Cash for Hummers

I have never had the Hummer bug, but at this moment I desperately want to trade my van in and buy one.

If I wanted gas mileage that low, I would just buy an RV at least you could live in it.

You write the "President Obama touted his 'Clash for Clunkers' program" and then that the "guide-lines in the House-passed bill" have what seem like stupid provisions.

Nice reporting! A bill is not a law. Obama didn't write that legislation. And by your not particularly adroit conflation, you suggest both those facts are not true. Hooray! Now that's "journalism."

John Stossel a journalist? Now there's an oxymoron. Where are the professional wrestlers when you need one? I think it's time John interviewed one again.

Typical liberals. When you can't dispute the facts, personally attack the person presenting them to you.

You have to remember that some people actually need truck-based vehicles. You can't use a car-based vehicle in the construction business, or on a farm or ranch, or to tow anything weighing more than a couple of tons. And those who live in the rural parts of the North have to deal with weather that practically demands a truck.
But the new trucks get way better MPG and put out less carbon than the ones being traded in, so it's a good thing.

Well, it takes an Obama administration to copy the stupidity of European governments. In Germany and France governments funded the buying of new cars with a cheque when you returned your old "bad" car.

This has pushed the market for automobiles in Germany and France for half a year, but the down-spiral next year will be all the more severe and now the US also copies this stupid scheme... Is there no common sense anymore in this world? You don't need to be versed in economics to understand that these programs are stupid and only make the situation worse...

Hey- Admit it was a stupid loophole rather than attack the messanger. John is pointing out the obvious-Obama didn't HAVE to sign it with the included loophole, so he is a bit disigenous for touting the green aspect when this doesn't work for that. It helps moves cars to get factories working again.

Capt Obvious,

The CARS bill (H.R. 2751 passed on 6/10/09) did in fact become law when President Obama signed it on June 24, 2009, as part of a War Funding Bill. The law contained the guide lines that appear in the House Bill. While it is also true that Obama didn't write the legislation, that can be said of EVERY law. President Bush didn't write the Patriot Act, but he signed it. The President doesn't write the bills nor is he allowed to change parts of the bills that come across his desk. He only signs or vetoes them. However, Obama wanted this program passed. My proof is his speech on March 30, 2009. Near the end, Obama says:
"Finally, several members of Congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our auto fleet. And such fleet modernization programs, which provide a generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars, have been successful in boosting auto sales in a number of European countries. I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act that could be trimmed to fund such a program, and make it retroactive starting today."

So calling it Obama's program isn't that much of a stretch, if Obama did indeed "work with Congress". That speech is available on the whitehouse.gov website, if you care to check it out. It still is a wasteful program, regardless of the author. It will only pull up auto sales, not increase them. While there MIGHT be a small increase in auto production, a positive result of this program is that dealer inventory is finally back where it should be. What do you think is going to happen when the money runs out? You'll watch auto sales crater again. Then what are we going to do? Not to mention most of the people buying cars are financing the balance of the purchase price, so that disposable income is no longer available for spending in other areas. The effects of this program are temporary, at best.

Q: Which saves more gas in driving 10,000 miles?

a. A large SUV (12 mpg) traded in for a hybrid Escalade (20 mpg).

b. A large SUV (12 mpg) traded in for a newer large SUV (16 mpg).

c. A mid-size vehicle (25 mpg) traded in for a Prius (50 mpg).

The answer is "a."

To go 10,000 miles:

12 mpg uses 833 gallons
16 mpg uses 625 gallons
20 mpg uses 500 gallons
25 mpg uses 400 gallons
50 mpg uses 200 gallons

"A" Gives an improvement of 333 gallons.

"B" Gives an improvement of 208 gallons.

"C" Gives an improvement of 200 gallons.

"dangerous dependence on foreign oil" is just a way to spin protectionism, and it's just as bad for the economy as any other protectionism. Of course enviromarxists don't like domestic oil either.

First of all, GregF, that is an excellent point. This is one consumer who is perfectly happy with our dependence on foreign oil.
Second, you all need to stop taking these blogs so literally. These are not carefully researched essays but tongue-and-cheek reactions to things John read in the paper over breakfast.
Wow, captain obvious, you claim John is suggesting that Obama wrote the bill? I didn't get that from this piece at all. In fact, I just assumed Obama was trying to take credit for something he probably had little or nothing to do with like all Presidents do. The fact is, any time the President endorses a bill he becomes partly responsible for it. This really shouldn't need pointing out because to most people this is, well, sort of obvious.

This reporter is coming of like a arrogate ass hat.

This is part of the less well known 'Clunkers for Cash' program.

"Cash...for hummers?"

Interesting headline, although I recently saw the same one used for June's issue of 'Barely Legal'

By a new Hummer H3 now and in 3 years it will be a 'clunker'. That will probably coincide with an re-election ploy where people can again have the Gov pay thousands to feed America's need to drive the newest cars. Personally, I'm happy with my car and livid that I'm paying for other peoples' cars. Buy what you can afford and don't ask me to subsidize your ride.

Stossel's report is not exactly accurate. To qualify, your car must get no more than 18 mpg and the new one must get at least 22 mpg. Not a difference of 1,mpg. Personally, if all the Hummers are off the road, it would be worth it to me. Their offenses are more than the sum of their milage,

MJG - those numbers apply to cars. For Category 2 Trucks, there is only a 1 mpg difference required to qualify. Thanks for reading the entire post, instead of the parts that fit your argument.

My '96 Sierra 2500 gets 20 MPG, and there are some issues under the hood that could be addressed that would surely bump that up. I think newer 2500-size trucks get in the neighbourhood of 24, maybe over 25 for the industry leader, though I've only ever heard the F150 being touted over 25mpg as leading, so who knows about the F250 of other makes like Tundra or Ram.

I agree that in many instances trucks are needed for commercial use, farm use, etc. or to deal with weather. But the idea is that the program takes dirty, inefficient engines off the road in favor of newer, greener ones. If the argument is that people need a truck, for whatever reason, then this isn't about fuel economy, it's subsidizing the sales of the auto industry and the consumers who want to trade up.

Some people may need trucks, but no one 'needs' taxpayers to subsidize their purchase. This 'broken window' program is sickening and isn't going to help the environment or the air we breathe or evil foreign oil consumption or corn growers or 'da children' one iota.