OK, guys - Time to mobilize... Need your help!!!

[PoorManQ45]

Bah, old cars are useless. When scrap prices are high it's better to scrap it

[PapaSmurf2k3]

"I heard that they made an air cooler fiberglass engine that runs on water. Water man! But the government is keeping it a secret"

As I was reading the proposed Pelosi argument, I couldn't help but think "hmm... there are definitely a few saturns driving around here that would be prime candidates for this program", but then read what Greg wrote about the low income vehicles.

[Loki]

Does anyone else think this sounds like the "everyone should own their own home" initiative from a few years back? The one that helped make the housing crisis? If this happens there won't be anymore real cheap older cars, forcing folks to put themselves in debt to buy a newer model.

[NSR_s30]

I definitely gave them a piece of my mind and also copied it up on jnostalgics Greg.

[NSR_s30]

Got the guys over at Jnostalgics apart of the cause.

http://japanesenostalgiccar.co...31778

[hannibal]

Again, our Congress is misinformed. They certainly dont understand why we CHOOSE to keep these old 'clunkers'. I would suggest sending a message to your local representative in addition to Ms. Pelosi...

I am kinda torn, as Hash's idea creates an strong incentive to make a little money and provide a service to car enthusiasts.

[skydragoness]

So wait..they're going to FORCE people to get rid of cars made after a certain year??

And how the hell do they think this will help the economy? Whatever small amount they give isn't going to help, drive people further into debt than they already are, and with the way people are losing jobs right now.. how will they make payments? This plan makes no sense.

[ca18detgabby]

after seeing all the cars cut up and sent to the scrap yard this year this makes me very sad.

I have rediculously good credit and had to work hard to find financing because companies simply dont have the money. Toyota said they are turning away sales all the time right now, not because people dont have credit, but their finance people dont have money to do it.

this is a horrid idea.

specially when all the gas guzzling, smoke spewing, POS cars on the road are driven by people who cant afford new cars in the first place. so those POSs are still going to be polluting and making a mess. what is this realling going to achive?

higher scrap prices, more theft(as autos are more valueable.... more hondas and 240s will disappear), and still noone will be able to buy new cars

[MinisterofDOOM]

I haven't sent my letter yet, as I'm still revising it. But here are a couple points for consideration.

AGE has NOTHING AT ALL to do with emissions. NOTHING.

When I took my 1984 V8 Cadillac in to have it emissions tested when I registered it, I was told by the testers that it was one of the cleanest running cars they had EVER seen. This was a 19 year old V8 beater. It had a crushed tail light, rear bumper, trunk, and was missing it's grille. It looked the part of a car that Nancy's plan would target. But getting it off the road would achieve NONE of her target goals. It would potentially have been replaced with a DIRTIER running car!

Also, WHY are we looking at getting cars OFF the roads? Where did that idea come from! It's MORONIC. We should keep cars ON the roads as long as possible. The key is simply keeping them in good shape. Why not target emissions improvements by reducing auto PRODUCTION? And what better way to do that than keeping peoples' old cars on the road?

Why are we targetting beaters for emissions/fuel economy in the first place? Where is that connection being made? Whoever made it is a moron. A 1991 Civic will get better milage and run cleaner than a new Civic. Why would anyone want you to throw away the old civic for a small fraction of the cost of the new one when you can just keep the old one? What on earth happened to conservation and recycling? This attitude of "it's dirty, throw it away" is appalling. FIX IT, clean it up, and keep using it. OR use it for parts to keep others in good shape. Crushing the cars is wasteful and benefits NO ONE.

Nancy, if you want to improve fuel economy, I'll tell you how. Remove 500lb of airbags and fuel economy will go up! And less fuel consumption, by the basic laws of combustion, means lower EMISSIONS. Hey, problems solved!

KEEP OUT OF OUR INDUSTRY and our HOBBY. This kind of agendified beauraucracy is good for neither.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Toyota said they are turning away sales all the time right now, not because people dont have credit, but their finance people dont have money to do it.

This is total, utter bull****. Chrysler used that line to explain why nobody is buying their cars too (snicker).

They're simply being way, way more selective with lending now.

Car loans are screwing stupid, anyway.

[VersaMG08]

I oppose this idea from congress. Why should people turn their old clunker in for money/credit? What this does is a change of lifestyle for some people, especially who like to collect, go to car shows with their old collectable automobile. Just another way of government interviening with others. Oh and I think Nancy Pelosi should quit her job, she embarasses me and I don't like her liberal policies.

[IanS]

Looks like we have a few SEMA action network members in here. I will be sending my letter shortly.

[Tulsa_S-13]

Definitely going to be emailing and calling my local representatives about this one.

[NISTECH]

It is not mandatory. It will be optional to turn in your car for cash.

This is the way it works in california.Your car fails its emissions inspection. You have a choice. 1)If you are low income the state will pay up to $500 dollars to fix your car. or2) the state will give you $1000 dollars for your car and crush it. No parts can be salvaged if you take this route.[unless the wrecking yard outbids the state for the car]

There are strict requirments for both. If you go the $500 route you have to be the current owner of the car and it has to have been registered to you and to be driven on public roadways for the last 2 years. Your income has to be below a certain income bracket.If after making the repairs it still wont pass you get sent to the refferee and they give you a pass for the next 2 years but you HAVE to fix it by the time the next smog is due in 2yrs.

The $1000 route. You have to have owned the car for ,I think it was, the last 4 or 5 yrs and it has to have been registered in your name over the last 2yrs to be driven. The vehcile must run and be able to be driven under its own power both forward and back ward. You MUST drive it to the wrecking yard. It has to have certain componants on it to be acceptable. Barley/not running vehciles are not accepted as it is not logically being driven on a daily basis. So barn cars wont be a factor under this stradagy. And your only allowed 1 car per every 4 yrs.

Since the wrecking yard has the option to out bid the state if they see it is worth more in part value they will jump on it. If you want to hang out as cars come in and you like one you see, work with the wrecker to purchase it out from under the state. Granted it will be a salvage title but who cares if your parting it out.

I think this is the concept of this new program. I really dont see them doing it much differently.

[skydragoness]

Thanks Nistech for clarifying. I knew it didn't sound right. So this bill they are proposing is similar to the credit they were giving to people for buying hybrid cars...more or less. So why is everyone freaking out? All it is doing is giving people an incentive to upgrade to something else if all the money they are putting into it isn't helping pass emissions (which honestly is the lazy route, as most older cars just need new cats, a tune-up and proper maintenance to pass emissions).

The $500 government assistance to fix your car is interesting. In DE, we have a law that if it costs you more than $500 to fix your car and it still won't pass emissions then you claim exemption. Of course that's here, not CA.

[AZhitman]

More info:

Speaking Out Against ScrappageSEMA Cautions Congress on Flawed Cash for Clunker Programs

SEMA and the SEMA Action Network (SAN) are opposing efforts to revive consideration of federal funding for vehicle scrappage programs. These programs accelerate the normal retirement of vehicles through the purchase of older cars, which are then typically crushed into blocks of scrap metal. In response to testimony delivered on Capitol Hill, SEMA sent letters to members of Congress to counter requests that tax dollars be used to entice motorists to trade in their older cars and trucks for newer models. SEMA emphasized that hobbyists would suffer with the indiscriminate destruction of older cars, trucks and parts they need if scrappage programs were expanded with federal funds.

“America safeguards its artistic and architectural heritage against indiscriminate destruction,� said SEMA Vice President of Government Affairs Steve McDonald. “Our automotive and industrial heritage deserves the same protection.�

SEMA has also learned that legislators may also be considering scrappage as a clean-air measure and are now in contact with these offices to explain scrappage’s shortcomings as an environmental measure. Traditionally, scrappage efforts focus purely on vehicle age rather than actual emissions produced.

Enthusiasts played a vital role in defeating federal scrappage legislation in 2002 and should be prepared to counter this renewed threat to the hobby. SAN members should stay tuned for e-mail alerts and updates in Driving Force should a bill be introduced.

For more information, contact SAN Director Jason Tolleson at [email protected].

=====

Cash For Clunkers Sounds Good, But Is Bad Policy

An unchecked Cash for Clunkers program risks destroying classic, historic and special-interest vehicles. America safeguards its artistic and architectural heritage against indiscriminate destruction. Our automotive and industrial heritage deserves the same protection.

- Cash for Clunkers Programs Do Not Take Gross Polluters Off the Road: Cash for Clunkers focus on vehicle age rather than actual emissions produced. This approach is based on the erroneous assumption that “old cars are dirty cars.� However, the true culprits are “gross polluters�—vehicles of any model year that are poorly maintained.

- Squeezes Low-Income Citizens: Low-income Americans would be hurt by expanding Cash for Clunkers. Such programs reduce the supply and availability of affordable transportation and repair parts—the very cars and parts most often bought by low and fixed-income drivers.

- How Can the Federal Government Ensure that the Replacement Vehicle Is Any Cleaner?: There is no guarantee with a Cash for Clunkers program that a replacement vehicle (if there is one) will be cleaner running or more fuel-efficient than the vehicles the government paid to scrap. For example, many popular cars in 1979 achieved higher mileage ratings than 2008 vehicles.

[asoomal]

they tried to (maybe even did) make a program like this in BC. I wrote the premier with similar talking points. I will try e-mailing Pelosi as well, she doesn't need to know that I am Canadian

When was this?

[Armelius]

I am concerned that bills like this tends to put people who own older cars as potential criminals in the eyes of police or traffic enforcement officers. They spot an older vehicle and would tend to harass these owners more than owners of new cars.

Every day I look upon the road and see nothing but recent models. I wonder where did all the old cars go to and why were they not kept up so that I would still see a 79 Caprice Classic or even those old Ford Escorts. Were they that disposable? A new engine and transmission doesn't cost more than a new car.

I fear even more that car companies or part suppliers will stop making parts for old cars and would further force everyone into a newer vehicle.

[USsil80]

email sent

but they probaly have our computers marked with your party so when she gets it, it has a republican mark and just kinda disapperared from there.... ugly old *****

[skydragoness]

Cash For Clunkers Sounds Good, But Is Bad Policy

An unchecked Cash for Clunkers program risks destroying classic, historic and special-interest vehicles. America safeguards its artistic and architectural heritage against indiscriminate destruction. Our automotive and industrial heritage deserves the same protection.

- Cash for Clunkers Programs Do Not Take Gross Polluters Off the Road: Cash for Clunkers focus on vehicle age rather than actual emissions produced. This approach is based on the erroneous assumption that “old cars are dirty cars.� However, the true culprits are “gross polluters�—vehicles of any model year that are poorly maintained.

- Squeezes Low-Income Citizens: Low-income Americans would be hurt by expanding Cash for Clunkers. Such programs reduce the supply and availability of affordable transportation and repair parts—the very cars and parts most often bought by low and fixed-income drivers.

- How Can the Federal Government Ensure that the Replacement Vehicle Is Any Cleaner?: There is no guarantee with a Cash for Clunkers program that a replacement vehicle (if there is one) will be cleaner running or more fuel-efficient than the vehicles the government paid to scrap. For example, many popular cars in 1979 achieved higher mileage ratings than 2008 vehicles.

Ah, I see. I can see how there would be discrimination on older cars at DMV's, but isn't there laws on the books already..varying by state.. that say what is a passing score for an OBD-1 car? Where in this bill are they saying that pre OBDII cars have to conform to current EPA ratings for new cars of today? (Did I miss that?). I just don't see in the bill where they are going to force owners to get rid of their older cars.

The biggest problem I have with this bill is that getting a low-income person into a car payment is NOT helping them out. They are better off with the $500 hand out or exemption if their car cannot pass emissions. And in the end, that's what this is about .. getting millions and millions of unsold cars off the dealer lots. And if this bill ever passes.. that will never happen because the average person can't afford one right now in this economy.

[AZhitman]

Keep it rolling, guys - Let's link this out there... it only takes a second.

[rc1honda]

Hooray for cut and paste, Nicely written OP.

[JimmyMethod]

I've talked to a couple economists about this, and this is actually a really good idea economically... but I'll keep my mouth shut.

The people who will do this are generally low-income families, and therefore, most/all money gained in this way will be spent and therefore injected back into the money cycle.

Also, the price of steel has jumped 20% in the last year. The raw material gained is worth more than ever.

[AZhitman]

this is actually a really good idea economically... but I'll keep my mouth shut.

Why start now?

JK, Jimmy - I'd love to hear more.

The reality is, an economist may see it one way, and that may be all true. But the impetus for this bill WAS NOT to strengthen the economy. It was to reduce dependence on foreign oil, clean up the environment, and reduce the number of "polluters" on our roadways.

For its original intent, it fails all day long, 8 days a week.

Let me touch on the steel commodity issue later... There's a real 'false economy' issue there as well, that most economists know little about. My older bro is a commodities trader who deals primarily in steel to foreign markets....

[ddgsxr504]

For its original intent, it fails all day long, 8 days a week.

[notslow]

When was this?

I think it was launched this summer.... maybe last year

http://www.scrapit.ca/
Modified by notslow at 11:46 AM 1/5/2009

[AZhitman]

One last bump for teh n00bs.

[s13gebala]

i called her and left her a msg

[hsckris]

Printing my letters now....

[JimmyMethod]

The reality is, an economist may see it one way, and that may be all true. But the impetus for this bill WAS NOT to strengthen the economy. It was to reduce dependence on foreign oil, clean up the environment, and reduce the number of "polluters" on our roadways.

I didn't say the steel thing was the issue, but implementing the plan now opposed to, say, 2 years ago, means it's less of a burden on the government.

As for the reasons for doing it, how are those bad? Of the cars on the road, these 'junkers' drive 25% of miles driven, however, they account for 75% of the pollution. Doing the math, if you were to replace them all with modern vehicles, that would cut auto pollution in half(!!!!!) (for civil vehicles, the study didn't include commercial vehicles).

By encouraging people to drive newer cars, you also let them buy less gas, and therefore spend money on other things that put more $ back into domestic hands, too, instead of sending the money overseas.

Personally, I think this concept is a homerun for lawmakers. This actually seems pretty good all around.Sorry spare parts will be harder to find, but that seems like a very small price to pay (read: that seems really petty).

I'm going to tell everyone right now something they don't want to hear:

YOU WILL HAVE TO SACRIFICE SOME OF YOUR WANTS IF WE, AS A SOCIETY, ARE GOING TO AVOID A DEPRESSION. IF YOU DON'T DO IT NOW, YOU'LL HAVE TO GIVE UP EVEN MORE LATER.