Talk:Car Allowance Rebate System

Cost

We should put in a cost section. Edmunds said in yesterday's paper that they expected 200,000 CARS eligible cars to be traded in during the next 3 months (that's their baseline average I guess), and that since CARS has a cap of 250,000, the $4B the government is spending is only increasing the cars purchased by, at most, 50,000; and realistically 25,000. So the government is spending $160,000 to facilitate each purchase. --Mrcolj (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Take a look at this [1] and look at who did it. Is this a problem? I don't like the formatting but I'm not going to take the responsibility.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The user was at least fairly upfront about who they were. There may be a potential CoI, but it would be better to judge the material on its own merit.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the conflicting text awaiting for independent reliable sources to back the claim as a condition to restored it.--Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

The issue of privacy has been raised because the government website for this program states:

"This application provides access to the Dot CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign."

This should be mentioned in the article. I cannot add it, as I am under a topic ban on political articles.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a better source: President Obama in ‘snooping’ row over US car scrappage scheme, Chris Ayres, The Times, August 7, 2009. -- Dmeranda (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Debate??

As far as I can tell the "Debate" section is all Original Research. If you are going to put this in, and the carbon necessary to make a new car, then lets put in 1) the average mileage loss due to older cars being more inefficient than the government rating 2) the gain in productivity of those not relying on older cars 3) the cost-benefit analysis of the other 2 reasons for the "tripartite purpose" of the program. --128.146.33.130 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok so the Science article actually would support the program. This is hardly a "Debate" section. Maybe it should be relabeled "Motivation". It's just so poorly written, that I can't make sense of what the argument is.

--128.146.33.130 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requirements of new car?

Is the new car someone purchases actually required to be more efficient than the old car? Could one purchase, say, a Hummer under this program? If there are restrictions, it should be listed in the Eligibility criteria section; if not, I think it's worth mentioning that there aren't. 70.90.176.206 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

If the new vehicle is a category 1 truck that has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 2, but less than 5, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new category 1 truck has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500. A $3,500 credit applies to the purchase or lease of a category 2 truck if the trade-in vehicle is a category 3 (work) truck that was manufactured not later than model year 2001, but not earlier than 25 years before the date of the trade in.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Less efficient than a free market"?

Honestly, does this belong? Not only is it complete opinion, but it cites another wikipedia article as it's source! I'm not sure who added that/keeps adding that, but I haven't a clue how including such a broad and unsupported declaration such as "the program is bad because government spending is less efficient than the free market" is appropriate for an encyclopedia. 75.117.229.240 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I came in here to say exactly this. This sentence is completely arbitrary and offers no proof whatsoever. 65.204.30.126 (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the only problem, but it is the absolutely the most bias and seems a clear violation of NPOV or perhaps Chicken Little rhetoric of absolutely not valid evidence except that someone is able to repeat a particular talking point. I would have the same issue with the left Greenpeace twits who don't understand basic ecology as with right wing folks who after the extremely "efficient" collapse of our financial markets at least partially because the key checks and balances to avoid the paper ponzi schemes were all eliminated...yes by Clinton too via Glass-Steigall (kept the real banks separate from the gambling investment banks).

It looks like this whole article is being slanted via some right-wing or libertarians and like most things continues to refuse to separate opinion from fact. This comment may be gone, but the entire tone of the article smells like this and I call violation of NPOV with no evidence and a refusal to separate opinion from evidence and facts. For the above statement which appears gone I will say this. By any measure of economic efficiency done of services or programs provided in 100s of countries and not just the USA that public programs can be more cost effective and efficient in their goals in many cases, as can private ones and that is not the determining factor. Corruption and bureaucratic bloat in any program always creates cost inefficiencies and can be common to either public or private. Look up the history of firemen as a service, health care in other countries, etc. And for my right-wing friends let me rind them that both Hitler and Mussolini had many "efficient" programs and it was said that in Mussolini's Italy, "all the trains ran on time". Any discussion of valid efficiency concepts must first define the type, and the measure or metric, but that still doesn't mean it is good or bad intrinsically. I wish I saw this comment in context;)

Thehighlndr (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Top-selling new cars

The list of top-selling new cars that has the Ford Focus at the top is actually government spin. Please read http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm . The short version is that the government counts 4WD and 2WD versions of vehicles separately. There aren't very many 4WD cars, so the numbers of trucks and SUVs get diluted. According to Edmunds, if you don't count them separately, the Ford Escape is the #1. I don't think Wikipedia needs to take a position in this debate - we should, however, report both counting methods and both #1's. --B (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your observation. I do have the original Edmunds analysis, they used a different methodology so both tables are not comparable as vehicles are grouped under different criteria. I will work on this issue immediately, showing Edmunds results and explaining the differences in methodology, so NPOV is preserved.--Mariordo (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Done! Now I will add some details in both rankings.--Mariordo (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should these rankings go into a separate section or a subsection within Results?--Mariordo (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the rankings look fine how they are now, but what is the for? Also, on the US government list, the #6 seller is listed as "Ford Escape/Escape Hybrid". I don't think that's correct - the text below it says that the escape and escape hybrid are counted as two different vehicles by the government method. So I'm guessing that it should just be Ford Escape but I'm not 100% sure on that. --B (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the º mistake (it is used in Spanish for rankings, my mind used it by default). I do have a similar doubt, but look at the CNN source. There is a column saying that hybrids are included, so it seems a contradiction by the EPA definition, and in the other hand, it is also CNN saying in the other article that they are counted separately. I Google but couldn't find the original government source. If someone finds it we can fix it.Mariordo (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a complete list somewhere and we can validate the numbers ourselves. Something isn't right if the government number is counting them together. --B (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, let us know if you find the original DoT or NHTSA ranking to confirmed and make the correction. One plausible explanation could be that for the purposes of the CARS program they added up hybrids, if the first CNN piece is correct.-Mariordo (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am updating the DoT ranking showing cumulative sales for two weeks, but the source does not mentions if hybrids are included, so, I will leave that way (at least now the table will be consistent with the text, but the doubt persist, I Google again and can not find the original DoR o NHTSA ranking.-Mariordo (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable claim

It has been reported that the program costs $9,594 for every $4,500 rebate awarded, which leads to speculation whether the program is economically viable.

The reference says that "an independent estimate" concludes that the entire $1B initial disbursement was used up in administrative costs alone. This seems highly implausible, and the original source for this claim is not identified so I could not verify it. The reference also appears to be a political blog, making its claims somewhat suspect. So, I have removed the above text from the article. -- Beland (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism, controversy and debate

I will be quite busy until Sept 1st, so here I will leave some links to news articles (a couple already used as refs in the article) I was planning to use for my next edits, so I leave them for any of the regular editors interested in expanding the sections dealing with the controversial issues and criticism. There is plenty, and please do not forget to follow NPOV and avoid OR. See A Clunker of a Program, Unintended Consequences of Clunkers Law, Doing the ‘Clunker’ Calculus, Mom and Pop Used-Car Dealers Left Without Clunkers, $3 billion buys not-so-green vehicles, Obama administration withholds data on clunkers, Swings and roundabouts, and particularly 5 Downsides to 'Cash for Clunkers' and `Cash for clunkers' effect on pollution? A blip.-Mariordo (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of this program?

Is it the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) or is it the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program (the CARS Program)? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's many things.

• The official name of the federal law (The Act) is "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009".
• The law requires the NHTSA to establish a program called the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program".
• The working name of the implementation of the law (e.g., the program and related official website) that the NHTSA runs is called "Car Allowance Rebate System". From the NHTSA rule announcement: "The agency also has decided to use the name Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) for its program implementing the Act."

Dmeranda (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased POV

The entire article smells of a biased POV. It mostly promotes the benefits of the program with unquestionable positivity. It is assumed that the program is "good for the environment" (which most people seem to just think means reduced CO2 emissions -- hint, it's not), good for the economy, and a win-win situation for everybody on the planet. All of the criticisms are delegated to the bottom of the article, many of which were reverted because they did not "cite" anything -- even though the majority of the content already in the article which praises the program is uncited as well.Mac520 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of materials from the RS I provided above precisely to improve NPOV, just be careful to avoid OR and your opinions aside. Also check on any of Wiki's controversial articles, the criticism, controversy or debate always goes after the main topic is presented. When I have more free time I will do it myself if anyone has not done it before.-Mariordo (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

These three news pieces provide some materials for the debate regarding economic effects 'Clunkers' Lifts Consumer Spending, Cash for Clunkers Was Fun While It Lasted, But Here Comes the 'Hangover', and August Auto Sales Up for a Change? We'll Know Soon.--Mariordo (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Who pays the tax

Does the buyer have to pay income tax on this Stimulus check like we do on the other stimulus check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.223.136 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DoT to Edmunds ranking

The primary rankings of top sellers should be Edmunds before DoT. Replace the Corolla at the top of the page with the Escape. The DoT used an unconventional method for counting sales which was intentionally chosen to to back up their agenda of advertising foreign, compact cars. Edmunds uses the universally accepted method, and should be taken first.Mac520 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though I agree with most critics (the government is trying to greenwash the results), the fact is that DoT is using an existing method previously established by EPA, and it is the official source. Furthermore, Edmunds' analysis, as the article states, corresponds only to the first week of the program, and DoT results are for the entire program, so at this point they are not comparable. In the meantime we can include all the criticism available from RSs, similar to your last edit, but DoT data is official, so I strongly disagree with your proposal. We have to preserve NPOV and exclude our interpretations and believes. This of course might change as more statistical analysis is performed by RSs. The Associated Press requested the row data three weeks ago, and so far DoT has not make the database public, so we will have to wait.-Mariordo (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vehicle Type Shift

There is missing analysis on motivation affecting the shift of vehicle type traded in and purchased. The unsupported assumption is a desire to "go green" and reduce fuel costs. No information is given on changed vehicle needs such that many people did not simply buy a more efficient version of what they traded in.

No one has noted that child car seat laws encouraged purchase of gas guzzling SUVs and mini-vans for their relative ease when securing and freeing children. Years later, when the owners' children have outgrown legal requirements to use car seats, compact sedans like the Toyota Corolla better serve their needs [once again?]. --Mark Kaepplein (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

When such analysis becomes available from reliable sources, then it can be introduced in the article. Let's us know if you find any sources supporting these arguments.--Mariordo (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Sellers - Disagreement: Viewpoint from Edmunds.com

1. According to Edmunds AutoObserver [2], Edmunds.com collected a sample of actual trade-in and new-car sales transactions that occurred under the Cash for Clunkers program from its July 24 launch to July 31. (a) The Edmunds analysis covers only transactions in the first week of the CARS program, though the press release is dated Aug. 6, 2009; (b) The Edmunds analysis is based on a sample of sales transactions under the program, there can be scope of sampling error (depends on sampling size and sampling method and how scientific the samples are selected - Edmunds does not give out any info on its sample size and margin of error est.)

2. CARS released its latest info on new vehicles purchased under the program, based on info submitted by car dealers, as of Sept 9, 2009, see [3]. (a) According to CARS's 9/09 info, under the program, Escape (FWD+4WD+hybrid) sold a total of about 21,000, significantly less than that of Corolla (about 29,000 sedan) or Civic (about 27,000 excluding CNG/hybrid model), (b) Jeep Patriot (ranked #3 on Edmunds list) sold (2WD+4WD) a total of about 7,000; Dodge Caliber (ranked #4 on Edmunds list) also sold about 7,000, both significantly lower than vehicles on the top 10 list on DOT's Aug 26 release (Honda Fit, ranked #9 on the list, sold over 12,000).

3. To consider delete or rewrite the whole section of Disagreement. North wiki (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is more updated and comprehensive data from a reliable source go ahead and updated/rewrite that part of the section. I suggest you leave a short reference to Edmunds analysis, highlighting any shortcomings, include these new info and use the existing table to show the CARS data.-Mariordo (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very confused by the terms used by Edmunds, "Share of sales with clunker trade-ins" - what exactly does it mean? Does it mean the share of sales of total sales of which clunker trade-in are involved or just the percentage of sales of individual models that involved clunker trade-in (i.e. 4.8% of total Escape sales surveyed by Edmunds involved clunkertrade-in)? There's little in Edmunds' press release available for one to decipher. North wiki (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the important points of Edmunds' analysis is already contained in the 2nd last para. of Program Result, I think that's sufficient and to duplicate it will be quite clumsy. North wiki (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)