Comments on: House reaches agreement for ‘cash-for-clunkers’ program

By: rdp

rdp — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:40:36 +0000

This Law is discriminatory, and despite the claims the purpose is not to save energy and the environment, but rather to save the energy guzzlers built by Detroit. An impartial law that would save energy, protect the environment and stimulate the economy should take into account that some cars now achieve ~40mpg or better. The 18mpg limit prevents most consumers, who have avoided these energy guzzlers even before it was fashionable, from taking advantage of this law. The new 22mpg target is ridiculously low. This is another massive tax transfer to reward irresponsibility.
To attain the alleged objectives, the law must be open to ANY vehicle, independent of automaker and EPA ratings, as long as the newly purchased vehicle achieves a gain of 7mpg ($3,500 voucher), with the $4,500 voucher for those who achieve 10mpg or better. Of course, the Honda Fit, Insight and Toyota Prius would be the real beneficiaries of such a law, and this would not be acceptable to the Congressman from Michigan.

By: sharpie

sharpie — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:17:59 +0000

They should rename it “cash-for-chunkers” or “cash for guzzlers” program. Call it what it is.

By: Renton

Renton — Thu, 07 May 2009 02:35:53 +0000

This good for me. I have a 20 y/o Cherokee that is beginning to hit the wall. Gets about 10 mpg too.

Trade it in on a Honda Fit. No brainer.

Just pass the law already.

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:08:11 +0000

The way I’m reading this, it isn’t a “clunker” program … it’s a “poor mileage behemoth” program … excluding regular passenger vehicles OVER 18 mpg is what IS needed instead.

By: leftwingagenda

leftwingagenda — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:07:23 +0000

some of your complaints would make sense if the financial crisis was based on bad car loans and millions of people defaulting on those loans, but that’s not the case…remember, guys, *housing* crisis…people were buying cars they couldn’t afford using equity in their home that didn’t really exist, but that auto debt is orders of magnitude less than the total mortgage debt affected by the housing crisis…

i frankly don’t see this as a plan to burden people with more bad debt, although honestly it’s up to the consumer (not the government) to make choices that are fiscally responsible…if we as a nation can’t balance our personal checkbooks, that’s on us, the government didn’t force anybody into these idiotic financial decisions…it just has to deal with the consequences…

also, you guys are completely missing the point that this program has been in operation in europe with success…i repeat, with success…the sky isn’t falling, kids…

By: shaver

shaver — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:35:32 +0000

They should call it the new full-size truck and large SUV stimulus bill.
This is as big a sham as the business right off for “cars” over 6,000 #s that has flower delivery and RE agents driving Excursions and Super Duties.
Anyways, my dad gave me his 94 Dodge Ram for my daughter as her 1st car. I guess it just got a whole lot more valuable.

By: elviososa

elviososa — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:54:16 +0000

Do those politicians have brains???? or they have their ass up as their brains???

By: DrFill

DrFill — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:33:37 +0000

What kind of monkey crap is this?
Why would cars and trucks have the same MPG threshold?
How many passenger cars get a trucks EPA?
Not many

How many cars average less than 18 MPG?
Now I have to dig up a Buick Roadmaster?

Did they say the old truck must get less than 18MPG, and the new truck must get 15 MPG?
WTF?
DrFill

By: A4

A4 — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:06:33 +0000

seriously… i want that leftover GLI. 4500 bucks sounds prime.

By: JakeK66

JakeK66 — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:59:35 +0000

S1L1SC -

Those values will skyrocket because of this, so if you plan on doing that, better do it quick!

By: yarddog82abn

yarddog82abn — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:27:33 +0000

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

By: S1L1SC

S1L1SC — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:58:33 +0000

Time to buy one of those $500 SUV’s that are 15-20 years old… Trade In time.

By: mayer_ray_nagin

mayer_ray_nagin — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:10:17 +0000

In my opinion the biggest clunker saddling the USA is our federal government and I will gladly trade that in and get money back. Freakin idiot politicians

By: MJvwGTI

MJvwGTI — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:00:14 +0000

nooooo!!! i am trying to sell my 2007 car – this will flood the used car market! arg

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:50:45 +0000

Yawn.

I think there should be some provision requiring proof of ownership before the law was passed.

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:48:03 +0000

Hmmmmmmm, the way LLN has pointed it out, the vehicle (passenger) being traded in must average
LESS than 18 mpg … so anyone with a ten-year-old compact running at 27 mpg is OUT OF LUCK?

Wow, if true … only gas guzzlers are permitted for the trade?

By: krftwrk

krftwrk — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:07:19 +0000

It’s an incentive to get old, cr@ppy cars off the road and stimulate sales. Many of which are exempt from emissions standards. If I were considering a new car right now, $3.5-4.5K would make the decision that much easier. Machines wear out and need replacement. Either in part or whole.

By: Borat

Borat — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:48:10 +0000

Jake, you got it! The way out of the bad debt and toxic assets crisis is more and more bad debt!

By: JakeK66

JakeK66 — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:36:52 +0000

So let me get this straight – I’m giving MY money to someone else to buy a new car because they were too cheap to buy one before? If they can’t afford $25,000, they can’t probably afford $21,500 either, so in reality we are just urging people to get themselves in more debt and create more bad debt for the struggling financial industry. Awesome plan you guys. No wonder your approval rating is around 20%. 2010 is going to be a fun election!!!

By: save saab

save saab — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:34:59 +0000

They should include: If the car is desirable in the collector’s market, it should be fixed, or sold as parts, not scrapped.

By: blue1996

blue1996 — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:32:58 +0000

what happens to the trade ins and does the dealer pay for the trade ins or the goverment,i guess the united states goverment is getting into the automotive buisness lol