“The logic I didn’t understand is why dismantle the old cars? Seems there could have been a better use for them. Otherwise, the economic logic behind C4C seemed to makes sense. Put more money in the economy in a way that benefits us all eventually.”

The money was already in the economy. The money the government spends comes from the private market, does it not? And if it didn’t and they made it out of thin air (i.e. printed it) that means every dollar already in circulation is worth less. How does it make sense to force people to spend money on a certain sector of the economy? Plus, we are forcing people to spend money so others can benefit. I pay taxes, yet I didn’t take part in the c4c program. Yet some of my tax dollars went towards that.

If anything we need to promote savings right now, and cash for clunkers goes by the rationale that we need to spend more and more and more to spur the economy. We spent too much money, most of what we don’t owe, and that is why we are retracting. We need to promote savings, not spending, and ESPECIALLY not forced redistributive spending on one market.

Bobby – I agree.

Just before I bought it from my parents a tree fell on it and dented the roof. The insurance company totaled it and paid them the value of it. Then I paid them $1,000 for it and drove it more than 3 more years. At times I had the front window taped in place because it kept sliding down on its own, but that was the 2nd most reliable car I’ve ever owned. And it didnt’ look all that bad, either.

Just trying to show that you don’t need a brand new, $20k or $30k car to have reliable, affordable transportation.

1) I’d have liked to have seen it apply to ONLY AMERICAN MADE cars. Oh, wait…are any cars truly made in America anymore? There is a list of 75 cars here: http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/db/b-db-autos.shtml

I would like to know how many of these cars were eligible for the program. I will need to research that further.

2) It took a bunch of cars off the road that lower income people might have been able to afford as used cars. I’m driving a 10-yr old Chevy Tracker right now that only has 120,000 miles on it, a good engine, and a fair body (it was good til some numskull rear-ended me doing 40 mph in June, now it’s just fair.) It’s reliable – I’ve had it in a shop just TWICE since I brought it home July 5th, 2000. Why on earth would I want to trade it in for a new car? Yet, when it dies, I’ll be looking to replace it with a used car from the pool that just got smaller because what I can afford is what this program targeted.

3) You have to have had great credit for this program. Mine right now, not so good. I’ve been the struggling owner of a children’s consignment shop since 2004, when I was laid off from a $70k/yr engineering job. I’m in an area of 15% unemployment so it’s been darn near impossible to find an engineering “day job” in my area (I have friends that volunteer to run the shop while I work but I lost my last job 18 months ago and haven’t found anything that pays well enough for me to work 40 hrs a week at it, plus another 30-40 at the shop nights and weekends. So, late and missed payments have caused my credit to tank and a failing business has meant not enough income to afford a new car.

Not one person I know used the program. Can a lot of people say that or am I unique?

I find this documentary pretty laughable. The thing about Moore is he attacks capitalism. In the previews you see him going to AIG and asking where “our” money is. He should be railing on government, not that company! Anyone who supports capitalism is against government intervention – government gave them our money, not capitalism! Government decided they were too big to fail – they wouldn’t exist if capitalism was free to work!

I haven’t seen the move, but it seems like Moore should have checked his premises. He seems to be blaming the bailouts, the propping up of failed companies, the constant government intervention on capitalism DESPITE the fact that capitalism would not have done ANY of this!

It’s amazing the misplaced blame we see coming from Moore.

It’s a total and absolute redistribution of wealth. There was a lucky group who had clunkers and bought a new car partially with taxpayer money. It’s absolutley ridiculous that the government would pick one tiny group of consumers (those with clunkers who could buy a new car at a set time) and benefit a specific industry. Other industries are hurting, aren’t they?

As Ron Paul says, you don’t create wealth by taking old cars and destroying them. It’s illogical.

I know people who participated in this, and it really made a difference for their families to have a reliable car, with better gas mileage that will not need to be repaired.

Haven’t many of us reduced our mileage regardless of our particular car’s MPG if we needed to save money? Why jump to a conclusion that everyone’s IQ goes down the toilet upon buying a greener vehicle, based on “another piece of research”? If people want to drive less, they will. Or perhaps they might be driving farther because they can now safely expand the area in which they can work? Basic safety for these people and their children…that’s another issue…but I won’t even get into that.

Same goes for taking on debt. It’s a choice. Why assume everyone who stepped up for the C4C didn’t know what they were getting into? That they all eat Hamburger Helper and don’t understand what they’ve done until it’s too late? Why assume that a “clearheaded head of a household able to do basic arithmetic” wouldn’t have thought through numbers before buying a car?

The author doesn’t take into consideration how much it costs (and not just to the environment) to keep a “clunker” on the road. My experience tells me that keeping an old car healthy and safe can cost quite a bit (often all at once), therefore making one wonder if it wouldn’t be a safer bet financially to have scheduled payments of, say $200/month, rather than be surprised by a $2500 bill. In fact, with a ’99 Civic and a ’00 Odyssey, my husband and I have that discussion rather often.

Maybe it was just his tone that set me off. Am I wrong? Or was his attitude a little holier-than-thou? One-dimensional and, at the same time, smug?

Maybe I’m just grumpy.