That is so sad. I felt like I was watching an animal being put down. Actually brought a tear to my eye.

Jodi-

They are doing what is required of them under the Cash for Clunkers program.

They are disabling the vehicle so it won't end up back on the road essentially erasing the whole purpose of the program.

I personally think the program is a waste of taxpayer money, but it is what it is and those are the rules.

Go big O !

There has got to be a better way, I'm probably one of 200 people who think this cash for clunkers is a big fat clunk money to pay back to the government and a big waste of many usable cars.. I'm not even going to post what I'm really thinking.

This is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. What happened to donating cars to the Salvation Army so that they can be used to help transport people to doctor visits and such. What a total waste. I mean, okay, I understand the concept, but for crying out loud, somebody could have used that car. I will just tell you it looked better than my car does. I can't even put into words how mad that makes me. ARGHH!!!!!

I agree - what a waste!
Clare

Back in my day, Clunkers were the cars that all teenagers got...now they get new cars. My GD got a Mercedes for graduation....

Oh don't even get me started...there is soooo many things that the government is doing that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong!!!!!

I hope all of you will e-mail this website. How many people could use these cars. This is just dumb!

I think it is wasteful. I would have gladly taken their "throw aways". My husband and I have older cars. one we bought used from a friend, an Expedition. It was a really good price, we don't do a lot of driving. But the vehicle they were destroying I am sure had better gas mileage and looked newer than either of our cars. Our financial situation hasn't been great lately and really can't afford to purchase any kind of car when the ones we have die,nor afford the really great deals the government and car dealers are offering, wish we could. I would have gladly traded my tank of a truck for the one they trashed, or my 97 Escort.

Well, don't you all want to drive one of those little bitty peanut sized cars with the metal that is thin as tissue paper?

I think I will keep my clunkers. Thank you very much.

"But the vehicle they were destroying I am sure had better gas mileage and looked newer than either of our cars."

To qualify for the cash in the Cash for Clunkers program, the "clunker" has to have a combined mileage rating of 18 mpg or less. A gas hog is a gas hog is a gas hog, no matter how nice it might look.

Another requirement is that the vehicle is in running condition, and has been continuously licensed and insured for the past 12 months.

Here is a link that might be useful: Does your trade-in qualify?

I'm not pleased with scrapping cars with useful life left in them.

A few months ago, the head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union recommended that we scrap our old wasteful, polluting cars, and buy newer, more fuel efficient ones.

But ... wait a minute.

If I scrap my old one, with possibly 20% of it's useful life remaining, I'm not going to hitchhike for that mileage (and he didn't want me to - he wanted me to buy a more efficient one - now).

When I consider the petroleum used, including pollutants, needed to mine the metal, haul it to the smelter (which are notorious energy-hogs), then roll the metal into flat sheets, then cut and shape it, with fuel for freight cost in between, that's a substantial amount. Or to produce the petroleum, soybeans, etc. to make the plastic that goes into building them. Plus making the sand into glass. Then hauling all of that stuff to the factory for assembly, and shipping the new vehicles to the dealership ...

... you're telling me that 20% of that energy and pollutant cost (plus global warming factor, if you like), of building the new vehicle is less than the difference of fuel usage, even if the older one is somewhat of a larger polluter than the new one??
___________________________________

But may I suggest a system that's, in my opinion, far worse?

Seventy years ago, in many North American cities, they had horse-drawn wagons that carried blocks of ice that workers chopped up and put into people's ice boxes to keep food somewhat chilled ... in the country, we had a pan of more or less cold water in the basement where we put the milk and the butter - but we raised our own milk, so didn't store much.

Sixty years ago, more or less, they were building refrigerators.

Fifty years ago, they built refrigerators that lasted for 40 years.

Now ... they build frigs that last for 10 years, 15 at the outside.

So ... modern engineers are stupider?

Not likely ... they want stuff to wear out, to keep the economy chugging along.

To my mind, that's *really* wasteful!!

I've heard that it would take the resources of four planets like ours to let people worldwide live in the fashion to which we've become accustomed.

Have you ever heard the term, "eating ourselves out of house and home"?

Aren't we doing that to this precious planet?

The insects, who've been around far longer than we have, say that they've heard a rumour that man's fixing to destroy himself from the earth ...

... and figure that the sooner that humankind does that, the better. From the point of view of many of the other inhabitants.

Have a thoughtful weekend ... and don't forget ... often we humans find that the easiest ones to fool are ... us ourselves.

ole joyful

About a year ago, my DS & DDIL bought me an '02 F150 loaded crew cab with 72,000K to replace my '98 Silverado XCab with 123,000K. Sooooo, I called my bro & told him he could have the Chevy, which probably has another 125,000K life in it. He flew down from Cleveland, OH to Houston & drove it back. A year later, we're both happy with our trucks. And we'll both be drivng them until they literally fall apart. Clunkers? Maybe. Gas-guzzlers? Definately. No monthly payments? That's what it's all about!

What you are describing is a procedure prescribed by the "cash for clunkers" program. It is a method for decommissioning an engine to insure that it won't be swapped into another vehicle. A safeguard had to be prescribed to prevent gross abuse of the dual purpose of this program: 1)Stimulate auto sales, and 2) remove less efficient engines out of the motor pool. The cars that are traded in are to be sent to the crusher and turned into recycleable scrap.

Without safeguards rules, this program would have become the biggest pork barrel you ever saw, and the old cars would continue to motor on as cheap used vehicles thus defeating a goal of removal from the roads.

If you disagree, don't participate; Just keep on using your old heap until it falls apart. Customers are not being forced to participate. They have a choice, but as you can see, many were eager to partake, so much so, that it overran the estimates and used up all of the money during the first 3 days. It had been anticipated that the funds allocated would have lasted until November. The speed with which the funds were used up shocked the officials, but to the ordinary person on the street, it was very understandable.

It would be an even bigger waste of money if someone were able to take that clunker back out onto the street and turn it back in for another rebate.

I would imagine no one wants to pay several rebates on the same clunker. The potential for abuse would be huge if the vehicles weren't destroyed.

I hope the program stimulates some good auto sales, and helps people keep their jobs.

I think that is just disgusting.

Jemdandy, we all understand what you are saying, and you are right of course. In the end, I believe the real benefit will only be to a portion of the participants with really bad "clunkers" and to the struggling dealerships. Our planet will be the loser, although there will probably be some economy in gas mileage.

Some people will trade in cars which have many miles left on them. It's throwing away the energy to mine and create the materials which went into those cars.

Joyful, you said it best. Your heart is in the right place.

It's throwing away the energy to mine and create the materials which went into those cars.

That's a sunk cost. It's spent, no matter what. The object now is to save in the future. More efficient, less polluting, less costly to run and better safety design.

Just because something has useful life to it doesn't mean you need to continue to use it up, especially if it will continue to cost you in the long run with high repair bills and higher gas usage. They scrap a lot of airplanes for newer models that are safer and more efficient. Would you rather fly in an older one with higher maintenance and less safety factors?

It's a personal choice, and one you don't have to participate in.