jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (9 posts)

3 pros and 3 cons for Cash for Clunkers

  1. nicomp profile image63
    nicompposted 7 years ago

    Presenting 3 points to support both sides of the issue.


    1. The auto industry is hurting. People aren't buying new cars. Dealerships are closing and cutting back. Cash for Clunkers (C4C) encourages consumers to purchase vehicles, thereby providing a much needed boost to the dealers as well as the manufacturers.

    2. Air pollution is exacerbated by 'clunker' cars that run inefficiently. The vehicles pollute the air, leak fluids on the ground and may even be safety hazards because they typically do not have the safety equipment that new cars have.

    3.  Car manufactures purchase parts and services from small businesses all over the United States. Every new car purchased under the C4C program positively impacts small businesses, which support families.


    1. The government is picking winners and losers in the free market. Some cars are not eligible as clunkers and some are.  For example, a 1997 Plymouth Voyager with a 3.3 liter engine can be traded as a clunker, but the same model/year with a 3.0 liter engine cannot. Both vehicles are the same age. Any 13 year old vehicle probably pollutes the environment quite a bit.

    2. The government is picking winners and losers in the new car market. Not all new vehicles are eligible for the C4C program. Eligibility doesn't simply extend to mileage; there's also a price limit on the new vehicle that can be purchased.

    3. The government is ruining the used-car market. Almost 1/2 million used cars have been artificially removed from the market. These vehicles are in the price range that is preferred by many families for second cars, new-driver cars, and fixer-upper cars. Any vehicles in this price range that survived the C4C program will be artificially inflated in price; demand will stay the same, supply has been reduced. The working poor will be negatively affected.

  2. 0
    ryankettposted 7 years ago

    You could have put this in a hub and earnt yourself some adsense?

    1. nicomp profile image63
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Spot on. I was thinking that as I wrote it. However, I wouldn't have been able to use it as an object lesson for one of our brethren hubbers.

    2. 0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this


      1. 0
        ryankettposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hahahaha... are you saying that I could put this in a hub?

        1. nicomp profile image63
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sure. Go ahead. Maybe Lita will chase you for a while.

          1. 0
            Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            See, this is the point:  My POINT was to say that Glenn Beck's style is bombastic vitriolic propaganda.  I gave 2 examples of that in my initial post, one of which was a detail of the cars for clunkers fiasco (pls. note word detail).  You did not understand that, evidently.  So, should have been end of story.

            I understand you want a 'debate,' but I'm not interested in this.  I also don't need an object lesson from someone who perceives themself as older or wiser or whatever.  It's ridiculous....  I'm not interested at all in a 'chase,' though I appear to have touched some kinda nerve with you, however...as I see you conceiving of forum posts in my name, meanwhile I'm writing about painting for adsense, wink.

            Going to the store with my bf now.  Wanna know what we buy? lolololol

            PEACE.  Have a good conversation here.  smile

  3. 0
    cosetteposted 7 years ago

    haha... "brethren hubbers" big_smile

    I can think of one con...the demolition of all of those cars. maybe somebody WANTS to drive a cool-looking old muscle car.

    another con is that, while getting older cars off the road reduces toxic substances in the air, it is not all that much from the cash for clunkers program.

    'k a third con: somehow the thought of them pouring molten glass in those engines to destroy them seems kind of sad. like one more slice of American history gone forever ;_;

  4. ledefensetech profile image82
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    One point you missed nicomp.  People tend to own cars for 7 or 8 years, on average.  By encouraging people to spend now on cars, there will be fewer car sales over the next several years, at least to American customers.  The Big Three should give up on trying to sell multiple cars to Americans and try to sell to the Chinese.  Even a fraction of that market will pay huge dividends in the future.

    Also this program is supposed to help people living paycheck to paycheck.  How can they afford the insurance, taxes, title, license etc. for a new car if they're already spending all they earn.  This will only really beneift upper middle class people who can afford not only to upgrade their car, but also the associated costs with owning a new car.

    That's not exactly the way it was sold to the American people.