Comments on: Cash for Clunkers hurts everyone

By: Kelly M

Kelly M — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:34:26 +0000

I SOOO agree that ‘Cash for Clunkers’ was a failure of a program all the way around. Why would we expect the government to put together a worthwhile program??

While driving last week, I caught this take on CFC named “Cash for Codgers”, you’ll LOL!!!

Keep up the good work blogging!

Kelly
Morristribe mom

http://www.themorristribe.net/2009/09/cash-for-codgers.html

By: Cars4Charities

Cars4Charities — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:30:16 +0000

carol coots,

By law, ALL of the cars turned in for a cash for clunker have to have their engines and drive trains destroyed. The other parts can be sold. this is why charities that accept car donations were so upset.

By: Pc3

Pc3 — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:27:12 +0000

I recommend Lew Rockwell’s interview here http://www.stannespublichouse.com/newdraught/ to help understand why bailouts are bad for the economy.

By: kimc

kimc — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:02:14 +0000

carol coots,
Where did you get your information? My understanding was that the engine and drive train of every “clunker” traded in was to be destroyed.

By: Perry C.

Perry C. — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:26:22 +0000

Melissa you hit the nail on the head when you said “A chance to recoup the taxes I’ve already paid? It would seem a logical argument. But it’s also the taxes that someone else has paid–money that they worked for that I have no right to (see 8th commandment).”

according to this link http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html

almost 40% of us don’t even pay federal income tax.

By: Gretchen

Gretchen — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:54:25 +0000

I agree with Kim totally, especially the statement, “The government cannot give anyone anything that the government doesn’t first take from somebody else.” Obviously there were those out there that it was the right situation to take advantage of, but for the most part, it involved people who really seem to think they deserve more than they can actually afford, and God forgive me, they deserve. I recently had to replace my Subaru Forrester. 12 years old, 228,000 miles. Crashed 2x, and caught on fire 1X. We chose to buy another used car, a 2000 Infinity that we paid $3,600 for. We have no payments, it gets great mileage and is oh so comfy. I just wonder about the mentality of people who think that because it is handed to them that they have to take it…. without even wondering where it came from or who’s pocket it came out of. My paycheck used to end up being awfully small after all the deductions, but I just have never thought that it was the government’s responsibility to take care of me…. be it cars or health care. I have been jobless, (until Friday) and my husband is still trying to get the man who bought his company of 20 years to pay him for it. We have no health insurance, and struggle just to put groceries on the table, but never at any point did I think that the government should fill in the gaps. We just tightened our belts, did without, and pinched pennies till they squealed.

By: carol coots

carol coots — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:21:11 +0000

Cash for Clunkers comment
Not all cars that were accepted in the program where in such a state that they were destroyed. Many used cars can and will be resold. The ones that were or will be destroyed the steel and aluminum mostly gets recycled, melted down and used in new cars and construction industry. If a car owner was having some problem with their old car it can be less expensive to buy a new one than to keep refixing the old car.

By: Frugalistas

Frugalistas — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:23:33 +0000

It certainly hurts Canadians as well. We had a shortage of cars here, and it reduced incentives in Canada as well as kept prices high.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:39:13 +0000

I drive what some might call a ‘clunker’ but what someone else might be very grateful to have. The time for replacing our vehicle is quickly approaching, and as I perused the postcard I received in the mail encouraging me to take advantage of the CFC program, it was a tempting proposition. However, as someone who is opposed to almost everything that the government does (on the grounds that it goes against the constitution), I had to exercise the discipline and self-restraint to reject any funds the government wants to dish out to me. A chance to recoup the taxes I’ve already paid? It would seem a logical argument. But it’s also the taxes that someone else has paid–money that they worked for that I have no right to (see 8th commandment). As to its environmental impact, well, even the enviromentalists aren’t impressed with the ‘positive’ impact this was to have on the environment. And it is incredible to me that there are cars being destroyed that are nicer than the car I chose not to turn in as a ‘clunker’. What is wrong with a society that, in general, believes that they deserve the best of everything, and when something is no longer good enough for them, they just destroy it. Even if the short term environmental effect would have been OVERWHELMINGLY positive, the long-term impact of encouraging a people to continue in their wasteful materialism will have tremendous negative impact in years to come.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:26:29 +0000

After thinking on this some more, I had another thought. What about the people who bought 2009 model vehicles BEFORE the C4C thing? They did not get a rebate, but I’d be willing to bet that the resale value of their vehicle will be affected just the same. One of my good friends did just that. Too bad for her.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is always paying the bill.