Comments about ‘Is 'cash for clunkers' a practical program?’

Ij ust hope this will earn me a few thousands dollars for pointing this out and bringining it to the attention of our government.

This cash for clunkers program could easly generate funds that would help to finance the program if those in authority would just listen to teh citizesn.ordinary people.

Why don't they sell the parts for export as many American vehicle are in other countries wherin most people can't even afford the parts.

Why not sell them out dirt cheap insted of junking them?

Selvin Ferril

sellous@msn.com or sellous@yahoo.com

Another stupid idea!!! Where do these politicians come up with these programs...oh, yes, their special interest groups! United Auto Workers and other undesirables? All of us taxpayers are helping the rich buy new cars! BHO is helping his friends and the politicians are lining the pockets of their supporters. Listened to the Senator from NH who sponsored this bill...she was asked tough questions and was unable to answer! WOW. 3 billion dollars of our money to another government bailout. Do the math and see how much each person in the USA just paid for a few hundred thousand people to get new cars!

Gosh. I'm sitting here crying. And I agree with the above. A taxpayer ripoff. The most traded in are worn out useless 10 year old cars that probably are not driven much anyway. And American car companies sold less than 50%.

Another Obama idea that hasn't helped anyone.

I always thought that it was the low-income families that drove the clunkers in the first place...

This article is ridiculous. I agree that there are some unintended consequences to the rules in the program - the reduced business for the repair shops, junkyards being indundated with scrap cars. But one criticism is that the program "leaves out the low-income citizens"? It wasn't designed to provide a new car for anyone who wants one. Give me a break.

You're right; it wasn't designed to give everyone a new car. But everyone who pays taxes will be paying for those few to get their new cars. This means someone who doesn't have enough money to buy a new car for himself is being forced by the government to help someone with more money buy a new car. The "poor" who still need a car will be left with fewer, probably more expensive, used cars to choose from. Finally, the emissions saved by removing a "clunker" from the road may be less than the emissions produced in manufacturing the new car and disposing of the old.

The poor already get refundable tax credits: EITC, child tax credits, making work pay. In many cases, they get thousands of dollars back more than they paid in the first place. They get subsidized housing, health care, school lunch, electricity, and on and on. Finally, government comes out with a welfare program they may not be able to take advantage of, and we're all supposed to cry about it.

Another example of Obama jumping in feet first without first testing the waters. Does he even stop and think things through?

This is a bottomless pit that has no way of supporting itself. The only way to keep it going is to continue to feed taxes into it. Maybe those who are benefiting from it the most, ie: the car industry, should be required to help fund it. Or at the very least the consumer taking advantage of this program should be required to buy an American made car.

The naysayyers are just sorry they didn't come up with it. The Hatch's and Bennett's would rather waste the money (trillions) making sure we have a steady stream of oil than make sure (billions) we don't need it. duh

Not all are clunkers and there should be more oversight on this program. New care dealers are gaining in sales but how long will people be able to pay for them? The intent of this program is to bail out the auto industry but at the same time the recession and inflation are not being addressed. Another band aid fix on the economy. Then what is to stop dealers from selling used cars on this program? I think this program allows used cars from dealers to qualify for this rebate program. But without oversight who knows how this rebate is being implemented.

One thing I don't agree with is the reuse of the parts off the clunkers if they really are clunkers. There is not much to salvage on a worn out vehicle. The electronics is usually faulty and maintenance has never been maintained. They should be destroyed and salvaged as recycled materials.

I bought a new Hyundai and my payment is only $195 a month....even I can afford that since I will be saving quite a bit on gas every month. Two other people in my family also took advantage and they are not rich by any means....great little stimulus program that actually benefits me personally!

How did America come to this?

The article ignores the bottom line: Congress has no authority to take money out of my pocket (tax money is derived from the "tax payers", like me) to help anyone else buy a car. Of course, most of what Congress does is without Constitutional authority so why should this be any different?

Those of you are thinking of using this program: do you think it's moral or right to use someone else's money to buy you a new car?

this program helps the people who need the help the least. my 1990 jeep is perfect for me it is a excellent running car 24+ MPG, not a clunker! and not just poor people drive poorly maint. cars and trucks

I am retired and living on a fixed income. Since we were married, my wife and I have never owned a new car. I currently drive an '87 Tercel. I also pay taxes. It's good to know that the party that criticizes "tax breaks for the rich" is using my tax money to help rich people buy new cars than I could never afford.

How bout giving cash for bad ideas? Obama would make millions.

This program is shortsighted, based on terrible economic principles and manipulative. It's not helping people but crushing them. If you can't afford a car now you won't later. Obama is way out of touch of an average american life. He is a community destroyer.

Investigate ACORN expose Obama!

While people may criticize the Cash for Clunkers initiative, don't forget the Bush Administration's "brilliant" move to allow small businesses to write off their new trucks and SUVs within a year, designed to kickstart the economy after 9/11. It essentially was designed for farmers to buy tractors, but Team Bush expanded it for realtors, doctors, lawyers, etc., to buy any massive SUV and write them off within a year.

The result? A boom in demand for SUVs, encouraging Detroit to focus on these gas guzzlers, which increased America's oil consumption AND addiction on the very terrorist countries we were fighting! It was a ridiculous policy that completely steered Detroit off a cliff and ensured our dependence on oil-dictatorships throughout the decade.

While not perfect, the whole purpose of the Cash for Clunkers incentive is to get gas guzzlers off the streets of the United States to help curb our dependence on oil. In turn, it can help ease gas/oil prices, reduced pollution and carbon emissions, and benefit the auto industry (both manufacturers and car dealers).

Cash For Clunkers (CFC) and most other government subsidies do harm to the country. These programs are like the lottery, concentrating benefits into the pockets of a few while the majority lose. CFC will distort prices, cause a misallocation of resources, benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, increase our dependency on foreign capital and cause contraction in other parts of the economy as people overspend on cars at the expense of other categories of spending (appliances, dining, clothes, vacations, savings/investment, etc.). CFC will do more harm than good. Like most everything else that Congress and the White House are doing. They are killing the golden goose by cutting it open to get at the eggs.

I can't beleive that the author of this article is actually writing this. This bill was never meant to help the poor directly, but indirectly through the economy improving and thus helping to improve their situation. If you can't afford a car you shouldn't get any taxpayer help to get one!