Cash for Clunkers rant

[Moparjim]

I'm annoyed by this insurance requirement thing to prove that you owned the vehicle. The law that passed contained the language that the "vehicle be insured per applicable state law". In Wisconsin, we do not have mandatory insurance, you are allowed to be self insured via "personal funds". The NHTSA administering the program is so far claiming you need to provide "proof of continuous insurance for the whole year such as an insurance card. So, how is a Wisconsin person that did not have insurance with a commercial insurance company supposed to provide proof? Since I own a lot of vehicles, I do not insure them at all times, particularly when I am not driving them. I have a sweet 92 Jeep I would love to trade in and take advantage of the program. It meets all the requirements of the law, have legitimately owned and driven this thing for several years, except I cannot provide an insurance card for the entire year since I didn't drive it over the summer (since I have other cars) I cancelled the commercial insurance company insurance on it. I'm not advocating people drive without insurance obviously, but I would think there are indeed a fair amount of "clunkers" being driven around legally "per the applicable state law" without commercial insurance company insurance on them.

[LIL EVO]

Wow that's BS. I do the same thing with insurance.

Can't wait to see how the mandatory insurance flies with us multiple-car people.

[4eyedstang]

why cant you just show proof that you where insured for the year?
my auto insurance cover any vehicle i drive. :deal

[Goat Roper]

Wisconsin people should have insurance anyway. I have zero sympathy for people who do not have insurance. But in MoparJim's case it is a kick in the jimmy a bit.

[Yooformula]

once you are issued an insurance card, doesnt it state the policy term on it? Mine shows the starting/ending date of the policy as a year. They dont take my card back when I cancel after a few months so couldnt you just show that insurance card?

[pOrk]

Jim, I don't know your personal income by any means but I am almost positive ( actually positive judging by your sweet ass viper ) that you make more then the max amount this program is good for. I don't know the number off hand, but I'm pretty sure you cant make more then 34k per year to qualify for this program.

[BlackLightning]

Jim, I don't know your personal income by any means but I am almost positive ( actually positive judging by your sweet ass viper ) that you make more then the max amount this program is good for. I don't know the number off hand, but I'm pretty sure you cant make more then 34k per year to qualify for this program.


Q: Is there an income limit that disqualifies certain vehicle owners?

A: No.

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/bill-faq

[Karps TA]

I think the purpose of this is to get old shitty cars that people are using on a daily basis off the road. Hence the insurance requirement. The intent isn't so people get rid of lawn ornaments that never get driven for a big paycheck.

[LIL EVO]

I don't know where you guys get your insurance, but I've always been required to have each individual car on my policy. Each car gets their own insurance card with model, year, and VIN number.

[84hurst]

I don't know where you guys get your insurance, but I've always been required to have each individual car on my policy. Each car gets their own insurance card with model, year, and VIN number.

Same here. But obviously I don't drive all my cars year round either but they are always insured. Comprehensive is cheap enough (storage insurance, no driving insurance). I think I only pay $30 for 6 mo for my Olds and $40 for my Camaro.

[PB86MCSS]

My insurance (Progressive) cards have all vehicles together. I also keep comp on my cars when stored for winter, it would be foolish to not have it. For a beater that you don't really care about I can see not bothering but would still probably get it for how cheap it is, in case of some freak thing or theft. I agree it stinks in your case though but I guess if it was only driven/insured sometimes thats why they have the rules(?). The goal is to get daily cars off the road.

[shoooo32]

Jim, I would think you would be able to supply them with enough paperwork to support the fact that you've owned, insured and driven this vehicle and a regular basis. Dealerships are so hungry right now I'm sure they are looking at this from all angles making sure they don't miss a sale.

[DerangedPony]

The rules that we are going off of up until now will not be official until Tomorrow. They used the beginning of this month to hammer out the details and also figure out some details on a state by state bases like this one.

If you would like to send me a PM, I can forward you more info. on the program when the official stuff is sent to us tomorrow.

[lordairgtar]

You identified your vehicle as a "sweet 92 Jeep". The descriptive word "sweet" indicates that this is a nice truck. You do realize that the clunkers in this program are going straight to the crusher? Salentine is displaying an early Taurus wagon perched on top of a dumpster for that promotion. Clearly a rusty bucket. Would you classify your Jeep in that bracket?

[pOrk]

^ I think heavy sarcasm was meant with the word "sweet" in Jims post. Just a guess though :)

[PureSound15]

^ I think heavy sarcasm was meant with the word "sweet" in Jims post. Just a guess though :)

I concur.



ALTHOUGH - if it is sweet. I will glady come over and try to shit it up a bit, just for the sweet satisfaction that you, Jim, can get some kind of money out of our goverment.

They just keep taking mine :(

[Moparjim]

You identified your vehicle as a "sweet 92 Jeep". The descriptive word "sweet" indicates that this is a nice truck. You do realize that the clunkers in this program are going straight to the crusher? Salentine is displaying an early Taurus wagon perched on top of a dumpster for that promotion. Clearly a rusty bucket. Would you classify your Jeep in that bracket?

As Pork said there is definitely some sarcasm in the "sweet" description. It does run and drive pretty much great lol, but it is 16 years old, rusty as hell, and has 315,000 miles on it so its probably got a cash value of like $500. It does seem a shame to send a perfectly good car to the crusher, but it has definitely lived it's life to the fullest! I will need a new car daily driver soonish so this Cash for Clunkers thing had me very very excited. I am looking at being able to get a $25K Caliber SRT4 for around $13K with the employee discount, incentives, and cash for clunkers...

[WhatsADSM]

As Pork said there is definitely some sarcasm in the "sweet" description. It does run and drive pretty much great lol, but it is 16 years old, rusty as hell, and has 315,000 miles on it so its probably got a cash value of like $500. It does seem a shame to send a perfectly good car to the crusher, but it has definitely lived it's life to the fullest! I will need a new car daily driver soonish so this Cash for Clunkers thing had me very very excited. I am looking at being able to get a $25K Caliber SRT4 for around $13K with the employee discount, incentives, and cash for clunkers...

Holy fawk. That's a lot of car for that kind of money! They can be had for 17.5 with the employee discount and incentives?

[07ROUSHSTG3]

well, i am looking over the cash for clunkers paperwork here, and i do not see anything about insurance on here??? i see that it must have been registered for 1 year, but i don't see anything about needing insurance proof?????? seems like a pretty sweet deal for someone that has a work beater or something that they could do without and want to upgrade.

[DerangedPony]

We have not heard the ruling on the WI insurance thing as of yet, just the Fed. rules are out right now. We expect something this morning or at least today. I'll keep you posted.

[Moparjim]

Holy fawk. That's a lot of car for that kind of money! They can be had for 17.5 with the employee discount and incentives?

Yeah 2008 ones. Theres like $4500 in regular incentives, $3000 or so off for the employee discount. Rough numbers but yes around that price range.

[Moparjim]

well, i am looking over the cash for clunkers paperwork here, and i do not see anything about insurance on here??? i see that it must have been registered for 1 year, but i don't see anything about needing insurance proof?????? seems like a pretty sweet deal for someone that has a work beater or something that they could do without and want to upgrade.

If you go to www.cars.gov you will find a tab on the top that leads to links for the actual law and the "day one notice" or something like that. In the law, it says "must have been insured per applicable state law". Since in WI we don't have a mandatory insurance law just a "financial responsibility law that says we can indeed be "self insured by personal funds" I would think we wouldn't have to provide a commercial insurance company card, just sign a statement that we insured ourselves during that time period. Again, I'm not advocating driving without insurance. That is the way the law was passed though I don't see how the NHTSA can just decide to implement it otherwise and require insurance cards. Also, the intent of that part of the law is just to prove ownership so people don't run out and buy junkers to cash in. In my case I legitimately have owned and driven this Jeep for several years - its been in my sig even lol. It is registered every year and insured for probably about 1/2 the year or more, and is driven daily all winter and driven occasionally whenever I need a truck during the summer. So, why should I be screwed and not qualify.

[Moparjim]

well, i am looking over the cash for clunkers paperwork here, and i do not see anything about insurance on here??? i see that it must have been registered for 1 year, but i don't see anything about needing insurance proof?????? seems like a pretty sweet deal for someone that has a work beater or something that they could do without and want to upgrade.

When you say paperwork do you mean dealership paperwork? If so maybe they backed off in Wisconsin at the last minute as they should have then. As of yesterday the hotline and website were saying they were going to require the insurance info.

[DerangedPony]

Well, here it is:

"The agency recognizes that insurance requirements differ throughout the country.
However, the agency believes that the Act requires the continuous one-year insurance
condition to be met as a threshold matter, with respect to any trade-in vehicle under the program. In a State where the conditions and requirements of insurance are specified in law (e.g., liability minimums, deductible requirements), the insurance coverage would then need to be in accordance with those conditions and requirements. To qualify under this requirement, a purchaser must provide proof of insurance covering the trade-in vehicle for a period of at least one year prior to the date of the trade-in."

So, going by that, it does not look like your Jeep would make it. I'll let you know if I hear anything else.

[Moparjim]

"In a State where the conditions and requirements of insurance are specified in law (e.g., liability minimums, deductible requirements), the insurance coverage would then need to be in accordance with those conditions and requirements."

That sounds to me like we would not need it in Wisconsin then? We do not have insurance requirements by law. We have a "financial responsibility" law that states you can be insured by bond or by "personal funds". We do have a law that states liability minimums if you do chose to have insurance, but we do not require you to have that insurance.

Seems to me their clarification/details just made it more confusing or open to interpretation. Any crystal clear clarification would be great lol.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

"In a State where the conditions and requirements of insurance are specified in law (e.g., liability minimums, deductible requirements), the insurance coverage would then need to be in accordance with those conditions and requirements."

That sounds to me like we would not need it in Wisconsin then? We do not have insurance requirements by law. We have a "financial responsibility" law that states you can be insured by bond or by "personal funds". We do have a law that states liability minimums if you do chose to have insurance, but we do not require you to have that insurance.

Seems to me their clarification/details just made it more confusing or open to interpretation. Any crystal clear clarification would be great lol.


i do not know what to think. i asked the office manager and according to her, and the paperwork that i have here, you do not need proof of insurance. proof of registration, driveable, less than 25 years old, and 18 or less mpg is all i am seeing for requirements. :confused.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

what does "threshold matter" exactly mean??

[DerangedPony]

Sounds like to me that 1 year insurance coverage is needed but the amount that has been on the car for that year has to meet the states min.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Sounds like to me that 1 year insurance coverage is needed but the amount that has been on the car for that year has to meet the states min.

that is what i am getting out of it also.

[Moparjim]

This gets even better for me lol. I just called my Allstate agent to get what proof of insurance I did have on it last year so I can at least try to go with that. I switched from Allstate to State Farm in about March. My Allstate agent is telling me policies that have been inactive more than 3 months they delete from their system and now have no record of. So I can't get any records from Allstate apparently, nor can anyone else who's policy expired or was cancelled or whatever for over three months. So, how are Allstate customers supposed to get proof from last year lol.

I guess when I get home I will try to dig up old cards and hope for some reason I saved them. Funny thing is I probably had cards/policies that do indeed cover the whole year even though I dropped and added the Jeep a bunch of times since the card says a 6 month span every time I dropped or added it. Unfortunately, the old cards are not something I typically save so I might not have many of them.

[DerangedPony]

Well, if you can find the cards, then you are set. Like you said, the card is good for 6 months so they would never know you canceled it. On our "what to bring to the dealer" list, it saids we just need the cards.

[PonyKiller87]

So what if you just bought the car from someone else do you only have to prove that it was insured since you bought it? If so, sell it to a friend for $1, have him sell it back for $1 and get a new policy for 2 days until you trade it in. Now its been insured the entire time you owned it(this time) and you can cancel the policy as soon as you trade it in. Should work?

[DerangedPony]

You and to own and insure the car for more then a year.

[Moparjim]

Yeah you have to have owned and insured it in your name for all of 2008.

[michelle]

I'm guessing the mpg requirement is okay with the Jeep too. I hear the V6 SHOs won't qualify but the V8 ones will.

[Moparjim]

Yes the EPA rating on the Jeep from the site is 17 MPG combined.

[michelle]

Yes the EPA rating on the Jeep from the site is 17 MPG combined.

Haha, I figured that it would be just fine.

[4eyedstang]

i looked up my 95 cherokee and it was rated a 20 mpg LOL!
only $3500 for me i guess

[DerangedPony]

i looked up my 95 cherokee and it was rated a 20 mpg LOL!
only $3500 for me i guess

Are you sure.... is it 2wd?

The best site to find out what mpg a car gets with this program is:
http://www.letfordrecycleyourride.com/

I know, it's a Ford site, but it's the fastest way to see what your current car is rated at.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

Yeah you have to have owned and insured it in your name for all of 2008.

yup. just got the updated rules here.

the funny thing is, who in the hell is going to be able to participate in this program. take your average person that is driving a POS car. first they probably don't have insurance, some probably don't even have the car registered. secondly, if they were in the position to buy a new car, they would have already. this is a stupid fucking program plain and simple. yeah it will work for a few who have held off buying a new car, but this is not a "helping hand" like it is being portrayed. not to mention all the work for the dealers. the paperwork, the getting the car ready, the getting it picked up, all that crap for $50! what the hell? better sell that car for sticker to absorb all the extra cost that it is causing.

stupid.

[lordairgtar]

But it's not meant to be a "helping hand" as they claim. It's purpose is to get rid of gas guzzlers and take them out of the secondary and private used car market. People who are buying older used cars because that is all they can afford will be forced to pay higher costs because the seller is gonna use the old " I can get twice that in the Cash for Clunkers, take it or leave it" This has nothing to do with helping hands, the environment and conserving fuel. It's all about denying a portion of the people (poor) access to self transportation. They will have to depend on mass transit...or walk. It's all about removing freedoms form the proletariat.

[jenkins]

Hello. I found this thread while using google finding people in a similar situation I am.

MoparJim, your assessment of the situation is spot on. The original legislation specifically states that vehicles be registered and insured according to the laws of the state.

Those in charge at the NHTSA took it upon themselves to incorrectly assume that insurance was a requirement of the original legislation. Here is the wording of the original legislation:

TITLE XIII--CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO RECYCLE AND
SAVE PROGRAM

Section 1302(i)7(B) has been continuously insured consistent with the
applicable State law and registered to the same owner for
a period of not less than 1 year immediately prior to such
trade-in;

And then the NHTSA decides to make up their own opinion in the final rule:

In addressing the requirement that the trade-in vehicle be “continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law” for a period of not less than one year prior to the transaction, the agency notes the complication that not all States require vehicle owners to purchase automobile insurance coverage. Several States provide vehicle owners with the option, for example, to post a surety bond, leave a cash deposit or self-insure in lieu of purchasing automobile insurance. Two States have little or no insurance requirements.

The agency recognizes that insurance requirements differ throughout the country. However, the agency believes that the Act requires the continuous one-year insurance condition to be met as a threshold matter, with respect to any trade-in vehicle under the program. In a State where the conditions and requirements of insurance are specified in law (e.g., liability minimums, deductible requirements), the insurance coverage would then need to be in accordance with those conditions and requirements. To qualify under this requirement, a purchaser must provide proof of insurance covering the trade-in vehicle for a period of at least one year prior to the date of the trade-in.

The federal government has passed laws which overlooked various differences state law before and have been victorious in defending such acts because the federal government is the higher authority. However, it seems to me that the act specifically identifies the requirement "according to state law." and the NHTSA just decided to make up their own opinion and toss that out.

I suggest you call/email Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold and complain. I did. The more people who do will help address Wisconsin's unique situation.

http://feingold.senate.gov/
http://kohl.senate.gov/

[Moparjim]

I did call all of them, and email them too.

The funniest part is Friday on the www.cars.gov site the NHTSA came out with their "final rule" as you have posted part of. Even their final rule still says "insured per applicable STATE law". They then go on to specify that they will require insurance cards, or letters from insurance companies anyways. Boggles my mind.

[88Nightmare]

But it's not meant to be a "helping hand" as they claim. It's purpose is to get rid of gas guzzlers and take them out of the secondary and private used car market. People who are buying older used cars because that is all they can afford will be forced to pay higher costs because the seller is gonna use the old " I can get twice that in the Cash for Clunkers, take it or leave it" This has nothing to do with helping hands, the environment and conserving fuel. It's all about denying a portion of the people (poor) access to self transportation. They will have to depend on mass transit...or walk. It's all about removing freedoms form the proletariat.

All the media and a few government spokespeople are saying its to help boost the auto industry while eliminating some gas guzzlers out there. I don't think its going to accomplish either one.

[Rocket Power]

For some reason I thought it was to help the big three but tonight I heard toyota and subaru commercials talking about it too.

[Waver]

I have been keeping my mouth shut on this till everything was in place. As of right now, you will need to find those insurance cards Jim.....

This is to get ALL of those cars that are deemed gas guzzlers off the road.....um right, that is not going to happen, because when the billion dollars is gone, that is it......so this should go on for the next two to three months, however after that you will be SOL.