Question of the Day | 08/13/2009 11:00 pm

Should Cash for Clunkers be given for foreign cars? Why or why not?

Join Liz Smith, Mary Wells and Joan Ganz Cooney in the discussion

Liz Smith | 08/13/2009 11:00 pm

Liz Smith: At Least We Got the Clunker Off the Road

It gets them out of use and off the roads and then it leaves the owner needing another car, and even if they don’t buy U.S., we still got their clunker off the road.

5 Comments

Joan Ganz Cooney | 08/13/2009 11:00 pm

Joan Ganz Cooney: Those Against Cash for Clunkers Should Remember WWII

I like the "green" aspects of Cash for Clunkers so I support cash for foreign clunkers, especially if they are replaced by fuel-efficient cars and if it helps the American auto industry. As someone who remembers World War 2 and our need for airplanes and tanks, I want to see a strong manufacturing base again in the U.S. So Cash for Clunkers strikes me as a good idea for more than one reason.

3 Comments

Mary Wells | 08/13/2009 11:00 pm

Mary Wells: Cash for Clunkers Won't Save the U.S. Economy

Perhaps a miracle will happen and everyone in the world will turn into angels. I am not counting on it so I think it is important that the United States sharpens its skills with machinery and engines and metal and its overall transportation creativity. We need a leap forward with all that. And we need the jobs. I think Cash for Clunkers is one step but not a leap forward.

16 Comments

Read more about: Cars, Cash for Your Clunker, Economy, Finance, Money, News

40 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I drive a foreign car, but a late model. However it’s made in the United States. If they want to support this & give the car dealers a boost - why not?

By Lizzie R. on 08/14/2009 12:13 am

e-mail alert

Yes. The American automakers will benefit from that, too.

By James the Game on 08/14/2009 12:27 am

e-mail alert

This program never should have been sponsored by the government aka the American people …. we are paying for enough right now ….

By canuck canuck on 08/14/2009 1:28 am

e-mail alert

Cash for clunkers is supposed to help working Americans trade up to a more fuel efficient vehicle. However, some of the working poor do not have the capital to buy new even with the stimulus. This program was implemented during a time of high unemployment when many who might have benefited have no extra money. Those who can take advantage of it should not be restricted to certain vehicles. Like many other WOW posters I drive a foreign car that was made in the US providing jobs for Americans.

By Chris Glass` on 08/14/2009 4:45 am

e-mail alert

A clunker is a clunker is a clunker—why not?

By F P on 08/14/2009 5:50 am

e-mail alert

My knee jerk reaction was, yes it should be for American made cars. I then thought about it and decided that no, it should be for all cars as they all provide jobs here.

By Mel Berg on 08/14/2009 6:05 am

e-mail alert

A Clunker is a Clunker foreign or domestic and it’s helping Americans and the economy!

By L. C. on 08/14/2009 7:21 am

e-mail alert

Depends on what the ultimate purpose is. If the point is to get older inefficient vehicles off the road and get people into newer fuel efficient vehicles, then ANY more efficient make should be acceptable regardless of who builds it. If the point is to give a boost to American makes, then you restrict it to those manufacturers. BUT, from what I’ve read you can still buy a new truck / minivan which is the same version of the model you just turned in. In my particular case, the 10 yr old minivan I’m driving could be replaced by the same minivan that just happens to be new and the miles per gallon is not significantly improved over the old model.

By B Clark on 08/14/2009 7:23 am

e-mail alert

You are right B Clark: what is the difference between those 2 cars. I don’t consider a 10 year old car a clunker. I heard on the radio WABC that alot of car dealers are dropping out of the "cash for clunkers program". They have to fill out an 11 page form for each clunker and fax or e-mail it in & if there is one type-O they have to re-submit the entire 11 pages. One dealer they interviewed is still waiting for the money and he is not letting the new cars go to the buyer until he get his money from the gov. I don’t blame him.

If the gov can’t do this right, how will they run the healthcare program. I shutter to think.

By Irish Eyes NY on 08/14/2009 8:25 am

e-mail alert

There were articles about Toyota exporting a hybrid minivan (Estima - 40 mpg) to the USA as far back as 2001. Where the heck is it? The hybrids I’ve seen so far are great (I’ve been in a few) but they are very scarce and hard to come by. I’ve heard of some people who are on a waiting list for over a year before an ordered hybrid car is delivered. The demand is here but the supply is way behind. Do you think the $4 + prices we paid per gallon last summer would have been possible if hybrids were being sold in mass numbers as far back as 8 years ago? If you’re looking for consiracy theories my personal opinion is the oil industry and it’s allies (Bush / Cheney) did their best to GET 4$ + per gallon and they got exactly what they wanted. The car dealer’s will get paid eventually. The government loves paperwork and keeps quite a few people employed tracking it all. Not every program the government runs is a disaster and the healthcare program is a single program - it’s not the only one in town. Why should other programs fear a little competition? Competition makes industries strong. Our country is built on competition. This whole healthcare thing is an undiscovered country and we are pioneers. If our forefathers had been this frightened to sail to a new continent and start a new life, we’d be singing "God Save the Queen" instead of the "Star Spangled Banner" and there would be no 4th of July. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!

By B Clark on 08/14/2009 4:19 pm

e-mail alert

There shouldn’t be cash for either — where is it coming from? Are they printing it in the basement of the Whitehouse? Enough. We need to take responsibility and care on our own. Absolutely agree with Canuck; cannot state it strongly enough….we ARE paying for enough now; too much.

By Andy C on 08/14/2009 9:01 am

e-mail alert

Good post Andy C…enough is enough.

And most weren’t even "clunkers"…for goodness sake…most were vehicles that Americans could afford! Just an illusion…it did nothing to help the poor, or the environment.

FSM~

By Kelly In Texas on 08/16/2009 9:59 pm

e-mail alert

No! I believe most Americans have no idea how much money we spend on products manufactured overseas. Everything we use on a daily basis is produced by companies overseas. I find it ironic how many people are screaming about losing "their America" and how they want "America to be America again" are the first ones who will gladly by a car made in Japan, buy their clothes and household products from Walmart which are primarily manufactured overseas. Buy electronics produced overseas. The hypocrisy is laughable.

I have added my voice to those calling for the President to cut back on outsourcing and American companies that produce their products overseas. I want us to get back to being able to use the phrase Made In America again.

By Belinda Joy on 08/14/2009 9:06 am

e-mail alert

Belinda, here in Kentucky, we have tens of thousands of people working for not only Toyota, Ford, GM(Corvette), but all the manufacturing companies that are connected to the industry. These companies are finally getting to the point where they can rev up their production and get more people working. That was the purpose of the Clunker Program in the first place. To get more people back to work.

By Diana T on 08/14/2009 9:53 am

e-mail alert

You have a business idea with Made in America I believe. Seriously, why doesn’t someone cash in on that like Sam Walton did when he built his empire? It worked for him, then things changed.

By Jennifer Michaels on 08/14/2009 6:14 pm