You could buy a clunker for about $200 and trade it in. I know a few people who bought runnable but damaged cars just to trade them in for the incentives.

You need to have them tagged and insured for a year prior to the trade for it to work. If they bought a car to trade it is fraud and needs reported.

I traded my 95 Winstar in for a Ranger. Had it since 2000, and have all the registration and insurance paperwork since then as well. I do think I got a good deal on the Ranger. My van was basically worthless, as the transmission is on its way out, rust has set in, the A/C no longer works, and the drivers side window will not roll down. With the incentives and "clunkers" deal I am paying less then 1/2 price for the Ranger. This is the plan they should have tried to save GM, and Chrysler in the first place. You can't save a company by throwing money at the top. You need to help them move product. I would have liked to have seen a Made in USA provision no matter the nameplate.

The cars were tagged and insured by the previous owners. Where I am from you can not have an untagged car on your property in city limits or else the "litter patrol" will fine you big time.

It isn't like they bought them off the junk yard or anything.

I know that everyone likes something for nothing but this not something for nothing this is making someone else pay for your car, someone that may not even be born yet. This is another Obama screw your neighbor program. Now that Obama has screwed with the free market destroying all those used cars the price of used cars will go up so that low income people wont be able to afford a new used car. Yes you have your new car but you have it on the backs of your neighbor, the unborn, and the poor enjoy your ride.

martol... if GM would have done it, it would not have cost me $4500 for you to get a deal on your ranger. I am not criticizing you for taking advantage of the offer. But this deal of 3 billion will be absorbed into our taxes, nothing is free.

I pay taxes too and I don't mind getting these gass guzzlers off the road. Plus it is putting people back to work in the auto industry and the sales people are making a lot on commision. Plus now there are more new cars out there people are going to want to baby their new rides so you can guarantee the mechanics will benefit too not to mention auto parts stores.

LanaD

Most of these people were going to buy a new car in the near future so the sales are now instead of the near future, it would be better for the economy to spread the sales out instead all at once. The so called gas guzzlers are more efficient than the low income person's car who now can't up grade to that trade in that was destroyed. Mechanics are not going to work more on new cars than old cars.

My neighbor traded in his old van. Most of the cars traded in were SUVs.

I just hope that people have learned their lesson about buying for fashion instead of practicality.

Well I know next year I will probably be able to buy a new car as will other college graduates. There are still people who can't get new cars NOW but will be able to in a few years. My husband will probably get a new one a few years later.

There are still people who don't have the money at the current time to buy new cars. When they have the money they will buy.

LU... yeah I guess it isnt fationalbe to be be alive in a safe car. You are not hearing of all the stats on how many people get killed in small cars. Why dont you look it up and then come back and complain about peoples choices.

Great, now that all the cars are gone, when I need a car in a few months I'll have to pay more, old supply and demand will rear its head. This isn't free money, we are mortgaing the future. Our Government is no better then a low life crack dealer.

Domestic (partially "American made", at least) auto sales had been waning for years, mostly due to higher cost and poor quality. The orchestrated recession hit, they "surprisingly" went belly-up, and the government has taken stake ownership in them.

Now that the corpro-government can cash in too, MORE TAX PAYER MONEY is being doled out to ENCOURAGE, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FOREVER, domestic auto purchasing. People aren't NEARLY upset about this use of our funds as the bailouts, mortgage help.

So now comes cash for clunkers, boosting auto sales, both FOREIGN and partially domestic. No one on Fallstreet worries now because it's on the TAX PAYERS DIME. The government gets to make massive money while indebting all further.

To encourage FURTHER sales of government invested cars, the "clunkers" CANNOT BE RESOLD OR USED FOR PARTS. Now, those struggling will either have to pinch every last penny to replace their older car that they USED to be able to save money on by replacing parts with ones from the boneyards or NOT HAVE A CAR.

There is more of these folks than you may think, they'll jump through hoops to buy into this idea, and the corpro-government knows it. While there's a percentage that will buy foreign, don't forget... MANY foreign cars are assembled in America, while many "American" cars are manufactured and built overseas.... the corpro-government knows it wins either direction a buyer goes. It's invested NOW both ways.

But, some still believe this is about saving car manufacturers, jobs, boosting the economy. So.... it couldn't be done PRIOR to bailouts, bankruptcies, and GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT?

Seems odd they had to let the industry crash and burn first....

oldcavscout.............

I seen it coming too.........but your cash will be devalued by inflation until you run out of cash, and they can deny you credit or raise your interest rates so you can only afford the minimum balance.... we are screwed.....we are at the corporate worlds control........

Well, notforsale, let's see, you think the 3 billion dollars allocated so far is another Obama "screw your neighbor" program? A program designed to help ordinary folks buy cars, to help switch people to more fuel-efficient cars, thus reducing our dependence on oil, and to help the struggling auto industry.

So, in contrast, what did you think of Bush spending a trillion dollars to attack a country that hadn't attacked us? Or Bush allocating 700 billion to give to bankers, who then awarded themselves obscene bonuses? Or Bush cutting taxes for the rich so that all of thew above would result in a huge federal deficit?

Or our ANNUAL 650 billion defense budget versus the debate on spending a trillion for medical care over the next 10 years, which is only $100 billion per year?

Huh, notforsale? What anti-Obama, right-wing logic do you have for all of the above?

Glad to see that someone here sees this Cash for Clunkers for what it is. A handout to the people who do nothing by the people who only know how to loot from those who actually do work.

This program is a complete mess. It might show sales figures improving -- but at what cost? This is what everyone ignores: At what cost? Where is the money coming from? What happens because of this?

1. The money is coming from taxes, taken from everyone without consent or vote. Ask your congress critter about this -- you get a completely fabricated answer about how this is all for the good of the people. Nicely communist attitudes.
2. The money is being taken from the sales to other industries. There is only so much money to go around, no matter how much you print, it's still limited. Every $1,000 in vehicle sales today is an aggregate of sales that will not occur in other industries. Sacrifice the good of the nation for the Automotive Industry.
3. When this ends, there will be a HUGE drop in vehicle sales resulting in another automotive industry crash. It will be bigger than what we have today because it will now impact BOTH domestic and import vehicles.

When someone comes in and offers to stimulate things you need to understand:

1. How did you get here? Maybe you need a "rest"
2. Who's paying for it?
3. What happens when it's done?

You can't stimulate the economy healthy no more than you can drink yourself sober.

Here we go again, isn't this what got the housing industry into jeopardy? Here you go, 4500 dollars for that old clunker, but you can;t afford the new car monthly payment. Three months from now, the repo man will be very busy.

Tom -

From the tone of your post, I assume you are a pro-free-market person. If that's true, then you should APPROVE of using economic incentives to induce people to transition to more fuel-efficient cars, thereby helping the USA to reduce dependence on oil in general and foreign oil in particular. Or do you think perpetual wars with the Middle East are a better, more cost-efficient way to do that?

And I assume that, as you are so upset by this $3 billion program, that you are 333 times as upset at the money Bush squandared on 2 wars, which we are now forced to continue at an ongoing waste of lives and money.

I also assume that you are against all energy-related tax credits (such as credits for insulating your attic or replacing your heating system)?

In other words, against anything the government does that can potentially benefit the economy and ordinary people.

I would also assume you were against the enormous Bush tax cuts, which helped to bankrupt the country, and which accomplished absolutely NOTHING useful except to let the rich keep more money (and many of them have said they would gladly pay more in taxes), while beggaring federal and state programs(?)

I would assume you are against the corporate welfare that Congress awards constantly to their friends in big businesses?

And against the Medicare RX drug program, which allowed big pharma to lock in huge non-competitive pricing for the drugs the government (meaning us) pay for people on Medicare.(?)

So when everybody gets a new car and has no job , what good is that?......The banks will be broke again, making bad car loans.....Spend the $3 billion, to create jobs not buy junk scrap metal at premium prices, that is maybe worth $500 when melted.....the only ones going to make money now are the metal scrap exporters..........who pay very little if no taxes.........

I'll type slowly so that you can read this.The money has to be repayed, it is not free.

The present administration has now spent 1.12 trillion dollars in slightly over 6 months.

The clunker program was one more attempt by Barak Obama to keep the UAW afloat, consistent with his trampling on the banruptcy laws and try in to pass an insurance bill that has subsidies for the unions and community action groups.

Obama will a heavy price for this thumbing of the nose at citizens

Has anyone even read the fine print of this cash for clunkers??? If they had they might not be buying a car.. It says if they dealer does not get the cash for the trade as in the gov did not pay them.. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY IT.. I bought my car new 3yrs ago and in two months it is paid off... Thank you but no thanks on this deal.........I WILL TAKE MY CAR WITH NO PAYMENT ANY DAY.

oldcavscout,

As a middle class person, I've been paying taxes since I was 16 and I've easily paid well over a quarter million so far. So enough of that stupid nonsense!

As for your argument that it "isn't our money," yes it is -- it is taxpayer's money, which is to be used in any ways necessary to further the benefits and interests of those taxpayers. The question is usually what is actually in our interests, not whether it is our money.

Cash for Clunkers is both unfair and predudicial. It is punishing the very one's it is trying to create... The Frugal Buyer! I have a 1991 Oldsmobile Cutlas Surprene I'd like to trade in, but according to the Government milage gragh it gets 20 miles per gallon; 2 miles per gallon over the qualification that the car must get 18 miles per gallon or less to qualify. This car has the 3.1 liter engine in it. If it would have had the 3.3 liter engine, it would have qualified.

When my father-in-law bought this car in 1991, he kicked many a tire to get what he thouht was a little bit larger car with good gas milage. Now, because he was fuel energy conscience, I as the owner of the car now am 'predudiced' out of the program!

Since my 2 year old twin grandson's are the one's who will be paying for these cars in taxes when they get of working age, I was going to buy a better car for my son to transport them around now.

I don't believe the lots are clearing. I think it is a scheme thought up on Friday, sent out to all the news medias, that are in lock step with the administration. MSNBC needs to do a "real" check themselves and see if these dealers are getting their $3500 - $4500, each care instantly; or are they having to 'wait' as one dealer on the radio said Saturday, hoping Washington will send out the money. Something tells me this program will crash and burn very soon.

One of the success stories of this program is the clearing out of all leftover PT Cruisers. I nearly bought one in 2001 but it was just a little too small for me (at 6'2" 210 lbs. I need a larger vehicle).When Chrysler proposed a slightly larger second generation PT addressing the concerns of the original,Daimler beancounters promptly shot it down.While GM is responsible for almost all of its issues,Chrysler's are largely the fault of it's "merger of equals" with Mercedes. Killing the Neon (the second generation was much improved from the first),killing Plymouth (the entry brand),killing an almost complete 3 way midsize deal with Hyundai and Mitsubishi (Hyundai is laughing all the way to the bank with the excellent Sonata that resulted) which resulted in the rotten Sebring and Avenger,the list goes on and on.If I ever have the means to buy a German luxury car you better believe it will be a Porsche or BMW.

LanaD!

How did you manage to trade in your 2000 Ranger under this clunker program when the Ranger does not qualify. I have a 2001 Ranger and looked up to see if it qualifies.

As far as I can see, No Ranger built in 2000 and up do not qualify under this program.

You might want to really check this out as some dealers, in the contract you sign, will make you pay for any amount that does not qualify under this program. You need to know, dealers do not get this money up front. It's an after the fact program. In fact some dealers are still waiting for their money. Some are finding out, rebates they offered their customers are not as high as they gave and some don't even qualify at all.

Secondly, those who are getting this money from the clunker program and receive money for purchasing a new vehicle will receive a 1099 form at the end of the year for the amount received and will have to include this amount as income.

Surprise!

A car sale person!

Well, this may be a success for the dealers but it is costing the taxpayers $3B and in 3-6 mos. the banks are going to have one heck of a bunch of repo's to chose from. I doubt these buyers are thinking about those 84 payments to come with interest that they just might have managed to get reduced by a whole whopping $50 a month.

People will be able to get some real deals because they'll end up having to auction them off and running back to the government for the bad loans again. They'll be asking for the TARP money back that Geithner guaranteed would be available for them again.

If the dealers have a lick of sense they won't restock nearly as many cars because that's what is causing them trouble now. They overloaded their floorplans with the banks and were paying interest for them. They don't have to have them on the lot to sell them. A lot of people order them they way they want them.

I'd rather have an MTD when they make it to this country.

Personally, I'd rather have a low mileage used car that someone else has gotten all the bugs out of. Let someone else get hit with all that depreciation the minute the tires come off the dealers lot. I'm not so vain that I need to compete with anyone else or have to have new all the time.

Some people just don't get it. Common sense tells me that by providing the means for lower income families to purchase a new car, they will do it (as proved by the sub-prime market collapse). Common sense also tells me that we will see an increase of "new used" cars on the market within the next 6 months because of the increasing unemployment our Country is experiencing. Can't make car payments without a job! This will lead to great used cars that people can pick up cheaply basically killing the new car sales until the used car inventory stabilizes. Doh, with our government throwing more money at this program, it will cause a longer recovery period of those used car inventories soon to be arriving. I guess the new car sales will take longer to recover then the government expected. Can you hear the next round of bail-outs for GM coming?

Nice going!

By the way, if the trades were kept and resold rather than being destroyed, then the used car inventories would be overflowing today. This would have made the auto industry slip into a reduction in sales even quicker after this program is done.

Enjoy the sales right now because after the program ends sales will drop even more and you thought the lots were empty before.

LanaD It is as I understand it illegal to turn in a vehicle that has not been titled to YOU for at least a year. One of my vehicles certainly qualifies for this but I would never trade it in. I consider it a family member, and I would rather keep it running indefinitely. Those of you who think that this program has in any way a net ecological benefit are deluding yourselves. And as to providing jobs, the only folks making money off of this in the next 5 years will be Jiffy Lube. Depending on your tax bracket, the clunker incentive will pay you just a little more than a trade in.
It Amazes me to see so many of the same people who are vehemently opposed to the government trying to keep families in homes that thy have been paying for for years, now saying that we should all stuff our beloved cars in to the landfill, because the new owner of GM wants to force you to buy his $hitty cars, and then take taxpayers money to do it. Am I the only one who grasps the conflict of interest that is going on here? Of course, the irony is that everyone wants Ford (not a BO owned company) And the Prius, that toxic toaster on wheels, made entirely in Japan. Way to go on job creation. I agree with those here who are concerned that not all of these buyers will be making payments 6 months from now, reopening the wounds of the credit industry, and have a feeling that the day after Labor day will be "Black Tuesday" for the auto industry as a whole.

James Herman,

Lets go back and read the post. Lana never stated any vehical she was trading. I traded a 95 Windstar I had since 2000. For a Ranger. Think that is the only times that has been mentioned.

While I haven't heard of needing to report the $4500 as income, the write off of sales tax will more then cover any income owed on that rebate. Still a very good deal.

oldcavscout.......

There again it is only worth what someone is willing to pay.......I just tried to sell some eagles....you lose money, due to handling fees........plus it is a buyers market, so everything is worthless.......

Lana D

I pay taxes too and I don't mind getting these gass guzzlers off the road. Plus it is putting people back to work in the auto industry and the sales people are making a lot on commission. Plus now there are more new cars out there people are going to want to baby their new rides so you can guarantee the mechanics will benefit too not to mention auto parts stores

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try and I'm sure you mean well...but your taxes are going to debt service. Your grandchildren and their offspring will pay for this boondoggle. Don't you see how this is just another government bubble in a string of bubbles the government has bankrupted us by?

The logic behind theories of this boosting the economy, providing jobs is every bit as flawed as putting folks temporarily to work fixing roads.

In reality it's little more than a bandaid, and will suffice as nothing more than a temporary fix, or "appearance" as if something is being done.

It should be easy to see that with this clunkers deal, several things are ACTUALLY being done....

1) More taxpayers' money, OUR money, is being thrown at a problem WITHOUT a plan of corrective action. Temporary bolster to give Fallstreet and the UAW reasons to project and rape again.

2) NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING is being done to bring jobs back home, not REAL WORK, CAREERS. NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO AND THE LIKE.... business as usual, a nation of consumers, further debt.

3) This administration is socialistic, plain and simple. See #2 above. Still pro corporate government, still big money and Fed Reserve slaves.... their only twist is that they don't even pretend to keep the majority, THE MIDDLE CLASS, of Americans will in mind. ONE CLASS FOR ALL... SAVE FOR FED RESERVE, FALLSTREET AND GOVERNMENT.

*** This CANNOT be stressed enough: there is absolutely no talk, intentions, or plans to bring jobs back home. THIS ISN'T AN OPTION ANY LONGER, IT IS NOT DISCUSSED BY OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, NOT LEGISLATED ON. ***

4) It's INSANITY for any to believe that since tax payer money IS being used, WE will somehow benefit... it's our investement, too. Don't even have time to explain that one, but in short... we're just feeding the monster. Don't expect leftovers.

This is nothing but false advertising. It's furthering THEIR agenda and benefit, NOT OURS. Some see a deal as a deal, and that's fine... if you HAVE some extra money, and WON'T go further into debt, then fine.

But don't confuse this with economic recovery... as MANY posters above have said, MANY different ways... it's going to cause a greater downturn, and GREATER GOV'T. INVOLVEMENT IN THE BUSINESS SECTOR.

And, it's to perpetuate the myth that OTHER SOCIALISTIC policies this administration is planning, and HAS enacted, are going to work. Support the lies and demise of true American ideology.

I've said it before... there's no new lands to "sail" to and start anew... why did our ancestors leave the oppression of home??? We're just allowing it all over again....

I wish I was poor and had a clunker or two but I'm not and I don't

That's what I saying!

Because the people who want the rebates STILL have to pass a credit check and get approved for the loan. All this program does is give REBATES. It does not guarantee loan approval. I know a few people who were turned down because of their credit scores and debt to income ratio...myself included.

so did the home buyers.

No they didn't. Some didn't even have to verify their income.

I've worked in mortgage for years... The ones that were able to 'state' their income had good credit scores. The biggest issue is that people were buying more than they could reasonably afford. Even if they fell under the max DTI, it was THEIR responsibility to decide whether they could actually afford the house payment once they figured in their utility bills, cell ph bills, daycare bills, whatever bills they have that don't show up on the credit reports - most were complaining that we wouldn't approve them for a HIGHER sales price! Case in point - why were you out trying to get a new car loan if you have so much debt that your ratio was too high? Why did it take the dealer to tell you that you could not afford it? This plan is encouraging more Americans to go deeper into debt, and you are proof that they will keep on doing it until they're told they can't. no offense, but there you have it!

The sub-prime loans were only a portion of the real estate collapse."Investors" who could realistically afford 1 property and owned 5 or 10,folks who could afford a $150,000 house and bought a $400,000 one,as well as property values that inflated above all reason were all factors in the disaster that started our economic freefall. Any spending that has an actual positive effect is welcome to me,despite my many misgivings with most of our new administration's spending.

While I am normally more for Obama's plans than against, C.A.R.S was a pretty poorly thought out idea, for the reasony ou just listed IMO.

The vaccum that is gonna exist in affordable used cars / price hike in that market is gonna be a noticeable obstacle down the road I think. We are gaining what seems like an economic boon from this, but itsw not sustainable, and infact, isnt as much of a boon as it is sort of taking what we would normally get and jostling it around a bit so we get it all at once instead of over the course of several years (Just as you said.).

In addition, the sad fact is most people who need this much help in purchasing a car are not gonna be able to take care of it properly. Buying a car is itself only a small part of owning a car. Its the primary reason my wife and I dont own one, as should we buy one a catastrophic turn of events (Accident, major breakdown) cou,d especially at this point in economic time, break us. Completely.

I think many people participating in this program are not thinking this process through logically.

The point of this program is NOT to provide a sustained economic boom; the point of this program is to help the auto industry and also help people have quality, fuel-efficient vehicles when times are tough (now). I seriously think this program is WAY better than just letting things go on as they have been. As a matter of fact, when was the last time that a president took such an initiative to help US automakers survive and also to help people get a car?? Case in point.

No mo: Good point!

This is supposed to be to help people get more fuel efficent cars which can help the enviroment and save people money. Plus the less gas we all use the better. One step closer to energy indepenence.

It would be better drilling for our own oil than to do this program. Move you closer to energy independence while creating wealth by producing an asset

Great way to save the enviroment io812! We don't want to put a bandaid over our energy indepenence. We want to reduce it.

Oh thank God Lana someone else gets it! Phew, what a relief!

So you want to leave the $trillions of wealth that would create wealth and jobs and leave it in the ground for no good reason. The people buying cars now are the ones that would have bought cars in 2010 and 2011. You have now transfered demand but have created nothing

The way LanaD and no mo gop are tag teaming here, with some of their comments, it looks like they are working for the white house. It's not the first time I have seen both of them on the vine, spitting out the party line. oi812 has made some good points, and as far as drilling goes, that is the best one.

Even Boone Pickens has given up on natural gas at this time, and there is no alternative for oil within the near future. At the very least, we should be drilling for our own oil as this would create jobs in the U.S. as well as reduce our dependency on our enemies. I am tired of hearing about the environmental issues. Drilling for oil today is 100s of times safer and better that 20 years ago. Of of Florida, the libs and dems refuse to drill for oil for this very reason, yet just outside of the country's borders, Cuba is preparing to drill and tap into the oil that is under our control. I can assure you they will not be as concerned about the environment. Lets quit shooting ourselves in foot while other countries take advantage of it. Drill baby drill.

Um NO troubled I DO NOT work for the White House. I have no position in politics other than as a registered voter. I think Lana and I "tag team" as you put it because we both recognize some of the lies and garbage being spewed by the radical conservatives that seem to permeate this discussion. And it is interesting that because there happens to be two liberals in the WHOLE DISCUSSION that have similar views, that you claim that we are "tag teaming" the others. oi812 has made no actual concrete points. He has offered nothing but criticism. One can point out problems all he wants, but what good is it if no solutions are offered? Talk about "tag teaming" here, perhaps that is a bit of a Freudian slip, hmmmm????

What is wrong with alternative eco-friendly energy development and conserving oil?

LMAO I work for the whitehouse?

No sorry, I am a cake decorator at Kroger, a pizza maker/cashier at a place called Rays, and I am an intern for an Engineering company. A lot of things but thats not one of them.

It is estimated that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices.

For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will "rescue our family budgets."

A bad program is still a bad program even if there is nothing to substitute for it. We created a bubble in the housing market and this clunker program is doing the same-you are just transferring the demand from one year to the next, while creating a shortage of used cars for those that need to buy used cars.

LanaD- why do you want to leave $trillion of wealth buried in the ground. We need to increase our national output. Drilling brings in oil lease money to States immediately while creating US jobs, lowering our trade deficits and you can use that money to go after green energy instead of using tax payers money money to do that.

Oh Lord here we go again...drill more oil and consume more oil so we can use those profits to go after green energy. So basically lets kill our environment so we can make profit and then "go after" green energy. God help us!

MoCowgirl- NOTHING is wrong with conserving oil and alternative energy sources.

oi812 - the oil companies have been hording gas all spring to keep the price up. More oil will not necessarily translate into lower prices or more gasoline. The law of supply and demand is being manipulated by big oil.

The more the price of that oil goes up the more the oil in the ground is worth. We can regulate the speculators, that would be fine but we do not have enough oil to regulate the price--but why leave that asset buried when we could use the revenues

no mo GOP LanaD

We understand you do not work for the Whitehouse.

Thank you for sharing the ACORN opinion of the day.

but why leave that asset buried when we could use the revenues

WE? Do you own an oil well or oil stock?

WE could re-open the factories that made bedding, clothing, etc. and keep that money here - that might help WE more.

MOCowgirl- The oil companies pay the States for oil leases, it creates US jobs(who pay income tax), it lowers our trade deficit, The oil companies pay corporate income tax and the profit goes to US investors. I do not need to own a oil company from benefiting from the oil coming out of the ground. You can throw taxpayer money to open up factories that long left this country cause we can not compete with those low tech jobs

My husband's family own small oil leases in Oklahoma. The oil company was pumping when oil got over $100 a barrel, not so much now. Although it is split down to the point we got $160 a year when oil was under $40 a barrel, and maybe $240 a year when it got over $100 a barrel.

They were going to sink another well in September but evidently changed their mind when the economy busted.

MoCowgirl, yes we could use the revenues, i.e, the taxes that the states and federal government would take in, as well as the payroll taxes the workers would pay, as well as the sales tax the workers will pay when they buy something. It goes on and on. And this would help reduce the average taxes we have to pay now, if government doesn't spend it all like they are trying to do no. And no, it would not take 20 years to get the oil out of the ground. Why should we continue to send money overseas when it could be kept here. We need to start drilling today. If we don't we will continue to be held hostage by countries who hate us.

Taking the clunkers off the road under the supposed stimilus is not the answer and will not lower gas prices or reduce overall consumption in the long run. As with all government programs, it is a short term answer that will create a longer term problem. That is all government knows how to do.

As an independent voter and economic conservative I have opposed virtually all of our new administration's "hair trigger" spending.That said while I would have liked to see a couple of changes in this program,I'll take it for three reasons. 1 is it has had an immediate impact (unlike all the other "stimulus" spending),2 is it reduces emissions (I may not agree with Ozone Al but less pollution is always good) and 3 is it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Taken together I (reluctantly) support this.That said I will never support "Cap and Tax" or the current health care legislation (I don't oppose an overhaul just this version of one).

Just remember folks! Anyone who purchased a Chrysler or a GM product can not sue the auto manufacture if there is a defect in the vehicle which causes a serious accident.

This was a condition written into the program to save Chrysler and GM.

Nuff Said!

LanaD It is estimated that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices. For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will "rescue our family budgets."

Actually if we were in the 80's & 90's your statement would be true, but we are not. The effects on the market would be immediate. It is the obtaining of leases and the permits to drill that take the longest, not the building & production. After they get their leases/permits and begin the process of drilling, a product is produced within 3 years. So it is the government's red tape that slows that entire process which bumps it up 10-15 years. Due to the technology they have in locating product today it takes far less time on their side, not what they had in the 80's & 90's.
Offshore is not the only source of drilling, Onshore takes far less time. You can have a field producing withing 2-3 years depending on if they are new wells or they are re-working shut-in wells. Again the effects to the market are immediate since Oil prices are based more on future supplies then present supplies.

The oil companies already have leases on tons of land that they aren't drilling. Why?

Because it's better to keep an impression of limited supply so they can do what they did to us last year and kill us with high prices while making RECORD profits.

Also, it works to their benefit to help foster the false argument that they needs more access rights, such as the ones advocated by some on here--especially to the environmentally sensitive areas.

Not to mention the fact that we need to stop burning so much oil! Take global warming out of the argument because I know some on here won't believe anything but what they want to believe on that. You have to believe in air pollution. Step back and think about the fact that there are many days where it isn't safe for us to do anything outdoors. We are willingly creating the toxin that harms us. So, instead of advocating drilling for more, I think we should work on better, long-term solutions.

That type of creative innovation has been stifled here for years and other countries have passed us by. As Americans, it's time for use to get in the game and I believe we are on track to do so now.

The clunker program is pay back to the union.

If we don't drill our oil now, China will be drilling and taking it in the future.

NO MO are you one of those community organizers who want to retract the first amendment rights from anyone who does not agree with the current administration? If so then you are not in support of maintaining a democracy, the same as the democratic party is against democracy. Let me get this straight. When the lobbyists bribe the democrats, that is okay, but when those with opposing points of view speak out in a public forum, that's unrest...Shame on the democrats!

Good grief are you people EVER happy! Mad that the dealerships are suffering and/or closing. Mad that old cars are a drain on the economy (who cares about the planet, right?), then OUR President creates a plan that makes the dealers and mechanics and factories happy, not to mention many Americans and you're mad about that.

Everything is NOT a huge conspiracy. Please get over yourselves.

As a mechanic I'd be fu**ing pi$$ed if I had to destroy a perfectly good engine.That's one aspect of this that is complete bull$h*t.I always try to balance my love of hot rods with treading lightly on the environment.My 40 year old Chevy was rebuilt with modern ignition,cylinder heads and other choices that minimize it's impact on the environment.I hope to add fuel injection soon,but that depends on finding a well paying job.My two other cars are 4 cylinder powered and while old are tuned to the point their "carbon footprint" is microscopic (40 mpg will do that).

What makes you think all these cars will repossessed? You still have to pass the same credit check and get approved for a loan. The same thing as before this program.

????????????? Seriously? Is anyone's job really safe right now? These people are trading in cars that still run, and I assume - are PAID OFF. What do you think is going to happen if they lose their job? People are walking away from their homes - letting go of a big car payment will be much easier!

Dunkin Donuts drinker

Has anyone even read the fine print of this cash for clunkers??? If they had they might not be buying a car.. It says if they dealer does not get the cash for the trade as in the gov did not pay them.. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY IT..

Evidently you haven't seen the paperwork, there is no reason you would since as you stated you bought a car three years ago. There is no such verbage in any of the paper work. If the government doesn't pay, the dealer loses and that is why some dealers have not chosen to either participate or have stopped after the first billion ran out.

The facts are anyone that went to purchase a vehicle under this program could have normally negotiated the same deal without this $3500/$4500 from the government. They would have negotiated their trade in and also negotiated the invoice price. There were no such deals made at the dealerships. You paid invoice price because the cars were moving off the lot and there was no trade-in negotiations. Basically what the program did is bump up those consumers who had planned on buying sometime this year to all at once, thus putting the money into the economy now rather than later and over a period of months rather than days.

I hope your not really this uneducated on the subject and are just pushing your political agenda. Those mortages were given to people that couldn't afford them. They didn't even have to verify income most of the time.

You still have to get approved for credit and the auto loan. The credit restrictions were not laxed for this program. All this program is is a rebate program.

Lana that is a crock and you know it. They had to verify income to get a mortgage. They may have fudged the requirements a bit but that's about it.

No they had no verification loans. Lana is right. All you had to do was say how much your income was and no one would check on it.

Again - there were credit checks on these loans. If your score was lower, you had to provide verification. The stated income were mostly self-employed who took a little higher rate to go stated, rather than provide all the paperwork to prove how much they made. Their credit report showed a history of paying their bills on time, and if they had a mortgage previously - one late payment in the last 2 years would cause them to be denied for the loan. Several bought on Arms so that they could qualify at the lower start rate, knowing that the rate would adjust but not concerned as the values had historically risen each year. Once that didn't happen, they were screwed and it's 'everyone else's fault'. So now we have people buying new cars and if they lose their jobs then I'm sure it will be someone else's fault again...

The documentation we have to provide now due to the idiots who bought way beyond their means is ridiculous. I expect that soon we'll have to provide a piece of paper explaining that they are responsible to pay their own utility bills, AND that they will also have to change their own lightbulbs and wipe their own ass.

It will be turned into a plus for the neocons, dont worry about that. Just as the Bush era recession somehow became Obama's fault as he inherited it, so to will the Obama led recovery as it is inherited by whomever wins the next election.

Party A fixes it, Party B breaks it, Party A breaks it, Party B fixes it.

Its the Cirrrrcle of (political) Life.

You are totally wrong on this one. Your Wikipedia date should really be Wikipedia 2009.

Seems like alot of folks here are not big fans of Obama. Probably a good chance that most folks don't even think he is a US citizen. Quick question.... unemployment went down this month, how did that happen? I thought that all of those businesses would be bankrupt by now. Hmmm.

If I'm not mistaking, your "black president" as you referred to him, was the first to jump the gun about race in the first place along with his little buddy and then tried to put a band-aid on the issue when he was wrong for even stepping in. Sorry the "white cop" was doing his job!

Yep, you're a goober.

jasper-some day you might not see people as members of a group and instead look at the person. As long as we see people in groups racism in this country will never go away. Judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin- The dream might live

I am concerned that once the billions and billions in stimulus has run out the economy will totally tank and the dollar will nhot be worth anything. If things are still good..or at loeast not a lot different than they are today I think Obama can feel good. If we have a double dip it will be his fault. Only time will tell.

unemployment went down this month, how did that happen?

When there are no more jobs to lose and people are running out of benefits, your unemployment rates fall.

buddy you are the south end of a northbound horse, get it

jasper all of my home state's current woes are due to it turning "blue". Our hog farmers were tricked into voting for Bev. Purdue by election campaigns that showed Hollywood mansions and portrayed the Republican candidates as "Charlotte millionaires" (you know how close to Hollywood we are in Western N.C.) and insinuated them as playboys. Now the folks down East are getting a good taste of buyers remorse as Gov. Purdue's Attax are well under way!!

I can't remember any!

But they exist even if you can't think of any. Even some nice newer cars are crappy on gas like that.

95 Ford Winstar with 3.8 liter engine. 18 mpg combined rating.

filling it with gas is still a lot less than a car payment!

I had an 84 3/4 ton Chevy pickup that got 8 mpg loaded or unloaded. My husband's 3/4 ton diesel gets around 12 - 14. I had a 98 6cyl Ford pu that got 15 mpg.

I am more a middle of the road lefty and I think this program wasnt exactly the best thought out idea.

This program is not creating wealth and is causing higher prices for used cars-You are only moving the time line of the demand and transfering wealth from tax payers to some one else. Think it through

People are suddenly willing to buy cars when they werent six months ago. Automakers are finding their sales rising. There are less fuel-gobbling vehicles on the road, which means there is less toxic smut being put into the air we breate. And exactly HOW is this not working?????????????????????

If you like this program lets do it with more items-lets transfer more tax payers money to help people buy homes, clothes, furniture... the list can go on and on

Yeah, what sour pusses. I like the free money for me and am so happy to see the regular taxpayers buy me a car whoops....*I mean the regular taxpayer's grandchildren.

We arent saying it doesnt SEEM to be working. Its "working" now, but what about the effects later down the line? And unless the only cars people could get are electrics, we are still using gas, way more gas than we could ever produce on our on, so so much for energy independence.

This whole program seems more like a placebo, like slapping a bandaid on a severed hand.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for going green, becoming energy independent, and boosting the economy, but this just doesnt seem like a realistic way to do that. Its not even gonna make a dent in emissions and its economic effect is not gonna be sustainable and it could possibly even be detrimental a few years down the line.

I agree

Oi812: I for one would have been a lot more for redistributing tax payer money to provide food, shelter, and medicine; nessecities of life, than a luxry like a car (Esp given that most poor people who would need this much help getting a car arent gonna be able to sustain it.).

It IS making a dent in emmissions, because the cars with extremely poor fuel efficiency are being traded in for credit for more modern, fuel-efficient vehicles. And if you paid attention to the article, it said that these new auto consumers are generally looking to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. So HOW is that not improving emissions?

And would it be better to use a short-term solution to help boost the auto-industry when times are tough or to sit and do nothing?? Even if this program only offered short-term economic stimulus, it is coming when it is desperately needed! And electric cars are NOT the answer either, as they obviously require electricity and thus release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The truly green future of the auto industry is hydrogen. Good luck fighting the oil companies to make one mainstream though...

Westernskies-think of the country as a family. The family is broke so we take money from Dad and give it to the children, the result is still the same the family is still broke

The "family" is broke because the past "father" of eight years left the "family" in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DEBT!!! I mean, COME ON PEOPLE!!! Do you think it would be better if we just did nothing??!! You blame Obama for the auto industry failing and THEN you blame him for taking an initiative which INCREASES car sales! oi812 since you feel you are so smart, how 'bout you offer some actual solutions of your own for once instead of just criticism??

I do not care who created the problem this still does not fix the problem. Lets have what T. boone Pickens said and have an all ofthe above energy program. Drill all our oil leases. this will bring oil lease revenues into the States, create US jobs, reduce our trade deficit and use those revenues to to after the new green energy technologies. transferring revenues does no good

First of all the new car only had to get 4mpg better than the "clunker". That's not a huge leap. Second, some of those cars were perfectly good cars that someone who couldn't afford a new car might have been able to purchase at a reasonable price.

Car lots might be clearing out but they're not going to be replacing all the inventory that was sold. The auto industry is still laying off people so that did nothing to help them. All these people that think this is some big economy booster are fooling themselves.

OF COURSE oi812 you do not care who cause the problem- YOU VOTED FOR HIM!!! YOU helped cause the problem! And now all you come back to us is "oh, we need to drill for more oil, T. Boone Pickens said so". How about we work to gradually ease our dependence on oil alltogether?? What is one was to do this? BY GETTING POOR FUEL-EFFICIENCY CARS OFF THE ROAD. Duh! And wait, let me get this straight, you want us to drill and consume MORE oil so we can then use to profits to go after green technology?! I think we will not have to worry about green technology by that time; we will have already killed the environment. Duh!!

no mo gop-- we will be on oil for a few more years why not use all our oil while creating the green energy. I would rather use the money from oil leases to pay for the green energy than just leave it in the ground and burden the tax payers with the green energy bill

I agree with the concept of this program. I disagree with the conclusion. Before we destroy anything, (clunkers) we should look at where they would be useful. Many of these vehicles were dependable, if expensive, transportation. For the family on food stamps, welfare or unemployment compensation with NO transportation, these clunkers could be used to search for jobs. They could be used to get back and forth to these jobs. Don't worry about the fuel consumption. These folks won't be using these gas guzzlers to visit Grandma in the Hamptons. They won't drive them to vacation in Vegas. They won't drive them to D.C. to lobby our congress. Yet, they may be lifesafers to get to that job 10 miles away.

Did everyone trade in their clunker? Will there be no more old, used clunkers on Buy Here, Pay Here lots? There isn't a shortage of them around here.

mocowgirl- any time you reduce supply you increase the cost of the item- those prople who can not buy new cars will be paying more for used ones.

I will personally never buy another "new" vehicle again. The taxes, insurance, and depreciation isn't worth it. However, I do understand what you are saying about if demand is higher than supply I can expect to pay more for a used vehicle and will have to budget accordingly.

no mo GOP The "family" is broke because the past "father" of eight years left the "family" in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DEBT!!!

This statement is getting real old and a poor excuse for an arguement. I am sure you blamed Bush for the recession inherrited from Clinton just as you are blaming Bush for the recession inherrited by Obama. You cannot have it both ways.
Did the previous administration cause problems? Yes, just as the previous administration before him cause problems in the recession of 2001. But, that said, it was the current administration's policies (Bush) and actions from the time he was sworn in to office that affected where the economy was going at that moment. Just as it is the current administration's policies (Obama) that is affecting this economy today.
According to the CBO, since Obama has been sworn into office the Congress has passed bills the results are:
Enactment of stimulus legislation and omnibus appropri­ations, a worsening of the economic outlook, and other factors have increased CBO’s projections of the deficit by more than $400 billion in both 2009 and 2010 and by smaller amounts thereafter. As a result, if current policies remain the same, CBO now anticipates that the deficit will total almost $1.7 trillion (11.9 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP) this year and $1.1 trillion (7.9 percent of GDP) next year, the largest deficits as a share of GDP since 1945

Unemployment has also increased by 2%.
Just as Bush owned the economy when he took over after Clinton, Obama owns this economy now. But if you had an independent mind, you would know this.

nomogop don't forget the help our free spending former President had from the Democrats who took over both Houses of Congress in 2007 .What a shock that our current misery started after a year of Nancy and Harry steering the ship (not that blame doesn't reach all the way back to President Clinton and NAFTA as well as repealing the Glass-Stegall act).Plenty of blame can be shared by both parties.

MoCowGirl: the 'clunkers' get recycled after they are turned in to the dealers. You can even learn that from the automakers TV commercials.....

Yep - that and benefits running out.

I agree with your comment Jim. I know a few folks that got in over their head because they wanted that new car smell. I choose to live within my means and drive my 1998 truck until the wheels fall off.

Amen, I'm driving a 2000 GMC that is actually a piece of crap. But like you it gets me to and from work and it's paid for. I hate knowing, I'm working, paying taxes so I can help someone else go into debt buying a car that they can't afford. The auto repo man will be the next crisis.

Amen, Muliplayer. I was on the other end, drove a 1968 F-100 until the wheels fell off (well, not literally other irreplaceable parts were breaking, but it was only time till an axle broke). The current one will be kept disgustingly long according to American consumer standards as well.

I beg to differ. In 'the long haul' you WILL save money

Until we hit a new crisis with the auto repo man. I don't like paying taxes to support someone going out and getting further in debt by purchasing a government motors vehicle.

You must of forgot, we paid for this, not the government!

jasper -

your "analysis" is all wrong.

There will be NO boost to the economy.

Do you think anyone will be buying cars for 2-3 months after this car welfare program ends?

NO. Let me rephrase that - HELL NO!

So what about the people that are building and selling parts for these older cars? What about the folks repairing these older cars? Think they will be working as much now? Of course not.

This is a shell game. Most folks with a lick of sense see it.

Larry, as I said to Dave, way to stretch to find a downside. You're a great American.

I wish we could afford to get rid of the 3/4 ton diesel pickup.

What about the folks repairing these older cars? Think they will be working as much now? Of course not.

300,000 miles on it and yes we keep the repair people mighty happy! As well as big oil.

I agree with Larry. This is just a temporary jump in the economy. Sure there are auto workers being put back to work, but what's going to happen when dealers replenish their stock and suddenly no one is purchasing new cars!

This is going to be interesting.

And what about those who are low income, who rely on purchasing used vehicles. Now the prices for used vehicles will jump sky high because traded in vehicles under this program must be destroyed. By destroyed means, ruining the engine then having the vehicle crushed. In fact, scrap metal dealers are having a difficult time keeping with the demand to pick up these vehicles from the dealers.

Nuff Said!

Obama thinks if you take from Peter and give to Paul you create wealth- sorry it does not. You can not borrow your way to prosperity. We need to create wealth. The program is working great if you want to transfer wealth and create a bubble while destroying an asset. I could care less where he was born or what color he is-his policies do not make sense-think it through- no wealth created just debt and less demand in later years

Yeah, don't even get me started on their ridiculous rhetoric, exaggerations and down right lies.

The scam is when payment comes due to the U.S. government. There isn't a money tree. I'll agree that a program like this is better than seeing people in the unemployment line but it will be short lived. This program has been used all over the world. We, (Obama) didn't invent it. It has worked to boost GDP, temporarily. Then the economy settles back down to where it should be. I suppose the thought is that maybe things will get better and businesses will hire again before the bill comes due. The problem is too many people are in debt up to their eyeballs due to the excessive credit over the last several years. When consumers can't buy, everyone suffers. And unemployment is the root cause. We would have been just fine letting normal business cycles play out. As far as the environment? Who cares. Oil reserves are piling up on shore and off shore in tankers because people are sitting at home unemployed. They aren't even on the road using fossil fuel. In other words, it's not an issue. It's a feel good sound-bite.

Go to cars.org and log in and let the government have control of your computer. How is that not trying to control you?

OMG John you did NOT just say that the environmental aspect is "not an issue. It's a fell-good sound bite" ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!! Ok, maybe if I do this in simple math it will help you understand: One gas-guzzling 18mpg car traded in for a 30mpg car=12mpg saved=less gas needed=less trips to the pump=less emissions from vehicle=less emissions into environment. Is this really that difficult? If you cannot understand this then PLEASE do not vote and PLEASE do not have children. Heaven help us!

Stop wasting money you really have no place in this discussion. Lets save this discussion for those who have a relatively serious point. You don't. You just spew stupidity.

OK no mo -

Do this simple math:

The program gives $3500 if someone trades in a 14mpg SUV for a 15mpg SUV and gives them $4500 if the new SUV mileage is 16mpg.

All the while we are expending energy to make the new SUV and destroy the old one. And it costs people that DO NOT BENEFIT big money.

And cars only need to improve mileage 5 and 10mpg to get the $3500 and $4500, respectively.

How does that grab you, or is the math too hard? You should get out of the discussion until you get past 2nd grade.

In 2001 I traded my 98 Ford F150 (16 mpg) for a 98 Ranger (25 mpg). A $320 payment for a $160 payment. Was driving 80 miles daily to work. The gas savings made the Ranger payment and gas was under $2 a gallon.

Excuse me Larry, but first of all, I have an advanced degree. Second of all, a 5mpg difference is a considerable difference in fuel economy, thus the increase of trade-in offered. It is like taking a 26mpg car and making it a 31mpg car. Not only that, but if you would have paid attention to the actualy MSN article at hand, car dealers are finding that people are choosing to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars with their trade-in money. So someone could trade in their 14mpg SUV for a 51/48mpg Prius (Toyota does participate in the C.A.R.S program and most of their parts come from the US). So we would be talking about CONSIDERABLE savings in fuel cost and emissions. And what math am I not understanding now? Maybe IM not the one who needs to retun for some repeat elementary education....

Advanced degree in what?

because the GOP is more concerned with (in their OWN words) 'regaining power'. I hope and pray that a majority of the voting public can see this, even if the 21% of GOP supporters can't. They just can't stand anyone being happy if they are not in their 'base'. If they were sooo worried about people losing their jobs, maybe they should think of all the people in their 'base' that would be unemployed if they returned to 'power'. What will they complain about? What will Rush have to talk about?

Let's hope we never find out.

I know this is long after the fact but... Take a look at the new data coming out on the so-called gas savings. It's a ruse. Large vehicles are doing very well in this give-away. It is a sound-bite to hook the gullible. Now, who is the Lemming? You're an Obama troll. Vindication is sweet.

You need a class on basic economic to get your eyes opened- short term gain, more debt, no wealth created and transfer of demand- Please think this through. Lets burn our cities down to spur economic growth in the housing industry

oi812 you make absolutely no sense. What the hell are you talking about? Economic activity is economic activity. Oh and if you burned down your cities, yes it would spur economic growth - google the economic boom after WWII.

oi812 probably can't google about the economic boom post-WW2- he needs pictures in order to understand. No words, just pictures. HA HA!!!

If you do not create wealth you do not have a good economy. this program is like what they did in the Great Depression when they had framers dump milk to get the price up while people were starving. the people who are buying cars now with tax payers money would have bought cars in 2010 and 2011 with out the program. This now causes a shortage of good used cars that those that can not afford new ones. Those people will now have to buy used cars for a higher price due to the lack of used cars for them to buy. those used cars could have been traded in for $2,000 but they got a wind fall at the expense of the tax payer. It would have been cheaper to give them $2,500 and still having the used car for someone else to buy, who needs to buy used cars

The wealth created after WWII was caused by us having factories after the war to sell our goods overseas. It was not created by us burning down our cities. Remember create wealth do not redistribute it. Short term gain-yes- but no long term wealth creation.

oi812 is the only one in this discussion that actually understands what is going on.

Taking money from one person to give it to another is NOT creating wealth, it is wealth redistribution. The net effect is to create more dependency on the handouts and to cause the one paying for the handouts to find ways to avoid taxes legally. And they do.

And that does not account for the losses caused by typical government waste. That dollar that comes out of my tax bill ends up being worth less than 50 cents as a handout. That is wealth destruction.

Let's back up this math with logic. Pay the workers(consumers) much less and pass it on to the top 5% ( hoarders) and watch our economy collapse. When the workers(consumers) have no money to purchase the goods the hoarders pay the workers to produce, everybody goes broke. You don't need a college education in business to figure this one out.

Thanks 'Downer Debbie'. Next

Since some of you are such experts, why don't you contact your (I assume) Republican members of Congress and give them your ideas. I'm sure they'd be happy to listen to you.

Good! You should have never been trying if you have a low credit score or if you knew your debt to income ratio was too high. Glad this part is working. They learned their lesson from the mortgage crises!

If you think the government learned anything from the subprime mortgage mess, you are mistaken. Now they just call it rebates rather than sub-prime loans.

Don't worry. Some of these folks that bought under this program will be underwater and losing their cars in 6 months. That will refill the used car lots.

I sure hope not, but it wont be because they didn't get a sweet deal. It will be because they don't have a job. Thanks for making business conditions favorable Odumbo!

Come-on no one but rethugs puts any credence in the right-wing 'rasmussen polls'. Anyway you're wrong. The wingnuts recent antics have driven Obama's numbers back up. See todays gallup polls: http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx approve - 58% and rising. It's backfiring on you, but we knew it would.

Jasper, you mean people are believing the lies? Funny that's how they got obama into office.

That's right jasper. But we knew that, didn't we??

The TARP money was used to buy assets in the banking sector- this money will come back which means we can pay down the debt and not cause inflation. If you just give money to people you will create inflation which is the worst tax of all.

Jasper I took your liberal advice and went to Rasmussen. it shows Obama at a negative -5 and asked if they trust Obama with the economy, he got a whopping 29%. More and more people are waking up to this madness and finding out about Obama. I can bet I know a lot more about him than you do and you voted for the goof. Hey one day we sould play Obama trivia, what ya think?

R U KIDDING ME??!!! If you give money to people you will create inflation? Who taught you economics? First of all, this is not "giving money to people", they are using their trade-in as credit to purchase a new car. Second of all, we have already been seeing inflation since your poster boy ruined this country! Inflation is an indicator of a recession, and economist will tell you that. And third this program is helping boost sales for the struggling US automakers, which were on the brink of bankruptcy. This is not banking, this is an initiative to give people assistance in trading in an old, inefficient vehicle for a more modern, fuel-efficient one. Seriously, it is beginning to scare me that people such as yourself are allowed to vote.

no mo gop- My response was to the TARP funds which bought an asset that we can sell. It was not in response to the clunker program. I am sorry if I was not clear-please forgive me

no mo -

This program is EXACTLY a give-away. THere is no "trade-in". The cars are being destroyed, therefore NO VALUE.

The "government" is giving these people $3500 or $4500 on top of any deal they get from the dealer. So-called free money.

Where do you think this rebate money comes from?

You really have no clue about economics. We have NOT had any significant inflation in the past 8 years. It ran 2-3% over that period. That in no way contributes to recession. Where do you find your "economists"? Kindergarten?

Check up on it and find that Carter brought inflation up to nearly 15% in his administration.

The debt that this administration is running up WILL lead to inflation because other countries, especially China, will stop buying our debt and the Fed will just start to print more money - bringing down the value of the dollar and creating possibly significant inflation.

Stop posting. You continue to prove you know nothing about economics.

Way to go Larry, you got Carter in there. Now get out that talking point sheet and work Clinton in there somehow. I know you can do it.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp

Inflation data from 2000 - 2009.

Larry perhaps YOU are the one who should stop posting. There has been considerable inflation across the board in this country, which gave many an indication that the recession was in effect before it was officially declared so. From basic commodities such as corn, wheat, and soy to basic food goods such as milk to precious metals such as gold, inflation has been everywhere. I simply do not know where you get your info! Walk into your local pizzeria and ask them why the price has gone up if you don't believe me. Obama walked into office facing billions of dollars of EXISTING debt, brought about by the Bush administration. That is a fact. Other countries have been hesitant to invest in our debt because the dollar has been so weak and so is our economy, again a parting gift from Mr. GWB. That is why Obama implemented the CARS program, to try to give the American consumer some purchasing power. And we are too deep in a trough for a sudden surge in purchase power to cause greater inflation. Also, by offering a short-term solution such as CARS, Obama allows a short-term economic stimulus without the risk of future inflation caused by excessive demand.

School is out Larry. Off to summer school with you.

no mo gop- so Obama is going to borrow more money so people can buy. This will create inflation. You can not borrow our way to wealth-it just won't happen

This country has been borrowing our way to wealth since the beginning of time- where have you been?? And Obama is borrowing this money as to stimulate short-term economic stimulus and to give assistance to the struggling auto indistry (as well as to take an environmental initiative).

Thanks for the info MoCowgirl. CASE IN POINT! And uh, Larry, feel free to check out the table yourself. It shows a significant incline in inflation rates over the past couple of years. Enjoy.

Larry in MS,

It is possible that the program will case some inflation, though it is such a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the money supply, that inflation will likely be indetectible.

Ditto the tiny amount spent on automaker bailouts, compared to the HUGE amount given to bankers. However, even the banker bailout is unlikely to cause inflation because -- at least so far -- the bankers are hoarding the money, not lending it out, and thereby not increasing the money supply.

The biggest potential cause of inflation over the past 10 years has been the money spent on the 2 wars, since they were financed entirely by deficit financing, because the Bush administration convinced the American people that we could have guns and butter and suffer no consequences. And that money really has been spent and foreigners really have bought our debt obligations to help finance it.

As to the Chinese deciding not to continue buying our debt -- or even worse dumping it on the open market -- that is less likely than you might think, because then they will suffer as well, since such an action would plunge the value of the dollars they hold. Only very slow, gradual diversification of their holdings will save them from that collapse -- and us as well.

no mo GOP There has been considerable inflation across the board in this country, which gave many an indication that the recession was in effect before it was officially declared so.
From basic commodities such as corn, wheat, and soy to basic food goods such as milk to precious metals such as gold, inflation has been everywhere.

Actually some of the products you mention were inflated because of supply & demand. Example corn. Corn prices rose because of the push for ethanol. Now that ethanol has lost its wind so to speak, corn prices have plummeted. Gold prices, in 1971 Nixon ended US dollar convertibility to gold. In January 1980 the gold price hit a record of $850 per ounce. In January 2008, 28 years after the all-time record high of price of $850 in January 1980, the nominal broke the record. In inflation adjusted US dollars, the price would have to reach about $2,200 to break the record in real terms. So really if you base it on inflation, gold is low in comparison to 1980.

Walk into your local pizzeria and ask them why the price has gone up if you don't believe me.

And if you actually ask them they will tell you the main reason, minimum wage went from $5.85 in 2007 to $7.25 today. Those increases are passed on to the consumer. Also, prices rose because fuel cost rose. They paid more to get supplies. But no one wants us to drill so that's the price you pay.

My point here is that many things contribute to fluctuations in prices. Not all are due to a pending recession. Recession is a slow down in the economy. Rising costs in a commodity doesn't necessarily mean there will be a slow down. More than likely means the there is a demand over supply.

Obama walked into office facing billions of dollars of EXISTING debt, brought about by the Bush administration.

So this is a justification for us now being trillions of dollars in debt since Obama took office???? Two wrongs don't make a right. Are we heading toward inflation, that all depends on this administration. If Obama does not stop spending money we don't have then yes, when the first interest payment comes on the loans he's made to pay for his bailout programs, then you bet our dollar will be worth zero.

Personally, I think it's a matter of priority. Depending on where you get the estimate, the Iraq war costs us somewhere between $2 million and $7.5 million PER DAY. So, $3 billion doesn't seem like so much if it help get the economy going and people back to work and benefits the environment. Yes, it is a short term solution but I think that's what's needed. Once the economy gets going again, these types of things won't be necessary. So, for me, I don't mind my tax money going there because I think it will help to put this country on a better track which ultimately, benefits me as well as others.

I completely agree with you "Positive!" Why is there not more complaining about the amount spent on the war than on this fairly small (in comparison) amount of money on a solution to a problem? It becomes less about what is good for the country and more about complaining about policy it seems.