Comments on: Your turn: Should more money go to ‘cash for clunkers’?

By: junk4sale

junk4sale — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:25:44 +0000

Yes, they should definitely add M-O-R-E money! I have a clunker I’d like to sale. Come on somebody, buy it for a minimal fee and trade it in.

By: "C"BERRY

"C"BERRY — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:29:58 +0000

YES I DO HAVE A CLUNKER THAT I WOULD

DEARLY LOVE TO GET RID OF. I INHERITED

HIM THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN. IT

SEEMS THAT IT WILL BE A WHILE YET BEFORE

I CAN UNLOAD HIM. EVERY TIME I THINK I HAVE

A CHANCE HE RUNS BACK INTO THE OVAL OFFICE

AND HIDES UNDER HIS PRAYER RUG.

By: JWC

JWC — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:11:33 +0000

1) The clunkers are likely paid for. I’m going to guess they have to run to be traded in, therefore they still have value. The owners can spend elsewhere.
2) My guess is that most “clunker” owners are probably not the safest bets for these new unnecessary car loans.
3) I am curious what percentage of these “C for C” cars are back on the used car lots in a few months or years.
4) I’m not in the car business. I didn’t buy the clunker to begin with and I don’t want to pay for it now.
5) As far as I’m concerned, 2012 can’t get here fast enough.

By: whatever

whatever — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:24:14 +0000

This program was put into effect to help the environment: think about it it amounts to about 250,000 sales the car dealer gets taxed on the benefits… the consumer has so many restrictions revolving around the program requirements….dummy up…this program is just another government run consumer mind control BS ….do the math….look at it from all directions…it is just another cover up program to say that an incredible amount of money was directed to this program but that is not true…what is the money really being used for get out your magnifying glasses and read the fine print

By: blackbird13

blackbird13 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:53:30 +0000

KD,
I believe AH was going on the theory of getting a car at 4500 off normal price, selling it back to a dealer and then buying a different car. But that would assume you are getting most of the value back.

By: KD

KD — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:48:27 +0000

This program is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer dollars. But to clarify, unfortunately, you can’t actually accomplish the scam that AH is talking about. The $4500 never actually goes to the buyer. It goes directly from the government to the dealer in order to prevent us from exactly what AH describes. Sorry guys, good idea, but they already thought of it.

By: Corey

Corey — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:54:03 +0000

AC33, GM bankrupt, Delta Airlines a few years ago bankrupt, Eastern Airlines history, Enron history, Bear Sternes history, Chrysler bankrupt. Get the picture?

By: blackbird13

blackbird13 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:21:54 +0000

Again, I personally don’t agree with this cars program, but for those who are calling it a failure and comparing to a health plan that doesn’t exist yet, I think is nuts. If whatever healthcare plan that eventually emerges turns out to be as popular as this cars legislation and Republicans are on record as voting against it, then they might as well disband as a political party.
Oh, and an increase in funding for cash for clunkers just passed the House by a 3 to 1 margin.

By: Sting 'em Buzz

Sting 'em Buzz — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:37:52 +0000

AH, you will never see that $4500 in your hand. Your $10,000 Neon just became a $5500 Neon. Good luck finding a dealership that will give you $9,000 for that Neon. You lose 20% of the value of the car by signing the Title Application.

By: blackbird13

blackbird13 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:31:47 +0000

“The constitution is simple.It gives them the right to take tax money for defense and roads and public safety.”

It says more than that:
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Note the phrase “general welfare.” That is a pretty broad term.
And it doesn’t say just “roads”
It says:
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

Of course, there are many things that the government does that are beyond the scope of the original intent of the Constitution, especially the monies that are given to countries like Israel, Egypt, etc.Practically our whole foreign policy is way beyond the original intent of the Constitution. However, those and other worms can not be put back in the can, so I don’t really see the point in arguing for original intent.