Rasmussen: Majority still opposes Cash for Clunkers

posted at 11:55 am on August 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

When Congress and the White House rolled out Cash for Clunkers, it failed to achieve the kind of populist support that its advocates envisioned.  Now, after the debacle of its implementation, Rasmussen finds that a majority remains opposed to subsidizing car sales with taxpayer money.  In fact, Democrats only support it by a plurality, and that falls within the poll’s margin of error:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Americans oppose any further funding for the federal “cash for clunkers” program which encourages the owners of older cars to trade them in for newer, more fuel-efficient ones.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 33% of adults think Congress should authorize additional funding to keep the program going now that the original $950 million allocated for it has run out. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

These numbers are virtually identical to the findings in mid-June just after Congress first approved the plan when 35% favored it while 54% were opposed.

Democrats only favor continued funding for C4C by a 44%-41% margin, hardly a ringing endorsement.  Independents oppose it by a seventeen point spread, 51%-34.  Majorities of both women and men reject it (52% and 56%, respectively), while majorities in almost every age and income demographic also oppose it, with the exceptions being a 49%-37% plurality against C4C among 50-64 year olds, 47%-40% opposed in the $40-60K bracket, and 46%-45% opposed in the under-$20K bracket.  The only demographic showing a plurality of support outside the margin of error is black voters, and even that support is weak, 44%-34%.

The program got overwhelmed in short order by the response, but that was only tens of thousands of clunker owners in a nation where over 125 million voted for President last year.  The majority of people have determined C4C to be an expensive lemon, and Jeffrey Miron explains why at CNN:

Despite the program’s popularity, cash for clunkers is bad medicine for the U.S. economy.

The first problem is that under the terms of the program, any used car that is traded in must be scrapped, and key parts like the engine and drive train destroyed. Thus the program pays people to junk cars that still have economic value. A good friend, for example, is planning to trade in a car that is in good working order. Before the program, he had planned to use the car for another couple of years.

How can it make any sense for policy to encourage the destruction of working cars? Proponents of the program offer two rationales: that the higher fuel efficiency of new cars will reduce the use of fossil fuel, and that the increased demand for new cars will rescue the failing auto industry. Neither of these defenses passes muster.

Cash for clunkers will have a minor impact, at best, on the use of fossil fuel. Many people who trade in clunkers would have upgraded to more fuel-efficient vehicles within a year or two anyway. Thus the program might hasten the adoption of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, but this is a modest, one-off effect.

Worse, cash for clunkers might cause more driving, since new cars are more fun to drive, and more fuel-efficient cars are less costly to operate. Plus, it takes energy to scrap old vehicles and produce new ones, so the net effect of the program might even increase the use of fossil fuel.

The Senate may balk at providing more funds anyway, as the Financial Times reports:

The Obama administration’s oversubscribed “cash for clunkers” scheme looks likely to founder in the Senate this week as bipartisan opposition mounted on Monday to the $2bn extension passed last week in the House of Representatives.

Republican senators described the scheme, in which car users can take up to $4,500 (€3,170, £2,710) in government vouchers to trade in their vehicles for more fuel efficient ones, as a “boondoggle” – or a waste of time and money – and all but threatened to filibuster the planned extension. …

Prospects for overcoming a Republican filibuster were also dealt a blow on Monday with objections from a number of leading Democrats. Dianne Feinstein, the senator from California, and Chuck Schumer, the New York senator, both want to raise the fuel efficiency standards of the subsidised vehicles, 250,000 of which have now been funded.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bingaman, the senator from New Mexico, objected to the diversion of funds from the $6bn allocated to the Department of Energy under the $787bn stimulus programme in February.

Both reports refer to the program’s “popularity,” but it is in fact unpopular, and the White House fumbles on implementing it make it even less attractive to American voters.  Don’t expect the Senate to get to this before its recess — and even if it did, they would likely pass something much different than what the House proposed, which means it would have to wait for a conference committee after the recess.

Don’t miss the Washington Times report on how C4C turned your computer into “property of the U.S. government,” either.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Broken window fallacies. Obamanomics. But I repeat myself.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Don’t miss the Washington Times report on how C4C turned your computer into “property of the U.S. government,” either.

But, but Glenn Beck was a nutter when he reported this!

A nutter I tell you.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Barry to the majority: “You’re not in control now.”

Vashta.Nerada on August 4, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Clunk.

blatantblue on August 4, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Some men just want to watch the economy burn.

the_nile on August 4, 2009 at 12:01 PM

The thing about chaos. It’s fair.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 12:01 PM

so the net effect of the program might even will definitely increase the use of fossil fuel.

Green Maroons

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM

because its taxpayer money dropped from helicopters to a select few who happened to be in the market anyway.

rob verdi on August 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM

So, Beck is climbing out of the crazy tree or is the Washington Times climbing up?

d1carter on August 4, 2009 at 12:03 PM

as for democrats, it was Al Gore who decried the automobile, this hardly fits into the public transportation will save the earth policy.

rob verdi on August 4, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Stop! Stop! You’re soiling Obama’s mandate.

whitetop on August 4, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Don’t miss the Washington Times report on how C4C turned your computer into “property of the U.S. government,” either.

The American Civil Liberties Union showed no interest in investigating the invasion of privacy and would only comment to us that “it is hard to believe that [the Obama administration] would do something like this.” Big Brother can get away with a lot when the watch dogs aren’t watching what’s going on.

They really should look into a name change.

Vashta.Nerada on August 4, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Can’t wait for the sequel: Cash for Clunker Granny coming to a hospital near you. Oh yeah, just like they destroy the cars… But, but it will save the economy and the planet! /

Christian Conservative on August 4, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Cap-and-Trade is all but dead; Card Check is all but dead; Health Care Reform is on life support – Cash for Clunkers is shaping up as Barry most notable domestic policy achievement!

Looking forward to that State of the Union Address in January 2010 when Barry has to puff up C4C as the biggest achievment of a Democratic Congress in an election year.

ChrisB on August 4, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Christian Conservative on August 4, 2009 at 12:05 PM

\
Dude. That’s totally ripe for parody.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I know I’m against it. Why should I pay for someone elses car? I’m already paying higher car insurance premiums because of people who ride around without car insurance.

Darn, I wish I had been more of a failure in my life. Losers get everything for free.

fogw on August 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM

The majority of people have determined C4C to be an expensive lemon…

Heh.

When life hands you AIDS…make lemon AIDS

dont taze me bro on August 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM

But-But-MSNBC said the program was “successful”!!!!!!

battleoflepanto1571 on August 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM

The C4C program is a failure??? Who knew!!! Knock me over with a feather!!! LOL!!

Delaware Vol on August 4, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Both reports refer to the program’s “popularity,” but it is in fact unpopular, and the White House fumbles on implementing it make it even less attractive to American voters.

Popular or not, the program ran its course in less than a week. Mission complete. That’s no excuse to pump more money into this ill-devised program. GM and Chrysler got billions and the UAW got an auto company. Let them offer the $4500 rebates as a sales tactic out the money the also got instead of yet again propping up the auto industry.

highhopes on August 4, 2009 at 12:09 PM

battleoflepanto1571 on August 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM

I think Ed or AP considered it successful too, until they got a quick education in the problems with it. Then the tone suddenly changed on it.

I think a few of us were calling the definition of “successful” here interesting.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM

The program is just plain idiotic.

forest on August 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM

“…how C4C turned your computer into “property of the U.S. government,” either.

HotAir seemingly likes to poo-poo this “Beckism” away falling into the lockstep with the ACLU:
“The American Civil Liberties Union showed no interest in investigating the invasion of privacy and would only comment to us that “it is hard to believe that [the Obama administration] would do something like this.” Big Brother can get away with a lot when the watch dogs aren’t watching what’s going on. “

albill on August 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Darn, I wish I had been more of a failure in my life. Losers get everything for free.

fogw on August 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM

It sucks being a productive member of society.

ladyingray on August 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM

I think a few of us were calling the definition of “successful” here interesting.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM

my major problems are:

1. its short term, no one will buy cars once this thing ends, and GM will still suck

2. used car dealers are now going to be hurting

3. THEY ARE POURING ACID IN THE ENGINES OF THE PERFECTLY GOOD CARS

4. !!!!!!!!THEY CALLL THAT “RECYCLING”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we coulda sent those cars to nigeria for a small price, where there’s lotsa oil and lotsa roads (in urban areas), but now, we are DESTROYING ASSETS

idiocy.

battleoflepanto1571 on August 4, 2009 at 12:12 PM

also, the dealerships may wait a long time for payment from the govt. they are not happy about that.

kelley in virginia on August 4, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Heard a financial head from Ford this morning, he likes C4C, why wouldn’t he? Sales of Ford Focus are up 44%. So, I own a Ford Focus (all paid for long ago), but I have to pay for them now for everyone else?

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

I favor ending the program, but I feel that all deals that were completed before program was suspended should be paid out, even if that takes a supplemental spending bill. Dealers sold cars with an explicit promise of a govt check. The govt can’t decide after the fact, that it isn’t going to pay out the money promised.

MarkTheGreat on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

People may be realizing the rationale for the clunkers program is eerily similar to “Billions of Dollars to Be Burned Under New ‘Cash for Cash’ Program”: http://www.optoons.blogspot.com/ (August 4 entry)

Mervis Winter on August 4, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Looking forward to that State of the Union Address in January 2010 when Barry has to puff up C4C as the biggest achievment of a Democratic Congress in an election year.

ChrisB on August 4, 2009 at 12:06 PM

TOTUS would never allow that to happen. If the filthy liar fails at healthcare reform, it will be the “we’ve never been closer” mantra. C4C failure is a step toward energy independence. Cap & Tax defeat is wanting to do what is right for the planet in the face of evil Republicans. Card check defeat is protecting workers’ rights more fiercely than the previous adminstration.

I’m not even sure that C4C can be touted as a success for the filthy liar. It spent $1B in short order but it set up the expectation that virtually everybody is getting a voucher from the feds. Lot’s of people are going to be angry that they didn’t get theirs.

highhopes on August 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM

The govt can’t decide after the fact, that it isn’t going to pay out the money promised.

MarkTheGreat on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Heh , it’s the new law.

the_nile on August 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM

I own a Ford Focus (all paid for long ago), but I have to pay for them now for everyone else?

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Barry says its good to spread the wealth around.

Vashta.Nerada on August 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Arlen’s going to be here for a town hall next Wednesday. I’ll be curious to see if he gets asked about this program.

rightwingprof on August 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Mervis Winter on August 4, 2009 at 12:15 PM

That is awesomely awesome.

Vashta.Nerada on August 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Dealers sold cars with an explicit promise of a govt check. The govt can’t decide after the fact, that it isn’t going to pay out the money promised.

MarkTheGreat on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

That’s not exactly true. The fine print said that the promise was only good as long as there were funds. I think the government should honor any deals made in the first four days but anything after the time it was announced that the program was running out of money is fair game for not being funded.

My biggest problem with the program is all the waste. Wasteful spending but also destroying cars that are still operable. My vehicle qualifies but it is good for at least another couple years, no problem. It would be a good reliable ride for somebody. It is senseless to kill cars this way. At the very least there should be some sort of cap & trade scheme employed where “bad” cars can be destroyed in place of cars whose biggest defect is an owner that want their $4500 voucher.

highhopes on August 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM

How can it make any sense for policy to encourage the destruction of working cars?

The left has always tried to destroy anything that works properly. That’s the only way they can then institute their policies. Just think of all the thinks the left has destroyed in the past couple of generations just to foster their agenda: The Family, Organized Religion, Education, Self Reliance. All Ideas that work. Look at what they have been replaced with: Blended and Non-Traditional Families, Progressive Secularism, Outcome Based Education, Welfare and Government Subsidized Housing. All things that don’t work.

Tommy_G on August 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM

“that was only tens of thousands of clunker owners in a nation where over 125 million voted for President last year”

And as a result, we now have a mega-clunker in the White House.

KS Rex on August 4, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Only Washington would call a program that gave people debt, they would not have otherwise burdened themselves with, successful.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Just like nearly all programs this one should be called: We’re going to take your neighbors money and give it to you.

The real trick is figuring out who this sentence refers to.

gwelf on August 4, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Don’t you think it’s hysterical, though, that the #1 car people are buying with C4C money is a Ford product? Obama has got to be panicking, since Ford is actually recovering and gaining market share while GM and Chrysler are both sucking wind.

Outlander on August 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Barry to the majority: “You’re not in control now.”

Vashta.Nerada on August 4, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Yes and he does so with that big ear-to-ear grin.

shick on August 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Cash for clunkers must just irritate the hell out of the Democrats because…tax cuts work!

Speakup on August 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM

“Cash for Clunker Granny coming to a hospital near you.
Christian Conservative on August 4, 2009 at 12:05 PM”

“My Mother the Car”?

KS Rex on August 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Don’t miss the Washington Times report on how C4C turned your computer into “property of the U.S. government,” either.

The American Civil Liberties Union showed no interest in investigating the invasion of privacy and would only comment to us that “it is hard to believe that [the Obama administration] would do something like this.”

No joke permitted at the Joker’s expense.

The ACLU responded stupidly.

maverick muse on August 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM

C4C is tossing away good stuff

CNNAMfix reported with mild support of the plan.

Then they gave the specific case of a man who traded a F-150 Ford pickup in on a new Chevrolet Silverado. How wonderful!

Then the article admitted that there “was not that much difference” in the fuel economy of the two models. But the gentleman had only 42,000 miles on his Ford, changed the oil every 3,000 miles and otherwise kept the truck in great shape. Continuing with the article, he only got $4,000 in trade value for it but with the government theft, he only had to pay $21,000 for the new pickup. Junking a truck with 42,000 miles does not sound right. Um, I know people with 300,000 miles on F-150′s. And are the goofs with the MSM so stupid that they don’t even know when they are making a fool out of their hero(s)? No wonder they are liberals!

IlikedAUH2O on August 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Heard a financial head from Ford this morning, he likes C4C, why wouldn’t he? Sales of Ford Focus are up 44%. So, I own a Ford Focus (all paid for long ago), but I have to pay for them now for everyone else?

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

I feel your pain kirkill. Last August I traded in my gas-guzzling Chrysler for a more gas efficient Nissam Altima. Unfortunately I made the mistake of using my head without any prodding or incentives from the gubmint. Therefore I got diddley. Now I’m paying for other people’s new cars.

Thinking for yourself is something our government frowns upon. Along with personal responsibility and hard work.

fogw on August 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Here’s a YouTube playlist of over 80 cars being destroyed for cash-for-clunkers.
.
http://tinyurl.com/n9ahd5
.
This is a dirty, dangerous, and wasteful procedure mandated by the govt. – causing oil spills, engine coolant (poison) steam explosions, and engine compartment fires.

fwj on August 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM

My own father worked on his own cars and owned them till they became fossils. I remember very clearly the weekends he and I spent driving to various used car dealers. He was as persistent as an arab trader. He helped me buy my first car. He gave me a down payment but I had to pay the rest.

Now with cash for clunkers that’s a thing of the past.

I’m keeping my clunker 1997 Ford Ranger with 200k+ miles. When my son can drive in 4 years I’m not going to point to my new car and say, “Like my new car son? You’re going to pay for that.”

shick on August 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Massive Fail…pretty much everything the Democrats in Washington do.

So, how is it that Glenn Beck is crazy for saying they want to destroy America? Sounds spot on sane to me.

As he says, everything that was insane is now sane, and everything that was wrong is now right.

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Heard a financial head from Ford this morning, he likes C4C, why wouldn’t he? Sales of Ford Focus are up 44%. So, I own a Ford Focus (all paid for long ago), but I have to pay for them now for everyone else?

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

It’s your patriotic duty capitalist scum!

gwelf on August 4, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Mervis Winter

Cash for Cash Program!!

maverick muse on August 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Buck Up!

maverick muse on August 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I’m not going to point to my new car and say, “Like my new car son? You’re going to pay for that.”

shick on August 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Noted!

maverick muse on August 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM

It’s your patriotic duty capitalist scum!
gwelf on August 4, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Hey, Ford is right to take advantage of it. I just find it funny that nobody is buying GM or Chrysler–which I am sure is what Obama really wanted people to do.

Outlander on August 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Outlander on August 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM

The new Ford hybrid Focus is phenomenal. Saw two ads on the internet. One from Britain WAS A HOOT racing vs. luxury sports car inside an upscale mall and then in a military assault exercise on the coast–another ad from Ford, information re: braking system transfigures the energy giving the engine over 100horsepower, WOW!

maverick muse on August 4, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Broken window fallacies. Obamanomics. But I repeat myself.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Perfect analogy.

powerpro on August 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Follow the tax fund money in any government program: trickle down economics. The bulk is stolen along the way, every hand touching it taking it, so that the funds never make it to the stipulated target. Every government program can be illustrated by the great Colorado River, once a raging torrent through the Grand Canyon, diverted here and there now, a dry river bed at the end of its line.

maverick muse on August 4, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Outlander

Thogh the Ford Focus is the biggest seller in the C4C program, oveall only 47% of the C4C sales have been for the Big 3 American automakers, per the Detroit News and the Washington Post.

ChrisB on August 4, 2009 at 1:04 PM

I’m just glad my friend who sells Fords made some sales. He’s been in a panic.

He’s working around the clock with this program. It’s a true stimulus.

It shouldn’t go on forever, but it did actually work.

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM

It shouldn’t go on forever, but it did actually work.

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Handing out free money always work , until someone has to pay it back. Housing bubble rings a bell?

the_nile on August 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM

ChrisB on August 4, 2009 at 1:04 PM

People are “loyal” to what’s comfortably familiar.

But Americans really should look into the Ford, because at this point, Ford engineering surpasses its competition, and the price is not more expensive than a noisy-ride but stable resale value Honda, for example.

The Ford Fiesta (apologies, British ad was for the Fiesta, not the Focus) is returning to the US next year (great European sales).

Why was the original Dodge Colt (late ’70s) was ever taken off the market. Great Mitsubishi engine, great gas mileage, great performance!

maverick muse on August 4, 2009 at 1:13 PM

The limited information shows most buyers are not picking Ford, Chrysler or General Motors vehicles, and six of the top 10 vehicles purchased are Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. The Associated Press has sought release of the data since last week. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release it.

HT: Corner. Obama is holding back sales data from dealers.

Wethal on August 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Handing out free money always work , until someone has to pay it back.

The dealers advertisements state the program is using “Government” money. It is not the government’s, its mine and yours.

lovedinthekeys on August 4, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Handing out free money always work

Well, I disagree. Bush’s rebate did zip. So did Obama’s tax cut.

This stimulus worked.

If the idea is to prime the pump, then programs like this are what we should look to do in the future. Skip the $37 dollar check in the mail approach.

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 1:17 PM

But Americans really should look into the Ford, because at this point, Ford engineering surpasses its competition, and the price is not more expensive than a noisy-ride but stable resale value Honda, for example.

I am all for people looking into whatever they want – foreign or domestic. It is just that I would just as soon not have to pay for their choice. And I bet few Americans would want to pay to have their neighbors buy a new foreign car, as the C4C program does most of the time.

ChrisB on August 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM

It’s so successful, you can’t see the results of how successful it is. Mmm hmm.

lorien1973 on August 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Wethal on August 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM

just saw the same thing on Drudge
Obama administration withholds data on program
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99S6M481&show_article=1

cmsinaz on August 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM

In two months when the graft runs out, check how many cars your friend sells. Liberals are not just dumb, they are shortsighted.

I am thinking of a new Lamborghini. Think I can get an arts stipend? Also…

IlikedAUH2O on August 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM

you beat me to it there lorien :-)

cmsinaz on August 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM

If the idea is to prime the pump, then programs like this are what we should look to do in the future. Skip the $37 dollar check in the mail approach.

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Then let’s just send everyone a check for $1,000,000 and quit f*cking around.

It’s only money. Oh sorry, I forgot it’s something you don’t have anymore in Cali.

fogw on August 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Frankly, think of what we could have really done. Skip the GM bailout and plowed money this way into the auto industry.

Instead, oy vey.

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Some Salvage is Precious.

Dr Evil on August 4, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Drudge just linked to a Breitbart article about Obama refusing to release the data on how this craptastic program is working . . . until AFTER he finishes trying to strong-arm the Senate into doubling down on it.

I just love this new transparency in government!!

califcon on August 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM

I’ve been looking for app.4 years for a particular truck.Mid size,long bed.I’ve been told and all on-line research that I’ve done says “that configuration of that model doesn’t exist”.Ten minutes ago,I saw two of them.Older trucks,suitable for my purposes,just something that I have a temporary use for.In other words a” clunker”.
Great,I thought,I finally found what I’m looking for.Of course they both had signs on them”cash for clunkers-not for sale”.So,after 4 years,finally finding what I’ve been looking for,and couldn’y buy it at any any price.
So much for freedom of choice under Obamanomics.
Gee,I just can’t wait for Obamacare.

DDT on August 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I guess AnninCA has spoken, it’s successful, it gave away $1 Billion in taxpayer’s money faster than ever. There won’t be one ounce of Carbon saved, since it takes a lot more carbon to build a clunker and to destroy it than will ever be saved in fuel consumption. As usual liberals will always rationalize everything they do as being great.

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Can The One “prime the pump” on the housing market, OOOPS He did that. Never mind.

IlikedAUH2O on August 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM

This isn’t stimulus, its f’in insanity.

daesleeper on August 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM

HT: Corner. Obama is holding back sales data from dealers

With the unemployment report for July coming out on Friday, Barry might be tempted to try to hide that, too.

ChrisB on August 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM

The government used taxpayer money so it’s government owned car company would sell cars.

Isn’t that an inherent conflict of interest?

darwin on August 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Frankly, think of what we could have really done. Skip the GM bailout and plowed money this way into the auto industry.

Instead, oy vey.

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM

How about skip the bailout and just let GM collapse?

darwin on August 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Heard a financial head from Ford this morning, he likes C4C, why wouldn’t he? Sales of Ford Focus are up 44%. So, I own a Ford Focus (all paid for long ago), but I have to pay for them now for everyone else?

kirkill on August 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Shut up and pay your taxes, serf.

And be polite at your Congresman’s townhall.

By the way: do you have any firearms at home?

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I traded my extra pickup in on a new one. If I’m gonna have an extra pickup, It might as well be a new one. With the dealer incentives and $4,500 Obama money, I got the new one for half the sticker price.

I had been looking for a home for that old pickup I loved, so now it will live in history as a “Clunker for Cash” without being sold to another. It finished it’s whole career as mine, and in the end gave me a slug of cash to boot. Ah, the memories….

saiga on August 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM

$4,500 Obama money

Oh, magical Obama money, huh?

That wasn’t Obama’s money, Jack.

It was mine…and everyone else who pays taxes.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM

I have some clunker stocks…

IlikedAUH2O on August 4, 2009 at 1:54 PM

That wasn’t Obama’s money, Jack.

It was mine…and everyone else who pays taxes.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Mine too. It was me or Acorn the way I saw it.

saiga on August 4, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Cash for Clunkers fails as it does not help who it was likely intended to help. As many have pointed out, clunkers are not being traded in, perfectly good cars are, and we know who ones perfectly good cars, those that can afford new cars and are taking advantage of this offer. So, those that drive around in clunkers, they will continue to do so.

Funny how conservatives hate this, yet conservative middle class are the ones that it most benefits.

WoosterOh on August 4, 2009 at 2:03 PM

of course

ones=owns

WoosterOh on August 4, 2009 at 2:04 PM

What I dislike about this program is that it is unfair.

My wife’s SUV gets about 11 miles to the gallon.

But it’s worth about $65,000.

If the idea is to improve national fuel efficiency and spur car sales, why shouldn’t we get $69,500 to trade it in on something a little more environmentally responsible?

I’d hate to see that 4.8 liter engine euthanized, but that’s part of the deal, I guess.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 2:07 PM

I would like to see one of these perfectly good cars that was destroyed with sodium silicate on a monument footing with the hood up and a plaque that says “It died for our sins.”

scrubjay on August 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Funny how conservatives hate this, yet conservative middle class are the ones that it most benefits.

WoosterOh on August 4, 2009 at 2:03 PM

It’s our own money – what part of that don’t you understand?

Vashta.Nerada on August 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM