Although the owner here would also receive a windfall, taking this off the road improves our national fuel economy, and reduces our carbon footprint.

“How is this program not a case of taxing poor people to give middle-class-and-up people a subsidy?”

You say that as if it’s somehow wrong.  What kind of an American are you, anyway?  You sound like some goddam Uropeon.  If God didn’t want us to fleece them, why did He make them sheep?

Next thing you’ll want us to give them a bunch of free medical care or something…

The problem however, is that the Saturn already gets 30 mpg

...and thus doesn’t get the subsidy, which is restricted to cars that get 18 MPG or less.

Mr Taylor wrote:

fourth, the voucher replaces instead of supplements all other trade-in deals, meaning that you need to have a largely worthless car, truck or van in order for this to make any financial sense whatsoever.

That’s because the traded-in clunker has to be junked; unless you scam it out for parts before you take it in—and it would still have to run—there’s nothing to resell.

I just checked, and my 2000 Ford F-150 4.2 liter five-speed manual transmission truck qualifies—but I’d need to buy new something that gets at least 21 MPG to make the qualification.  Since I need a full-sized truck, with 4WD, I don’t think that Ford could help me.

Now, depending on how long this program lasts—my truck is in great shape and I have no need to buy new; I’d only consider it due to the deal—when the time comes to replace my wife’s car, I could trade in the F-150 and she could get a smaller car.  Then I’d have to sell her Mustang, and buy a new truck for myself.

Oh, and there are other restrictions.  You have to have owned and kept insured the clunker for at least a year, so I can’t go out and pick up a $500 truck to sell as a clunker, unless I want to keep it in the driveway, and insured, for a year.

As shocking as this sounds, I actually agree with Mr Taylor: this is just welfare for the middle class.  In other news, Hell froze over today.

New cars because they’re trying to stimulate production.

One wonders: why didn’t the law specify that they had to buy a new American car?

“One wonders: why didn’t the law specify that they had to buy a new American car?”

...and which “American” cars would those be?  The ones made in Mexico with the name of an “American” company on them?  Or the cars made in the US with a “Japanese” name on them?...

Mr Mantis wrote:

I seriously don’t get the “you can only use this on new cars” provision.  How many people are actually out there driving around in old gas-guzzlers when they both want and can afford brand new cars?

A lot, actually: Hummer sales were doing pretty good up until a couple of years ago! 

Actually, I can see this program as being aimed precisely at people like me.  I bought my truck new in 2000, kept it in good shape, and don’t actually need to replace it yet, but could be induced to buy new again if the deal was right.  The catch is that I have to own bigger than I need, or think I can get away with something smaller, to make the deal work.

Or, like I noted before, if the family might need two cars, you could work a double-switch.

Well, Mr Ess, since you now have 1/300,000,000th share in a 60.8% stake in <strike>Government</strike> General Motors, I can certainly see why you’d want it restricted to American-name cars.

Dana, I asked a serious question.  Given that all car companies are global these days, what would your definition of an American car be?...

One wonders: why didn’t the law specify that they had to buy a new American car?

Maybe it’s because American car companies just aren’t making the best fuel-efficient cars.  The Chevy Volt is the only good one I can think of, and that won’t be available until next year.  Honda and Toyota led the way in hybrid vehicles.  If American companies want to be competitive, they need to make products that we actually want and need, rather than making products first and then spending tons of money to convince us that we should want them.

Simple: one manufactured by a company incorporated in the United States: Ford, GM or Chrysler.  And with the sale of Chrysler to Fix It Again Tony, maybe they wouldn’t qualify, either.  It might take a lawyer to come up with the precise definition to restrict it to American companies, but it could be done.

Just how much support do you think there’d be for a government program to encourage people to buy Toyotas?

The optimal person this works for is an upper-middle class suburban empty-nester couple. . .

From a voting perspective, this is the demographic the Dems get the most out of impressing, so this was skilled policy, if somewhat evil.

Given that all car companies are global these days. . .

CEOs of some “American” companies will refuse to call their corporations American in mixed company.

“Just how much support do you think there’d be for a government program to encourage people to buy Toyotas?”

If it’s made here, why not?  And if that Ford is made in Mexico, why? 

And you bring up a good point with Chrysler.  But here’s a question: Was Chrysler still American when Daimler owned a large percentage?  If so, why would it not still be American if FIAT owns a large percentage?...

Dana:

One wonders: why didn’t the law specify that they had to buy a new American car?

Remember when in the stimulus bill they provided that the projects had to use American steel?  Remember the shitstorm our trading partners rose (treaty violations, etc.)  Presumably that is why.

It’s not an unexpected financial gain (the definition of “windfall”),

Your $1500 (blue book) clunker is now worth $6000!

That sure looks like a windfall to me.

And if you could put that money towards a used car, you could own a $6000 used car without putting one more dime into it.

And if your objection is that you can’t spend that cash, sure you can. Unlike a new car, which depreciates once you drive it off the lot and take its automotive cherry, a used car bought on Monday is worth roughly the same amount on Tuesday. Sell it, amd spend the $6K on whatever you like.

But, as I said, pumping a lot of cash into the used car market would likely inflate the value of used cars.

<iNo way would someone like Bob Corker or Richard Shelby allow that to pass without a fight. </i>

The branch plants in Shelby’s Alabama are all about gas guzzling: The Honda Pilot, the Hyundai Santa Fe, and the Toyota engine plant that makes 350 cu. in. V-8s for their Tundra pickup and Sequoia SUV, as if gas was still $1.25 a gallon.

If the Toyota is made here, then buying more of them keeps the employees working, even if profits go overseas.  That seems a better plan for helping Americans than buying more cars made elsewhere, employing foreigners, with just the profits going to the higher ups.

I know!  You’re not really an American unless you are a higher up.  And those American employees are probably union socialist commies anyway, so why should they get a hand?

Come to Detroit and look around, then let me know if your confusion over what’s an American car company still sticks.

“Come to Detroit and look around, then let me know if your confusion over what’s an American car company still sticks.”

...maybe Dana is confused about this, but I’m not.  I’m hyper-aware that whether a given car company is “American” or not is a lot more complex than whether it has or had some connection with Detroit.

BTW, this is not a new problem by any means.  The “purity” of most large American companies has been declining for decades — by design — to increase competitiveness and reduce labor costs.  I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good thing, it’s just a fact…

one manufactured by a company incorporated in the United States

So you don’t mind if the actual manufacturing jobs associated with the design, fabrication and assembly of the car (not to mention the production of raw materials and components) are located outside of the U.S., as long as a relatively small group of American corporate shareholders reap the profits from bogus protectionist legislation?

Let me clue you in, Dana: protectionist legislation is only supported by voters when their jobs are being preserved—a Delaware holding corp and a portfolio of All-Murkin trademarks aren’t gonna do the trick on their own. Try again, with less kissing of MBA arse this time.

“If the Toyota is made here, then buying more of them keeps the employees working, even if profits go overseas.  That seems a better plan for helping Americans than buying more cars made elsewhere, employing foreigners, with just the profits going to the higher ups.”

I won’t buy them because 1.) They sure aren’t made in Michigan 2.) They sure aren’t made by anyone in a union 3.) I want to be welcome at my wife’s parents at holidays.

The bill’s just bad.  Even a $1500 credit for people buying say… ‘04 and up used cars would go a long way to stimulating the economy, too.  Granted, the bill as it is now is largely meant to help the car makers, but look at it this way:  Everybody wins if the new car restriction is dropped.  Also, the mpg rating should be increased.  Say my husband trades in his old Buick that gets a whopping 22 mpg for a slightly used 4cyl mid-size like a Stratus (which gets much better mileage than the EPA ever estimated!) or a Camry, he’ll see a respectable fuel increase.  States will get revenue from all the new tags, inspection stickers, smog inspections, sales tax.  Local govts will see a boost from that, too.  Not to mention all of the people who are now in a better position because they can spend their money on other things besides gas.  I’d wager it’d also help many people find better work because they’ll have a newer, more reliable car (again, newer, but not necessarily new).

On a side note:  The foreign versus domestic issue is largely bullshit these days.  A “foreign” car made in the US puts more American workers to work than a “domestic” car made in Asia or Mexico.

Y’all are trying to overthink the problem, nit-picking whether and how much of a particular car is Made in the USA.  Politically, it’s a lot simpler: if it’s Ford, GM or Chrysler, it’s American; if it’s Toyota or Honda, it’s foreign.

“Mr Mantis wrote:”

o_O ...it’s Ms. Mantis, actually.

“The catch is that I have to own bigger than I need, or think I can get away with something smaller, to make the deal work.”

Which is the sort of reasoning that makes me think that this incentive not covering used narrows it to the point of practical uselessness.  Dealerships—which I was under the impression we’d also like to not see going belly-up—are having a hell of a time moving either used or new cars.  There are quite a number of poor folks out there who would very much like to ditch their 15 mpg, on-its-last-legs clunker for a dealership certified used car with good gas mileage but can’t afford it.  $3,500 goes a hell of a lot further towards that 2000 Civic than it does toward that 2009 Civic.  If you include used cars, the people who want new cars are still going to buy them.  Expanding it to used cars as well means you get a boatload of people who’d otherwise be excluded due to cost in the door spending money and a boatload of actual clunkers—where low MPG is probably not the only pollution concern—off the road.

In case it matters, one can get a new car for as low as $13k these days; the credit pushes that down to $10k.  A 4 year loan means payments of $250 a month, which starts to look a lot like the maintenance cost for a 7-year-old car, but gives you improved mileage and decreased pollution in general.

Especially if one is smart enough to upgrade from a valueless SUV to a useful small sedan or compact for commuting and erranding.

Y’all are trying to overthink the problem, nit-picking whether and how much of a particular car is Made in the USA.  Politically, it’s a lot simpler: if it’s Ford, GM or Chrysler, it’s American; if it’s Toyota or Honda, it’s foreign.

Dana, that would only be true if the current year was 1979. However, it’s 2009 now—perhaps 20% of voters (i.e. the Bush base) are stupid and ignorant enough to buy the simple-minded proposition you’re offering, and only a small portion of them work in the auto industry.

Dana, recognizing the complex world we live in is…complex, doesn’t mean we’re over-thinking anything. 

OTOH, you too often seem to under-think problems and situations…

The “purity” of most large American companies has been declining for decades — by design — to increase competitiveness and reduce labor costs.  I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good thing, it’s just a fact…

That’s very much a reality here, where one of the largest pet food companies in the world and one of the largest breweries in the world both began as St. Louis-headquartered American companies but no longer are… Purina, which has been owned by Nestle Foods (Switzerland) for nearly a decade, and Anheuser-Busch, which was taken over by Belgium-based InBev (now Anheuser-Busch InBev) a few months ago.  And of course when their new European parent companies took over, the immediate job cuts were huge.  A lot of St. Louisans are still fuming over the death of “The King of Beers” (which tastes like piss, anyway).

A 4 year loan means payments of $250 a month, which starts to look a lot like the maintenance cost for a 7-year-old car, but gives you improved mileage and decreased pollution in general.

I’m sure that’s a super deal for somebody who has an extra $250/month laying around.

One wonders: why didn’t the law specify that they had to buy a new American car?

I dunno - it seems from the original post that it is favouring American-style car tastes (subsidised SUVs - WTF?).  What about a sliding scale based on actual milage, which would favour imports?

But you wouldn’t want to be seen provoking trade wars right now.  People standing in pools of gasoline shouldn’t start flicking matches at others.

El automovil no va?  Lo siento!

There is no $6,000 windfall: because the $3,500-$4,500 clunker bounty requires that the clunker be junked, there’s no other trade-in allowance that goes with it.

Entomologista—hey, you’re talking to the wrong guy; I agree that they should sell their cars and buy bicycles.  But speaking as the former owner of an old car, you learn to budget for breakdowns, and $250/mo is a lot less than my budget had to be during a particularly lousy period.

Acyually, I just checked with a Toyota dealership, and the salesman wasn’t certain, but he thinks you have to buy a new domestic vehicle; imports don’t qualify.  Then again, having checked a couple of things with dealerships, it seems like they are still pretty confused about the regulations themselves.

Y’all are trying to overthink the problem, nit-picking whether and how much of a particular car is Made in the USA.  Politically, it’s a lot simpler: if it’s Ford, GM or Chrysler, it’s American; if it’s Toyota or Honda, it’s foreign.

Dana

Or we’re actually paying attention.

[url=“http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aWHbmXZFhiEs&refer=asia”]GM Opens Eighth China Plant, Won’t Add Further Capacity Soon
By Tian Ying Dec. 17 [/url]

Report: GM to import Chinese cars; trickle in 2011 will turn to flood in 2014

[url=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7428952.stm”]Ford to open new plant in Mexico
May 31, 2008
The investment was announced at the presidential compound in Mexico City
US giant Ford is to invest $3bn (£1.5bn) in a new car plant in Mexico, the biggest investment in the country’s manufacturing sector.
The move is a blow to American car workers who had hoped the factory would be built in the United States.[/url]

Chrysler? Same thing.  Canada and Mexico.

Even that economic hack Freidman agrees the world is flat.

Seriously, Hector, if you’re not going to bother reading the post, don’t waste your time and everyone else’s trying to comment on it.

I’m pretty sure I was responding to Jesse’s observation that the rebate was “shitastic” in part because it shut out people who couldn’t afford new cars.

Except that, well, it’s shitastic.  The major problems are these: ... second, by only subsidizing new car purchases, this bill effectively shuts out the vast swath of poor people driving inefficient old cars who could afford a much more efficient recent used car (such as, say, an early-decade Camry or Civic), but have neither the money nor the credit to purchase a new car

1. Yes it is unfair to people who can’t afford to buy a new car, even with the rebate.
2. A bill that subsidized used car purchases would have other negative consequences.

Problem is a new car is never lower than $9,000 so $4,500 is not gonna help anyone who didn’t have extra money in the first place.

For those who want to buy 2009 model year cars made by union workers in America:

UAW CARS
Buick Lucerne
Cadillac CTS
Cadillac DTS
Cadillac STS
Cadillac XLR
Chevrolet Cobalt
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Malibu/Hybrid
Chrysler Sebring Convertible
Chrysler Sebring Sedan
Dodge Avenger
Dodge Caliber
Dodge Viper
Ford Focus
Ford Mustang Ford Taurus
Lincoln MKS
Mazda6
Mercury Sable
Mitsubishi Eclipse
Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
Mitsubishi Galant
Pontiac G5
Pontiac G6
Pontiac Solstice
Pontiac Vibe
Saturn Aura/Hybrid
Saturn Sky
Toyota Corolla*

Notice that some of these have Japanese names.

Here are some cars made by our neighbors to the north:

CAW Cars
Buick Lacrosse
Chevrolet Camaro
Chevrolet Impala
Chrysler 300
Dodge Challenger Dodge Charger
Ford Crown Victoria
Lincoln Town Car
Mercury Grand Marquis

http://www.uaw.org/uawmade/auto/2009/index.cfm

I really do try to buy American when I can, especially union.  However, as far as I’m concerned Canada counts.  Two nations, one economy.

Hector, I stand corrected, but I definately like my Pontiac Vibe. First new car I ever had, bought in May. It was trading up from a 1998 Saturn wagon, so the mileage was about equal.

I thought this was a good idea on the surface but that more I looked into it (my car isn’t that old ((‘99)) and not that bad on gas ((New Beetle))) but it *could* be improved….
but that last thing I need to do is have another bill for a new car when I’m trying to pay off these freaking student loans.
Not to mention the hell that is buying a car… yeah.

Jeebus. It’s like you’re five.

Dana is what we like to call a “wingnut”.

Wingnuts go for the packaging rather than the substance, because the substance is, well, complicated.  Thus if a company has an American name, it deserves full unthinking support from Americans, and if a company has a foreign name, it can go to hell.

If Scotland told the US to fuck off, Dana and crew would boycott McDonalds.

I visited my local Ford dealer this evening.  Sure, that’s a link back to my own site, but I have included what information I could document on the effect of the law.

I’d point out here that even the dealers are still confused.  A Toyota dealership told me that they thought the bill only applied to the purchase of domestic cars, the Ford people said it included imports, but they are all still caught a bit clueless.  One thing the Ford sales manager told me is that some deals they thought they had were put on hold until they see what this legislation is going to do.  Even after it’s signed, there will be a thirty-day waiting period before the law goes into effect.  Car dealers could have a really rough next thirty days.

I might point out that my ‘73 Chevy Nova made 18 MPG.  The 1984 one was a compact car… Made by Toyota.

I don’t get this at all.

PS, this basically boosted the value of any vehicle that qualifies.  Why sell it for less when you can make the benefit yourself?

Wait, what what?

Ask a question in a complete sentence without fragments, please.

Anyhow, my mom’s trucks are both worth more than the possible refund, so it doesn’t help us.  Ugh.  And as I pointed out, only car I did own (a Chevy Nova) that got under 30 mpg, got 18mpg…

The 1984 one was a compact car… Made by Toyota.

The 1984 Nova was assembled in Fremont, California, by New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., a joint venture between GM and Toyota in an old General Motors Assembly Division plant. Currently they make the Pontiac Vibe (a Toyota Matrix), the Toyota Corolla, and the Tacoma Pickup.

It’s the story of progressive legislation in this new Democratic wonderland - any even remotely good idea is Liebermanized, tempered with “moderated” language so that the least popular major political party in modern American history gets an effective preemptive veto on anything more radical than declaring puppies soft and adorable.

YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY ANTI-PUPPY, YOU PUPPY-HATING BASTARD!

The optimal person this works for is an upper-middle class suburban empty-nester couple who bought an SUV in the mid to late 90s to cart their kids around to various practices and sleepovers and pagan rituals (because that’s what we did back then), and are now stuck with an old, inefficient second vehicle with minimal trade-in value…and really, really want a new Prius.

Sadly, this seems true, but I have to say that as a middle class, city dwelling, childless couple looking at a new car, my wife and I found it amusing that we donated a Jeep Grand Cherokee (15 mpg) two years ago and kept the ‘98 Nissan Frontier that doesn’t qualify for the money because the EPA estimate is 20 mpg. It actually gets a consistent 25 or so though and is pretty cheap to run, so I guess I shouldn’t bitch much. I’ll probably end up donating the Nissan or giving it to a friend who needs a car if we find something anyway. The problem we’re having is we just don’t see any value in a car, even though we really need one.

Frankly, though, I am not the kind of person these programs should be helping. There are lots of people with greater needs than us.

I’m not entirely sure why Congressional Democrats govern like Newt Gingrich is going to come bursting through the door at any moment and start breaking their fingers with a ball-peen hammer if they go too far left, but they are.

[...]

It’s the story of progressive legislation in this new Democratic wonderland - any even remotely good idea is Liebermanized, tempered with “moderated” language so that the least popular major political party in modern American history gets an effective preemptive veto on anything more radical than declaring puppies soft and adorable.

Have you seriously considered the possibility that they are actually acting on their true beliefs, and all the “left” and “progressive” talk they spout is simply a calculated ploy to get you to vote for them? Perhaps they don’t actually believe what you think they do, or want them to?

When a man’s actions do not appear congruent with the beliefs he publicly espouses, I generally assume that his actions represent his true beliefs (in the absence of a really compelling alternate explanation).