Is "Cash For Clunkers" A Good Deal?

[Guest]

My son (who works for Ford) visited us over the weekend and commented that the Cash For Clunkers program was working exceedingly well. There is the typical confusion and forms to be completed that accompany any government program, but in the Detroit area at least, many dealers have as many as 100 pre-sold cars, awaiting only Senate approval of the additional $2 billion for the program. I've seen some reports that even the additional $2 billion might not last more than a week, if approved.

While maybe not intended as a stimulus, this program is working quite well in that respect. Not only are people ordering more fuel efficient cars--the more fuel efficient the new car is, the more of the $4,500 maximum government support the buyer gets. So, the effect is that the fleet of cars on the road will get slightly more fuel efficient. At the same time the program--if increased by the $2 billion being considered--will result in roughly 1 million new car orders.

One million new car orders is still less than 10% of industry projected sales for the year. But it sure will put lots of people back to work in a real hurry. This is exactly the kind of stimulus that, if it could have been replicated with the other $785 billion in stimulus funding, would have had an immediate economic effect.

Some will argue that the program is another "transfer of wealth", with the taxpayers helping new car buyers pay for a new car. In normal economic times, this kind of program should have been funded by the car companies themselves. But with that not being a possibility right now, I can't see very much wrong with this program at all.

[Guest]

My son (who works for Ford) visited us over the weekend and commented that the Cash For Clunkers program was working exceedingly well. There is the typical confusion and forms to be completed that accompany any government program, but in the Detroit area at least, many dealers have as many as 100 pre-sold cars, awaiting only Senate approval of the additional $2 billion for the program. I've seen some reports that even the additional $2 billion might not last more than a week, if approved.

While maybe not intended as a stimulus, this program is working quite well in that respect. Not only are people ordering more fuel efficient cars--the more fuel efficient the new car is, the more of the $4,500 maximum government support the buyer gets. So, the effect is that the fleet of cars on the road will get slightly more fuel efficient. At the same time the program--if increased by the $2 billion being considered--will result in roughly 1 million new car orders.

One million new car orders is still less than 10% of industry projected sales for the year. But it sure will put lots of people back to work in a real hurry. This is exactly the kind of stimulus that, if it could have been replicated with the other $785 billion in stimulus funding, would have had an immediate economic effect.

Some will argue that the program is another "transfer of wealth", with the taxpayers helping new car buyers pay for a new car. In normal economic times, this kind of program should have been funded by the car companies themselves. But with that not being a possibility right now, I can't see very much wrong with this program at all.

I agree. Anything which helps market the product is crucial.

The next time you speak with your son, please ask what's happening with the two-plus years of stockpiled inventory. That "non-asset" has stock value repercussions, depending how it's handled.

[Guest]

....please ask what's happening with the two-plus years of stockpiled inventory....I will ask him. But I think I know the answer, at least as far as Ford is concerned. There is very little unsold, new-car inventory on Ford's books. For several years now, they only built cars to orders placed by dealers. Then other OEM's have pretty much done the same. When the vehicle leaves the assembly plant lot on a car carrier, it is immediately paid for in cash by the ordering dealer using "floor plan" financing provided by banks or finance companies. There are always a few odds and ends in unsold inventory, assembly plant repairs or cars damaged in preparation for shipment, etc. But very few new and unsold on Ford's books. That's not to say that there is unsold new vehicle inventory on the dealer's lots, but nowhere near a "two year supply".

Potentially, unsold truck inventories are a bigger problem than cars. As of June, Ford is in better shape than the other manufacturers. Ford had a 39-day supply of Rangers and a 54-day supply of Escapes which helped lower their truck inventory average to 80 days by month's end. The F-Series' dealer inventory jumped from April's 97-day end-of-month supply, to May's 129 days. The Expedition's inventory rose from 67 to 98 days. Even though it's one of Ford's best-selling models, the Edge went from a 69-day to a 107-day supply.

You'd think GM's production "hiatus" would have reduced the General's truck inventory. But the U.S. automaker ended May with a 109-day supply of trucks, up from the previous month's 98-day supply. The Buick Enclave's and GMC Acadia's low dealer stock (38 and 54 days, respectively) couldn't offset stagnant Chevrolet Silverados (122-day supply), Tahoes (125 days), GMC Sierras (122 days) and Yukons (188 days). All four trucks were more abundant than they were during the month previous.

With Chrysler's plummeting sales, it's no surprise their inventory is up. The lame duck Dodge Ram's inventory jumped from 99 days to a 109-day supply. Dealer stock of the unloved Dodge Dakota ballooned from 73 to 110 days' supply. After starting with an 81-day supply, Jeep ended May with a 102-day stock of Grand Cherokees. The new Dodge Journey was Chrysler's sole bright spot. The CUV started April with a 130-day supply and ended with 57 days' supply on the lots.

Of the two truck-producing transplants Toyota fared best. They don't list inventory by model, but they finished the month with a 52-day supply of trucks, up only two days from the end of April. Nissan's numbers represent the nadir. Murano (76 days) and Rogue (82 days) clogged dealers lots the least, while Armada (203 days), Titan (232), Xterra (198) and Frontier (137) were more abundant than any other truck models.

All of these inventory numbers will be substantially lower in early August because very few assembly plants have been operating for the past 4-6 weeks.

[Guest]

Thanks! Sounds like there may be a copper (if not silver) lining in all of this....

[Guest]

What am I missing? I just caught the end of a panel discussion on television and most of the experts said the Clunker Bill is just more wasted taxpayer money. Do the taxpayers get the money back? Or is this another government transfer of taxpayer money distributed?
Money going out from the government has to be paid by someone right? I guess all these trillion dollar deficits are over my head. I don't pretend to know how to get the jobs back but I do know that alot of the stimulus jobs are temps and then what happens?
Seems to me that business is waiting to see what is going to happen before any real jobs are put on their payroll. I sure hope this isn't the 70's all over again.:sad:

[Guest]

I agree. Anything which helps market the product is crucial.

The next time you speak with your son, please ask what's happening with the two-plus years of stockpiled inventory. That "non-asset" has stock value repercussions, depending how it's handled.

SteveZ Sorry, this is one time I disagree with you. These consumers made THEIR choice of buying a gas guzzler and now their near worthless, so I'm supposed to help them get rid of that clunker with my tax money!! How are our countrymen ever going learn anything about their mistakes if our government is always bailing them out? Its time that the populace live buy their mistakes and drive those clunkers into the ground themselves.

[Guest]

On the local TV station here in Ohio one dealer said that the cash for clunkers program is doing more for the overall auto industry than the billions that was given to them a few months back to bail them out.

[Guest]

1. This is clearly another bailout program.. bailout people who own older cars and want a new one.
2. It puts operational cars in the junk yard prematurely.. is this really environmentally smart? A 2 mile per gallon increase is not enough gas savings to justify filling landfills with working cars.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Most people drove clunkers because of their financial situation. It is NOT smart to use taxpayer money to encourage clunker owners to buy a new car on CREDIT. I predict there will be a large number of repossessions of these new cars within the next year. How does someone who can afford only a clunker suddenly afford a new car? They don't. This is another financial crisis in the making.

[Guest]

I think those who oppose stimulus programs which provide an extra benefit to a specific group of citizens, like people who bought a gas guzzler many years ago, or because the stimulus comes from "my tax money!", completely miss the point.

The point is, stimulus programs can work, to the degree that they put the money back into the economy. The best stimulus starts an economic ball rolling which results in that money being spent over and over. The clunker concept is that the money gets to the folks to buy the car which helps the industry which employs more workers who spend virtually every dollar they make at stores and businesses which order more goods and hire more staff who spend... etc. It's the middle-class American machine which has made our economy the strongest in the world, despite our colossal mistakes and wasteful practices.
The Germans, who rely even more than we on a healthy auto industry, invented the clunker concept, and it has worked very well for them. Our program is pretty good, way better than AIG bailout funds by comparison, but it has one flaw - that some of the dollars are being siphoned off by car dealers who are tricking customers into paying higher prices while mesmerized by the clunker rebate. To the degree that those crooks take that ill-gotten money and salt it away off-shore or vacation in Tahiti, the program is failure. Overall, as angry as I get that those abuses certainly occur, I recognize the relative merits of a stimulus like the clunker program.

For those of you who just get angry at the government for any stimulus program, or at those who are earlier in line for benefits than you, why not direct your venom at those who deserve it, the individuals and companies who redirect or steal the money before it has it's ripple effect.

[Guest]

My concern with cash for clunkers is that it does not require the the car be assemble in the US/NAFTA with a minimum of 75% US/NAFTA components including drive train. I'm really not interested in stimulating other countries around the world with US tax dollars.

[Guest]

SteveZ Sorry, this is one time I disagree with you. These consumers made THEIR choice of buying a gas guzzler and now their near worthless, so I'm supposed to help them get rid of that clunker with my tax money!! How are our countrymen ever going learn anything about their mistakes if our government is always bailing them out? Its time that the populace live buy their mistakes and drive those clunkers into the ground themselves.
I'm not thrilled with the entire auto bailout, and the main reason is that nothing was done up front to make cars more sellable. The good coming out of this is that the cost for the clunkers is still less than paying unemployment and welfare to even more folk.

Additional good point is in any state (like Florida) which does not have periodic vehicle inspections, it will get a large number of vehicles off the road which shouldn't be out there anyway.

Also, Let's say the person is buying a 25,000 car and getting a $4,500 C4C credit to use towards the purchase. If the person kicks in $500 cash, that's 80% of the vehicle price, so the person just needs to qualify for a car loan of $20,000, and the vehicle value makes the deal for the finance company/bank a better deal. Money is moving!

And, let's not forget that because of the first bailout, "we, the people" now have a big investment stake in the auto industry, and participating in a "sales incentive" to prime the sales pump makes the potential of recovering the bailout moneys downstream more feasible.

Cars get sold, banks give credit, jobs are maintained, money actually gets circulated in communities which results in more jobs, more people keep their health care coverage (giving another reason why HR 3200 is "wrong time now"), maybe even more jobs come back in the auto industry and that would spawn ancillary support and service jobs, and the economy perks.

Yeah, I'm for anything that actually causes money to circulate, rather than just be paid in big bonuses or squirreled into offshore accounts. The $300-600 incentive checks did nothing. This has enough bite to really make a difference since it allows credit to be given, high-end products sold, and the circular effect spawns more jobs.

This would have been a better idea 6-12 months ago than the original auto bailout plan, because it would have been an economic boost rather than debt relief at the top corporate levels.

This is one time I think the Administration and Congress (Finally!) got it right.

[Guest]

Hey , What about the other side of the coin ........this program also has another benefit that hasn't been brought up here...........removing autos that get 9 miles per gal. and replace them with auto's that get 30 mpg.....OPEC thinks its a lousy idea so right there I'm for it.........any program that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is bound to be a boon to this country..........

Besides a couple of weeks ago when I checked in on the clunker program at my local dealer ...I found out that My car didn't qualify , my mileage was to high and the reason was it was only running on three cylinders but they felt so bad for me they took up a collection and told me never to come back.......
they called me a cab .........fumar

[Guest]

My concern with cash for clunkers is that it does not require the the car be assembled in the US/NAFTA with a minimum of 75% US/NAFTA components including drive train. I'm really not interested in stimulating other countries around the world with US tax dollars.Kinda makes you wonder why such language wasn't included in the bill, doesn't it? If it's so logical to us, why not those in Congress who created and passed the bill?

This is a bit like the legislation which is being considered by Congress--actually it may already have been passed--that exempts vehicle models whose sales are less than 400,000 per year from inclusion in the "average fleet mileage" calculation required in the new CAFE standards bill passed a number of months ago. The bill is known as "the German Provision" among the lobbyists in Washington. The practical effect of this amendment is that Mercedes and BMW can sell all the 13 mpg sedans they would like; Porsche, Maserati and the other sports car makers can sell all the 500 horsepower speedsters that get only 10 miles per gallon that they'd like; even the new owner of Hummer can sell all of those beasts they'd like--all so long as they don't sell more than 400,000 of them. None of those models need be included in the calculation of average fleet mileage prescribed by the CAFE standards law. Read the maddening blog posting describing the bill at http://www.autoextremist.com/

Those who follow these things in Detroit know that this week's legislation was the product of a couple of lobbyists for the foreign car companies and their U.S. dealers "getting to" enough Congress members to get the new bill passed.

Just per chance--do you think there might be some lobbyists might have gotten inside the language of the cash for clunkers bill so that their foreign OEM clients could benefit, just like their U.S. competitors, even though the money comes out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers?

Just wondering.

[Guest]

Hey , What about the other side of the coin ........this program also has another benefit that hasn't been brought up here...........removing autos that get 9 miles per gal. and replace them with auto's that get 30 mpg.....OPEC thinks its a lousy idea so right there I'm for it.........any program that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is bound to be a boon to this country..........

Besides a couple of weeks ago when I checked in on the clunker program at my local dealer ...I found out that My car didn't qualify , my mileage was to high and the reason was it was only running on three cylinders but they felt so bad for me they took up a collection and told me never to come back.......
they called me a cab .........fumar

It sounds good on paper....trade car with lousy mileage for one that gets good mileage....but figures show that people just put more miles on the more efficient car, therefore they use the same amount of gas.

[Guest]

It sounds good on paper....trade car with lousy mileage for one that gets good mileage....but figures show that people just put more miles on the more efficient car, therefore they use the same amount of gas.

Now Greedy where did you ever read this ???????
It certainly wasn't in the news media that I've read...... and I read a lot ,especially things concerning the Michigan auto Ind....


fumar

[Guest]

Now Greedy where did you ever read this ???????
It certainly wasn't in the news media that I've read...... and I read a lot ,especially things concerning the Michigan auto Ind....


fumar
...Heard it from many sources...none that pops to my mind now....

[Guest]

parting in the program were the big three....all the rest were foreign makes.
So much for helping the American auto industry.

There will be no chance for any language to focus on American made/intense products. Don't want the foreign makers crying fowl. And they contribute what to the needs of America?

It is understandably a complex tight rope but one of these days we will show the rest of the world....we the people come first.

btk

[Guest]

"The White House says 47% of all vehicles sold through the bill so far come from US automakers; 2% higher than the domestics' 45% overall share. Four of the top 10 vehicles purchased under the program come from domestic automakers, and over half of all vehicles were built in the States."
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/03/report-ford-focus-is-top-selling-cash-for-clunkers-car-nearly/

"Jim Cramer of Mad Money fame (or, if you're a Daily Show fan, infamy) thinks Cash For Clunkers is a great idea."
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/04/jim-cramer-throws-his-mad-money-behind-cash-for-clunkers/

[Guest]

...This is one time I think the Administration and Congress (Finally!) got it right...I agree, Steve. The shame of it all is that they may have gotten it right by accident.

[Guest]

1. This is clearly another bailout program.. bailout people who own older cars and want a new one.
2. It puts operational cars in the junk yard prematurely.. is this really environmentally smart? A 2 mile per gallon increase is not enough gas savings to justify filling landfills with working cars.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Most people drove clunkers because of their financial situation. It is NOT smart to use taxpayer money to encourage clunker owners to buy a new car on CREDIT. I predict there will be a large number of repossessions of these new cars within the next year. How does someone who can afford only a clunker suddenly afford a new car? They don't. This is another financial crisis in the making.

:agree::agree:

[Guest]

I think those who oppose stimulus programs which provide an extra benefit to a specific group of citizens, like people who bought a gas guzzler many years ago, or because the stimulus comes from "my tax money!", completely miss the point.

The point is, stimulus programs can work, to the degree that they put the money back into the economy. The best stimulus starts an economic ball rolling which results in that money being spent over and over. The clunker concept is that the money gets to the folks to buy the car which helps the industry which employs more workers who spend virtually every dollar they make at stores and businesses which order more goods and hire more staff who spend... etc. It's the middle-class American machine which has made our economy the strongest in the world, despite our colossal mistakes and wasteful practices.
The Germans, who rely even more than we on a healthy auto industry, invented the clunker concept, and it has worked very well for them. Our program is pretty good, way better than AIG bailout funds by comparison, but it has one flaw - that some of the dollars are being siphoned off by car dealers who are tricking customers into paying higher prices while mesmerized by the clunker rebate. To the degree that those crooks take that ill-gotten money and salt it away off-shore or vacation in Tahiti, the program is failure. Overall, as angry as I get that those abuses certainly occur, I recognize the relative merits of a stimulus like the clunker program.

For those of you who just get angry at the government for any stimulus program, or at those who are earlier in line for benefits than you, why not direct your venom at those who deserve it, the individuals and companies who redirect or steal the money before it has it's ripple effect.

Another good reason for the government NOT to try to change the course of Capitalism. Watch "Free to choose" as it explains how the government , with the most noble intent, turns citizens into money grabbing abusers of the system.

[Guest]

My concern with cash for clunkers is that it does not require the the car be assemble in the US/NAFTA with a minimum of 75% US/NAFTA components including drive train. I'm really not interested in stimulating other countries around the world with US tax dollars.

Gust another example of how the government is incapable of initiating a program that is not in the best interest of the American people. They've bailed out the US car companies only to give cash for clunker money to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, whats that all about.

Do we trust them with health care?

[Guest]

I'm not thrilled with the entire auto bailout, and the main reason is that nothing was done up front to make cars more sellable. The good coming out of this is that the cost for the clunkers is still less than paying unemployment and welfare to even more folk.

Additional good point is in any state (like Florida) which does not have periodic vehicle inspections, it will get a large number of vehicles off the road which shouldn't be out there anyway.

Also, Let's say the person is buying a 25,000 car and getting a $4,500 C4C credit to use towards the purchase. If the person kicks in $500 cash, that's 80% of the vehicle price, so the person just needs to qualify for a car loan of $20,000, and the vehicle value makes the deal for the finance company/bank a better deal. Money is moving!

And, let's not forget that because of the first bailout, "we, the people" now have a big investment stake in the auto industry, and participating in a "sales incentive" to prime the sales pump makes the potential of recovering the bailout moneys downstream more feasible.

Cars get sold, banks give credit, jobs are maintained, money actually gets circulated in communities which results in more jobs, more people keep their health care coverage (giving another reason why HR 3200 is "wrong time now"), maybe even more jobs come back in the auto industry and that would spawn ancillary support and service jobs, and the economy perks.

Yeah, I'm for anything that actually causes money to circulate, rather than just be paid in big bonuses or squirreled into offshore accounts. The $300-600 incentive checks did nothing. This has enough bite to really make a difference since it allows credit to be given, high-end products sold, and the circular effect spawns more jobs.

This would have been a better idea 6-12 months ago than the original auto bailout plan, because it would have been an economic boost rather than debt relief at the top corporate levels.

This is one time I think the Administration and Congress (Finally!) got it right.

Circulating money sounds great if the country was awash in greenbacks, but it's spending money like a drunken sailor. Where is the CASH coming from for this program, China? Why not just give everyone in America a check for $4500, to spend as they wish? Spread the wealth around for future generations to pay back! When sane peoples budget is in distress they don't go on a spending spree. NO country has ever spent it's way to wealth.

[Guest]

no country has ever spent it's way to wealth.


bingo

[Guest]

Kinda makes you wonder why such language wasn't included in the bill, doesn't it? If it's so logical to us, why not those in Congress who created and passed the bill?

This is a bit like the legislation which is being considered by Congress--actually it may already have been passed--that exempts vehicle models whose sales are less than 400,000 per year from inclusion in the "average fleet mileage" calculation required in the new CAFE standards bill passed a number of months ago. The bill is known as "the German Provision" among the lobbyists in Washington. The practical effect of this amendment is that Mercedes and BMW can sell all the 13 mpg sedans they would like; Porsche, Maserati and the other sports car makers can sell all the 500 horsepower speedsters that get only 10 miles per gallon that they'd like; even the new owner of Hummer can sell all of those beasts they'd like--all so long as they don't sell more than 400,000 of them. None of those models need be included in the calculation of average fleet mileage prescribed by the CAFE standards law. Read the maddening blog posting describing the bill at http://www.autoextremist.com/

Those who follow these things in Detroit know that this week's legislation was the product of a couple of lobbyists for the foreign car companies and their U.S. dealers "getting to" enough Congress members to get the new bill passed.

Just per chance--do you think there might be some lobbyists might have gotten inside the language of the cash for clunkers bill so that their foreign OEM clients could benefit, just like their U.S. competitors, even though the money comes out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers?

Just wondering.

From your previous post it seemed that you were for the clunker program and now you to point out obvious faults of an unthinking, rush to pass a bill, Congress. Did Congress do the right job or not?

[Guest]

parting in the program were the big three....all the rest were foreign makes.
So much for helping the American auto industry.

There will be no chance for any language to focus on American made/intense products. Don't want the foreign makers crying fowl. And they contribute what to the needs of America?

It is understandably a complex tight rope but one of these days we will show the rest of the world....we the people come first.

btk

:beer3::beer3:

[Guest]

From your previous post it seemed that you were for the clunker program and now you to point out obvious faults of an unthinking, rush to pass a bill, Congress. Did Congress do the right job or not?

To answer in one word -NO! We do not need to be stimulating Korean sales of Kia and Hundais, nor Japanese sales of Lexus. As I pointed out before, we need to stimulate the sales of automobiles made here in North America that contain more that 75% North American parts including no less than 75% of the drive train. As K pointed out, we need to eliminate the "German' exception as well. Right now, BMW is helping itself to the cash for clunkers program while continuing to sell the V-12 700 series under the protection of the German Exception.

[Guest]

To answer in one word -NO! We do not need to be stimulating Korean sales of Kia and Hundais, nor Japanese sales of Lexus. As I pointed out before, we need to stimulate the sales of automobiles made here in North America that contain more that 75% North American parts including no less than 75% of the drive train. As K pointed out, we need to eliminate the "German' exception as well. Right now, BMW is helping itself to the cash for clunkers program while continuing to sell the V-12 700 series under the protection of the German Exception.
According to Cars.com that would still include some Toyota and Honda vehicles.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/07/02/467984.html
And the best seller of the C4C program, the Ford Focus, only has a 50% DPC (Domestic Parts Content).
http://ask.cars.com/2009/07/is-the-ford-focus-made-in-america.html

[Guest]

Hmmmmm

It gets complicated when the vehicle's parts are from all over the planet. I just have this feeling that when you buy a vehicle with a foreign made sticker (label) the money from the purchase will still go back to that country.
Manufacturers sub their work frequently. The parts go out for bid and usually the lowest bidder receives the contract to make the parts. Sears is a good example. Sears does not make their own power tools.
Bottom line? It would take someone more savvy then me to explain the economic impact. While the parts made in the USA will keep some Americans working, which is good, the real money will still do to a foreign country.

[Guest]

According to Cars.com that would still include some Toyota and Honda vehicles.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/07/02/467984.html
And the best seller of the C4C program, the Ford Focus, only has a 50% DPC (Domestic Parts Content).
http://ask.cars.com/2009/07/is-the-ford-focus-made-in-america.html

I'd seen that report before. Interesting that there are 4 Toyota's and one Honda on the list. It's been that way for a while now. Granted, a lot of the profit dollars go back to Japan, but there is some beneift to the U.S. for the manufacture and sales of them.

[Guest]

From your previous post it seemed that you were for the clunker program and now you to point out obvious faults of an unthinking, rush to pass a bill, Congress. Did Congress do the right job or not?Yes, I'm for the cash-for-clunker program and hope that the Senate agrees with the House and adds $2 billion to the funding.

But, no, I think it could have been better. I don't believe for a minute that a prohibition on C4C funds going overseas was an oversight by Congress. I am convinced that some special interest lobbyists got into their pockets, maybe even provided them with a re-written bill, which would permit C4C funds to flow back to Japan, China or Germany.

But, even with it's warts, the C4C program is beneficial for the U.S. auto industry.

[Guest]

But, even with it's warts, the C4C program is beneficial for the U.S. auto industry.
How do you know that? Is this a temporary solution, or is it a solution at all. Who pays all the taxpayer money back? I haven't seen any real solutions from this administration that doesn't involve the USA getting deeper into debt.

[Guest]

How do you know that? Is this a temporary solution, or is it a solution at all. Who pays all the taxpayer money back? I haven't seen any real solutions from this administration that doesn't involve the USA getting deeper into debt.

That's the real bottom line, getting deeper in debt. Anything the government does to stimulate the economy drives us further into debt. As far as being temporary, of course it is!! The money already ran out once and is expected that the "new money" might last only a couple of weeks, then what? How is that not temporary???

The only thing this program has done is reduce production inventory, not newly built cars that will keep the autoworkers employed. When the money runs out anyone who could afford to buy a car will have and the sales come to a screeching halt again.

And lastly, who is paying for all this spending? Everyone who didn't buy a car will be paying for the government largess, plus interest to the Chinese.

[Guest]

Five bucks says within a year we'll hear stories about people getting their tax payer subsidized cars repossessed.

[Guest]

Five bucks says within a year we'll hear stories about people getting their tax payer subsidized cars repossessed.
I read somewhere that reverse mortgages will be the new crisis. It just keeps getting better and better, huh?:rant-rave:

[Guest]

Five bucks says within a year we'll hear stories about people getting their tax payer subsidized cars repossessed.

Most people who drive clunkers can't afford a new car, and tax money should not be used to encourage them to buy one.
People who drive clunkers that can afford a new car do not need my tax money to buy one.
HOW CAN THIS PROGRAM POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA???

This is the same dumb logic that promoted people to buy homes they could not afford.

[Guest]

Votes.

[Guest]

Votes.

Buying votes with the Cash for Clunkers program is not a GOOD idea. It is an EVIL idea.. You made a very good point; politicians don't know the difference between GOOD and EVIL when it comes to getting votes.

[Guest]

By and large government in general is evil. Very few politicians actually serve the people. Mostly they serve themselves at the expense of the people.

That's why it's scary that so many put so much faith in them.