Reader comments
Readers' forum: Embarrassing clunkers

Anonymous | 12:16 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

How about the house for clunkers? Is that OK?

"$8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers would be extended and expanded to include a $6,500 credit for people who have lived five years in their current residences."

Me too! | 1:17 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I too drive a clunker! I refused to force other people to buy me a new vehicle in the recent taxpayer funded cash for clunker debacle. You may like your new vehicle but I know in my heart that I didn't cheat my neighbor. In the meantime, I will drive with a clear conscience knowing I am a real American! So, if you see me driving my 1972 Chevy down the freeway, at least say thanks would you? Its the least you can do for those of us who paid for your new car!

Facts Inflation | 6:03 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

"By the way, I just read that each clunker turned in cost taxpayers $24,000 each."

Do NOT believe everything you read amigo.

Comments continue below

victor | 6:09 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Ya, and I bet you wish you could still buy leaded gas. Do me and the world a favor. Get rid of those two cars. The emissions can be upto 16 times that of a new car. Add to that the lack of airbags etc. You are driving a death trap.

Hmm | 6:22 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Maybe we should put Obama on the list of "clunkers" that needs to be turned in. He is sure costing the taxpayers more than $24000 each.

Doug G | 6:56 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Grab a pair. I'm proud of my so called 'clunker'. It does not clunk; it's been well maintained. It's safe, reliable, and I can repair it. If someone doesn't like it, I can give them some verbal travel advice.

Roland Kayser | 7:02 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Since the maximum payout on the clunker program was $4500, please explain where you got that $24,000 figure.

Anonymous | 7:24 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

You are offended? My, my! Aren't we fragile? The program worked. Period. Get over it. By the way, this is another example of a topic that must be getting some attention from right-wing media as there are multiple letters on the issue. It is so easy to track when the sheep hear something from the likes of Beck and Hannity. Do none of you know anything on your own? Can you make no independent, well-informed decisions?

Wow! | 7:26 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Karl, you're either way too sensitive about what others think or you're making some lame attempt at stirring up some controversy - either way your comments are laughable. I had no idea the cash for clunkers program had had such a huge cultural impact - enough to make people suddenly start laughing at what kind of car you drive - WOW! Come on, get real, your desparate attempt to discredit the Obama adminstration (and blame them for your embarasssment)is all too obvious.

Imo | 7:30 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Hey, "cash for clunkers" was a great deal for those that could afford to buy a new car. They got a new car and the rest of us got to subsidize it for them. Ya gotta love America. Well, maybe not...

Anonymous | 8:22 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

So this is how the so called conservatives are going to get back power? Pathetic and unfunny is no way to go through life.

To Karl | 8:28 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

That's the typical mindset of those "on the hill" in that county.

I went to high school in that county and was laughed at for walking 5 blocks to school, rather than driving a Mercedes that daddy bought.

My advice to you is to forget 'em. Hypocrites like that aren't worth the paper their registration is printed on.

Ha Ha Ha Ha | 8:28 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Great letter, and I enjoyed the humor. The Obamamaniacs can't quite figure out why anyone would be bothered by their fearless leaders clunker plan. Maybe we are giving the annointed one to much credit? I think this spending bill comes from the Congress. One of their problems is that when you are a lame halfwit, it becomes to easy to believe the Obama math. Kayser can't figure out how the supposed $4000 payment to dealers, or credit on a new car purchase, really cost the taxpayer $24000. To save you from having a total brain meltdown, lets just say that there is a whole lot more to the equation then you are being told about. What you see doesn't always add up. It is kind of like when Obama and his administration mathematically figured out the number of jobs they have "saved" with their stimulus plan. It's a kind of advanced cyber reality theory thing, that only works for leftists, and their media minions who hang on every word this Prez. says.

It was a great idea! | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I believe that the assembly line workers that put the cars together, truckers that move them, the salesperson and the state that collected taxes benefited from the program.

Public Option | 8:54 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

If our health care system had a public option, you would be able to afford the mental health treatment required to deal with your inflated sense of self-worth.

Anonymous | 8:56 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Anonymous | 8:22 a.m in life, there are doers and whiners. I'm sure during FDR, there were conservatives who though Eisenhower was too inexperienced. He had never lead an army in war. These conservatives whiner on June 6th, that Normandy was a bad plan and we must stop.

Many a great plan has been foiled by people looking for a perfect plan. There is nothing that guaranties failure as having saboteurs creating dissension in the ranks.

Cash for clunkers wasn't a perfect plan. Doing nothing is no plan. Whining is so un-American.

A day doesn't pass that the propagandist on talk radio and Fox News aren't working toward their goal of American failure.

to ha ha @ 2:28 | 10:01 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

So you cant tell us where that number comes from so you give us this joke "lets just say that there is a whole lot more to the equation then you are being told about". Classic uninformed reich wing radio technique. Your masters would be so proud, that is if they gave a hoot about anything but their piles of money made off the backs of their foolish followers.

Cindy | 10:04 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

The problem with the program was that the real clunkers were not turned in. Thses were relatively new vehicles, not 15 - 25 year old ones that were not maintained, spewed smoke, burned oil, etc. As part of the program, they destroyed good, working engines, thus making it harder for those who cannot afford a new car to buy a good, used one. Also, the only ones who could do it were those who could already afford a new car, but didn't want one until we the taxpayers helped. Also, if these hybreds,or higher mileage cars are so good, why aren't they selling better. If things are really good, they eventually come down in price because more and more people buy them. This is not the case with the cars the deal promoted. Just like solar, wind power etc.
Their so good we still have to subsidise them.

S2 | 10:44 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Yep, Cindy, and for those folks living on a tight budget who did not have the money or need to "upgrade" their debt along with their transportation, the gov't gave them the additional whammy of making their cars worthless as 2nd-hand sellers or trade-ins. Across the board, the govt devalued their cars, and made life just possibly more difficult for them.

Right, the gov't is here to help. These jokers are only out to win a few votes, and while seducing a few ignorant believers in 'hope and change' into thinking their vote was worthwhile, more people are being hurt by this clumsy, shallow power-play.

@10:01 | 10:48 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

"that is if they gave a hoot about anything but their piles of money made off the backs of their foolish followers."

OOOHHHH, doesn't that just burn you up? Your lies and your seething hate are really shining through. As for your question, here is your answer: 3 billion program dollars divided by the estimated 125,000 actual increase in CFC cars sales, by industry analysts, equals $24,000 per car.

RE:to ha ha @ 2:28 | 10:50 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

At least we support a plan that lets us choose what right wing radio nut we want to believe. You on the other hand support a no choice/no critical thinking approach to life. You want to be forced to do what you think is right instead of choosing to do what is right.

RE: Anonymous | 7:24 a.m | 12:36 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

all right big mouth, if you want to force the issue, give us some numbers as to how it "worked". I'll bet you can't, other than mumbo jumbo. We can think on our own, which is more than we can say about you.

Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I totally agree with letter writer. Obama is touted as a sympathetic man, being bi-racial, and being raised in different places around the world by an interesting mother.

But this is reality: he is socially immature. He has missed out on something growing up. So he says he bowls "like the Special Olympics." And calls our car "clunkers." Yeah, he needs that teleprompter, so that we don't have to find out how immature and insensitive he really is.

Bryan | 1:38 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Anyone who has been following the governments' spending habits the last 12 months understands that BOTH Obama and Bush like to spend money unwisely, and unfairly.
"Clunkers" program was simply payback to the UAW for voting for Obama. All the nonsense about "cleaner" cars was just that - NONSENSE.
"Stimulus" package was actually the usual "pork barrel" spending that takes place with EVERY Congress, only this one didn't have ANYONE questioning it. (How could they, they weren't allowed to read it?)
"Bank bailout" = mumbo jumbo to shovel money towards bankers! (They kept trying to explain it to me but I concluded that I was too stupid to understand - even though I have a 4yr. degree in finance!)

Ever wonder how much further ALL THESE funds would have gone if they would have just given them to EVERY taxpayer to spend, rather than just using them for political paybacks?

Anonymous | 1:53 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I vote we get rid of all public assistance and have to pay for it ourselves. No more police, no more public schools, no more socialism PERIOD. Lets see where we are then.

Hypocrites | 4:02 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I'm curious as to how many Republicans took advantage of the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

I saw a lot of people down at the Gus Paulo dealership, and most of the state is Rebuplican.

So, if you did, and are still complain about Big government this or that....

You are a HYPOCRITE !!!

Roland Kayser | 5:08 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

To Ha HA Ha Ha: Okay, since I'm a lame halfwit, why don't you explain to me how a $4500 payment costs taxpayers $24,000. Since I'm a lame halfwit you'd better use small words. Eschew obfuscatory sesquipedalism, obscurantism, and prolixity for my sake please.

RE: Hypocrites | 4:02 p.m | 5:17 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Probably about the same as the number of democrats who participated.

@ 5:08 | 5:41 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Lets make this simple. Refer to the end of the post at 10:48 am. I don't think it gets more basic then that, although we are talking about big numbers. In addition, $4500 probably does not include the costs of administering the program, both at the dealer and government level. Kind of like another one of those precious government unfunded mandates we all love so much.

@5:17 | 5:52 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

But, the Democrats are being two-faced about it.
That's my point.

Roland Kayser | 9:33 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Approximately 700,000 cars were sold under the clunkers program. Divide that into 3 billion and you get $4,258. Not every car qualified for the full $4500.

Roland | 10:17 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Try and stay with me....clunkers was a program to encourage car sales.....so if the free market is averaging 575,000 cars without the Clunkers incentive.....then clunkers was responsible for only 125,000 additional sales.....divide that by your $3B.....you get your answer!

Let me ask you Roland....why is the govt spending my money to buy YOU and the others using clunkers a car? How is that a prudent effective use of sacred taxpayer money......?

Admit it ...Obama failed again!

Larry | 10:42 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I think I have a right to whine about taking my tax money and distributing it to others who did not earn it. I just bought a house a few months ago an now it looks like the government is going to give away more money in a "cash for house" deal. When is it going to end. Unemployment continues to rise, the public sector jobs are increasing and private sector jobs remain stagnant. Now we are going to force through a public health package and evnironmental package. Well, cash for clunkers is an example of how poorly the federal government administers programs. What are they going to do with the new programs? 2010 will be a great year to find representatives and senators who have the guts to bring about the right kind of change.

Anonymous | 11:58 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

I love the comments deriding President Obama for using a teleprompter, like every president in the modern era has. In fact, the previous president, George W. Bush, used a teleprompter and had ACTING coaches. Where was your outrage then? An ACTING coach. Pretty sad.

Embarassing? | 12:07 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Driving a clunker embarassing? What we should be really embarassed about is forcing our grandchildren to buy us a new car! That is something to be very ashamed of! Shame on you people! Have some integrity, will you?

S2 | 12:26 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

The automotive consumer researcher Edmunds.com released an economic study last week concluding that the government's cash-for-clunkers giveaway cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold. It was not Rush, Beck or the GOP.

The Edmunds study compared historical auto sales trends with sales figures during the recession to conclude that the $3 billion cash-for-clunkers program generated only 125,000 sales that wouldn't have occurred anyway.

The Obama administration is math-challenged. When their spurious figures are contested, they claim space aliens have taken over - usual liberal defraction.

Of, in another example - the White House last week issued a report saying that it created or "saved" 640,000 jobs (economists say there's no way to measure the latter, but never mind), then immediately contradicted itself and said the real number was probably more like 1 million.

Plainly, from this costly, worthless program, and that that the housing industry is pushing for subsidizing homebuilding, the Obama administration is declaring war on math.

The American economy is not the real target of the stimulus; the American government is.

S2 | 1:05 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

What housing program? The National Association of Realtors, lobbying for a renewal of Obama's $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers, said around 1.9 million will receive it this year – and 350,000 of those buyers couldn't have bought a home without it.

Multiplying 1.9 million tax credits by $8,000 equals $15 billion in government subsidies. Divide that by the 350,000 sales generated by the tax credit and it turns out Obama is paying $43,000 per house to stimulate sales.

And for what? The vast majority of these homes have already been built. Their sale won't put anybody to work.

The only addition they'll make to the U.S. workforce will be new auditors at the IRS.

That's why the Obama White House has declared war on math: Because it's a nettlesome reminder of how balky, inefficient and generally useless its various stimulus programs have been.

Obama's aim is combine perverted math and the left-thinking dishonest economist's twisted social-engineering skills to make sure we spend our money in ways that benefit the government's favored beneficiaries, and their power base. Corruption abounding.

Really? | 7:40 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

The "Cash 4 Clunkers" caused a "bump" in car sales but after it ended that "bump" disappeared. Obama says that it worked. Yep, it did. I sold cars. It's caled a SALE. Change the price a lure people in. Hmmm, I would call that a form of Capitalism that Obama wants to destroy.

Obama is nothing more than a cancer on our society and needs to be excised.

Anonymous | 8:01 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Too all the conservatives writing on this blog who are complaining that they weren't able to take advantage of this program because of their personal finances - maybe you should look at it from this angle: Think of it as TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS - that's a phrase you're familiar with and one that should make you feel much better!

S2 | 8:58 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Conservatives writing here are not complaining about not being able to take advantage of our trusting, helpless, taxed by fiat fellowman and neighbor. We are writing to state the the whole program was conceived in stupidity, and passed by liberals, for liberals, but out of all of our pockets.
The effect of the program is heinously overstated, the cost is ridiculous, the benefits few, and Obama, as usual, is flat-out lying about the whole thing.

Anonymous | 12:09 p.m. Nov. 22, 2009

The Washington State Potato Commission and the Washington Asparagus Commission recently held a fundraiser for U.S. Senator Patty Murray in Richland, Washington on November 12, 2009.

The purpose of the fundraiser was to thank and reward Senator Patty Murray for the millions of dollars in potato and asparagus research appropriations and earmarks that the Senator has secured for the Washington State potato and asparagus industries over the past several years.

During the November 12th fundraiser, representatives from Washington State Potato Commission and Washington Asparagus Commission indicated that they would continue to raise money for and support Senator Patty Murray if she continues to bring home the earmarks for them.

The fundraiser was attended by 25 representatives of the Washington potato and asparagus industries.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.