American vehicles make a comeback in new survey on clarkhoward.com

Clark has some humble pie to eat. He had been opposed to Cash for Clunkers, calling it a thinly veiled subsidy for American automakers. It is a subsidy, but the big surprise is what people bought with their Clunkers money.

The American people really rose above the program's weak mpg requirements and bought ultra fuel-efficient vehicles such as the Ford Focus and the Toyota Corolla. However, one downside to Cash for Clunkers has been that used car prices have gone up. Dealers have reduced available supply as they crush the Clunkers trade-ins.

Whether you're talking foreign or domestic, the quality of cars today is fantastic. Need proof? Look at the University of Michigan's quarterly American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which rated auto manufacturers, computers and appliances this time out.

In the car business, the highest customer satisfaction rating goes to Cadillac in a tie with Lexus (the historical winner). Following closely behind are Buick, Honda, Lincoln Mercury, BMW and others.

JD Power, Consumer Reports and the ACSI all have slightly different takes on the auto industry. But there's some consistency with Lexus, Cadillac, Buick doing well in survey after survey. So you can be comfortable buying American. And while some Chrysler nameplates get horrible scores, Ford and GM are doing a much better job with quality.

On a related note, GM is readying a $4,000 automobile for the Asian market. Clark believes that by 2012 we should have several options for new reliable vehicles under $10,000 stateside. Fiat is also planning to make an affordable car in Mexico for export to the United States and throughout Latin America.

So we have the perfect situation: Great quality and great affordability coming in vehicles.

Finally, a word on the ACSI results for the computer industry. Apple stands head and shoulders above Dell, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard and Acer. Why? Apple offers customer care after your purchase and it doesn't operate on Vista!

What others are saying

Cash for Clunkers
The program worked for me. I keep vehicles until they are 10 years old and I don't trust them. Got rid of a 11 yr old pickup from one of the bankrupt mfgs., improved mpg by 50%, performance & safety by an order of magnitude by purchasing a Subaru Outback. Only a fool would buy a vehicle made by a bankrupt company. I've paid the IRS since I was 15 and this year I finally got something back (Energy Tax Credit + Cash for Clunkers).
By Retired: Age 66 @ 09/07/09 06:42:29 PMreport abuse
Getting sick of being labeled
Those of you who believe all the people who bought new cars through the Cash for Clunkers program are non-working, sorry people with bad credit who will have their new cars repossessed are badly mistaken. Most of them are like ME! I have a very good job, excellent credit, and no credit card debt. I'm the kind of person who buys a car and drives it till the wheels fall off, which is about where my '91 Chevy Blazer was at when I turned it in for the $4500 towards a new Honda Insight. The shape my Blazer was in, I couldn't have sold it for $500. Although I was ready to buy a car, without the Cash for Clunkers program I would have bought a several-years-old used car, not new. The money and the new car warranty was enough incentive to get me to buy the first new car I've bought since 1988. By the way, getting approved for a new car loan at a decent rate is a LOT harder than getting approved for a home purchase was during the housing boom when they didn't even care if you had a job, let alone whether or not you made enough to make the house payment. The point of that game was to get as many mortgage backed securities as possible to invest in, and they didn't care if the loans were sound. All the Cash for Clunkers buyers I've met (and I've met quite a few) seem to be conservative penny-pinchers with great credit. You all have us wrongly marked.
By anonymous @ 08/26/09 08:38:12 PMreport abuse
Just Wait
I predict a spike of repossessed cars in the near future. I hope I'm wrong; but when you get a bunch of people into the housing market that shouldn't be there, you sell a lot of houses until the bubble pops. I think the auto market is going to act the same way.

When Government tries to interfere with the law of supply and demand it usually makes things worse.
By JEB @ 08/26/09 07:46:25 AMreport abuse
How to promote cleaner, more efficient cars
The easiest way to promote widespread use of cleaner, more fuel efficient cars is through levying higher taxes on fuel.

Double fuel taxes, and you'll drive the masses to fuel efficient vehicles in droves while subsequently increasing tax revenues this country sorely needs to pay back its enormous debts. It will furthermore lead to more innovation from engineers in this country (other countries have a head -start already) in alternative fuel sources as well as better management of existing sources.

Everyone knows the way to really cause citizens to modify their behavior is through their wallets.
By Lee @ 08/25/09 04:39:40 PMreport abuse
@Chris - Reality Check
In 2003 out of the 130,571,319 tax payers 31.8% had zero tax liability. That means 68.2% payed taxes. A good chunks of those that had zero tax liability are minors, students, seniors, and prisoners but there are also quite a lot of freeloaders. It would be nice to see a demographic breakdown and then a state breakdown of those numbers. For example, in 2003 there were 2,082,728 inmates in this great country of ours. The historical average of tax payers with zero liability is about 22% over the past 50 years. Not great but not the crazy, over the top 53% number you pulled from the Rush Limbaugh show? Maybe you could enlighten me where you got that number? You maybe made it up?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
By Ben @ 08/25/09 01:56:05 PMreport abuse
cash for clunkers
just love the dealers who are complaining about how long it takes for the money, and the red tape. I guess going out of business for not selling cars was a better option.
By teresa @ 08/25/09 01:34:28 PMreport abuse
re: Clunkernomics - Environmental comment
You can't argue that you have both transferred demand from the future to the present for vehicles and then argue that it is not good for the environment because it takes more carbon to manufacture the vehicle than it saves in gas mileage. The transfer of demand implies that the vehicle would have been manufactured anyway.

These arguments can only apply together if you assume more environmentally friendly manufacturing processes in the future. Since you're only talking about 1-2 years for the demand shift, we'd almost certainly know it if these changes are already in the works.

I also question many of the ideas behind the CARS program and its benefits to the economy. However, I agree with Clark that if people truly bought signficantly more fuel efficient vehicles, this program is having a good environemntal impact. I haven't researched what it means overall that these new vehicles will also be replaced 1-2 sooner than they would have. However, most of these "clunkers" are driven by people like me and Clark that don't believe in replacing a vehicle until you have to. So, who knows when/if these vehicles (old and new) would/will ever be replaced.
By JMark @ 08/25/09 12:15:50 PMreport abuse
Clunkernomics = Wealth Destruction
Cash for Clunkers is a real-life illustration of the Broken Window Fallacy (Google it if you aren't familiar with it). Only in the fever dreams of anti-industrial environmentalists is the destruction of perfectly good cars "good for the economy." In reality, C4C:

1. Artificially transfers demand from the future to the present. Those buying new cars under the program now won't be buying them in a year or two when they normally would have.

2. Costs billions of tax dollars. All tax dollars should legitimately be spent in defense of individual rights (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), not subsidizing demand for the politicians' favorite consumer product du jure ("green" cars).

3. Destroys wealth. By C4C "logic," we should all hope for a lot of hurricanes this season, since the more property that's destroyed, the more our economy will benefit. This is obviously wrong; the U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill for all our politicians' pipe dreams. That money could have been spent on things we actually wanted.

4. Increases the price of used cars for those unable to afford a new car. So much for "compassion for the little guy." It's all about government control.

5. Is based on a fundamentally flawed premise of reducing carbon emissions. Even if you believe the myth of anthropogenic global warming, the amount of carbon "saved" by increasing your fuel economy by 5 or 10 mpg is offset by the energy required to produce the new car.
By Arcturus @ 08/25/09 09:57:19 AMreport abuse
cash for clunkers
Hey, did anyone think of not just "repo city" but the auto makers who have NOT gotten their money from the government? Can you imagine waiting for money from the government? Please, government, give me what you "promised"? Fat chance.
By Cheryl @ 08/25/09 09:44:22 AMreport abuse
Cash For Clunkers
Clark is 100% correct. Heck most people are buying Hondas and Toyota...like duh! In addition, it's off the MSRP, so it's a ripoff anyway. There's no negotiation of the price and then the $4,500 is taken off. People are stupid. Cars are over priced for a reason...the deal and the more the dealer can scam you the better for them. Get it! This is just like most people have stated, those that had those cars probably would not qualify for a new car under normal circumstances and once they can't make the payments the repos will be incredible.
By Randall @ 08/24/09 09:41:11 PMreport abuse
Humble Pie
Not for Clark! I think when you consider the insignificant impact this made on the total number of clunkers on the road and the cost to the taxpayer for this program Clark was right on the MONEY.
By Shelly @ 08/24/09 04:53:53 PMreport abuse
Cash for clunkers
Clark is wrong on this one. In a few months we will have enough episodes of Operation Repo to last a lifetime. People that drive clunkers drive them for a reason....THEY CAN'T AFFORD A NEW CAR. Get ready America, bend over and look for us to bail out GMAC, Ford Motor Credit, etc.
By Denise @ 08/24/09 04:34:30 PMreport abuse
Cash for Clunkers
Clark should not eat humble pie! He was right on the money. Whoever wote this article hasn't a clue. People bought new cars and created a huge amount of debt for themselves that they previously did not have. The short term gain will be steamrolled by the ultimate backlash in both the auto industry and consumer debt. Repos of these autos will double industry standards. Cash for Clunkers is no different than the government intrusion that destroyed housing.
By Don Zahnle @ 08/24/09 03:59:04 PMreport abuse
clunkeers
Taking the "clunkers" off the road will drive up the used car market making it more expensive for the lower income people who need an inexpensive car to get to work accross town, to drive school or to the grocery store.
By ron @ 08/24/09 02:47:56 PMreport abuse
REALITY DOUBLE CHECK
Of the 130,728,360 Americans who filed tax returns only about 53% actually pay taxes and a great many are now recieving government rebates. It's not about how much each tax payer would pay but how much is enough? How much should the 53% who pay income tax pay to cover the 47% who do not - what is a fair amount?
By Chris W @ 08/24/09 01:42:53 PMreport abuse
Cash for Clunkers
I am concerned about what will happen a few months down the line, what with people buying new cars when they really couldn't afford them. Much like the housing problems, people spending beyond their means just to get what they think is free money!
By Mac from NC @ 08/24/09 01:37:39 PMreport abuse
Clunkers
You do what you have to do to get economy back rolling.I love these crybaby posts. If Obama discovered a cost free cancer cure, the republicans would be against it. Such phonies!
By Kevin @ 08/24/09 01:33:20 PMreport abuse
Permanent Tax Credit
I agree with one of the previous posts: establish a permanent tax credit for buying cars that are 10 mpg over the trade in. This will have a positive long term impact versus the short term - and debt increasing - clunkers program.
By Layne @ 08/24/09 12:39:21 PMreport abuse
cash for clunkers
People who drive clunkers are usually people who can not afford a better vehicle.
Just like many people bought houses that could not afford and now most of them are in foreclosure, in a year or two from now we'll see many of this cars repossessed and being sold for very low prices.
The only ones that are making it out are the car dealers that not only are selling many new cars but also are pumping up the prices for new and used vehicles, what to speak of the rip off when financing to people with not very good credit.
This is another bad bargain offered by the current administration in disguise.
By Ed @ 08/24/09 09:49:29 AMreport abuse
@J.J
When Wall Street executives and hedge fund managers can walk away with 1$ billion in "bonus" income in a year...a billion is not worth what it used to be. Do the math - $22.94 per tax payer for a single year for this single program which undeniably has had a positive economic affect regardless of all the bad mouthing and conservative talk show rambling. Even self proclaimed tight-wad Clark Howard is in support of this. Think about that.

I implore you to focus on the real issues with are the programs in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Those programs are truly costing us serious money and yes I agree we can't pay for everything. The cost of this program is nothing compared to the real issues and it did have real results unlike many other programs. Focusing on this program is just a waste of time.
By Ben @ 08/21/09 04:12:29 PMreport abuse
Reality Double Check
Ben, your thinking is flawed. I'm glad you and anyone else can take advantage of a program where you get back some of your tax money. But when you get this mindset that 3 billions dollars is not real money - this is the mindset that is getting the country into enormous trillion dollar debt. How many people do you personally know that have 3 billion dollars?? If the government bailout of wall street, banks, lenders, mortgage holders, Iraq war, etc. are a waste, then how is spending 3 billion more for another select group of individuals the answer?? You, me, the taxpayer and the government CANNOT spend our way into prosperity.
By J.J. @ 08/20/09 08:11:51 PMreport abuse
cash for clunkers?
hey, with all the handouts we have seen going around from the bailouts, at least I actually see people, real people benefit from some type of government bailout. All the other monies have not effected me much at all.
By Hal @ 08/20/09 07:48:10 PMreport abuse
Reality Check
130,728,360 Americans filed individual income tax returns in 2003. $3 billion set aside to be spent on CARS program. That comes to the tune of only $22.94 per tax payer. Hardly worth you people losing your shirts over. Compare that with what we have pumped into Wall Street and Iraq. Now we are talking real dollars.
By Ben @ 08/20/09 05:05:02 PMreport abuse
Clark's Brain Damage
Some day's I think Clark has had a stroke. I don't know why he loves this program. Probably because he is a bit of an eco-nut. If something has a green angle to it, he abandons good judgment. I have seen it again and again whenever anything has a "green" angle to it. This is a nonsense program because...
1. It is more gov't spending from a gov't already so deep in debt that it can't see above the water line. Clark does not deserve his cheap moniker. He is only cheap with his own money. When it comes to money the gov't has picked from your and my pockets, he is OK with squandering it.
2. It destroys working cars and it puts people in debt for new cars when the old cars they had we still running. Just what we need: more consumer debt at a time when personal bankruptcies are at a high.
3. It probably does not really sell many cars that would not soon be sold any how. Many of these old clunkers would die in a year or two anyhow. This just moves up the existing purchasing date.
By Buzz G @ 08/20/09 04:26:39 PMreport abuse
Fool most of the people
"You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

Unfortunately congress thrives on the practice of fooling most of the people most of the time. Cash for Clunkers is just one more sad example of our collective financial ignorance.
By Tom R @ 08/20/09 04:19:00 PMreport abuse
Don't do the right thing
'Another old guy' is definitely on the mark. If you are responsible, make the sacrifices and do the right thing - then your reward is to pay and bail out those who did the 'wrong' things. And our government further encourages those who are irresponsible with the cash for clunkers program.
By JJ @ 08/20/09 03:00:21 PMreport abuse
I agree with whoever mentioned that once this is over, auto sales will crash even worse than before. It isn't gonna be pretty at all.
By mjd @ 08/20/09 02:12:53 PMreport abuse
Money Spend Elsewhere
I'm sure most of you remember seeing those emails "if the TARP money were given to all taxpayers, each one of us would get $4000" or something along those lines. Instead of giving the banks that money and instead of giving Cash for Clunkers, image what would have happened if each and every taxpayer actually did receive $4000 - to spend on what they wanted rather than a small segment of the economy. Credit card companies and mortgage lenders may have been paid back enough to avoid needing a separate bailout, industrial sectors may have gotten an influx of money to help stave layoff, and there may have even been taxpayers buying new cars and thus prevent the formation of Government Motors, also known as GM.

I'm sure glad we have hope and change because who knows what might have happened if there wasn't someone in charge with that kind of vision.
By Wookie @ 08/20/09 12:51:26 PMreport abuse
@Guy
The "battery will die in x years" thing keeps coming up. Why do you care? The batteries are guaranteed up to 10 years and in the field they last to 12 and beyond. Far longer than most conventional vehicles. I've spent thousands of dollars maintaining conventional cars by the time they hit 10 years. This is just FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
By Ben @ 08/20/09 09:31:01 AMreport abuse
Unbelievable
You guys really show your age in your complaining. Why don't I complain about how my neighbors who are over 65 only pay $300 for the entire year in property taxes while I have to pay $3400 for the same size house? Well they don't have children, so why should they pay for schools? Guess what, I don't have children either and I pay. We should all pay because that is what is called fair. Or perhaps how my own income is reduced to pay for medical insurance (and the company's contribution which impacts my wages) while yet again the over 65 crowd who are the most expensive to insure have free health care. And yet again I have to save my own money with a small contribution from my company using a vehicle called the 401k for my own retirement which I am completely ok with. Yet, the over 65 crowd gets a nice social security payment every month. I promise you that will not be there for me when I am over 65. And right now I am 38. So as far as tax breaks go, the clunkers does not even come close. Yes! I got one tax break and was able to trade in my Jeep for a Prius! So, if you are bent out of shape about the clunkers program that I seriously ask you to look in the mirror and list all the tax benefits you get as a retiree while both myself and my wife work to fund all your programs.
By Ben @ 08/20/09 09:26:03 AMreport abuse
great move
Fantastic idea. I just helped my neighbor buy a shiny new car with MY tax dollars! Too bad I dont get any break to buy myself one....
By steve @ 08/20/09 08:20:26 AMreport abuse
Cash for Clunkers
Another Old Guy: You can blame the same institution for ALL of this mess. It is Congress. It always has been. They make the laws all those institutions by.

Clark: The cash for Clunkers is bad, bad, bad. you are wrong. It's taxpayer money, the dealers aren't getting reimbursed, the President won't release the documentation on the program, the numbers don't add up (clunkers turned in x # of vehicles =/= the clunker budget), the dealers just increased the price to cover the cash for clunker refund, many good cars were taken off the road, the poor are hurt, auto sales were artificially shifted to year end model year, etc. etc. etc.
By cj @ 08/19/09 11:35:50 PMreport abuse
what a bunch of sour grapes. how about modernizing our automotive fleets so I do not have to look at the brown frown everyday. I can not believe in it. In 12 comments no one even mentioned it. What is you health worth?
By jeremy @ 08/19/09 10:25:30 PMreport abuse
Cash for Clunkers Opinion
People there are 2 ways of looking at this.
First off I would like to comment on the amount of money I have paid into this fund through Federal taxes, yet I am unable to make payments on a new vehicle. Where does this leave myself along with thousands of others. This is robbing from the poor to help the rich.
Second, if you notice the prices of vehicles, they vhave gone up in price since the first of the year. How about them raise the price to about 5000.00 above invoice and offer a tax break (or Cash for Clunkers) deal. The money has not been taken out of Federal funds but the government is using the slight of hand method to bring the economy back through deception of the public.
By William @ 08/19/09 08:50:58 PMreport abuse
Hybreads
Wait till they have to replace the batteries, $2000.00 plus, and you will, can only recharge them so many times.
By Guy @ 08/19/09 08:34:08 PMreport abuse
Not one more penny
I wish I could buy American again, but won't send one more penny to UAW thugs.
By prm @ 08/19/09 06:58:50 PMreport abuse
Another hidden tax
"However, one downside to Cash for Clunkers has been that used car prices have gone up. Dealers have reduced available supply as they crush the Clunkers trade-ins."
I'd say that's a pretty big downside, not to mention wasteful to crush so many cars that would have been purchased by
In the long term, this program will be neutral-value at best, and at worst a tax on the poor and middle class (through higher used car prices.) and of course more redistribution of wealth.
By James @ 08/19/09 06:48:21 PMreport abuse
cash for clunkers
YOU KNOW i have a 92 buick regal this car is falling apart every year we spend money to even get it to pass emissions, but according to the govt. my car does not qualify ??? according to the govt.. we get 19 mpg, no way this car gets 19 mpg..
By anonymous @ 08/19/09 06:11:32 PMreport abuse
Car markey making a comeback
I bought a FORD because they did not take a bailout
By David @ 08/19/09 05:27:38 PMreport abuse
As soon as this is over the car market will crash worse than before. Everyone that was needing but putting off a new car decided now was the time. They just bought future customers in early. They will sell a years worth of cars in a couple of months. Then it will dry up big time.
By me @ 08/19/09 05:18:04 PMreport abuse
Initial quality surveys
Some of these surveys are called initial quality studies (i.e.) first 3 or 6 months of ownership. So what happens at 200,000 miles who knows?!
By Sam @ 08/19/09 05:14:07 PMreport abuse
Good points to think about...
Joe's right on the money. Why does the left in this country see fit to reward the least common denominator?

We reward carmakers who run their business in the ground; we gigantically reward banks and investment companies who knowingly sell crap; we reward deadbeat home-buyers credit-card junkies, and now we're rewarding people who purposely bought huge, fuel-swilling trophy vehicles and now want to dump them before gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon again.

What about the rest of us who used good judgement in the first place???

Oh yeah! Here is our reward: Higher taxes, higher unemployment, deflation (for now), inflation (next year) and an unbelievably HUGE national debt that will take hundreds of years to pay off, if we ever do.
By Another Old Guy @ 08/19/09 04:38:29 PMreport abuse
Clunkers
May be selling cars, but dealers are not getting paid by the people who want to run or healthcare
By Bill MacD @ 08/19/09 04:20:34 PMreport abuse
Reliability is expensive when it's not reliable
Huh? You say? Yes, reliability is much better on newer cars but when a car fails it is much more expensive to fix. I get asked about cars all the time and I was preaching the boost in reliability was across all the brands and even bought my first Ford, a Freestyle. Good MPG for a big vehicle and lots of space. Liked it a lot right up until the transmission needed to be fully replaced for a dealer quoted $5+k bill. ($3+K @ AAMCO). The car has only 64k miles and is only worth $13k. Ford's dealer and customer "care" dept responded to my complaints with a shrug. Failures such as this are obviously acceptable so beware. Previous car Nissan Pathfinder 199k miles and still running. I think I'll get another Japanese car...
By CMc @ 08/19/09 04:17:30 PMreport abuse
Why reward piggishness
Why do we reward these people for buy gas guzzlers in the first place? If you were responsible and bought a have a fuel efficient old car you don't get the credit.
By Joe @ 08/19/09 03:48:45 PMreport abuse
The good and the bad.
The $4500 bailout was equally good for new car buyers who were already in the market for a new car, and carmakers. The bad news is that we now have people who quietly took on more debt as a result, in a time when being debt-free is more important than ever. How many of these buyers do you see paying CASH?

I'd rather see a permanant $5000 Federal tax credit for buying a vehicle that gets 10+ more MPG than the trade-in. Give that about 5 years to work and then you'll see a serious drop in oil consumption in this country.
By Another Old Guy @ 08/19/09 03:30:57 PMreport abuse

Cash for Clunkers

The program worked for me. I keep vehicles until they are 10 years old and I don't trust them. Got rid of a 11 yr old pickup from one of the bankrupt mfgs., improved mpg by 50%, performance & safety by an order of magnitude by purchasing a Subaru Outback. Only a fool would buy a vehicle made by a bankrupt company. I've paid the IRS since I was 15 and this year I finally got something back (Energy Tax Credit + Cash for Clunkers).

By Retired: Age 66 @ 09/07/09 06:42:29 PMreport abuse

Getting sick of being labeled

Those of you who believe all the people who bought new cars through the Cash for Clunkers program are non-working, sorry people with bad credit who will have their new cars repossessed are badly mistaken. Most of them are like ME! I have a very good job, excellent credit, and no credit card debt. I'm the kind of person who buys a car and drives it till the wheels fall off, which is about where my '91 Chevy Blazer was at when I turned it in for the $4500 towards a new Honda Insight. The shape my Blazer was in, I couldn't have sold it for $500. Although I was ready to buy a car, without the Cash for Clunkers program I would have bought a several-years-old used car, not new. The money and the new car warranty was enough incentive to get me to buy the first new car I've bought since 1988. By the way, getting approved for a new car loan at a decent rate is a LOT harder than getting approved for a home purchase was during the housing boom when they didn't even care if you had a job, let alone whether or not you made enough to make the house payment. The point of that game was to get as many mortgage backed securities as possible to invest in, and they didn't care if the loans were sound. All the Cash for Clunkers buyers I've met (and I've met quite a few) seem to be conservative penny-pinchers with great credit. You all have us wrongly marked.

By anonymous @ 08/26/09 08:38:12 PMreport abuse

Just Wait

I predict a spike of repossessed cars in the near future. I hope I'm wrong; but when you get a bunch of people into the housing market that shouldn't be there, you sell a lot of houses until the bubble pops. I think the auto market is going to act the same way.

When Government tries to interfere with the law of supply and demand it usually makes things worse.

By JEB @ 08/26/09 07:46:25 AMreport abuse

How to promote cleaner, more efficient cars

The easiest way to promote widespread use of cleaner, more fuel efficient cars is through levying higher taxes on fuel.

Double fuel taxes, and you'll drive the masses to fuel efficient vehicles in droves while subsequently increasing tax revenues this country sorely needs to pay back its enormous debts. It will furthermore lead to more innovation from engineers in this country (other countries have a head -start already) in alternative fuel sources as well as better management of existing sources.

Everyone knows the way to really cause citizens to modify their behavior is through their wallets.

By Lee @ 08/25/09 04:39:40 PMreport abuse

@Chris - Reality Check

In 2003 out of the 130,571,319 tax payers 31.8% had zero tax liability. That means 68.2% payed taxes. A good chunks of those that had zero tax liability are minors, students, seniors, and prisoners but there are also quite a lot of freeloaders. It would be nice to see a demographic breakdown and then a state breakdown of those numbers. For example, in 2003 there were 2,082,728 inmates in this great country of ours. The historical average of tax payers with zero liability is about 22% over the past 50 years. Not great but not the crazy, over the top 53% number you pulled from the Rush Limbaugh show? Maybe you could enlighten me where you got that number? You maybe made it up?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

By Ben @ 08/25/09 01:56:05 PMreport abuse

cash for clunkers

just love the dealers who are complaining about how long it takes for the money, and the red tape. I guess going out of business for not selling cars was a better option.

By teresa @ 08/25/09 01:34:28 PMreport abuse

re: Clunkernomics - Environmental comment

You can't argue that you have both transferred demand from the future to the present for vehicles and then argue that it is not good for the environment because it takes more carbon to manufacture the vehicle than it saves in gas mileage. The transfer of demand implies that the vehicle would have been manufactured anyway.

These arguments can only apply together if you assume more environmentally friendly manufacturing processes in the future. Since you're only talking about 1-2 years for the demand shift, we'd almost certainly know it if these changes are already in the works.

I also question many of the ideas behind the CARS program and its benefits to the economy. However, I agree with Clark that if people truly bought signficantly more fuel efficient vehicles, this program is having a good environemntal impact. I haven't researched what it means overall that these new vehicles will also be replaced 1-2 sooner than they would have. However, most of these "clunkers" are driven by people like me and Clark that don't believe in replacing a vehicle until you have to. So, who knows when/if these vehicles (old and new) would/will ever be replaced.

By JMark @ 08/25/09 12:15:50 PMreport abuse

Clunkernomics = Wealth Destruction

Cash for Clunkers is a real-life illustration of the Broken Window Fallacy (Google it if you aren't familiar with it). Only in the fever dreams of anti-industrial environmentalists is the destruction of perfectly good cars "good for the economy." In reality, C4C:

1. Artificially transfers demand from the future to the present. Those buying new cars under the program now won't be buying them in a year or two when they normally would have.

2. Costs billions of tax dollars. All tax dollars should legitimately be spent in defense of individual rights (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), not subsidizing demand for the politicians' favorite consumer product du jure ("green" cars).

3. Destroys wealth. By C4C "logic," we should all hope for a lot of hurricanes this season, since the more property that's destroyed, the more our economy will benefit. This is obviously wrong; the U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill for all our politicians' pipe dreams. That money could have been spent on things we actually wanted.

4. Increases the price of used cars for those unable to afford a new car. So much for "compassion for the little guy." It's all about government control.

5. Is based on a fundamentally flawed premise of reducing carbon emissions. Even if you believe the myth of anthropogenic global warming, the amount of carbon "saved" by increasing your fuel economy by 5 or 10 mpg is offset by the energy required to produce the new car.

By Arcturus @ 08/25/09 09:57:19 AMreport abuse

Hey, did anyone think of not just "repo city" but the auto makers who have NOT gotten their money from the government? Can you imagine waiting for money from the government? Please, government, give me what you "promised"? Fat chance.

By Cheryl @ 08/25/09 09:44:22 AMreport abuse

Cash For Clunkers

Clark is 100% correct. Heck most people are buying Hondas and Toyota...like duh! In addition, it's off the MSRP, so it's a ripoff anyway. There's no negotiation of the price and then the $4,500 is taken off. People are stupid. Cars are over priced for a reason...the deal and the more the dealer can scam you the better for them. Get it! This is just like most people have stated, those that had those cars probably would not qualify for a new car under normal circumstances and once they can't make the payments the repos will be incredible.

By Randall @ 08/24/09 09:41:11 PMreport abuse

Humble Pie

Not for Clark! I think when you consider the insignificant impact this made on the total number of clunkers on the road and the cost to the taxpayer for this program Clark was right on the MONEY.

By Shelly @ 08/24/09 04:53:53 PMreport abuse

Cash for clunkers

Clark is wrong on this one. In a few months we will have enough episodes of Operation Repo to last a lifetime. People that drive clunkers drive them for a reason....THEY CAN'T AFFORD A NEW CAR. Get ready America, bend over and look for us to bail out GMAC, Ford Motor Credit, etc.

By Denise @ 08/24/09 04:34:30 PMreport abuse

Clark should not eat humble pie! He was right on the money. Whoever wote this article hasn't a clue. People bought new cars and created a huge amount of debt for themselves that they previously did not have. The short term gain will be steamrolled by the ultimate backlash in both the auto industry and consumer debt. Repos of these autos will double industry standards. Cash for Clunkers is no different than the government intrusion that destroyed housing.

By Don Zahnle @ 08/24/09 03:59:04 PMreport abuse

clunkeers

Taking the "clunkers" off the road will drive up the used car market making it more expensive for the lower income people who need an inexpensive car to get to work accross town, to drive school or to the grocery store.

By ron @ 08/24/09 02:47:56 PMreport abuse

REALITY DOUBLE CHECK

Of the 130,728,360 Americans who filed tax returns only about 53% actually pay taxes and a great many are now recieving government rebates. It's not about how much each tax payer would pay but how much is enough? How much should the 53% who pay income tax pay to cover the 47% who do not - what is a fair amount?

By Chris W @ 08/24/09 01:42:53 PMreport abuse

I am concerned about what will happen a few months down the line, what with people buying new cars when they really couldn't afford them. Much like the housing problems, people spending beyond their means just to get what they think is free money!

By Mac from NC @ 08/24/09 01:37:39 PMreport abuse

Clunkers

You do what you have to do to get economy back rolling.I love these crybaby posts. If Obama discovered a cost free cancer cure, the republicans would be against it. Such phonies!

By Kevin @ 08/24/09 01:33:20 PMreport abuse

Permanent Tax Credit

I agree with one of the previous posts: establish a permanent tax credit for buying cars that are 10 mpg over the trade in. This will have a positive long term impact versus the short term - and debt increasing - clunkers program.

By Layne @ 08/24/09 12:39:21 PMreport abuse

People who drive clunkers are usually people who can not afford a better vehicle.
Just like many people bought houses that could not afford and now most of them are in foreclosure, in a year or two from now we'll see many of this cars repossessed and being sold for very low prices.
The only ones that are making it out are the car dealers that not only are selling many new cars but also are pumping up the prices for new and used vehicles, what to speak of the rip off when financing to people with not very good credit.
This is another bad bargain offered by the current administration in disguise.

By Ed @ 08/24/09 09:49:29 AMreport abuse

@J.J

When Wall Street executives and hedge fund managers can walk away with 1$ billion in "bonus" income in a year...a billion is not worth what it used to be. Do the math - $22.94 per tax payer for a single year for this single program which undeniably has had a positive economic affect regardless of all the bad mouthing and conservative talk show rambling. Even self proclaimed tight-wad Clark Howard is in support of this. Think about that.

I implore you to focus on the real issues with are the programs in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Those programs are truly costing us serious money and yes I agree we can't pay for everything. The cost of this program is nothing compared to the real issues and it did have real results unlike many other programs. Focusing on this program is just a waste of time.

By Ben @ 08/21/09 04:12:29 PMreport abuse

Reality Double Check

Ben, your thinking is flawed. I'm glad you and anyone else can take advantage of a program where you get back some of your tax money. But when you get this mindset that 3 billions dollars is not real money - this is the mindset that is getting the country into enormous trillion dollar debt. How many people do you personally know that have 3 billion dollars?? If the government bailout of wall street, banks, lenders, mortgage holders, Iraq war, etc. are a waste, then how is spending 3 billion more for another select group of individuals the answer?? You, me, the taxpayer and the government CANNOT spend our way into prosperity.

By J.J. @ 08/20/09 08:11:51 PMreport abuse

cash for clunkers?

hey, with all the handouts we have seen going around from the bailouts, at least I actually see people, real people benefit from some type of government bailout. All the other monies have not effected me much at all.

By Hal @ 08/20/09 07:48:10 PMreport abuse

Reality Check

130,728,360 Americans filed individual income tax returns in 2003. $3 billion set aside to be spent on CARS program. That comes to the tune of only $22.94 per tax payer. Hardly worth you people losing your shirts over. Compare that with what we have pumped into Wall Street and Iraq. Now we are talking real dollars.

By Ben @ 08/20/09 05:05:02 PMreport abuse

Clark's Brain Damage

Some day's I think Clark has had a stroke. I don't know why he loves this program. Probably because he is a bit of an eco-nut. If something has a green angle to it, he abandons good judgment. I have seen it again and again whenever anything has a "green" angle to it. This is a nonsense program because...
1. It is more gov't spending from a gov't already so deep in debt that it can't see above the water line. Clark does not deserve his cheap moniker. He is only cheap with his own money. When it comes to money the gov't has picked from your and my pockets, he is OK with squandering it.
2. It destroys working cars and it puts people in debt for new cars when the old cars they had we still running. Just what we need: more consumer debt at a time when personal bankruptcies are at a high.
3. It probably does not really sell many cars that would not soon be sold any how. Many of these old clunkers would die in a year or two anyhow. This just moves up the existing purchasing date.

By Buzz G @ 08/20/09 04:26:39 PMreport abuse

Fool most of the people

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

Unfortunately congress thrives on the practice of fooling most of the people most of the time. Cash for Clunkers is just one more sad example of our collective financial ignorance.

By Tom R @ 08/20/09 04:19:00 PMreport abuse

Don't do the right thing

'Another old guy' is definitely on the mark. If you are responsible, make the sacrifices and do the right thing - then your reward is to pay and bail out those who did the 'wrong' things. And our government further encourages those who are irresponsible with the cash for clunkers program.

By JJ @ 08/20/09 03:00:21 PMreport abuse

I agree with whoever mentioned that once this is over, auto sales will crash even worse than before. It isn't gonna be pretty at all.

By mjd @ 08/20/09 02:12:53 PMreport abuse

Money Spend Elsewhere

I'm sure most of you remember seeing those emails "if the TARP money were given to all taxpayers, each one of us would get $4000" or something along those lines. Instead of giving the banks that money and instead of giving Cash for Clunkers, image what would have happened if each and every taxpayer actually did receive $4000 - to spend on what they wanted rather than a small segment of the economy. Credit card companies and mortgage lenders may have been paid back enough to avoid needing a separate bailout, industrial sectors may have gotten an influx of money to help stave layoff, and there may have even been taxpayers buying new cars and thus prevent the formation of Government Motors, also known as GM.

I'm sure glad we have hope and change because who knows what might have happened if there wasn't someone in charge with that kind of vision.

By Wookie @ 08/20/09 12:51:26 PMreport abuse

@Guy

The "battery will die in x years" thing keeps coming up. Why do you care? The batteries are guaranteed up to 10 years and in the field they last to 12 and beyond. Far longer than most conventional vehicles. I've spent thousands of dollars maintaining conventional cars by the time they hit 10 years. This is just FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

By Ben @ 08/20/09 09:31:01 AMreport abuse

Unbelievable

You guys really show your age in your complaining. Why don't I complain about how my neighbors who are over 65 only pay $300 for the entire year in property taxes while I have to pay $3400 for the same size house? Well they don't have children, so why should they pay for schools? Guess what, I don't have children either and I pay. We should all pay because that is what is called fair. Or perhaps how my own income is reduced to pay for medical insurance (and the company's contribution which impacts my wages) while yet again the over 65 crowd who are the most expensive to insure have free health care. And yet again I have to save my own money with a small contribution from my company using a vehicle called the 401k for my own retirement which I am completely ok with. Yet, the over 65 crowd gets a nice social security payment every month. I promise you that will not be there for me when I am over 65. And right now I am 38. So as far as tax breaks go, the clunkers does not even come close. Yes! I got one tax break and was able to trade in my Jeep for a Prius! So, if you are bent out of shape about the clunkers program that I seriously ask you to look in the mirror and list all the tax benefits you get as a retiree while both myself and my wife work to fund all your programs.

By Ben @ 08/20/09 09:26:03 AMreport abuse

great move

Fantastic idea. I just helped my neighbor buy a shiny new car with MY tax dollars! Too bad I dont get any break to buy myself one....

By steve @ 08/20/09 08:20:26 AMreport abuse

Another Old Guy: You can blame the same institution for ALL of this mess. It is Congress. It always has been. They make the laws all those institutions by.

Clark: The cash for Clunkers is bad, bad, bad. you are wrong. It's taxpayer money, the dealers aren't getting reimbursed, the President won't release the documentation on the program, the numbers don't add up (clunkers turned in x # of vehicles =/= the clunker budget), the dealers just increased the price to cover the cash for clunker refund, many good cars were taken off the road, the poor are hurt, auto sales were artificially shifted to year end model year, etc. etc. etc.

By cj @ 08/19/09 11:35:50 PMreport abuse

what a bunch of sour grapes. how about modernizing our automotive fleets so I do not have to look at the brown frown everyday. I can not believe in it. In 12 comments no one even mentioned it. What is you health worth?

By jeremy @ 08/19/09 10:25:30 PMreport abuse

Cash for Clunkers Opinion

People there are 2 ways of looking at this.
First off I would like to comment on the amount of money I have paid into this fund through Federal taxes, yet I am unable to make payments on a new vehicle. Where does this leave myself along with thousands of others. This is robbing from the poor to help the rich.
Second, if you notice the prices of vehicles, they vhave gone up in price since the first of the year. How about them raise the price to about 5000.00 above invoice and offer a tax break (or Cash for Clunkers) deal. The money has not been taken out of Federal funds but the government is using the slight of hand method to bring the economy back through deception of the public.

By William @ 08/19/09 08:50:58 PMreport abuse

Hybreads

Wait till they have to replace the batteries, $2000.00 plus, and you will, can only recharge them so many times.

By Guy @ 08/19/09 08:34:08 PMreport abuse

Not one more penny

I wish I could buy American again, but won't send one more penny to UAW thugs.

By prm @ 08/19/09 06:58:50 PMreport abuse

Another hidden tax

"However, one downside to Cash for Clunkers has been that used car prices have gone up. Dealers have reduced available supply as they crush the Clunkers trade-ins."
I'd say that's a pretty big downside, not to mention wasteful to crush so many cars that would have been purchased by
In the long term, this program will be neutral-value at best, and at worst a tax on the poor and middle class (through higher used car prices.) and of course more redistribution of wealth.

By James @ 08/19/09 06:48:21 PMreport abuse

YOU KNOW i have a 92 buick regal this car is falling apart every year we spend money to even get it to pass emissions, but according to the govt. my car does not qualify ??? according to the govt.. we get 19 mpg, no way this car gets 19 mpg..

By anonymous @ 08/19/09 06:11:32 PMreport abuse

Car markey making a comeback

I bought a FORD because they did not take a bailout

By David @ 08/19/09 05:27:38 PMreport abuse

As soon as this is over the car market will crash worse than before. Everyone that was needing but putting off a new car decided now was the time. They just bought future customers in early. They will sell a years worth of cars in a couple of months. Then it will dry up big time.

By me @ 08/19/09 05:18:04 PMreport abuse

Initial quality surveys

Some of these surveys are called initial quality studies (i.e.) first 3 or 6 months of ownership. So what happens at 200,000 miles who knows?!

By Sam @ 08/19/09 05:14:07 PMreport abuse

Good points to think about...

Joe's right on the money. Why does the left in this country see fit to reward the least common denominator?

We reward carmakers who run their business in the ground; we gigantically reward banks and investment companies who knowingly sell crap; we reward deadbeat home-buyers credit-card junkies, and now we're rewarding people who purposely bought huge, fuel-swilling trophy vehicles and now want to dump them before gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon again.

What about the rest of us who used good judgement in the first place???

Oh yeah! Here is our reward: Higher taxes, higher unemployment, deflation (for now), inflation (next year) and an unbelievably HUGE national debt that will take hundreds of years to pay off, if we ever do.

By Another Old Guy @ 08/19/09 04:38:29 PMreport abuse

May be selling cars, but dealers are not getting paid by the people who want to run or healthcare

By Bill MacD @ 08/19/09 04:20:34 PMreport abuse

Reliability is expensive when it's not reliable

Huh? You say? Yes, reliability is much better on newer cars but when a car fails it is much more expensive to fix. I get asked about cars all the time and I was preaching the boost in reliability was across all the brands and even bought my first Ford, a Freestyle. Good MPG for a big vehicle and lots of space. Liked it a lot right up until the transmission needed to be fully replaced for a dealer quoted $5+k bill. ($3+K @ AAMCO). The car has only 64k miles and is only worth $13k. Ford's dealer and customer "care" dept responded to my complaints with a shrug. Failures such as this are obviously acceptable so beware. Previous car Nissan Pathfinder 199k miles and still running. I think I'll get another Japanese car...

By CMc @ 08/19/09 04:17:30 PMreport abuse

Why reward piggishness

Why do we reward these people for buy gas guzzlers in the first place? If you were responsible and bought a have a fuel efficient old car you don't get the credit.

By Joe @ 08/19/09 03:48:45 PMreport abuse

The good and the bad.

The $4500 bailout was equally good for new car buyers who were already in the market for a new car, and carmakers. The bad news is that we now have people who quietly took on more debt as a result, in a time when being debt-free is more important than ever. How many of these buyers do you see paying CASH?

I'd rather see a permanant $5000 Federal tax credit for buying a vehicle that gets 10+ more MPG than the trade-in. Give that about 5 years to work and then you'll see a serious drop in oil consumption in this country.

By Another Old Guy @ 08/19/09 03:30:57 PMreport abuse

Listen Live:

Clark On Demand:

Clark's Advice:

Consumer Action Center:

Quick Links:

Clark Media:

Call The Show:

Aug 19, 2009 -- American vehicles make a comeback in new survey

What others are saying