Cars.com survey says public wants more Cash for Clunkers. Well, of course they do.
After a month of relentless Cash for Clunkers coverage, we were more than pleased when the Fed's buy-back program finally ended. Nearly every other day C4C was in danger of getting shut down because of a lack of funds. Then there were dealers were worried about getting paid and customers who had to sign responsibility forms in the event their clunker wasn't covered under the program. But while we've had more than our fill of C4C, the car-buying public wants more.
A recent poll conducted by Kicking Tires shows that 55 percent of recent car buyers and current shoppers feel C4C should be resurrected. You might be thinking that anyone who's recently purchased a new car would be pleased with any program which provided $4,500 for an inefficient hunk of junk, but only ten percent of respondents participated in the program. Among those involved, 37 percent would have purchased a new car over a used car if C4C was in effect, 30 percent weren't anticipating a purchase of any kind and 24 percent held off on new car purchases until clunkers arrived.
While many car buyers would love a continuation of Cash for Clunkers, we're guessing tax payers probably don't want to dole out another $3 billion to clear our nations roads of additional rust buckets. Heck, according to an Automotive News survey, 44 percent of dealers didn't even want the program extended the first time.
[Source: Kicking Tires | Image Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
kf31 11:40AM (9/23/2009)
Cash for Clunkers is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money...
1) It encourages people who have borderline finances to buy a car that they otherwise may not purchase, instead of saving their money, paying down credit card debt, or doing other financially responsible things.
2) It uses government funds (ie, debt from China) to fund the purchase of cars from around the world... In other words, we are borrowing money from China to fund the purchase not only of American cars, but of cars from other countries. While this does stimulate the US economy to some degree, it is certainly NOT an efficient way to do so.
Reply
Ghen 1:27PM (9/23/2009)
Are you kidding? This program at 3 billion is stimulating the economy better than any other plan in the past year has and most of those others cost 10x as much or more in the case of bailouts!
While I understand the program had to stop, while it was running business was booming and the trickle effect from all those new car purchases will hit many many different areas of the economy. Here's just two for you to chew on:
1) New car owners will want to take care of their new car. See increases in automotive accessories and cleaning supplies. Also, body shops and ding/dent repairmen will see boosts in their services as the people driving the new cars aren't better at driving.
2) New cars will go further on a tank of gas and the owner won't be scared the car will break down for a 100 mile trip. See increases in tourism and impromptu traveling. This will help -everyone-.
I could go on but you get the idea. Cars are one of the pillars of the american lifestyle. There's no way that a stimulus for new cars could hurt the economy.
If you really want to save $3 billion (and way more) to lower the national debt, try looking at our Defense Department's budget some day. It will give you reflux.
nrb 3:06PM (9/23/2009)
ghen, I gotta side a little with kf31.
I don't think you'll find most critics of C4C defending the bank bailouts.
C4C created a temporary and artificial demand for vehicles, soon to be balanced by a dip in demand. The end effect is minimal.
Ghen 4:09PM (9/23/2009)
I'm in the auto business nrb, I see the car sales after clunkers. They're lower sure, but still slightly higher than before clunkers. The only dip after clunkers lasted for the first week the program was gone. Certainly not the lull you're hinting at.
From looking at the numbers before, during, and after; clunkers has brought new customers to the market. It did not 'borrow' customers from the post-clunker climate.
nrb 4:49PM (9/23/2009)
I too have a heavy tie to the auto business. Before C4C, we were shutting down stores left and right. After C4C, nothing changed.
I think there's a great big fuzzy gray area as to if C4C really did much in the long term. I'm pessimistic and you seem optimistic. I think it's too soon to tell, assuming we'll ever really know for sure.
Woodenbee 5:17PM (9/23/2009)
you think everything is a waste of taxpayers money, thats what your brainwasihng has told you to think. If we reduce government we have a country run by corporations, corporations have proved beyond all doubt they only care about profit and that they kill people, is that what you want running your country? everything you think you know is wrong, that means you know less than someone who knows nothing!
Ghen 8:42AM (9/24/2009)
btw, I like your bird :)
RPM 2:35AM (9/28/2009)
Ghen
I call BS...or you just don't know what your talking about. No, I'm not in car sales (just as I don't think you are). But some close friends are owners of some dealerships in my area (foreign and domestic) and none of them have seen a net boost in any car sales as a result of this idiotic C4C idea.
Throwback 11:59AM (9/23/2009)
Alas America has become a country where we want everything, as long as someone else pays for it.
Reply
Dave B 12:16PM (9/23/2009)
C4C's failing is that by the time the Senate was finished negotiating, the bill was too watered down. Too many new cars & trucks qualified for the rebate.
If we really wanted to make an impact with C4C, we would have put the fuel economy standards much higher.
If that had happened, the impact from the program would have been much more significant, and the program would not have run out of money in 2 months.
C4C might have been a short boost for the economy, but the impact to the environment and foreign oil independence was not nearly as good as it could have been.
Reply
Chris M 3:56PM (9/23/2009)
Yep, it was very poorly implemented, far too generous on rather modest gains in fuel economy - it allowed as little as 2 mpg improvements!
It should have been graduated, with the largest rebates reserved for the biggest improvements in fuel economy. More modest rebates would have allowed the program to continue longer and at a less frantic pace, avoiding many of the problems that caused such headaches for car dealers.
wincros 12:57PM (9/23/2009)
Some European countries started their C4C before we did and some are still doing it. Guess which ones have recovered more from the recession and which ones have car companies healthy enough to do some green car development. Yeah, I know the right wing echo chamber never liked it. After all it was successful by all measures and it was popular. They hate that.
Reply
Throwback 2:14PM (9/23/2009)
Are those European countries funding 2 wars, a car company bailout, a bank bailout, a stimulus plan and are they planning on spending a trillion dollars on health care reform? The fact is we are simply borrowing and spending. At some point the chickens will come home to roost.
Tim 1:18PM (9/23/2009)
Free Money... HUZZAH!!!!
(It's Progressive to screw your children and grand children!)
Reply
Woodenbee 5:20PM (9/23/2009)
yeah thanks Mr Bush, what an ahole
Knuckles 2:29PM (9/23/2009)
Interesting, the government manipulated the measurement by which it was determined what the top 10 selling vehicles were under the C4C. The traditional method of the number of vehicles sold was ignored and they were placed in catagories, 2WD, 4WD etc. They didn't like the fact that the #5 and #6 sellers by volume were the Silverado and Ford F150. Not the econoboxes they were looking for so they adjusted the parameters until the pickup trucks didn't fit.
Reply