Contemplating Cash for Clunkers Bill

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I ask you, Why should the taxpayer flip the bill for the clearly unconstitutional cash for clunkers program? Oury children and grand children will have to pay for this program! The people that are participating in this cash for clunkers program are greedy and self centered. They have chosen to place our country and children into more debt – and for what? A new car! That is not why we chose to serve our country – in IRAQ, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, the cold war, Korea or WWII. We serve our country to preserve the American way of life – not socialism. Cash for clunkers is certainly not a program that “defends the Constitution “it in fact undermines the Constitution. How many more industries will Congress selectively bail out? The industries supported by powerful unions seem to be Congress definition of all Americans! The “Cash for clunkers”program is nothing less than a Congressional stick up of our children – placing us in more debt to China. The next time the government decides to spend billions of dollars for a program think about where the money comes from and who is paying the bill.

Carl Maxwell of RI 10:38PM August 22, 2009

The following is incorrect:
"you will negotiate with the dealers on the scrap value of your trade in so you stand the chance of not getting the 3500 or 4500."
No, you will get the $3500 or $4500. The negotiation part has to do with the value of the vehicle separate form the credit. The dealer might say scrap value is $100 and you might say it is worth $500. That is where the negotiation comes in, the scrap value. You might be able to get the scrap value on top of the GUARANTEED credit of $3500 or $4500.
I'm bummed about the full one year provision, I wish it would have been something like before Jan 1, 2009. The CARS incentive plus other incentives had me thinking PT Cruiser. But Chrysler's additional incentive will end before my car is eligible. So I will be waiting until October 15th to see if funds are still available and what cars are out there.

gman of WI 1:43PM July 23, 2009

i have an 1988 labaron chrysler that doesnt qualify as a clunker trade in.it gets to good gas milage.under gov. figures i get 23.so i will help some one else buy a new car but cant trade my clunker in on one.

carl askins of IN 4:09PM July 21, 2009

I can not trade in my 1986 Nissan truck, it gets to many miles per gallon I can not trade in my 1996 Oldsmobile Cierra it gets to many miles per gallon. In fact my sister could not trade in her 1990 Cad it get to many miles per gallon, but guess what the new/revised more accurate average gas mileage chart that just came out has her Cad now qualifing, isn't that interesting. Nothing going on here of course, perhaps a little deception from somewhere. All of this manipulation would and should be unnecessary if the mileage difference would have been just that a mileage difference with no requirement of the trade in being set at a certain level, just use a little common sense and promote getting new/used cars that get better mileage. I think 6 miles per gallon better than trade would have been much better than having this 18 miles or less per gallon requirement for the trade in to qualify is just setting up another problem to deal with. Again just have the new vehicle that is being purchased get a minimum of 6 miles per gallon better gas mileage than the vehicle/auto being traded in. One level of rebate not two and continue it for 6 months to perhaps one year. Instead of the now $3500 to $4500 being given for this CARS program make it a flat $2000 plus the appraised (trade in value) from a respected source such as the Kelley Blue Book and using this method it seems it would eliminate many areas of question as to which vehicle qualifies and which does not. Is it not a good thing to just get vehicles/trucks/suvs/cars that get better gas mileage on our roads, isn't this the real reason this bill was passed, I think so but I also think that it will not do nearly what it was intended to do and that is improve conditions the way it was structed, mainly the 18 mile per gallon rule is just, in my opinion SILLY. If someone wants to get rid of their clunker and it get 25 miles per gallon and they buy a vehicle that get 31 miles per gallon then they would qualify, what is wrong about that. Are we not with this legislation trying to get better gas mileage vehicles on our roads, I say the answer to that would be a resounding yes from all of those involved in passing this CARS bill. OK then why not revise/modify that 18 mile restriction to simply say get a vehicle with better gas mileage of 6 miles per gallon and that would be that, you qualify for $2000 plus the appraised value of your vehicle being turned in to purchase the new vehicle.

Marvin Mackey of CA 1:27PM July 15, 2009

I was thinking of keeping my older well-maintained car because I thought that used parts would be plentiful and cheap because so many of these cars were made and are being recycled now in salvage yards. But, because of this Bill, lots of these cars will be crushed. This will deplete the available quantity of their perfectly good used parts and make new parts for these used cars become even more expensive because their reduced supply will increase their demand. So the "green recyclers" will be deprived of potential inventory, while the suppliers of new parts for these used cars will be able to raise their prices and make more profit. More importantly for the people who can't afford to buy a new car even with the proposed "clunker" incentive, their costs to maintain their used cars will increase as a direct result of this short-sighted legislation.
Therefore it benefits the UAW and rewards upper class owners of poorly maintained (and therefor lower valued) used cars at the direct expense of the low and middle class and the recently unemployed, who are attempting to be able to afford to live a green and sustainable lifestyle.
This legislation could be more fair (and more green) if the government credit could be expanded to apply to the purchase of more efficient USED cars as well as NEW ones.

K Jensen of WA 4:30PM July 01, 2009

I have a 1984 Chevy C10 pickup. Does all 1984 trucks qualify? I do not know the excact date this was originally put in service. Does it just have to be a 1984 or later model? Or do I need to verify excatly what month this was put in service.
Thank you,
Kathy Alexander

Kathy Alexander of OK 12:10PM July 01, 2009

You're wrong. What it says is that you won't get the credit voucher in "addition" to the scrap value of your trade-in, thus the voucher will be more than what the scrap value of your trade-in will be. If not, then just trade your car in for its true value and not accept the voucher.

Tim L of CA 12:01PM June 30, 2009

This bill sucks! the majority of people who have a vehicle that could quailfy and benefit from this cannot afford a brand new car anyway, that's why they are driving clunkers to begin with.

J. Kimball of MI 11:47AM June 30, 2009

Karen, In order to benefit from the program you would have to lease your car for 5 yrs. (better off buying it). The mileage has nothing to do with the program. Veh has to be 1985 to current vehicle. You have to have owned it and had it registered and insured for at least one years. Go to www.cars.gov for further info.

Frank of AZ 2:59PM June 29, 2009

I am one of the few that could "benefit" from this bill. I drive a 94 Z28 Camaro that I could maybe sell for $3000 (170k miles, interior and electrical problems). But, if I trade it in for a Civic, I could get $4500 plus the $500 minimum the dealer has to match. That is a pretty enticing deal.
It makes me feel guilty sending an american hot rod straight to the junk yard for an import, but there is no decent looking american competition, and driving 45min to work every day, it would save me tons of $$$.

Dan of KS 10:16AM June 29, 2009