Cars.com survey says public wants more Cash for Clunkers. Well, of course they do.
After a month of relentless Cash for Clunkers coverage, we were more than pleased when the Fed's buy-back program finally ended. Nearly every other day C4C was in danger of getting shut down because of a lack of funds. Then there were dealers were worried about getting paid and customers who had to sign responsibility forms in the event their clunker wasn't covered under the program. But while we've had more than our fill of C4C, the car-buying public wants more.
A recent poll conducted by Kicking Tires shows that 55 percent of recent car buyers and current shoppers feel C4C should be resurrected. You might be thinking that anyone who's recently purchased a new car would be pleased with any program which provided $4,500 for an inefficient hunk of junk, but only ten percent of respondents participated in the program. Among those involved, 37 percent would have purchased a new car over a used car if C4C was in effect, 30 percent weren't anticipating a purchase of any kind and 24 percent held off on new car purchases until clunkers arrived.
While many car buyers would love a continuation of Cash for Clunkers, we're guessing tax payers probably don't want to dole out another $3 billion to clear our nations roads of additional rust buckets. Heck, according to an Automotive News survey, 44 percent of dealers didn't even want the program extended the first time.
[Source: Kicking Tires | Image Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Glock23 11:09AM (9/23/2009)
The government needs to stay out of private business and let these companies sink or swim on their own.
Reply
Luis 11:20AM (9/23/2009)
Sorry, but the government is not ever going to be out of businesses way. There is no free market and there never will be.
That being said, I'd much rather see an incentive program aimed at consumers that promotes fuel efficiency increases using the market rather than CAFE. If C4C were to ever be resurrected it should replace CAFE and offer subsidies to consumers (all of them) based on fuel efficiency standards or CO2 emissions.
$10,000 credit for 60MPG combined
$5,000 credit for 40MPG combined
$2,500 credit for 30MPG combined
$2,500 tax for 20MPG combined
$5,000 tax for 15MPG combined
And that's it. It's simple and it would do much more to get companies to build more efficient cars than CAFE. As the average for the nations fleet improves these incentives can adjust upwards. Trade-ins don't matter, income doesn't matter.
jpm100 11:25AM (9/23/2009)
You think that Congress did this to save the same companies they were going to let fold just 9 months earlier.
A different spectrum of players benefitted from this.
Coolio 12:03PM (9/23/2009)
Why ? They are simply leveling the playing field.
For example:
1. States gave millions in tax breaks to get Japanese manufacturers to set up assembly plants in their states.
2. Japanese government assists in the funding of Japanese R&D
3. There is a real anti-America movement in the US right now against well engineered, well built autos
4. The legacy costs for the D3 are massive compared to those of the Japanese, resulting in a cost disadvantage on every American car built.
Do not forget, as you drive your Camry, where all the corporate profits go - to Japan.
The government, if they had done things correctly, would not have to step in now, because they never should have let the playing field (and American sovereignity) become so lopsided.
jamie 11:42AM (9/23/2009)
Luis
A much easier and more simple method would be to impose a $1.00 - 1.50 excise tax at the pump like they do in Britain and other European countries.
That forces the buyer to think about his purchase and decided whether he should get a Dodge V8 Hemi or a Saab Turbo4. Pure economics here.
Furthermore, the extra tax could actually be allocated to improve roads and infrastructure. America is missing out on this potential bonanza.
Luis 11:54AM (9/23/2009)
Jaime - that is preferred, however as we move towards using less petrol/diesel and people start plugging in we need another way to collect transportation revenue. A CO2 tax would be best, assessed periodically based on vehicle testing and mileage. A rise in the gas tax would work for the next 5-10 years, but after that the revenue would not be enough, as Americans expect to get things for free (like uncongested roads, clean air, etc) since we're a "free" country.
m 11:56AM (9/23/2009)
Jamie, your solution is perfect. It will encourage automakers to build fuel efficient cars better than CAFE, because it will encourage consumers to WANT fuel efficient cars. And at the same time, it would reduce road wear and congestion. It'd also help pay for the roads in a much simpler way than the current plan of building more toll booths.
It taxes your vehicle choice. It taxes your distance traveled. It taxes your driving style. And all three of those things being taxed contribute to road wear, so using the tax money for road work makes perfect sense. Best of all, the infrastructure is already there. No money needed to build toll booths. No toll booth operators. No vehicle transponders to buy that don't work anyway. And no unfair tolls that aren't considering the three factors mentioned above.
Luis 12:05PM (9/23/2009)
FWIW I'd much rather the Fed let all the banks fail last September... economic Armageddon would've been fun to watch.
I'm sure you would've loved that opportunity to use your namesake on starving rioters because they were out there looking for food.
HotRodzNKustoms 11:17AM (9/23/2009)
I deserve free money!
Government caused this recession. Government can't solve it. You must let the market work itself out.
Reply
Luis 11:22AM (9/23/2009)
I believe it was over-zealous corporatists that caused the Recession. The Bush Government helped it along by failing to regulate the "innovative" financial tactics that created fake wealth.
Glock23 11:30AM (9/23/2009)
You're way off Luis.
Clinton deregulated the banking industry because he and the other bleeding hearts thought everyone should have easy credit and get home loans, credit cards, ect.
It was McCain and the other Republicans in 2006 that warned of the credit crisis and they were ignored by the Democratic led congress.
Put the blame where it belongs.
Luis 11:37AM (9/23/2009)
Glock: I posted this somewhere else but it really belongs here.
The recession Bush inherited was utterly incomparable to the most recent one. It was barely a blip on the radar. The "economic growth" of the past 9 years was solely based on fake-baking by the finance sector and the housing bubble, whereby wages for regular middle income Americans remained flat, the poor got poorer and the rich got VASTLY richer. It all came crashing down last year as the market failed and huge government bailouts were required to save the global economy. Deregulation of the financial markets is the direct result of Reganomics and the 1980s conservative movement, and Democrats helped this along in fear during the early 90s. Republicans controlled Congress from 94-on so to blame this on Frank is utterly ridiculous. Clinton's Presidency was hobbled by his inability to push back against the stupid scandals that were generated by the Rightwing - Whitewater, et. al. His own dingaling didn't help, but these personal foibles were nothing compared to the junk that Republicans were allowed to get away with in selling-out to the highest-bidding lobbyist.
Now republicans are at it again, trying to destroy Obama's Presidency so they can serve their master-corporate-financial-insurance-industry masters. You're all suckers if you fall for it again. They've even infiltrated the Democratic party with fakers Baucus and his ilk. Our country is doomed if we allow these corporate-lobbyist-paid-politicians to govern in their best interest rather than ours.
---
McCain sold his soul during the campaign - and his recent actions show his true motives. He's no better than any of the Rs or corporate bluedog Ds who are trying to subvert the will of the people (how many of them are against a public healthcare option even though that option is supported by a majority of people in their districts? - most of them). Americans want change, yet all these corporate-funded politicians offer is more junk that hurts ordinary people.
Glock23 11:39AM (9/23/2009)
"I posted this somewhere else"
Where, the Huffington Post?
Luis 12:00PM (9/23/2009)
No, another thread but it belongs in many places on here to defeat the Un-Americans, such as yourself, who seek to defend the corporate-lobbyist-status-quo.
Glock23 12:06PM (9/23/2009)
Luis: You don't know squat about me or how I served this country. I did more in one tour than you will do in your entire life. You need to quit while you are behind......
BigMcLargeHuge 12:12PM (9/23/2009)
Luis,
You're absurd. You criticise inflation, but your ideas are the primary cause of inflation.
The reason the economy is increasing the recessionary cycle is that the government at all levels is taking a bigger piece of the pie every time money changes hands.
1) a business provides a service to an individual or other business. the fed takes a piece of that revenue.
2) the people the business employs to perform that service are taxed on their income by the fed and state.
3) those employees make an investment. they are taxed on the sale, personal property in some states, income from investment by the fed
4) a person must pay sales tax if that investment is transferred to another individual per state
5) insert local fines, restricitons to whatever degree the business/individual has to live under
For every dollar that is created in the American economy, about $0.80 makes its way through some level of beaurocracy.
This is why there are no retirement accounts. Income tax on investments? How's an old person to beat a cost-of-living increase when they pay income tax on their stock? It's retarded. They have to earn more dollars than they can possibly spend/save.
That is the primary cause of inflation. It started with Carter, and not enough got killed under Regan. Bush, Clinton and Bush allowed it to do its own thing.
Obama intends to make it massively worse.
And you fools keep turning to the problem as your solution.
It wasn't one man, one policy. It was all beaurocratic departments requesting more funding, more pork for each member of Congress.
Obama represents the problem. The government killed the economy. It started long before any of your favorite characters ever entered the scene, and we're going to continue to pay dearly for it.
Until there is a federal mandate that beaurocracy undergo a massive downsize, we will NEVER escape this escalating recessionary cycle.
Destroying Obama's spending plans would be the healthiest thing the country could ever do for itself, but it still wouldn't account for the massive leeching that occurs.
2 massive recessions in 10 years. Its starting. No way out. And its people like you's fault, and you're part of the problem.
Luis 12:11PM (9/23/2009)
Sorry, you can't use your military-background to intimidate me. If you volunteered for the military that's great, and that's your choice. But you should never use it to elevate yourself above anyone else. You're no better than any other taxpaying American.
Luis 12:16PM (9/23/2009)
The recessionary cycle is 7-9 years. This one was worse because of the lack of regulation and almost economic collapse following Lehman's bankruptcy. 1992, 2000, 2008. The cycle is pretty normal.
BigMcLargeHuge 12:37PM (9/23/2009)
"The recessionary cycle is 7-9 years. This one was worse because of the lack of regulation and almost economic collapse following Lehman's bankruptcy. 1992, 2000, 2008. The cycle is pretty normal."
So.... you believe that recessions undergo a normal cycle and then try to attribute it to individuals?
You can not has logic. Give up the Bush/Obama BS, I don't believe in it.
Sean Flanagan 1:28PM (9/23/2009)
Glock, I'll give you the respect you deserve if this fool won't. Thanks to you and your peers for your service to this country. Your selflessness does make you better than most taxpaying Americans.