POLL: 54% of Americans against Cash for Clunkers, 59% expect GM quality to dip under gov't. ownership
America's "Cash for Clunkers" bill is on the cusp of being signed by President Obama, but according to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports, a majority of U.S. citizens aren't in favor of the plan.
According to the telephone survey, fully 54% of those queried are against the measure, while 35% are in favor and 12% aren't sure how they feel about it. That's up from a similar survey done last month, in which just 34% were against consumer vouchers for trading in older, less efficient cars and trucks. In fairness, Rasmussen Reports indicates that the change could have been influenced by a change in the wording of the respective surveys (the initial survey did not indicate how much the program might cost the government).
While that news may not perk up the spirits of Capitol Hill, the survey's findings that 17% of those asked say they are "very likely" to purchase a new vehicle this year because of the program (and a further 18% admit they are somewhat likely) ought to cheer up a few members of Congress.
Perhaps most interesting of all is news that many Americans would appear to have little faith in the ability of the government to help General Motors improve its fortunes, with 41% expecting for GM's quality to deteriorate under federal ownership. (Presumably, this leaves 59% of those surveyed that feel otherwise or are undecided). Perhaps more damaging is that the study's findings say that fully 57% of those questioned believe that the government is likely to pass laws and regulations that give Chrysler and General Motors unfair advantages over other automakers that did not receive bailout funds.
Oddly, Rasmussen Reports' findings to not disclose the number of people it surveyed, or any +/- accuracy estimates. Perhaps one has to have a 'premium membership' to get access to that data. In any case, check out the link for more of the study's findings.
[Source: Rasmussen Reports via Instapundit | Image: Matt Cardy/Getty]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Steve 2:35PM (6/23/2009)
I guess this "percentage against" pretty much represents those who can't afford a new car with or without a program. No surprise...
Reply
notYou 3:21PM (6/23/2009)
"That's up from a similar survey done last month...the initial survey did not indicate how much the program might cost the government."
If the next survey actually states how much the program will cost each individual taxpayer, I'd expect the results to go up even more.
Whoops, forgot, those in favor are mostly those who don't pay taxes anyway.
Did I answer your question?
tankd0g 4:36PM (6/23/2009)
I would expect the percentage against to be a lot higher if they were educated on just how ridiculous this program is. Trade in a perfect working order SUV for a slightly less wasteful SUV and get a credit with your trade in sent to the crusher. Trade in a rusted out, oil burning Civic for a new Cobalt, get nothing from the government and your oil burner ends up back on the road.
Chris 4:45PM (6/23/2009)
I am totally against it for the following reasons.
The majority, if not 90%, would realize no savings trading in a working older vehicle which gets poor mileage for a new because of the car payments and higher insurance.
It is encouraging people to spend money instead of saving it which can lead to problems down the road.
It is yet another expenditure of money the federal government doesn't have.
It is not going to do much for the poor who own the majority of vehicles that the bill is intended to remove from the system. They cannot afford car payments.
geo.stewart 4:55PM (6/23/2009)
anyone else STILL think Congress represents the people??
taking my money and my kids' money for worthless programs like this, increased entitlement programs, and bailing out failed businesses undertaken with assumed risk.
voting raises for themselves and giving bonuses to aides while unemployment approaches 10%
average gov't salary is 50% higher than national average, according to a report I saw this am. (73K vs 45K)
I dont care which party you voted for, we're getting screwed
MINIsguy 6:35PM (7/31/2009)
CARS is a great idea....we traded a gas hungry SUV for a car that get TWICE the MPG....just think if 1 million of us did that....cut our fuel useage in half....on a personal level, on a national level.....great macro policy to say nothing of the "green affect"...
The program gets dealers going, banks lending, and alot more.....economics 101...guess you missed that class ....
anybody who has a car that qualifies, and is worth less than $4500 and doesn't do this deal is brain dead.....period
MINIsguy 6:42PM (7/31/2009)
You got that right on the money....
IK 2:38PM (6/23/2009)
59% of Americans have wild imaginations
gm quality can't possibly be worse
Reply
Pokey 3:45PM (6/23/2009)
Welcome back! I know it must be hard adjusting to the changes that have taken place in the past 15 years, but I am glad you have awaken from your coma!
Now, do some research before commenting. Thank you.
tankd0g 4:42PM (6/23/2009)
Let's see, what has happened recently with GM, oh ya, they went bankrupt!
l.i.dave 2:38PM (6/23/2009)
Why would you be against cash for clunkers?
It:
1. Up the resale value of older cars, helping the poor and working class
2. Stimulates car sales.
3. It takes less reliable, more dangerous cars off the road
4. Leads to a dramatic increase in fuel mileage.
I know, I know. You don't want you taxes to blah blah. Would you rather your taxes go to wall street criminal bonuses? By the way anyone can take advantage of this, so you can use it.
PS- No one cares about your Prius.
Reply
Nightcrawler 2:43PM (6/23/2009)
"Up the resale value of older cars, helping the poor and working class"
I wouldn't think it will up the resale value of older cars very much. No one can buy a car to turn in for cash for clunkers. You have to have had it registered for a year first to qualify. Any boost to used car values would only be due to the fact that there will be a few less old clunkers out there to sell now. But even that would only effect the value of cars getting 18 mpg or less. Cars that get better mpg than that won't lose any of their supply to the clunkers program.
Throwback 2:52PM (6/23/2009)
"Why would you be against cash for clunkers?"
we can't afford it. We are borrowing and spending at an alarming rate. At some point we will be spneding more money servicing our debt (paying interest) than on any government program. That's not a place I want to be.
johncuyle 3:02PM (6/23/2009)
I'm against it because it fails to do any of those things with any kind of reasonable consistency.
1. Upping the resale value of cars (for cars which get less than 18 MPG) to the trade-in value of $3500 means that poor people that need a cheap car will be less likely to afford one.
2. It only stimulates car sales abong people who have a vehicle which gets less than 18 MPG and which is worth significantly less than the trade in value on the open market to trade in on a new car. You aren't allowed an additional trade in value on the car. I'm buying a new car and I have a worthless vehicle to trade in, but it gets 28 MPG so there's no incentive for me. Or I could trade in my '94 Corvette, which gets way better than 18 MPG but the government website says it is eligable anyway. Of course that'd be incredibly stupid since I could just sell it to someone for double that. Almost nobody can actually take advantage of this plan and those that can it is likely to benefit only to the tune of a grand or so.
3. Older cars tend to be more reliable. They have less stuff on them to break. And they're safe enough.
4. Not really. If you have a car which gets 19 MPG and you want to trade it in on a Jetta TDI, you're SOL. 19 is too many. If you want to trade in a vehicle that gets 18 MPG on a Challenger SRT 8 that gets 22, you most certainly can. If you want to trade in a car that gets 28 MPG (my Miata) on a vehicle that gets 28 mpg (a Solstice GXP) You get nothing. for people that can trade in, they do have to purchase something that gets marginally more mileage than the vehicle being traded in, but the minimum is still dreadfully low.
Now, a bill I would support that would accomplish all of these things: If you buy a new car you get an income tax deduction for $3500 on any car which gets 25mpg, going up to $4500 for vehicles which get 35mpg or better. You may trade any vehicle in which you like as long as it runs.
It's simpler and it accomplishes all four goals which you claim this bill does (except it doesn't.)
Nightcrawler 3:19PM (6/23/2009)
"Older cars tend to be more reliable."
Now that's quite a claim. Are you saying the average 1990 car is more reliable than the average 2005 car? I have a hard time believing that one.
Nightcrawler 3:35PM (6/23/2009)
"We can't afford it. We are borrowing and spending at an alarming rate."
It's true, but it's also about the the equivalent of worrying about the faucet that is dripping contributing to the flood that has your house underwater. Even in that same bill there was $5B for the International Monetary Fund, $7B for swine flu, and $2.7B to buy transport planes the Pentagon didn't even want or ask for (which was presumably forced though by politicians in Boeing and Lockheed's districts). Over $3B combined is going as aid to Gaza, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Mexico, and UN peacekeeping. And that's just from the one war spending bill, how many other bills does Congress pass in a year giving how many other billions away?
You could argue that none of it should go through. But at least this money will end up back in the hands of some of the taxpayers, which means it should be lower on your list of disdain than the other junk. Are you spending 2.7 times as much of your time complaining about those unwanted transport planes? Because they are costing you 2.7 times as much money as cash for clunkers.
Jerry 3:56PM (6/23/2009)
Why should our government pay $4000 for a car worth $100 - $1500?
When will the government pay the difference in my credit cards that went from
0% to 14%. When will the government pay the difference in my Health Care that went from $300 mo. to $450 a month. I'm upside down in my trade... Is the government going to pay that difference? NO... and nor should they. The hand outs got to stop. It would be cheaper, if all Americans were given $100,000 each to start over again. Enough is enough. We are bankrupting our future!
Throwback 4:03PM (6/23/2009)
Actually nightcrawler I am. We simply can't keep spending at this rate. Where do we draw the line? We gave GM 50 Billion so that means giving a few billion for cash for clunkers is okay? This type of logic is how people end up broke and on the government dole.
Josh Monroe 4:28PM (6/23/2009)
Trade in values for these vehicles are going to drop like a rock though because the dealers are going to take that $3500 and subtract it from what they are willing to give you for it. You are going to have to get them to give you a quote on your trade-in before they know you are using the voucher but, you can't because, as soon as they know the make and model, they are going to know you qualify for the voucher.
johncuyle 4:53PM (6/23/2009)
@Josh Monroe: If you trade in a car under this program you aren't allowed trade in value on top of the government money because the car will be crushed. The trade in value of the vehicle is $0. If you can sell the car on the open market for $2500 and trade it in, you still only get $3500. If you could sell the car on the open market for $7000, and trade it in, you STILL only get $3500. As such, the actual value of the program is only the difference between what you could sell or trade in the car for normally, and the $3500 from the government.
@Nightcrawler: Yes. The manual top, windows, seats, and HVAC with no AC, no ABS, no electronic suspension, and stone simple radio on a 90's miata is simply going to be a lot less troublesome than the integrated electronic nightmare that is found riddling pretty much any modern car. I am 100% positive my '87 GMC truck will start and get me where I'm going. My '94 Corvette has never let me down. My '95 Miata has been 100% reliable except for the water pump failing (at 140k miles.) These cars are all 14-21 years old. I have zero faith that everything will be 100% functional on a brand new S Class in 2030, and the cost of fixing everything will be astronomical.