DeMint, McCain Oppose 'Cash for Clunkers' Push

Reader Comments
Back to article

Destroying useful vehicles is sinful. Some of the clunkers are all a lot people can afford. And encouraging people to purchase new cars at the behest of the UAW and incur debt in a time of uncertainty is ridiculous. What happens if the purchaser loses his or her job, then is the government make their payment?

Jane Rowland of AZ 3:54PM August 04, 2009

The Government could have regulated it to Chrysler, Ford and G.M. Why are we allowing the monies to go to Foreign Sales? We should be helping the USA !! I traded in a Ford that was getting 14 mpg for a GM that gets 22 to 29 mpg.....

Mike A. of FL 12:28PM August 04, 2009

trade your 18 mpg suv for 20 mpg suv get $3500
trade a 20mpg for a 30 mpg get $ 000000000 Z E R O

Jim of NY 1:54AM August 04, 2009

trade your 18 mpg suv for 20 mpg suv get $3500
trade a 20mpg for a 30 mpg get $ 000000000

Michel of NY 1:37AM August 04, 2009

Will of GA your right' It is not our responsibility to subsidize people who don't prepare for anything. They have the same basic education and it's THEIR responsibility to take advantage and if you don't you lose! This is another example of wasted money for those who will eventually lose the car to the repo man anyway.Liberals sound like dummy's, They should give their own money away if you feel so good about it. Problem is they don't have it either. These are the under achiever and that is why they agree! Socialism won't work in the USA because we are to smart to allow it! But the debt Obama has created will effect everyone for a lifetime! You only have yourself to blame for voting in this CORRUPT LIAR! MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP SPENDING MONEY IT DOESN'T HAVE AND CAN'T EVEN HANDLE THIS! IMAGINE THE MESS WITH HEATH CARE IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THIS PROGRAM, FAILURE.........AGAIN !

Stanley Stuart feingold of NY 12:55AM August 04, 2009

Isn't it interesting that congress had little debate in appropriating another 87 billion dollars to the Iraq/Afgan war in July (Pushing the cost to taxpayers to a trillion dollars since its start). But when it comes to CARS, which appears to be especially beneficial to the middle class, republicans fume about the cost to taxpayers. The real problem for republicans is that CARS doesn't do much for those who don't drive clunkers. I'd be willing to bet that if this were a 2 billion dollar tax rebate plan for buying luxury cars, the republicans would be falling over themselves to sponsor the bill.

Dave C. of WI 12:26AM August 04, 2009

I have a 1 Ton van that gets combined mileage of about 13mpg (bought it used prior to 9/11/01 when gasoline price was not insane). I am trying to do the right thing now and buy a 2010 Prius II but have not been able to find one near near where I live. I move on to plan B-, look for other manufacturers vehicles that get good mileage and meet my needs (no compacts, I have a family) and same outcome. How are we supposed to help the auto industry out when they don't have anything left om the Lot to sell but the same old inefficient/unreliable stuff. Nice program but the auto industry is to INEPT to supply what is in demand. Nice try from the Government, I guess they just under estimated how stupid the auto industry that they were trying to help truly is......guess I'll keep driving my van....MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SPEND SOME MORE TAX DOLLARS ON BICYCLE LANES SO WE CAN RIDE BICYCLES TO WORK WITHOUT RISKING BEING RUN OVER BY 3 TON SUV'S!!!! MIGHT EVEN IMPROVE OUR HEALTH A LITTLE (and use NO GASOLINE AT ALL!!)

Tim of GA 9:02PM August 03, 2009

Dorfy, I agree with you 100%. This cash for clunkers program is excellent. Families are taking advantage of it...those who have never been able to afford a new car! We did and we are hoping the gov't comes through with the money so they don't reposses our new car. We'll blame it on the Senate (McCain and DeMint) if it doesn't pass. Geez...those guys are just plain not listening to the public. Taxpayers finally have some say over where their stimulus money should go, and now the Senate does not want to listen to their constituents! It's partisan politics all the way.

Juliana Weis of OR 6:52PM August 03, 2009

Cash for Clunkers. sure help people with jobs. help people with cars.
But how many jobs do we help when alot of these cars come from Japan.

jeff ny of 6:02PM August 03, 2009

First off, rushing through this bill is ridiculous, and I thought the legislature would have realized that after the TARP. Second off, trading in your new car for a more fuel efficient car is a great idea. Trading in your car for a car that gets 2 mpg better is not a great idea. The incentive should: (1) be for high MPG increases ONLY, and (2) incentives should be "voluntary" by automakers with some type of government incentive for participating auto dealers. This deal does not create a sustainable demand for fuel efficient cars and the auto manufactures are not fooled by the 2-5% increase in small car sales. The "success" of this program is not success at all, it only shows that people love "free" money. And when those participating in the program bring their car home they should say thank you to their neighbors, the cashier at their grocery story, and the woman over the phone trying to sell them phone service.
I have an old pickup. 18mpg. Wanted a fuel efficient car for some time to commute in. So I start looking at the Insight, the Prius, and etc. Too expensive. Most places stopped offering the incentive packages for hybrids. Why? Why instead of incentives on hybrids with 40+ mgp, is the gov paying anyone 3500 for a new pickup with 20 mpg? So this program comes along and I think to myself, I'm going to pay for it anyway I might as well do it. So I go out and buy a cheap Honda with 35 pmg. The sale is on hold while the dealer works out the program details. I've been thinking to myself over the weekend, why do I need 4,500 from the gov? Why does my truck need to be crushed? I might as well pay a little bit more and be free from the feeling that I used other people's money to pay for something I don't need, but only want.

nateobie of CA 4:34PM August 03, 2009