Comments on: Obama Signs 'Cash For Clunkers' to Mixed Reviews

By: Jesse

Jesse — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:19:20 +0000

Wahhhhhhh

By: jimhenry

jimhenry — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:19:57 +0000

so if you have two or more clunkers at your house you cannot trade both of them for one car. The program is for one per
person.

Jimhenry
Blogger
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info

By: Mike77

Mike77 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:47:16 +0000

I'm surprised by how many of my friends have jumped on this. I think a lot of kids that were given their parents old SUV's or trucks will jump on this. I bet a lot of people ages 22-30 jumping on this program. And it can't really hurt? It's only going to cost the country 1 billion dollars?

BTW the US pumps 390 million gallons of gas a day and the federal government only gets 18.5 cents on ever gallon. Imagine if we just increased that by 10 cents we could pay for the cash for clunkers program in 25 days!!!!

By: chucki

chucki — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:17:20 +0000

i have a 1993 buick century, rusty runs bad and a true clunker. I actually have been considering
a new car (hybrid).

Guess, what, my old clunker is too efficient to qualify getting 22mpg combined per the govs
website. This is a stupid law and sucks. 18mpg. yes the SUVs get worse than that but are
likely worth more than the $3-4K that they would net so they will all stay on the road just like
my old clunker.

By: crazynorm

crazynorm — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:37:14 +0000

I agree. Most SUV’s on the road get less than, and in some cases WELL less than, 18MPG’s. I think if we can start lowering the number of those particular vehicles on the road we can help reduce emissions right away, as well as reduce consumption of oil. It’s a good step in the right direction, even if it is a small step.

By: steved28

steved28 — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:46:14 +0000

I guess I made a "Stupid" buying decision too. Who knew you needed a truck to haul a 25ft boat? I should have bought an Escort!

I don't think the bill is fair either, but the bottom line is this. I am new car shopping today, I would not be without this bill.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:31:23 +0000

IF THE AMERICAN CAR MAKERS BUILT HIGH MPG CARS THEY WOULD NOT NEED A BAILOUT. STOP BAILING OUT GREEDY LOOSERS.

By: Hurls

Hurls — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:40:25 +0000

I also believe it should have been a minimum of 40% increase over the trade-in vehicle you receive the voucher for. However, as you look at what is available from the manufacturers at Edmunds, the vast majority of vehicles that would qualify for purchase are from foreign companies.

By: moishe k

moishe k — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:34:21 +0000

To Needtochange

What do you expect from Washington ?

1. EPA figures are not real world anyway

2. any car with 100,000 miles or 10 years gets much less mpg than when new

By: Need2Change

Need2Change — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:28:05 +0000

Rather than 18 mpg maximum and 4 mpg improvement, I would have preferred if the standard was on percent improvement. I will use 40% as an example.

So if I had a 16 mpg vehicle, I would get the cash if I purchased a car that gets at least 22 mpg. If I had a vehicle which gets 25 mpg, I would need to purchase a car that gets at least 35 mpg to get the cash.