Cash for Clunkers

[Guest]

I tried to do a search for this but I couldn't find one... maybe because my brain is not working today...

All I'm looking for is a pro and con debate on it.

Please stay away from Republican versus Democrat bashing, liberal versus conservative bashing, Bush versus Obama bashing, or what have you...

Just plain pro and con, for example...

I think spending a dollar on the Cash for Clunkers program is a bad idea, let alone $4 Billion. Then list your reason as it touches a.) economy, b.) environment, c.) taxes, d.) etc.

[Maxel]

I guess I can kick it off with a few simple points, then watch the big dogs get their debate on...

I'm against the cash for clunkers program because

a) the government is paying people to get rid of their gas-guzzling cars? What's the betting that many, many of those cars are old and not worth the $4.5k-$5k the government is paying for each one. In effect, the government is giving money to car dealerships for the sake of the environment.

b) The program doesn't allow the purchasing of a used car with the loan obtained from the government. My mom and I looked at every car dealership's website in our town (Olathe, KS) and the cheapest new car was $14,000 (I think it was a Kia). To take advantage of the program, the buyer must pay an additional $10,000 or so to make up the leftover cost. Not really helpful to one likely demographic of people who would otherwise use the program- the poor and lower middle class with one or two old, gas-guzzling cars.

[hordak]

Bad idea IMO. Lowering the supplies of used cars, increasing the amount of people in debt, during a ressetion doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Could be good for a college grad, looking for a new yaris. But for us people with kid 4500 of a 30,000 van saves us $20 a month, and leaves us with less used cars to choose from.

[beefche]

In addition to the comments already made, I'm opposed to even more government spending. Where is this money coming from? Eventually the middle class (if not us, then our children) are going to be taxed to try to make up this.

Also, some of these clunkers are good cars. But they cannot be resold or used. They must be destroyed. That sounds wasteful to me.

Also, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense on a personal level. Most people who have clunkers do not have a car payment, low insurance rates, and low plate fees. With a new car, you now have a car payment, higher insurance premiums, and associated plate fees (depending on state). So, if a family is struggling with making ends meet with the clunker, their debt is rising if they turn it in for a new car. This may be a good idea for some families, but I think in general it's not a good economic idea for families.

[Just_A_Guy]

Also, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense on a personal level. Most people who have clunkers do not have a car payment, low insurance rates, and low plate fees. With a new car, you now have a car payment, higher insurance premiums, and associated plate fees (depending on state). So, if a family is struggling with making ends meet with the clunker, their debt is rising if they turn it in for a new car. This may be a good idea for some families, but I think in general it's not a good economic idea for families.

Exactly. A lot of the stimulus has this philosophy of "we need to get people borrowing again!". Which means that at best we'll see another credit bubble and then, ten years from now, be in the exact same situation as we are today--only with an exponentially larger national debt.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm against it because my 1992 Buick LeSabre, a large American sedan, doesn't qualify. It got 19 mpg new, so the government says it's too fuel efficient. I guess there are other cars even less fuel efficient, as the program proved popular, but wow, if I can't qualify, I'm wondering what the real purpose is. IMHO, it's just a big splash so the administration can say it's done something about slow car sales, and helped the environment at the same time. There's no doubt that a few guzzlers have been destroyed, and a few fuel efficient cars have been sold, but, like so many stimulus programs, very little consideration is being given to value-per-dollar.

[boyando]

I hope this doesn't sound like bashing, but the problems of this economy will not go away if we spend a few billion to sell more cars.

Small businesses have alway pulled us out of hard times and we are doing nothing to make it easier to start a small business. What does that have to do with cash for clunkers? Higher unemployment means that a lot of these cars sold today will be repo's tomorrow.

[Palerider]

Blame it on Bush....its all his fault.....oopppss wrong thread.....LOL!!!!

The cash for junk is killing the used car market.....

[miztrniceguy]

did ya'll hear the part about accessing the cash for clunkers website makes your computer fed gov't property?

[beefche]

Yeah, niceguy. That's not scary at all is it?

[pam]

Where did you read that?

[miztrniceguy]

it was on Glenn Beck. go to the Cars.gov website and read the disclaimers also dot website. looking for the link to the video my wife was watching.

[Maxel]

Actually, only the car dealerships computers, when accessing the part of the CARS.gov website where they enter the information to be reimbursed by the government, become the federal government's property. Nevertheless, the official disclaimer basically reads "we can take any files and information from your computer we want, for whatever purpose, and give it to whomever we want".

Cash for Clunkers- snopes.

[Bob_Blaylock]

Also, some of these clunkers are good cars. But they cannot be resold or used. They must be destroyed. That sounds wasteful to me.

That's my biggest objection to the entire scam. A reliable car, in good running condition, is a valuable asset, representing a significant amount of wealth. This scam requires that “clunkers” be destroyed. Further, it requires that this destruction take place in a manner which prevents any major powertrain components from being made available to repair other cars.

I do not care what crazy claims and excuses are made to support this scam; you cannot help the economy by destroying wealth. Every “clunker” that is destroyed makes the economy as a whole poorer by the value of that car.

What government is doing, under this scam, is buying up valuable assets, and destroying them. This is government wastefulness in its purest form.

[KrazyKay]

My truck barely qualifies for this... it's a 1998 Chevy S-10 extend-cab pickup and gets on average 17mpg. But it's paid off and we need a truck for our monthly biking excursions. My husband has poor balance, so he has to ride a 3-wheel bike, then we have my daughter's 2-wheel and my 2-wheel bikes. So we use the bed of the truck to carry those. But the point is, if I decided to go with the government cash for clunkers program, then I would have a 10,000 or more loan to add to my bills.

I really do not see how that will help, creating more debt? At the same time wasting perfectly good vehicles instead of givingthem to the charities to give to poor people who need a vehicle? Does not sound wise to me at all.

[Aesa]

I really do not see how that will help, creating more debt?

That's the imperative of this system. The only way to keep the banks going, is to create more debt and thus inflation. Unfortunately, the tables have to turn sooner or later and nobody will take loans, because they wont be able to afford what they've already got.

[Prodigal_Son]

Why is the government continuing to promote indebtedness? Especially on a product that loses 1/3 of it's value in the first moments you inhale the new car smell?

Why am I paying for someone to have a new car?

Why are these people borrowing money from THEMSELVES?

This isn't any sort of sustainable growth. It'll land a few businesses a few bucks, and add another $4 billion to the deficit. Doesn't make ANY mathematical sense.

As for the environment: I call B.S. on that angle. Who cares about saving the trees/whales/planet when we're unsure as to whether we can even save ourselves, our economy, our nation?

[john doe]

Why is the government continuing to promote indebtedness? Especially on a product that loses 1/3 of it's value in the first moments you inhale the new car smell?

Because the more indebted you are and the more enslaved you are, the more they can control you. Once you realize that there is no hope of getting out of a mess by yourself, you will realize that only your Sugardaddy (the government) can save you, and your only option will be to do what they say.

[Prodigal_Son]

Because the more indebted you are and the more enslaved you are, the more they can control you.

Absolutely. And yet most people look at such a statement as being a goofy, kooky, unrealistic interpretation of the left's motives. People really need to wake up.

[Palerider]

In addition to the comments already made, I'm opposed to even more government spending. Where is this money coming from? Eventually the middle class (if not us, then our children) are going to be taxed to try to make up this.

Also, some of these clunkers are good cars. But they cannot be resold or used. They must be destroyed. That sounds wasteful to me.

Also, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense on a personal level. Most people who have clunkers do not have a car payment, low insurance rates, and low plate fees. With a new car, you now have a car payment, higher insurance premiums, and associated plate fees (depending on state). So, if a family is struggling with making ends meet with the clunker, their debt is rising if they turn it in for a new car. This may be a good idea for some families, but I think in general it's not a good economic idea for families.

thats why I said this was killing the used car market...:)

[bytebear]

It's also killing charities. There are several that take in used cars, and their supply has dried up. It's sad because those old cars can be used to help the poor, but instead they are being destroyed. It's a horrible program that does nothing to help the poor, and just indebts the buyer as well as the tax payer, and only the car dealerships and car companies benefit and not that much forAmerican brands. Besides they already got their bail out money. They don't need more.

[Moksha]

It's also killing charities. There are several that take in used cars, and their supply has dried up. It's sad because those old cars can be used to help the poor, but instead they are being destroyed. It's a horrible program that does nothing to help the poor, and just indebts the buyer as well as the tax payer, and only the car dealerships and car companies benefit and not that much forAmerican brands. Besides they already got their bail out money. They don't need more.

Hear Hear! Even the poor without a car would appreciate a running clunker.

Does it really stimulate the economy to have Democrats buying new Toyotas and less affluent Republicans buying smaller engine Mercedes?

:)

[Prodigal_Son]

I don't know where I fall on the financial spectrum (I have sufficient for my needs), but I actually PREFER clunkers. I hate not actually owning my cars. Been there, done that. Not interested in going there again.

Debt is a millstone. I'd rather drive my 10+ year old vehicles and maintain them than ask some bank to buy me a nicer car than I actually need - with the promise that I'll pay them back over the next 5, 6, 7 years.

But that's just me - and I know that's not a popular opinion. In fact, unless this last comment dissuades them, I expect that people will now defend why they have newer cars. (I'm not judging you.)

[john doe]

Does it really stimulate the economy to have Democrats buying new Toyotas and less affluent Republicans buying smaller engine Mercedes?

:)

Nice! Way to keep up the class warfare!

[KrazyKay]

I remember reading somewhere that if our government continues on this track - the wealthy will just get wealthier while the poor get poorer and the middle class will soon disappear in the process to either wealthy or poor depending on jobs and how much debt they have.

So many times I tell my husband that I can't wait for our Lord to return and the millennium to start, but I know there is still a lot of work to do and things that still need to happen before Jesus can return.