'Cash for clunkers' -or- 'Dumbest name for a government program ever'

[Possum Knight]

Originally Posted by 01d55

Every time you start a car, you are, from that moment until you turn it off, dumping waste into the air.

Yes, but there's a huge difference between dumpingfor the heck of it and dumping for the purpose of actually living.

[Sithdarth]

I don't know, just none of these distances seem that big. As I've said before I used to live 50km out of of the nearest city and I know of people who commute 200-300km each way on public transport.

Its not a problem of distance its a problem of scale. It works in smaller countries because they have the whole nation to pay for it and there aren't that many places outside of the hubs. Unfortunately the money available for things like this scales linearly with population at best but the number of places like this can scale as an exponential. It wouldn't be so bad but there are places where farmhouses are 10-20 miles apart on their own and would require individual service. Most of the smaller communities are also 10-20 miles apart and would require individual service.

There are so many of them spread so wide that the money just isn't there for that kind of scale. Most communities have trouble even maintaining a school district. The year after I left school they had to completely cut the music program and about half the sports because there simply wasn't any money. This basically leaves it up to the federal government which also doesn't really have the money nor does it really have the power to institute a public transit system. Hell the federal government doesn't even have the power to standardize the electric grid. The transmission system in the US is made up of a bunch of basically independent companies that own and operate the transmission lines. I think there are some basic regulations mainly on a state level but aside from that no form of government actually has authority over our electricity system. Its kind of scary when you think about it actually and demonstrates how little actual power governments in the US can have over important things. I doubt we could nationalize the electric grid even if we wanted to. The states would probably object because its not in the Constitution and therefore their power by default and the power companies themselves would definitely object. It'd take at least an amendment. The same would probably be true of public transportation. States don't have the money, neither does the national government for that matter because of our relatively low taxes, and the federal government can't step in because they don't have the power.

[MasterOfMagic]

Originally Posted by 01d55

Every time you start a car, you are, from that moment until you turn it off, dumping waste into the air.

Wow, seriously? I had no idea that cars polluted before now. You've blown my mind.

I guess instead of sarcasm I could just quote the post you were replying to.

[Wigmund]

They've got a Top 10 list for the most traded-in and most bought vehicles using the CARS Program.

From US News & World Report:
America has a lot fewer functioning Ford Explorers these days.

The number one vehicle destroyed under the Cash for Clunkers program, the Transportation Department says, was the Ford Explorer (1998 edition). Number two, the Ford Explorer (1997). Number Three...you guessed it. The '96 model.

The top eight, Jalopnik reports, were all SUVs. In fact, they were all various editions of the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee. A pair late ‘90s of minivans, the ‘97 Ford Windstar and '99 Dodge Grand Caravan, round out the top ten. All ten were domestic vehicles.

Domestics claimed a decent share of the new vehicle sales generated by the program as well. The Detroit News notes, "Detroit's automakers accounted for 47 percent of the first 80,000 ‘Cash for Clunkers' sales, the Obama administration said today...which is above their overall share in the auto market of about 45 percent." The top-selling vehicle under the program so far is the Ford Focus. "Four of the top 10-selling vehicles are manufactured by Detroit's Big Three. Of non-Big Three purchases, the Transportation Department's preliminary analysis suggests that more than half of these new vehicles were manufactured in the United States."

Autoblog adds, "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the average fuel economy increase so far is 9.4 mpg; a 61% increase." Based on the first 80,000 sales, "83% of the vehicles traded in have been trucks, while 60% of the vehicles purchased under the program have been cars."

The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers Trade-Ins:
1. 1998 Ford Explorer
2. 1997 Ford Explorer
3. 1996 Ford Explorer
4. 1999 Ford Explorer
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer
8. 1994 Ford Explorer
9. 1997 Ford Windstar
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan

The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers New Cars:
1. Ford Focus
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Corolla
4. Toyota Prius
5. Ford Escape (Ford's saying that most people are getting their hybrid version of this)
6. Toyota Camry
7. Dodge Caliber
8. Hyundai Elantra
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevy Cobalt

Even without some hard numbers, I'd say the program's doing some good.
And it looks like the Senate is gonna approve the $2 billion budget increase for this program.

Pity I can't use this program to trade in my Daewoo Lanos for a hybrid Honda Civic or something similar.

[Nique]

I'm not sure I get why so many people seem to think we are capable of scrapping an entire system of transportation. Trading in cars that get bad milage for cars that get better milage seems like a fair first step to larger progress without a chaotic overhaul.

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by Mesden

This argument has always been a terrible one. The government runs an excess of programs more expensive, more complicated, and, to some, more important than healthcare and have been doing so for a long time. People like to sensationalize any failure the government makes, conveniently forgetting the thousands of things it does right by the hour.

Name one large scale entitlement program the federal government has ever run that has worked right? Isn't a large part of the Obama's argument for fixing healthcare that Medicare and Medicaid are basically broken, and in need of immediate fixing? Social Security? Broken. Welfare, was badly broken until the republicans and Clinton fixed it in the mid 90s. Now its just mildly broken.

Also Healthcare is one sixth of this country's GDP. The ONLY thing more expensive and complicated than that would be military spending. And don't tell me that works out just fine. You can tell me that when they stop spending billions of dollars on things like 25K toilets and $600 hammers.

There is a reason that more people in this country now believe that government healthcare will actually decrease the quality than the number of people that think it will make their care better.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Name one large scale entitlement program the federal government has ever run that has worked right? Isn't a large part of the Obama's argument for fixing healthcare that Medicare and Medicaid are basically broken, and in need of immediate fixing?

No, his argument is that millions of Americans can't afford private health insurance, which has nothing to do with Medicare and Medicaid and everything to do with the complete and utter lack of control and oversight the American people, via its government, have over the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country.

Social Security? Broken.

Only arguably so because the money being put into it was opened up to be used as part of the federal budget in order to continue funding the Vietnam War, and then Congress decided they liked having that extra money and decided not to stop taking money out of it, leaving it slightly underfunded in the long run for the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. If it had been left to operate as originally intended, there wouldn't be a problem, and it could still probably work if the government would stop taking money out of it already goddammit.

Welfare, was badly broken until the republicans and Clinton fixed it in the mid 90s. Now its just mildly broken.

But they did make it better, according to your argument, which means that government can improve upon a program instead of invariably running it into the ground as you claim.

The ONLY thing more expensive and complicated than that would be military spending. And don't tell me that works out just fine. You can tell me that when they stop spending billions of dollars on things like 25K toilets and $600 hammers.

lololololol

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by MasterOfMagic

There's also the fact that a lot of people like to drive, and their current idea of public transit is sitting at a bus stop for 30 minutes waiting. So, not many people I know are too keen on the idea.

Of course they see it this way, because driving receives massive public subsidies in the form of road construction and maintenance, whereas public transportation is chronically underfunded. Along with government regulation that mandates things like lot sizes and construction offsets and things that prevent the population density that would make mass transit more workable and a non-car-centric lifestyle more practical for more people.

And for the record if your idea of private car-centric transit isn't 1. stuck in traffic 2. weaving in and out of lanes in desperate hope of getting somewhere today 3. the intermittent (and much more likely than your chance of same on even the worst public transit system) occurrence of property damage, personal injury, and death, then I wish to know where I too may drive these Highways of Paradise.

I still think this Cars for Cars program does some relative good although it would do a lot more and be a lot less wasteful if the program included fuel-efficient used cars (a 5yo decently maintained Civic will still beat the shit out of a Ranger or Explorer or w/ev) but it's pretty clear that part of this initiative was to help keep the auto industry afloat so hey, what can you do.

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Social Security? Broken.

http://www.nuklearforums.com/showpo...7&postcount=48

[Nique]

Ah there's the hilarious edit. Wondered what happened to the Fifthfiend we know and love(?) for a minute there.

But yeah now that you mention it, if the bus had like a martini bar and some go-go dancers than I might be more inclined to spend the extra 45 minutes it takes to get to work in the morning vs. driving.

[Fifthfiend]

I really don't get this thing where people treat wait times as some inherent quality of mass transit rather than evidence that mass transit here in the U.S. of USA is shitty and underfunded.

Like I live in an area where transit is relatively less underfunded and it is basically great and gets me to work a bit less quick than driving a car (about the same time if I were to not drive like an asshole) and I can play videogames or read or w/ev on the way and so, yeah.