Comments on: Using Cash For Clunkers, But Against The Stimulus?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:23:41 +0000

I don’t think the Cash for Clunkers is anything other than a plan to stimuluate the auto industry (it certainly won’t do much for the environment or our dependence on oil). But even though I am not necessarily in favor of it, I would take advantage of it if I had an eligible trade-in. My wife and I are looking for a vehicle anyway, so if I could get the trade in, I would be stupid not to. To me it would be like walking past a pile of cash in the street, or not taking the employer 401k match.

By: Corey

Corey — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:54:33 +0000

What an issue! I am going to have to utterly disagree with those who say bad mouthing the plan then taking advantage of the benefits is hypocritical. It shows no lack of integrity or morality. I pay taxes, and I vote for people I think will represent my interests. I disagree with the Cash for clunkers program, but thought seriously about taking advantage of it. If the government is going to use my tax dollars to give rebates, whether I agree with them or not, it is my right to take adventage of these rebates. I think this principle applies to all government programs including welfare, tax credits, rebates, and any other “free” money.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:31:48 +0000

I heard the average buyer had a credit score of > 700.

By: a.b. @ Modern Tightwad

a.b. @ Modern Tightwad — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:07:01 +0000

@FrugalDad,
I like the way you think, but boy could that be a hornet’s nest. Anti-war folks would request a check box for national defense, and the government could tell them to move to Canada. People who are opposed to abortion could opt out of health care acts that support children, because it also supports Planned Parenthood.

It appears to me that in a quest to give up personal accountability, society has requested that the government take a bigger place in day-to-day life, and they have. I really don’t think it’s something society will ever be able to unwind. Definitely going to have to post on this.

By: thisisbeth

thisisbeth — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:57:40 +0000

I bought a house this year, so I’ll be getting an $8,000 tax credit (I bought it after April 15 and am too lazy to do an amended tax return). I’m not in favor of the tax credit and would’ve voted against it if given the choice. However, once it passes, I’ll use it. It’s not like I can refuse to pay money to the government if I don’t agree with it, so if the government tells me I can take money against my will, I’ll do that, too.

By: david

david — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:11:17 +0000

You might be in the minority, but that doesnt necessarily mean you are wrong. You and I disagree, but it doesn’t mean one of us is right! I dont know what the ultimate solution is – we all do, in fact, need government help with all the social aspects of daily life. (Police, parks, libraries, etc). However, I do kind of like your idea, but have no idea how it could be implemented and what would be “required” and what would be “optional”. Interesting idea, Jason.

By: Thomas Powell

Thomas Powell — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:00:50 +0000

I’m not particularly against taking stimulus money, as I’m sure I’ll be paying the money back and then some. However, the cash for clunkers is not any sort of deal, unless you can’t stand the thought of owning a 1 year old car.

I would think that the people that this program is intended for have no business buying a brand new car.

By: Frugal Dad

Frugal Dad — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:59:00 +0000

David, I see your point. Many people rail against government programs, until they find themselves in need (or want), and turn to those programs themselves.

Maybe we need an a la carte tax system. You want social security? Check here. You want a public option health care system? Check here. You want to receive benefits if you become unemployed? Check here. Your taxes will then be based on the number of “checks” you sign up for. Those who don’t want the benefits don’t pay the taxes. Everyone pays a base federal tax for national defense, operation of the postal service, the costs to mint currency, operation of the federal court system, etc. You know, the only things the federal government was constitutionally appointed to spend tax money on. Of course we know that will never happen.

There doesn’t seem to be an easy fix, but I wish more of our solutions to life’s big problems included less government intervention, particularly at the federal level. Apparently, I am in the minority.

By: Jason R Fisher

Jason R Fisher — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:50:04 +0000

This is the great catch 22 of government spending. If you are against it and don’t take it someone else will but until we all stop taking it it will keep getting spent. As long as there are people out there willing to take what they didn’t earn the government will keep taking from those that did earn it to buy the votes of the rest.

By: David

David — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:42:30 +0000

I know this is a sad commentary on the current state of human nature, but I guarantee you that there are people lining up to take advantage of the “clunker” deal who were previously opposed to the stimulus package.

I think that with the economy the way that it is, the concept of WIIFM (What’s In It For Me?) is alive and kicking.

I took no side on the stimulus package, but even if I was against it, had I clunker to turn in, I would have gladly take advantage. I know of few people with moral standards so high as to turn down a $4500 gift.