Congrats RP, Teacats, & all who saved big! I am truly delighted that you got great deals & will use less gas. I just wish the designer of the CFC program had thought out the consequences of the entire scheme a bit more.

It made me sick to my stomach last night when our local news featured images of the "clunkers" being smashed to smitherings in the junkyard! How eco-unfriendly is that?

Not to mention the charitable foundations that could have put those "clunkers" (many of which were far from real clunkers) to very, very good use. I have donated two cars that were in good condition to the American Cancer Society. An organization in our area that serves retarded citizens also rehabs used cars & gives them to people who desperately need transportation & can't afford to buy a vehicle. What a waste to discard servicable vehicles & add to the debris in our landfills! If only the program had included a way to distribute the clunkers to organizations & individuals who would have regarded them as a Godsend.

I also wonder about how many individuals who purchased cars to take advantage of the cash incentive, were truly prepared to take on the burden of a car payment? Of course, it worked out well for those who were already planning to buy a smaller vehicle & were budgeting for one. I'm pleased as punch for those individuals. I just hope there aren't too many folk who took on debt they can't really manage. We know where borrowing money we can't afford to pay back has gotten us (as a nation).

Don't mean to throw cold water.

stinky -

I know where you're coming from. It's sort of a Catch-22. It is good to get the gas guzzlers off the road, and that was the focus of the program. But at what cost? It would have made more sense for the vehicles to be able to go to auto recyclers to be parted out. But there is so much potential for misuse of those vehicles (put back into circulation fraudulently) I can see why the plan called for them to go to the crusher.

I don't like that this incentive went into effect only after the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies and the (IMHO) fraudulent closure of hundreds of their franchises.

I'm not convinced that this program will help the economy or the environment in the long run, and I'm disappointed that our tax dollars are being used in this way. I dislike the idea that the clunkers must be destroyed. I'd prefer they go to charitable organizations or the needy.

Here is a link that might be useful: Cash for Clunkers article

I was stupid and bought for fuel efficiency before it was cool, so my 8 year old car pushing 100k mile still gets better mileage than the threshold for a trade in. Oh well, hopefully the mechanic can figure out what the heck is making it vibrate and it will be good as new. :)

As a Michigan resident I can say I AM happy that at least the governenment is doing something. I just wish that 2 out of the "Big 3" auto makers could have been more prepared for it product wise. This however, may help get many of the unemployed here and in other states working again. In regards to the clunkers, even though it looks like they're just smashing them up and it's not eco friendly, I have no doubt the metal and many of the parts will be salvaged for other things. I'm trying to be optimistic, I'd like to believe that just because we aren't aware of something being done, that it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't being done.

Funny you should post this as hubby & I were just discussing this. He saw it in the Sunday paper & said I should consider doing it with my 2002 Mazda Tribute; but I'm not ready to get rid of it. I looked up the Kelly value, goes from $5,000 to $10,000 - mine is fully loaded, tow package, premium sound and the color was so hard to find. Now, if they would give me book value plus the incentive of $4500 I might consider it.

Do you have to buy a Ford? I thought I read somewhere it was only for Ford. My next car will be a Mercury hybrid.

I'm pretty sure we get an employee discount with almost all makes; while it helps, it's not as great as one would think depending on brand.

Cash for clunkers - if anyone is interested.

Enjoyed your article, Happytobehome!

Lukki, I appreciate your optimism, & suspect that you're right; some, perhaps much, of the scrap metal can be put to good use. Let's hope so.

This program gives a "thumbs up" to living in a "throw away" society. Yes, there is a time to buy something new & I don't frown upon buying a new car or anything else.

But, a government-supported program of such sweeping proportions sends unhealthy messages that do not serve the environment, our economy or our mindset. I wish leadership would promote programs that not only encourage spending money, but also support long-term goals such as job creation, a cleaner environment, & simple living that doesn't require going into more debt.

I'm thinking of it to; my clunker is really a clunker. 13mpg, average value $1500 or less.

We went looking today; the lots are empty. A week ago; you couldn't drive through the Chevy or Ford lots; today; they're nearly empty.

Jasonmi- this is what the program should be for, older cars like that that have almost no value - not for newer cars like my 2002 which is only 7 years old. I'm disgusted that they are crushing the cars - what a waste.

I agree, it's sending a very wrong message...

To those who are concerned about the cars being crushed...I hope you know that they are recycled. Those cars become reinforcing steel that goes into buildings, bridges and other structures.

ML

I'm not disgusted they're crushing the cars; it's the one way to ensure honesty all around and the greatest promise kept to the American people. An honest program where the government gives PEOPLE the money, and the dealer (or whoever), doesn't double-dip. Sounds right to me.

But stop and think where the government is getting the money it's giving to PEOPLE.

I think this is a great program. I don't qualify. My cars are worth more than $4,500. and one of our cars is a Prius.

Jason, go for it! I'd rather bail out people who need cars and keep the little people in jobs than bail out Wall Street executives. Besides, it helps the environment. :+)

Congratulations to all you new car owners! The ultimate sale! Woo! I have noticed a bunch of new Prius cars running around town the past few days. I keep wondering if they turned in their clunkers.

Just for the record -- in case anyone ever imagines that we just run through cars willy-nilly ((gosh I wish!!! LOL!!)

My 93 BMW station wagon had 146,000 miles on her. And I cried when we traded her in. DH had to take her into the dealership because I was behaving like a sobbing idiot. But she did NOT qualify (by one mile per gallon!!) for the program BUT we got a great trade-in at Nissan because we were buying TWO cars.

MY DH's 93 Lexus had 185,000 miles. And quaLIFIED for the program!

And we saved for two years. And we argued miserably over the last six months over cars. And Cash for Clunkers REALLY helped out!! And we negotiated liked fiends. And we paid in full. Cash.

Jan at-the-really-old-fashioned-Pay-as-you-Play Rosemary Cottage

Please know that I'm happy for all who have taken advantage of the program and have shiny new cars -- I have no bone to pick with you. My disappointment is with our elected leaders who are spending us into the poorhouse.

Well-said, Happy. I echo your sentiments, exactly!

Maddie, I do really hope the materials of the cars are recycled. Still, it bothers me that operable, functional cars are being scrapped. As Rose pointed out, there are truly old cars that are beyond ever being functional. Is is so bad to scrap them if they can't be restored? I don't think so, but unfortunately the majority of the "clunkers" are not that clunky at all, I'm afraid. There's just something really wrong about tossing them, I think!

Again, like Happy, I really am so glad that folks like Runninginplace & Teacats & one of my neighbors got good deals on cars out of this. I only feel critical regarding the bigger picture here. None of the nice, responsible people who bought cars this week had any control over that. It just disturbs me that the finer points of this program were not attended to more thoughtfully.

Happytobehome and SG, I join in support with your sentiments. You both said it well. I just hope that our generation is not compromising the quality of life for our children by burdening them with the payment of interest and principal for the trillions of dollars of national debt we will be bequeathing them. I understand taxpayers subsidizing health, education, national defense, but borrowing money as a nation so that people can buy new cars????

And again, I mean nothing personally here. If I qualified for this deal, I would take it too. My disappointment is with our so called "leaders."

After giving 7 or 800 billion to a couple banks, the (what is it now), 3 billion that goes to actually giving people something makes a lot more sense to me. And it's generating movement out there. A program that actually works? Now that's nice for a change.

Well, we just got lucky. Took my 150K mile 97 Nissan Pathfinder in for repairs (check engine light would not go away!) a week before the cash for clunkers program took effect. Turns out it needed $4600 worth of repairs (this in addition to the $2000 in repairs I'd done three months ago trying to prolong that beloved vehicle's life). Being worth about $1500 in GOOD condition, I'm not sure what it was worth without the repairs - maybe $500 in a nominal trade in?

So, we went shopping. Ended up getting the $3500 when we picked up the car on Sunday (two days after the program began) toward a 2009 Rav 4. Now if we'd taken the car in three weeks earlier or three weeks later, we'd have probably missed out. So like I said, we were lucky.

Like others, I was really sad to say goodbye to my Pathfinder. I drove that car for 12 years, and was happy with it to this day. It wasn't in the best of condition, lots of wear and tear, but if it hadn't needed all those $$ worth of repairs, I'd still be driving it.

It WAS cool getting a new car and getting about 5-7 times worth what the car was worth on a "trade in". I do agree that I hate to see these cars crunched, although I guess in my case, it isn't a huge sin. Actually, the only things that can't be resold (as I understand it) are the engine and drive train, so a lot of other spare parts will probably be recovered and recycled before these cars get destroyed.

If I'd have gotten a vote on this program before it went into effect, I would have voted against it. But I have no qualms about taking advantage of it now. Probably the only time in my life I'll get a chunk o' change out of the government like that! LOL

Jason, yes, it could have been, & has been, worse. The other bail-outs subjected us to a mis-management of funds on a mind-boggling scale, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards. What has it come to if I'm satisfied merely because bankers didn't line their pockets this time? Should I just be happy that the "little people" were, this go round, at least reaping *some* reward?

We deserve more than crumbs. We deserve well-thought out, smart programs that address entrenched problems with long-term solutions. I'm tired of getting a band-aid smacked on me when I need CPR, aren't you?

Again, while I'm glad some "real" citizens were helped out, it just seems we can & must do a lot better. As one who loves & believes in her country, I just think we have to raise the bar.

Well said, Stinky.

I think this was so short-sighted. Why not at least strip the so-called clunkers for parts? My son drives a 74 MG that would have qualified, and it gets better mileage than many more modern cars on the road.

We've always had old cars--from a 56 Packard to a 72 Maserati Quattroporte, and I hate to think of classic cars being sent to a crusher.

Some parts can (and I'm sure will) be sold before the car is destroyed.
According to the CashForClunkers website FAQ:

Q: What will happen to the car I trade in?

A: The car will be sent to the salvage yard. Some parts may be kept but the engine and drive-train must be destroyed. Specifically the engine will be injected with a liquid glass solution to permanently disable the engine and it will be the responsibility of the dealer to make sure this is done to the engine.

In order to qualify, the car has to be 25 years old or less and have at least 4 mpg lower than the car you are buying. So I'm not sure how your son's 74 MG with good gas milage would qualify.

Here is a link that might be useful: CashForClunkers FAQ

Lowspark, that's the type of vehicle that should qualify. Anything under 10 years old, not so sure.

SG - well said.

My SUV is one owner, absolutely nothing wrong with it. The body is in excellent shape; hubby just had it detailed for me. IMO, the trans is going to have problems; slips every now and then and if I drove more it would probably be replaced already; but so far hasn't done anything constantly. I still can not see not replacing the trans if it does go as the rest of the car is in better shape then any other car I've owned since 1982 when I started driving.

For cars in decent shape like mine, if they are traded in, I think it's better if they are sold. Some sort of credit could be given to the next person buying it. I don't know how it would work, but maybe 1/2 of the money applied to my new purchase with the rest towards my trade in to make it more affordable for younger people to afford something newer.

With my car actually being "worth" closer to $10k I would be losing money. The program has flaws; flaws which should have been thought of before putting it into affect.

Like I said above, had I been able to vote on this issue I would have voted against. I agree it has flaws!

Nevertheless, the point is to get older, less fuel-efficient, higher pollution-producing cars off the road. The theory being that in order to get those owners in to the dealerships, the govt will incentivize them. A car that is less than 10 years old isn't what they are aiming for.

Although many of the buyers ended up being middle class frugal people who can afford to pay cash (like me!), the goal (as I understand it) was to help lower income folks who might not have been able to afford a new car without this money.

Again, a 35 year old car which gets good gas mileage is not included in this program. And the owner of a

Exactly, lowspark; the original point is still there....but it's like any other bill...you throw it out for voting and changes, and this is what you end up with. Sorry I don't see it as a bandaid or peanuts like others do.

So far; it's the best piece of legislation I've seen come out of Washington in 9 years.

ideefix,

This program isn't targeted at classic cars. It is to help people trade in their clunkers like Lowspark did. I doubt anyone who is driving around in a classic sports car would even consider having their vehicle smashed.

My sister has a beautiful, all original 1964 Mustang. Why would she have it crushed when she can sell it for way more money than the government is offering. People who are drawn to old classics wouldn't turn in their cars to be crushed for love nor money.

According to CNN, the program requires vehicles to be newer than 25 years old so there must have been an old car nut somewhere in the mix when the rules were constructed. A 1974 MG (nice!) wouldn't qualify.

This is a very thought provoking discussion I started!

I appreciate the distinction people are making between individual choices/decisions like teacat's, lowspark's and mine vs the general principle of this program. But I believe that as the old hippie saying goes "the personal is the political". I think everyone has a responsibility to live within an area of integrity that considers the good of others, the best use of resources and the optimal way to manage one's life to balance personal and societal needs. Although he agrees our SUV was headed downhill, my own husband has been muttering all weekend about how sinful it is to destroy a 'perfectly good car' as he puts it. OTOH as others have pointed out the material is going to be salvaged. The purchase I made was done in the framework of what I think/hope was a wise (family) business decision. Our SUV was clearly approaching the end of its' lifespan, and in a relatively short period of time (1-2 years) we would have been replacing it anyway. So I took advantage of what I believe is an unusual and unique confluence of discounts (the Ford incentives, the government trade-in allowance and the willingness of car dealers to bargain in a tough economic climate) to buy a large capital expenditure item ahead of schedule at a major discount. A 33% savings on a new car is, for us, a very good deal.

Someone early on in the discussion said:

"This program gives a "thumbs up" to living in a "throw away" society. Yes, there is a time to buy something new & I don't frown upon buying a new car or anything else."

I don't agree. Keeping cars for 10...12...15...up to 25 years is the antithesis a throw away attitude. And compare it to what the average driver does. According to data available, the average length of ownership for automobiles in the US is 6 years. People lease cars, which is a money losing proposition from the start. They trade in cars every few years. They buy cars for every member of the family. They have MORE cars than they have family members! That isn't our life. We buy a car new. We keep it for as long as possible. In our married life we have bought 3 family vehicles over 23 years: a Ford minivan that we drove 12 years, the Expedition that we drove for 10 and my husband's truck that is going strong at 80K miles on the odometer. No thought of replacing that baby, it's just getting broken in :).

The Expedition for the past 3-4 years has been used solely for local jaunts around town while as noted we ride our bicycles to school. We combine trips for errands. We rarely filled the tank more than once a month, if that. Still the car was driven 99% of the time by one person. One person driving a full size 8-passenger V8 vehicle that gets 10-11 MPG. That is not particularly efficient no matter how little you drive. In that sense, yes the CARS program succeeded. We will now be driving a midsize sedan that gets 25-28 MPG. And like lowspark mentioned about her clunker, the transmission in the Expedition had been slipping for awhile, and was getting worse. The check engine light has been on for about a year. The rear windshield wiper didn't work, and the dealership had to estimate the mileage because the electrical system was a bit finicky recently and often didn't light up the indicators for awhile. The electrical glitch also made lights come on and off randomly as well as turn the locks on and off, also randomly. Frankly, even though it was driveable I don't think the car was particularly safe or dependable; I wouldn't have wanted to foist it off on someone regardless of their inability to buy a car of their own.

And even more personal-political, we are savers. I am not going into one penny of debt for the new vehicle. And FWIW, I wouldn't have gone into debt for a car even if I didn't get the discounts. Our plan and system is to pay cash for our vehicles. We don't owe any money on our home, for that matter. Or our credit cards.

I know our life isn't what everyone's life is, nor are our choices. And is this program going to result in some poor choices? Of course. Is it throwing money at the system? Yes, but then so are any number of government programs. Farm subsidies, for example. Farmers in this country are paid NOT to grow crops. Even the sacred cows of our social safety net can be regarded as giveaways-there isn't a sliding scale for receiving Medicare or Social Security. Warren Buffet can as easily cash his SS check or pull out his Medicare card as can the retiree living on the margin of society.

What I'm saying is, I completely agree it is vital that each consumer look and think carefully about what is really wasteful spending and what isn't. This program is intended to get gas guzzling vehicles off the roads and by all accounts it is succeeding at that. Check the news media for lists of the top 5 trade-in vehicles. They are trucks or SUVs...the same vehicles that have been vilified for years by many as gas guzzlers, environmental polluters etc. The top 5 list of vehicles purchased are hybrids or gas efficient smaller cars. So, the government program is now doing something that is *quickly* getting a large number of less efficient vehicles off the roads. Is that really such a bad idea?

As for functional vehicles being destroyed, as has been pointed out portions will be recycled and the metal will be recycled as well. This program isn't intended nor will it encourage endless mounds of shiny Explorers and Jeeps to be crushed and hauled off to molder in landfills.

This got long and probably defensive :). I am reading and listening and thinking about all the opinions expressed, so hopefully this doesn't sound too prickly!

Ann

Ann, Please don't take anything I'm saying personal. The SUV you turned in was 10 years old and while in ok shape; how much longer would you have gotten out of it; and FWIW, it's more of the type of vehicle they want to try to get off of the roads. Your value was less then what you'd get to trade it in.

My beef is with newer like mine qualifying. It did qualify and I feel it shouldn't have.

Golddust - I would hope they never take muscle cars like that for any of these programs. My 2nd car was a 69 Mustang. How I would love to own another!

Ann,

You didn't sound prickly at all, to me. Yes, I know some of my farmer family members got paid money to leave their fields "idle" in order not to drive food prices down. Currently I know someone who has one cow and qualifies for deep tax discounts available to ranchers and he is against programs like this one. (I don't see any difference, except his tax write off directly benefits him and the clunker for cash doesn't.)

When my DH first heard of this program, we discussed what a great idea it was. Clean up the environment, put people back to work in an industry the USA can't afford to lose, while getting people who can afford to let go a few dollars to actually do so.

My niece's DH works in a landfill. He says the technology today is amazing. Everything gets recycled. People who manage landfills today are highly educated. Goodbye to the old landfill models, at least here in CA. I find it interesting to talk with him about his work. I used to worry about it too but we have come a long way in the past decade.

Enjoy your new cars, everyone! If my 2 dollars helped you buy it, know it was given with a joyful heart. LOL!

Well, to all those folks who drive their cars a couple of years and then trade 'em in ... thank you! I personally love having a market of late-model, low-mileage, top condition pre-owneds in which to choose. I might live vicariously through someone who has a brand new car, but I don't think I'll ever buy new again myself. (I'll let someone else eat that depreciation! LOL!)
;-D

runninplace - my sentiments exactly! I try to do what's best for me and at the same time, not harm anyone else. I see it as a win-win situation. I can possibly afford a new vehicle and do my little bit to use less gas and stop polluting out planet.

Auntjen; then you'll love mine!

A 1998 Ford F150, getting 13MPG. Sure; it hasn't been washed (inside or out), since....er....1998....but think of the CHARACTER! As a matter of fact, when I was shoveling out the trash the other day, I found a bag of cheese popcorn with an expiration date of DEC01! And guess what? It tastes the same!

Jason - I have a 1996 Ford F150. I'm afraid to wash it because I'm convinced the dirt is the only thing holding it together.

Well, thanks to Jason I now have to clean lemonade off of my computer screen.

I had begun toying with the thought of utilizing it but the problems we had are that we still need a large vehicle with 4 wheel drive, such vehicles are mucho dolares, and their gas mileage has not improved that much over our '01 F150 supercrew. I just wish that they would make a hybrid for the big SUV's but by the time they do, and there are some available on the used market I won't need it anymore. It is enough to make one vomit when you see a new Expedition for $40K when 11 years I bought a brand spanking new house in CA that cost $65K.

Delighted owner here of a 1999 Suburu Forester. I hope I never have to let it go...I love my Subi! Hope I'm driving it when I'm 96! Have often thought that the layers of dirt on its forest green paint really did add character, even a certain rustic (not rusty) panache! It's a rugged little car that I'm very grateful for.

Stinky, I knew I liked you! In addition to the F150 (for gardening and hauling - all our neighbors borrow it), I have a 2005 Subaru Forester. I love mine too, but think I might be passing it down to DS who's driving the 1990 Volvo Wagon I bought when I was pregnant with him. The Volvo doesn't qualify for the CFC, but if ever there was a clunker, this is it! I worry about his safety driving back and forth to college in it. DH drives a 2002 Suburban which would probably qualify, but we plan to keep it til it dies. Our cars become part of the family!

A question and comment for MaddieLee:
Where have you read or what have you heard that the recycled steel can go into reinforced bridges and such? I just don't believe that. Having seen photos of the "afters" of car crashes, the steel in those cars can look like pieces of cooked spaghetti. I am no engineer, but unless they mix that steel coming out of the recycling machine with some other substance that costs far more than any bit of recycled car steel, I can hardly see it being used for bridges and similar.

The other problem is that states have very little money for building and rebuilding bridges. How many stories have we read about states lacking enough transportation inspectors? The state of Virginia is laying off 1450 Transportation Dept employees and is cutting its road construction projects by $2 billion. Is "Cash for Clunkers" going to allow the state to make some headway on these things? I really don't think having another source of steel (if it does, in fact, work that way) is going to have this trickle-down impact you speak of.

But maybe I'm wrong: Educate me.

And just for the record, I think this program is a waste of good money that could be better used elsewhere. While I'm glad many of you were able to take advantage of the program, it's clear that it's not going to be the economic stimulus Obama dreamed of to go hand-in-hand with his environmental platform. People who had saved up for a new car and for whom going into debt was not going to happen, you're not the target audience Obama was thinking of. You're not feeding the credit card companies, not paying interest; you'd be buying a car anyway, sometime, with your own money. In fact, you're the exact opposite. With your previous, older cars, you'd still be helping the bottom line of your neighborhood mechanic. And maybe after another year or two, the thought of donating the car would've crossed your mind. No trickle-down economic stimulus action going on there. (Not your fault--the government made the rules.)

But hey--somebody's gotta cash in on the government's stupidity. Can't be just the top executives.

Hi Pammyfay....my husband has been in the Steel business for over 45 years and sells reinforcing steel for major structures (including bridges and highway projects) through the SE.

I know way more about REBAR then I ever dreamed.

I'm on my way out the door, but here's a bit of info I was quickly able to find for you.

It's a link to a site on how REBAR is made. Go to the link and click on the video link.

ml

Here is a link that might be useful: how REBAR is made

maddie,
Thanks for the interesting video! I know more about casting metal than I ever dreamed too. But my DH makes jewelry. Making REBAR looks manly in comparison.

Regarding the cash for clunkers: I heard that the average cars being turned in are being exchanged for vehicles that get an average of 9 more miles to a gallon of gas. That will go a ways toward reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

We just got 4500 for a 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee which was a 3rd car for us that we hauled the dogs around in. We got a 2010 Prius.He has always wanted a Prius and I don't know why since he never drives out of the zip code!!! He'll be filling that tank once a year. His other car is a 2001 Elantra with 56,000 miles on it.

UPDATE:

We had to re-deal the 2005 Murano back into the dealership because it turned out to have way too mechical issues -- BUT -- with MANY hours of negotiation -- we now have TWO 2009 Nissan Versa.

I picked a very basic black Versa to replace my old 1993 BMW station wagon (sigh.) And DH got an upgraded (with bluetooth stuff) white Versa! Both of our cars are the hatchback models with fold-down seats.

So we ended up with two fully-paid newer cars -- better gas Mileage and even warranties!

Jan (opening champagne here! :)

Woo! New cars smell so great. I know the smell may be bad for us to breathe but...

I love our Prius! They are fun to drive and you'll be amazed by how many large things it can haul.

I don't necessarily agree that this program is a good thing. Time will tell if the cost warrants the benefits. I would also be curious to see if the recycled steel from the clunkers will help to lower the escalating price of steel in this country. The last few years a large portion of steel produced here has been sold to China causing it to be in short supply. There were times in the last two years that suppliers would not guarantee prices from time of order to time of delivery. The company I worked for sold a lot of steel products including the rebar mentioned above as well as miles of fencing materials, t-posts, steel plate and expanded metal. There were times when staying on top of those inventories and maintaining prices was a full time job. Needless to say, some of the smaller farmers and ranchers were not able to rebuild fences and had to repair instead. If recycling helps lower those prices it could be a good thing.

golddust and denali, I have a 2008 Prius, and love it. Now, I did keep my Lincoln Navigator to haul kids around, but the Prius is fun, and easier to park than my Navigator.

I'm looking forward to the cash for Jeans program. Now that's something I can benefit from. I'm joking, of course.

What other "cash for" programs do you see being really beneficial to American business? I'm glad for those of you here who could take advantage of it, but think the program as a whole didn't do a lot to stimulate the economy.

The comments I'm hearing from the lower income population (who I serve daily), is the cars called clunkers are their future vehicles. Some of these vehicles were good riding and still had a lot of life for someone who cannot afford to go out and buy not even a newer used car. What are your thoughts from this end of the debate?

jones, I, for one, am glad there is/was a program that people could benefit rich or poor. Most of the time, it is the poor that get all the benefits federally and from the state. I know, we, being self-employed, always fall through the cracks. Not wealthy enough, but not poor enough.

I don't know who you serve, but, I get pretty tired of people on welfare and disability who knows how to work the system. Now, those who REALLY need it, fine, but the government isn't smart enough to actually go out and really research who really needs it. I guess I have a bad taste in my mouth for welfare and disability, because I have very distant aunts and uncles and cousins who are more than able to work, and have kids after kids, on drugs, and still get their money to the casino somehow.

Sorry, but, most poor people CAN work, just don't.

Well -- our old USED cars were bought in 1997:

a) 1993 BMW wagon (146,000 miles) and had been repaired MANY times -- and currently needed the whole AC replaced. Frankly I was getting too scared to drive her anymore -- wondering what would break down next. This car did NOT qualify for the program -- and became a trade-in. I would imagine that its value was in the parts that I replaced over the last two years! So its parts may benefit someone!

b) 1993 Lexus (185,000 miles) This car DID qualify for the program -- and was leaking "something" onto the driveway -- and the very last time DH drove it to the dealership -- even HE said that he was glad for it to be gone too! Interior lights didn't work; the sunroof didn't work -- lots of mechanical issues.

I really don't think the either car would be a good "clunker" for anyone else -- unless they had the money for the expensive repairs!

WE HAD ALREADY PLANNED TO REPLACE BOTH CARS! Out of sheer necessity. Again I state: we saved for TWO years. We argued and checked out cars for last six months. We NEVER planned to get NEW cars -- the "fates" simply rolled them our way!! We had been looking for USED ones -- but the prices for the outgoing 2009 ones were NOT that much more than the used ones!!! And we negotiated HARD. And paid in cash.

So the program helped us! :)

We ended up with two 2009 Nissan Versas (subcompacts) with warranties for three years.

Jan at the poor-but-planned Rosemary Cottage

Ollie, I fully understand where you are coming from and hear what you are saying. The middle class are not rich enough or not poor enough and they are the ones who get cheated, I couldn't agree more.

The poor I speak of are the working poor, not the doper welfare thugs sitting on their butt living off of the government for their every need. I'm speaking of the guy with Downs Syndrome who has to go to the local market everyday and bag groceries or the 70 year old grandma who has to work to suppprt her grand kids because her no good daughter ran off and left them on her door step. She can't collect welfare or food stamps because she worked all her life and has a home and a small savings account. If she had sat on her butt for those 70 years she'd be eligible to receive food, money and medical care for the grand kids. Our government turns able bodied people into bums. Ruining millions of lives with the hand outs instead of hand ups.

There are so many "good" working poor out there and like the middle class, they also get the short end of the "assistance."