Cash for Clunkers?

Did you get a good deal in your area?

Read article below…

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent “savings” of $1000.

However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.

So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.

But wait, it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer.
For example, every dealer in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the “cash for clunkers” program started.

When “cash for clunkers” came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before. (Honda, Toyota, and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).

So lets do the final tally here:

You traded in a car worth: $3500
You got a discount of: $4500

Net so far +$1000
But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500

Net so far: -$350
And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before

Net -$3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan but lets just stop here.

So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they “gave” you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.

Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in “free” money from the “government” when in fact Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege.

What if I traded in a car worth $500?

I hear 90% of all the dealers are paid in full at this point which is a modern miracle all by it self.

I t helped keep us from going through a deep depression brought on by that goof ball from Texas.

I imagine if the consumer got a good deal you would complain that the taxpayer takes all the burden so there is no way to win in your unrelenting partisan hate for the President of the United States.

The right has one overriding, central fear. That President Barack Obama will be perceived by the voting public come election day as being successful. Which explains why he can’t do anything right, no matter what he does because it’s about power, not policy or principle.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. If he had ignored the auto industry, as the right wanted we would now be hearing about the President’s failure to help a vital industry.

Never forget the right was fired for incompetence. They now find it easy to atttack **any **attempt at solution. So easy to throw stones from the cheap seats. Especially when it was the right who drove this car into the ditch.

Keep in mind that the right has only one goal. That is to regain power. Everything that comes from the right has to be looked at with that understanding. There is no lie or distortion they won’t use if they think it serves that goal.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to get you through the day.:roll:

Rush is on record saying he hopes Obama fails. :roll:

Good point.

What if you went from 14 MPG to 30 MPG? $$$

What if that paid off car suddenly needed work? $$$$

If people made a bad deal at the dealership, that’s not the govn’ts fault. (Happens every day with or without the credit) :roll::roll:

A sitting President’s popularity will decline under most scenarios. Events might make it spike (George the first and Desert Storm etc) but overall it tends to decline.

The is because the decisions that come to the President’s desk aren’t the easy ones that most everyone can agree on. Those low hanging fruit are handled by others. So the President, if he’s trying to do his job is faced with decisions that are guaranteed to not sit well with somebody. Hence the inevitable drop in popularity pools. This is a phenomena independent of party or ideology (of course knowing this requires the ability to recognize facts as opposed to partisan spin)

It also requires knowledge of history which is actively discouraged on the right. Can’t have the mindless drones of the right getting confused by facts now can you.

But the fact is that only one poll actually counts. That happens on election day when people have to evaluate the** entire performance** of someone and make a real decision with real consequences. As opposed to just shouting from the cheap seats.

My contention that you ignore , is that the your masters on the right have only one fear. That on election day folks will perceive The President as successful enough to have earned a second term. That perception is based on many factors ( especially for the critical independent voters who don’t just follow orders).

Further I contend that the right will say or do anything that they see as helping return them to power. My experience and opinion of the right is that they truly believe that the ends justifies the means when the ends is their return to power.

All of the people out there that would have normally called a salvage for thier car instead took it and traded it off for a new one.
Auto Industry +1
Local salvage hauler -1

No how long does a self employed salvage hauler have to wait to start seeing a even traffic of junk cars again.


All those cars were to be scrapped, so probably right away.

Why are you biased towards self-employed slavage haulers as opposed to self-employed car dealership owners? :mrgreen::wink:

Do you ever take what someone says in context or is making a cheap and inaccurate point more important to you.

Depends on the situation. :mrgreen:

Do you hope Obama fails?

Which is why your posts are little more than bomb throwing with duds.:roll:

Just responding to you in kind. :mrgreen:

Rough day, Mike? You’re missing alot of the sarcasm, today. :frowning:

Makes it less fun for me when you don’t get it.

Sarcasm is difficult to express in writing.

That’s why the icon exists.

Use it or be misunderstood.

Since the fun is gone, today…

Do you hope Obama fails?

What do you think would happen in the USA if he did?

Yes, Rush said Obama, but “meant” he hopes his policies and liberal “agenda” fails. He would never wish ill of the entire country because of partisanship. Would he?

The rest of that piece has some silliness about how his side should play to win, noone gave Bush a chance, etc, etc, ad nausem…

The thing that you don’t get, about me, is the ideas I agree with aren’t chosen by the party line. The uber-partisanship is what really makes me ill.

If it seems that am am against the right, that’s probably because there is so much of “our team” can do no wrong from that side, I try to balance it out. :mrgreen:

Consider it public service.

I don’t but thanks for trying.:wink:

Wrong, the trade-ins had to be insured to drive for the previous year to qualify, so they were not scrap, they were daily drivers. Nice try, but no cigar.