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)

For older cars, a blind spot

I have a relative who owns a car that gets just over 19 mpgs in 1992, and it's a V6 Infiniti engine. 17 years down the line, the car's exhaust is clogged, transmission is not launching as hard as it is slipping. The "real" mileage the car gets now is more likely to fall short of 15 miles to the gallon. Yet, the the government can't force anyone to scrap their car and give them $3500~4500 for their car worth a few hundred dollars. So these old bangers for as long as they run, are still on the road. Instead, the government is giving $4500 allowance to people who can afford to buy a new car without financial aid - and these people are giving up years of useful life from their cars made in 1999. If you ask me, this move only helps automakers to sell cars. 208.59.139.179 (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

True or untrue, this isn't a forum for general discussion, just improvement to the article--76.214.144.81 (talk) 19:19, 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)

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)