High Roller

From the news coverage I have seen, the "Cash for Clunkers" economic stimulus program seems to be a howling success.

Does anyone else resent their tax money being donated to consumers who made irresponsible choices when they purchased their previous automobiles? Or is this money well spent to get the less efficient vehicles off the road?

Rewarding irresponsibility sure seems to be the thing to do these days.

cerewa

I'd like to see us put more money into getting the worst-polluting motors out of use. I am not too bothered by the idea of paying to take old vehicles off the road, but I would prefer it be done in the same way as the glass bottle "deposit" they have in a few states:

all buyers of automobiles pay extra based on the pollution the vehicle will emit at the end of its life. Then that money's used to pay people to take the vehicle off the road when it becomes a "clunker".

I'd also like us to do something to address the environmental impact of small motors on things like weedcutters, lawnmowers, leafblowers, golf carts, ATVs, etc. These motors pollute because many of them are two stroke motors and almost none use technology like electronic fuel injection and catalytic converters to reduce pollution.

Business810

I personally think the program is a huge waste, especially considering that the restrictions as to what qualifies as a "more efficient" vehicle are a total joke. The program is just going to fuel more irresponsible consumption, and it is taking my tax money with it.

crocodilefundy

to be fair if you look at the most traded in (Ford Explorer) and most purchased car (Ford Focus) the program's mission was achieved. Now only if someone could bust out a calculator and show how mass transit is actually cost effective.

DX-MAN

It's just too bad we can't trade in a clunker and get a sweet bike for FREE! $4500 will buy a LOT of bike! I can see that Nomad in my stand right now.......

lyeinyoureye

You can get most of it. Just buy a fuel efficient compact car for ~$9-10k via the program, offer it brand new for $8-9k or whatever, make the quick sale and pocket the $3500 to spend on a bike of your choice. This isn't like the refundable home purchase tax credit AFAIK, where you have to keep the car for a certain amount of time, since all the paperwork is done on the dealer's end.

travelmama

I agree. The idea of getting people out of the car was not implemented in this bill. Car manufacturers should never have been allowed to create gas guzzlers from jump street and who really needs them? Also, it is only targeted to those who can afford to get new cars. It clearly isn't for the masses.

Robert Foster

We gave the auto industry Billions to make the cars. We are now being asked to give the industry more to sell the cars the people couldn’t or wouldn’t buy without the $4500. So you have people who couldn’t afford a new car buying a car and making payments they may or may not be able to afford. Because no one is making payments on the clunkers they are selling now. Doesn’t this sound a bit like buying a house you couldn’t afford because they subsidized the down payment? Isn’t it also like making those of us who made the choice to not buy a house over our head help bail out those who did buy over their head?

From a bicycling perspective it sounds like we would rather spend tax money to help get cars they can drive more and farther rather than find other ways to get around.

mondaycurse

I think it's a terrible waste:

1. Most of what's being traded in are "halfways clunkers." By that I mean that most of them work reliably, have 15mpg fuel efficiency, and overall aren't too bad. These cars get destroyed. Meanwhile, my neighbor's real clunker, which gets 10mpg, breaks every other week, and leaks oil all over the road will stay on the road. The government should allow a "clunkers for decent clunkers" campaign that helps people who insist on using cars for transport.

2. Cars are crushed. I mentioned that in my first part, but you could part the things out for future repairs and help recoup the cost of the program.

3. A billion dollars could have built bike infrastructure for two-wheeled vehicles that are much more energy effecient. The bill is obviously not for the sake of the environment, but getting car sales back to normal.

4. Didn't we just learn a lesson about overspending in hopes of something that isn't guarenteed?

wahoonc

Another typical government farce/smokescreen/feelgood/giveway/kneejerk reaction at taxpayers' expense. It is going to do little to nothing to solve environmental issues, or transportation issues. When oil goes up again (and it already is) that billion plus dollars is going to a drop in the bucket. What is sad is if that money had been given to Amtrak it would better than double the amount of their current budget and we would get something much more long lasting for our money.

Aaron

Tabor

Of all the legislation that Obama has signed, I dislike this one the most (and I voted for him).

TVS_SS

You know... i didnt even have to read this thread

For starters i saw a post about cars in the living car free section. Then saw it was tied to tax payer money for cars.

Geez.. you guys are so predictable No bias here, thats for sure.

You fail to realize this was primarily an economic stimulus with good side effects of reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Secondly, if you gave the money to public transporation, it would not have had the same benefit. Primary reason, The C4C program gives $3500-4500 and the individual throws in an extra ~$20k. So at the end of the day, its an amazing ratio of taxpayer money vs money from individuals. I highly doubt you will get those returns or 'stimulus' to the economy by investing in public transporation. That would be closer to a 1:1 ratio or less as it would just marginally increase public transporation utilization and the individual will not put in any money. Therefore, the economy as a whole would get much less of a boost.

Robert Foster

Maybe we have a perspective slanted by our desire to see people drive less. However some seem to forget what the very same government and even candidate, now president, told us was the root of our economic down fall. We were scolded as American consumers for runaway spending. We were told we were buying on credit and didn’t save enough of our money to pay cash for things so we got deeper and deeper in debt. So first thing they do is take from the people that did save money and did buy what they could afford and were happy to live within their means and give it to the people that caused the problem in the first place? Then government comes up with a program that taxes the same people again to help people go into debt even more? If you have a car that works and get 15 MPG but it is paid for and you are having trouble putting $150.00 a month worth of gas in the car will things be easier if you are putting $100.00 a month worth of gas and $300.00 in car payments?

If we have to stimulate the economy by teaching people to go into debt by buying something they don’t need and something they wouldn’t buy without a bribe what happens when the bribe money runs out?

ndbiker

I think it's even worse than that. We don't have the money to fund the program. Consequently the government will have to borrow the money that our grandkids will be paying back for a vehicle that will be used up in most likely 10 years. I predict that most of the people utilizing this program fall into one of two catagories. The first you described. The person who couldn't afford to replace the car in the first place and will now be in the position that they are even more desperately in debt and second those that could easily afford a new car and were merely waiting for some sanity to return to the economy. We shouldn't be subsidizing either, especially with borrowed money.

markus_mudd

This was such a "grand" stimulus project. $4500.00 Government handouts for some people and the other folks that are already living responsibly don't get a dime of the money.......Well, except we get to fund the program. The bikes for clunkers idea mentioned above sounded much better!

Cosmoline

Absolutely. It's a way of putting a PC face on yet another Detroit bailout.

gwd

Why not just use the taxpayer's money to buy the clunker and let the former clunker owner spend the money on whatever? Let the free market work its majic and allocate resources optimally as the econ professors always preach. It does seem like another case where responsible people are being taxed to reward irresponsible people. But, I'm not convinced that the clunker owners are getting the gravy here. Since the car companies have known this boodle was in the pipeline for months didn't they just jack up their prices by $4500.00 so the clunker owners are paying the same price and the extra money flows up to the car company executives for bonuses and remodeled mansions? I can't imagine patriotic capitalists just leaving all that cash on the table for their customers.

Roody

I have no problem with the program as it is doing a fairly good job of stimulating the economies of Michigan, Ohio and some other states that are having serious problems. The main advantage of the program is that it works very rapidly to stimulate employment in auto companies, parts suppliers, and dealerships. Any other stimulus of employment is going to be much slower.

OTOH, for stimulus, it probably would have been better to give the billion dollars (or 3 billion if the program is extended) directly to the state governments of the most badly damaged states. The money could have been used for community collegess, retraining, and other programs to help the unemployed.

As for the environmental impact, the program is only fair. It probably would have been better to give the money directly to public transit, however.

In the previous recessions of the past 75 years or so, it has actually been increasing car sales that have pulled the economy out of the recession. I think it's important to keep this in mind before judging the Cash for Clunkers program too harshly. It probably really is doing some good for a lot of people who need help NOW.

Roody

Obviously not. Quite the opposite, in fact. The car companies and dealers have been matching the government rebates in many cases, and offering low interest financing and other additional incentives. They will make little profit on a per-unit basis.

The purpose now is to draw down the enormous inventory of new cars that are now backed up on dealer lots and in auto plant parking lots. This is an absolutely essential step in ending any recession, whether you like it or not. The key to ending a recession is to reduce inventories of unsold goods without going into deflation.

Another way to accomplish this would be to simply blow up or crush the excess supply of brand new cars. At least this way, more efficient new cars are getting into the hands of consumers.

louisg

Including the total cost to own a new auto, the average is about $30,000 over the life of the auto for even low end models. This program while well intentioned on the gas mileage front, does not address the issue of the expense of auto ownership. Another program called Workers on Wheels does. People can donate older vehicles and get a tax credit for the KBB value of the vehicle. This progams allows people to get rid of their older vehicles while they are still useful for someone else. Then if they choose to use that saved tax credit money to buy a more fuel efficient auto they can do so. Still the cash for clunkers program like its clever name does not save anyone very much. Truly everyone wins who bikes... you save on car expenses, and save the environment. Workers on wheels is a good way to pass on a used vehicle and help someone out. Still, if people can bike, those are the wheels they should really be using.

merlin55

Stupid transfer of money between people, actually the money is going to the car dealers, as they raised the prices of cars, to absorb the majority of the incentive as windfall profit.

Stupid people get "incentive programs" which means 300,000,000 people are subject to higher taxes, so 250,000 can buy cars, and pay dealers $2000 to $3000 more in profit for each car, compared to a month ago. I know because I helped some buy a $14,700 Toyota that was now 16,900 with this clunker program.

Want to buy a car? Wait until 2 months after the program ends, as this program is stealing lots of future purchases.

Robert Foster

So in effect you are saying that spending money you don’t have on things you don’t need is good advice? Then buying a 500k house when you only made 50k a year was stimulating the economy? Isn’t that a Balloon just waiting to get a pin stuck in it? I thought car free people advocated gross consumerism as a bad thing? If it is bad for me to spend more money than I can pay back in my lifetime isn’t it bad for the government to spend more money than they can pay back?

The thing that sticks in some of our throats is when we bought a vehicle we could afford and have had it serviced and taken care of so it lasts the people trading in their clunkers thought we were silly for not getting a new car every few years. Many of those clunkers are newer than my car. We aren’t rich people we are simply people that practiced moderation in our spending habits and now the people that didn’t buy cars they could afford when they could afford them are asking us to dig into our pockets and spend our grandchildren’s, maybe great grandchildren’s, tax money to aid those people and help them buy a new car? No the truth is we aren’t being asked we are being told they are taking our money and giving to others, no vote just a political action.

We didn’t have money for public transportation but we had money for men that flew to Washington in corporate Jets?

Let me pose a simple question, anyone in this forum get rid of their paid for car or form of transportation and get a new vehicle because of this plan? How do we define gross consumerism? And what is the difference between it and what the government is doing with this program?

icebiker76

Annoyed at how the tax code is used to control people's behavior. Behave one way, keep some of your money, behave in a way social do gooders disapprove of and be penalized. Free country? I think not.

Eliminating the income tax would have provided a cheaper more immediate stimulus. But then there wouldn't be as much opportunity for corruption and government wouldn't have as much CONTROL.

gwd

More than that this cash for clunkers program is mis-represented when they say it is designed to be good for the environment, you don't get the cash to go car-free you get it only if you continue spewing pollution.

wahoonc

Even if the "goods" are not necessary for survival, and have questionable worth in the future. If I over produce a product and can't sell it, there are only a couple of choices, discount it to get rid of it, destroy it or give it away and take a tax write off...or get the taxpayers to take it off my hands. Why are we propping up a dying industry? The money would have been better spent retooling the auto factories to make train cars, bicycles, etc. Amtrak can't add cars to it's fleets because they aren't available and in many cases the wait time for a new engine set can be 3 years. Tracks need repair and to be relaid where they have been removed. THAT would have been economic stimulus not the same old consumer/consumption BS.

Aaron