Why do people hate this idea so much? I think it's great that we finally get to see some of our taxes go back to the public. I realize that not everyone gets to take advantage of the program. At least it's not going off to companies to be spent on things such as bonuses for wealthy executives.

Imagine what a different world the Big Three would now be facing had they only not fought to keep the CAFE standards so abysmally low when the Republicans ran the roost.
On the other hand, YAY Toyota & Honda!

The math is not working for me. 160,000 trades to date ~@4K per trade is $640m. To me, that's 65% of the initial investment, but they were "running out of money" last week.

There must be some sort of corruption or waste spending built in there.

I think its a terrible idea simply because the dealerships have to destroy the old cars upon recipt. I don't understand whats wrong with selling them to a junk yard for parts/scrap?

They have to ruin the engine before getting rid of them, thus negating most of the money they could get from the traded in car.

@Hobz: It's not "people," it's certain people. They can't wrap their tiny little brains around the idea that a government program could not only work well, but exceed expectations.

Yeah... not everyone pays Taxes either... at least not $4500 worth. People hate it because they're looking at it as a handout as opposed to something to spur the economy. Lots of people are out of crappy cars and into cars that are CLEANER for the environment based on new emission standards, it saves them money at the pump because they're not only getting better gas mileage, they have to fill up less, and the money they save can be used to spur other areas of the economy. Not to mention it's moving a stagnant car enventory off the lots spurring the need for factory's to create more. I live in an area with a car plant and I see the businesses around the car plant that NEED the car plant to produce cars.

I'm the first to admit the implementation of the program is shakey (says the guy who's clunker gets 19mpg and doesn't qualify for the program) but the idea is pretty solid and way better than just handing over MORE money to car companies with execs that still took their bonuses. ...and it's wayyyyyy better than universal healthcare.

@missdona: Administration costs were definitely built into the budget...I would shudder if they were 35% though.

@HurtsSoGood:
Jon Stewart recently did a funny segment on this in which he wondered if the critics' problem was that the program was too effective.

@missdona:
No... ~$650 million is the amount that has been reported recently. You have to understand that there is some lag time between when a person trades their car in and when the government finds out about it. If that lag time was a day, and they were getting 40,000 trades per day, there was a serious risk of overshooting the $1 billion, meaning some people would have bought vehicles expecting their $4500, but there wouldn't be $4500 to give them.

They only halted the program temporarily so they could catch up and figure out how much had been claimed already.

@Shappie:
If they sold the cars to junk yards in working condition, what do you think would happen to them?

The whole point is to get the cars - or more specifically, their inefficient engines - off the road. I believe they can sell everything except the engine for scrap.

@Shappie: First off, they sieze the engine so the car never winds up back on the road again. Kind of the point of the whole exercise. Secondly, they DO scrap the cars. They pull out all of the non-steel salvage and high value parts like platinum-filled catalytic converters then load up the rest into a crusher. The cars are compacted, stacked, transported to a sorting facility. The compacted cars are then offloaded and shredded into smaller bits, where the steel is magnetically separated from the rest of the plastic and fabric. Once the materials are sorted, the steel/plastic can then be recycled and the waste can be disposed of.

Personally I haven't been a big fan of the cash for clunkers program. Mainly for the two following reasons;

1. It's possiable that perfectly good cars end up being destroyed instead of being sold in the used markets to families that are unable to, for whatever reason, obtain a new car loan.

2. At least with some of the ads on this deal ran in my area (no credit? bad credit? we can help!) I can see this program adding more problems to the current credit crisis by giving new car loans to people who are unable to afford it just because they get more down-payment money in the program.

There are other issues, but those are the two main ones that really concern me. I just don't see why anyone thought this program was a good idea on either side, environmental or stimulitive.

Now that's not to say there are some good merits to this program, its extremely helpful for those that have dying, gas guzzling cars that are only worth a few hundred dollars. Also i'm sure there are many cases where the MPG spread from old car to new car is pretty wide and therefor beneificial.

What condition does the car have to be in, in order to qualify? I mean, besides the MPG requirement....

Example: Can you remove the headlights, stereo, speakers, and any other parts that you can sell on the secondary market (ie, to junk yards) and still get $4500 for the car (so lets say you can salvage $1,000 worth of car parts and you have to push the clunker to the dealer) -- I mean, they're going to destroy the car anyway....

Or does it just have to be drivable, ie remove everything that you can sell but keep it drivable to the lot, and then trade it in for your clunker cash?

Just curious... Of course, my Jeep (15mpg) qualifies, but is worth more than the $4500 so I will be holding onto it for a couple more years...

@Trai_Dep: no Yay for Ford?

@Hobz:

Imagine if the government gave a good chunk of stimulus money to the people instead to state governments who are much more inefficient at deploying funds. A payroll tax holiday for instance would have been interesting.

@Hobz: I think the big thing people are concerned about is that we are continuing to spend money when we're already spending so much.

But, when you consider what they're spending compared to the benefits of it, I think it more than pays off in the end.

Why dies my shitty, shitty car have to be so damn fuel efficient?! shakes fist at sky

@Lincolnsbeard33: Yeah seriously...where's Ford's yay? Mulally has come in and done a lot there...Ford doesn't even closely resemble the pork at the other two.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: I heard there were upwards of 250,000 pending claims for the program...yikes

@Dooley: A friend of mine traded him car that was crashed in the side but still with a clean title (never reported it to insurance) I don't know if that sorta answers what you're asking... I mean it ran and was drivable, but was obviously now a total junk car.

@Hobz: It's a terrible idea for multiple reasons:

1. It's not "some of our taxes going back to the public". If the money was not going toward this program, that would be $1 billion less in debt that this country would be in. Instead, the government is spending MY tax dollars that my children will have to pay back, so that my neighbor who just foreclosed on his house, can go out and buy a brand new Prius. It's basically like welfare, only it benefits irresponsible people instead of poor people.

2. The energy that it takes to produce a brand new car pretty much negates any energy that might be saved by taking a less-efficient car off the road.

3. The fact that the "clunkers" are being demolished is absurd. Most of these cars are still perfectly drivable, and could be resold to financially responsible people as used cars, or donated to charity.

4. Our country is in the financial mess that it is, due to people buying homes that they couldn't afford. Now the government is encouraging people to buy cars that they can't afford either. How many of the people out there that currently own "clunkers" do you honestly think can afford a new car in the middle of a recession (and by afford, I mean pay for the car in cash, not make $300/month payments for the next 6 years)?

5. The fact that the program is out of money already, and that dealers are having so much trouble processing the rebates to begin with, demonstrates a lack of competence and foresight behind this program. Logistically, it's a disaster.

I was hoping Honda would be really low, because they suspended all their incentive programs just to cash in on tax dollars. Toyota, Hyunda, Mazda, Nissan all added cash back and/or financing ON TOP of cash for clunkers money. Honda was being dicks about it though. I bought a Hyundai instead of a Honda just for this reason. Sure, my resale might be 20% lower, but my up front cost was about 25% lower, for a comparable car.

@Lincolnsbeard33: 6 of the top 10 trade-ins are Fords.

@Hobz:

I don't agree with giving taxpayer money to companies or people that need "assistance". HOWEVER, I agree with this program. It is much better in my opinion, to give the money to consumers to buy products, rather than what we were doing before...giving 15 or 10 billion directly to car companies to keep them afloat. So we kept them in business to make cars...and no one was buying the cars. NOW, people are buying cars, dealers are making money, parts shops are making money, scrap yards are making money, AND the auto companies are making money. So much more efficient than giving money directly to the company as a bailout.

@Shawn4168:

1) There's no data to support that only irresponsible people are taking advantage of this program. The fact that credit markets are still relatively tight would make me think that only those who are somewhat responsible could take advantage of this program since they would be the only ones who could get financing.

2) The car is already made so any energy costs due to production are sunk.

3) People aren't going to use the CARS program unless the FMV of the vehicle is lower than the rebate amount. It's simple economics. Look at the vintage of vehicles you are seeing turned in. Most are 10+ years old.

Also, people aren't going to donate cars unless they are going to get a tax deduction. The vehicle donation rules are complicated and most people will just opt not to deal with the hassle.

4) See point #1.

5) I think the program running out of money so quickly proves how successful it was.

@Hobz: I'll take a crack at it.

I hate this because people that bought a used car above some MPG threshold are excluded from this program. Therefore, the people that benefit the most are the ones that made the worst purchasing decisions. This type of government program rewards the people that bought gas-guzzling trucks over MPG sippers and waves the finger at the more responsible purchasers.

I hate this because it's the creation of an artificial car bubble. This isn't encouraging people to buy cars they wouldn't typically, especially in a recession. Instead it's encouraging people that would purchase a car anyway to do it a little sooner in order to get free money from the government (no money is free, it's paid for by you and me, by force if necessary). If I was given the option to buy a car now and get $4000 free, or buy a car later and get $0 free, I'd choose to do it now too. Unfortunately, we saw what happened when government assisted in creating a housing bubble - we got a devastating recession and a TARP program that looted trillions of dollars from our government that will have to be refilled by taxpayers.

I hate that all the discourse on this topic involves people already declaring this as successful. The only successful part so far is the fact that people are choosing to take free money given to them by the government (again, taken from other taxpayers by force) People want free money? Really! A real measure of success would be based on how much energy it costs to create these new vehicles and how much energy it costs to destroy the old vehicles compared to the energy gain from the higher MPG new car and the opportunity costs for the $3500-4500 taken from the taxpayers. Unless I missed the part where this isn't about conservation and is really just a financial handout to car companies?

This bill is really easy to hate. It's insulting to be told you have a "tiny brain" when people haven't considered any of these issues, but you have.

To the commenters in this thread and others: When you say this program "exceeded expectations" or "was too effective", what was the criteria that determined this? Is the popularity of a program enough to say it was a success? A program to give out free HDTVs to every American would be popular, but would bankrupt our system or cost the taxpayers even more in raised taxes or inflation.

@Trai_Dep: Not that much different at all, actually. Our government stepped in and bailed them out.

People wanted efficient cars. These car companies chose not to listen to the market and instead used lobbying to gain political favor. When the market spoke and these companies hit trouble, the lobbying came to fruition as the politicians gave direct payments, and now, artificial purchasing bubbles, to the companies instead of forcing them to compete in the market.

The only difference is how the consumer gets hosed, as the government's "financial assistance" encourages those people to purchase the same cars they didn't want in the first place, because some other sap (the taxpayer) is covering up to $4500 of the cost for you.

@TheFlamingoKing:

"Therefore, the people that benefit the most are the ones that made the worst purchasing decisions."

Just like the people who bought more house than they could afford and defaulted. They got helped also, and for being responsible, I am 0 for 2.

˙uıɐƃɐ ɹəʌo llɐ - nʌ ɐɾəp s,ʇı

@Lincolnsbeard33:

I will give ford a yay. Fusion is a good car,and F150 is still the best truck. Focus...meh. It isn't as good as the car it replaced. It didn't improve in any areas, and it actually decreased in certain areas (driving fun).

That being said...if they had brought the Fiesta over here sooner, I would have been a customer of theirs. Instead, I got a Hyundai.

I don't really like this whole thing either for many reasons already stated but I think it would have been a good idea to require you to buy American as a part of the whole deal. After all, aren't we trying to save American companies? Not freakin Toyota (#1 best selling car right now?)

@Quibbs0: What makes an "American" car company again?

Does that mean a majority of the parts are manufactured in America? If so, then the big three aren't American.

Does that mean they employ a large amount of American workers? If so then Toyota, Honda, and the other manufacturers are American car companies.

@Dooley: Great, now I have a shitty car and a headache.

@Dooley: I've heard of people purchasing $500 - $1000 cars off the street just to use for this program.

@meske:

Those cars would not be eligible, unless the new car were purchased under the name of the previous owner.

@Saboth:

Honda in general has been repeating some of Detroit's mistakes. Throwing away their strengths (switching to cheaper suspensions on the Civic, for example) while basically just hoping their name will carry them. They also aren't the fuel economy leaders they used to be.

If they start to let reliability go, they'll have nothing left to recommend them.

@Shawn4168:

1. $1B in the big scheme of things is like a drop in the bucket

2. Can you show statistics that prove this point? or is this an "educated guess"

3. The whole point of this program is to get "clunkers" off the road. Giving them / Reselling them defeats the purpose

4. I can only speak for myself but I Own a Clunker and can afford a new car. I'm still on the fence about trading my clunker but would like to point out that The cost of Maintaining a 20 year old car over the next 3 years can exceed the cost of buying a brand new car (also consider the savings in gas prices).

5. I don't have an opinion on how this program is being executed

@Dooley: @Dooley: You can't turn in a dead car and it has to be yours for a year. They saw that scam and put this in the requirements:

# Is in drivable condition
# Has been registered in your name and insured consistent with state law continuously for at least one year, immediately prior to the trade-in date

Drivable, will mean you can't take stuff off that would get you ticketed for being undrivable by highway patrol. So big dents = okay. No headlights and sitting on frame, but "drivable" like in Planes, Trains and Automobiles = not okay.

@Saboth: Just bought a 2009 Accord EX. Excellent car, highly recommend. got it for $20,275. There's a $1,500 dollar off credit from Honda HQ, don't let the salesmen lie to you about it.

@Hobz: I think it is a good idea.

My brother and sister-in-law just got a new Prius from this deal. They had a 1992 Pathfinder that my brother bought used in 1996. It has been on its last leg for quite some time but since it is the only car they owned they were going to keep it until it died. They took it in a few weeks ago and it need $3200 in repairs so they decided to do the cash for clunkers. They still have only 1 car and great gas mileage.

This program is a crock -- a propaganda device -- and not much more. Its sole purpose was to improve auto sales, not reduce greenhouse gas emissions or save the planet or anything else of such ilk. The environmental harm caused by manufacturing new vehicles, and salvaging/recycling these USABLE and FUNCTIONING vehicles, has not been discussed with any genuine openness. It is not a carbon neutral process to magically produce new cars to sell.

The whole point of this program was to sell cars ALREADY produced due to bad planning by the auto industry and the economic collapse that plenty of people saw coming. These vehicles that rolled off the production lines in late 2006-2009 should never have been produced in the first place. If the liberal propaganda machine had spent more time thinking of how to prevent spending tax payer's money instead of how to 'pretend to save the environment' while spending tax payer's money... we would have had a cleaner environment by default.

@TheFlamingoKing: The government did not bail out Ford. Read some news you silly person.

@Shawn4168: People shouldn't have been ALLOWED to buy homes. It was a ponzi scheme designed to make money buy trying to get high-risk people qualified.

I have no problem with the program, but I do think there is a bit of a misconception about how we perceive gas consumption. I could go on about it, but since I don't know that I explain marginally complex math concepts well, I found a good explanation of it on the Freakonomics blog from a few months ago:

[freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com]

I like Cash For Clunkers because it hits specifically the cars that are at the end of spectrum that matters. After that 20 mpg (I think that's the cut off?) - the relationship stops mattering as much.

@lordmorgul: I think anyone with a high school degree realizes this...