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

Why not? There are foreign vehicles that are made in the US.

By Kristy B on 08/14/2009 9:06 am

e-mail alert

Toyota is made in the next county over from mine—Georgetown, Ky. There are thousands of people employed in my state, which is the 3rd largest producer of cars in the country. Aren’t hondas manufactured over here somewhere, as well as other "foreign" cars?

By Diana T on 08/14/2009 9:43 am

e-mail alert

I’m so tired of the "foreign" car myth… many of them have more American parts than the so called "American" cars. Just another ruse to confuse consumers. Instead of confusing the issue consumers should start demanding "cars" with better gas mileage!

By Tee Zee on 08/14/2009 10:34 am

e-mail alert

And, Tee Zee, better maintenance records. Can’t believe how many people don’t even bother to look at that aspect before buying a car … and then the outlay of money that they are spending - and time wasted while car is being maintenanced is exorbitant. As Diana says, they may be called foreign cars but more often than not, they are being put together right here.

Doing research on cars ahead of time, learning how dealers "deal" is worthwhile big time reading.

By joan larsen on 08/14/2009 10:55 am

e-mail alert

Hi, Joan. It’s been a long time since we’ve talked.

Wasn’t the Cash for Clunkers supposed to stimulate the economy for the purpose of putting people back in the workforce? Here in Kentucky, that is what is happening. I don’t care what they are selling as long as people can get back to their business.

By Diana T on 08/14/2009 5:27 pm

e-mail alert

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/gm-to-reinstate-about-135_n_262420.html

Well, I guess that answers that question. I mean the object of this whole endeavor is to put people back to work, isn’t it.

By Diana T on 08/18/2009 5:12 pm

e-mail alert

These are two distinct issues. Yes, improving gas mileage is a good thing for all cars and car makers. Whether or not a car is made in the U.S. or considered a "foreign" car is another matter. Foreign car companies (i.e., Toyota, Honda, Nissan etc.) do have "assembly" plants here in the U.S. And yes, they do employ many Americans to assemble cars which are sold here as well. Most of the parts however are designed, engineered and manufactured abroad and shipped to the assembly plants. Honda and Toyota have 12 U.S. assembly plants combined. GM and Ford have 40 U.S. assembly plants. Their parts are designed and engineered here and "most" are manufactured here as well. Again, not overlooking the fact that foreign car companies do employ Americans for assembly purposes; the profits return to the country where the company is headquartered. So, is your Kentucky assembled Toyota a foreign car? Most of it is. But, your Chevy or Ford WAS manufactured here and they employ more Americans than do foreign companies. Not to mention American dollars staying in America to hopefully hire more people to build more cars to sell more cars to hire more people . . . and so on and so on.

By P Rust on 08/14/2009 4:22 pm

e-mail alert

If we have the program, then the question’s answer is "YES" IMO. As several other posters have said, a clunker is a clunker.

Re: the program - if it were mine to alter, there would be no "oldest age allowed". Get all the crappy exhausters off the roads. Also, I’d up it to $10k but with the proviso that the new car have >40mpg estimated.

By John G on 08/14/2009 11:46 am

e-mail alert

The government really doesn’t care WHAT we think about Cash For Clunkers or anything else for that matter. So who really cares what cars are able to be traded in or not. They do what they want to do, no matter what it does to our struggling family income.

By Tracy Hopper on 08/14/2009 3:07 pm

e-mail alert

I say "yes" to the question. A clunker is a clunker. My Toyota Camry was stolen in May, it was an ‘89 which I bought new. If I still had it I would trade it in as a clunker, so now I bought a Nissan. Don’t know where it’s made but it’s good on gas and drives great.

By Rho on 08/14/2009 6:04 pm

e-mail alert

Is there really such a thing as a foreign or a domestic car? There are parts on all cars that come from both here and there. I don’t believe we can deleniate any longer. There are factories over here for Hyundai’s, is that a foreign car?

By jules verne on 08/14/2009 9:45 pm

e-mail alert

Where the fight really hinges is

1) what percentage of a company’s vehicles sold in the US are manufactured and designed in the US

2) if the company is headquartered overseas, do the US headquartered companies have as open access to those oveseas markets as the foreign companies do to the US market (particularly sore points with respect to Japan and Korea)

3) if the foreign based company is importing a lot of parts and/or assembled vehicles are those products manufactured in an environment operating under environmental, human rights, and worker safety laws comparable to those in the US

4) are the foreign based companies benefitting in the world marketplace due to unfair or unequal assistance received from their governments e.g. currency manipulation or financial practices not considered allowable by trade agreement

By Karen R on 08/15/2009 4:36 pm

e-mail alert

gm has factories in mexico, chrysler, i believe, has a factory in canada. honda has a factory in ohio. toyota in kentucky. i’d rather buy a car made by an american worker, than have cash going to exec’s and stockholder because of outsourcing. american companies haven’t made fuel efficiency a priority, until now, when forced. yes, cars with foreign makers should be part of cash-for-clunkers. the only negative i see, is that the poorer segment of our society won.t have access to the clunkers. ans for work this has been their lifeline,

By carol grzonka on 08/15/2009 4:57 pm

e-mail alert

To be sure you’re buying a car assembled in the United States check to very first character of the vehicle identification number (VIN). Only those vehicles with a 1, 4, or 5 in that first position are assembled in the U.S.

By Karen R on 08/15/2009 6:33 pm

e-mail alert

Cash for Clunkers is just another re-distribution of wealth program, but it actually gives tax dollars to people who can afford to buy a new car, or at least they think they can afford to buy a new car at this point. The cutoff date of only cars from 1984 forward was set by a classic car group- they didn’t want the program because of the amount of cars that were going to be destroyed- some potentially classic in the future in someone’s eye (think of the Edsel). Today’s clunker is a classic in several years. With these cars being destroyed, there will be less affordable used cars, less cars for parts in junk yards, smaller market for parts for the remaining used cars on the road. The cars that are turned in are supposed to be crushed- correct? Even though there are usable parts on them. That seems to me to be wasteful. I won’t even go into the aspect of the pollution created by destroying usable cars and manufacturing new ones. Will the efficiency of the new cars make up for the destruction of still usable cars?

So a program that appears on it’s face to be a good thing is redistribution of taxpayer’s money to benefit a certain class, in this instance the same people who actually paid the taxes. That’s good, we finally get something. But the flip side of that is that the value of the cars bought now will have a lower resale value becuase of the rebates being given.The future beneficiaries of this program will be the car collectors who can afford to pay the higher prices for the smaller pool of classic cars.

And the poor people that this administration cares so much about- how do they benefit? They can’t afford a new car, yet the price of the remaining used cars will go up. Oh, they can wait a few years and pay the reduced resale price of the curent new cars.

The other losers are the American taxpayers- just add the billions of the cost of this program to the debt and worry about it tomorrow.

By Cheeky Wombat on 08/15/2009 11:20 pm