The program worked well for you but there have been many reports of it not working so well and dealers left holding the bag unsure if they were getting paid by the government. I'm sure the program has worked as intended many times, whether it is worth billions of taxpayer dollars who knows.

Oh, and also an average middle-class American gets a break on purchasing a newer, more fuel efficient car, as well as a bit of a break in insurance premiums. A salesperson who lives in my community made some commission. A car dealer that's based in my community makes a sale. A terribly inefficient, unreliable truck is taken off the road. The program itself worked efficiently and without any sort of red-tape related delay. And for good measure there's more money in the pocket of a consumer (that would be me) on a monthly basis to (presumably) purchase goods and services.

And none of these reasons point to any sort of success in the program? It's a complete and abject failure? Seriously?

I guess I'm just not hearing enough from people who have actually taken advantage of the program… has anyone heard of a place to provide feedback related to CARS? I mean, actually using CARS, not just a place to vent an opinion one way or the other?

I kept insurance on the truck for the times I needed a truck (not my best sentence, but that's the best way I could describe it), i.e. moving my new wife (then girlfriend) from her apartment to my house, dump runs, dog hauling to the park, etc. I didn't drive it during the summer, obviously, but on the occasions I needed a truck, it still ran so… there it is. When I got into a position where I needed cash or a better commuter more than I needed a truck, trying to sell it for $500 wouldn't have done much good.

If you don't understand how a car rated at 31 mpg combined (and is getting 35+ mpg during a long commute) results in less fuel consumed and fewer emissions than a car that was rated at 24 mpg combined… I can't help you. And probably no one can.

Mr. Obama should create and implement a program to give every American man, woman, and child one million dollars, I can personally guarantee that the economy will be plenty stimulated!

Not really. It's tax money. It's already being taken, and if they don't spend it on Cash for Clunkers, they would have spent it on preserving the habitat of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse or solving the puzzling mystery of why men don't like to wear condoms. It's not like they passed CARS and immediately sent out a bill to everyone in the country for an extra three bucks to cover it.

As to Jack's story, I like it. My only question would be, why were you still paying insurance on the truck? If you were driving the Mazda and the new wife came equipped with her own car, why not just take the truck off the road entirely (on paper) until you could find something to do with it? Doesn't sound like you have driving age children yet, so what was the need to have the truck on the road at all?

But still, glad it worked out ok for you. If my share of paying for Jack's rebate on his new Honda was roughly .00001 cents, then I'm ok with pitching in for that.

From an emissions standpoint the swap was essentially the Mazda 6 for the Honda Fit, not bad but not the truck vs Honda swap you make it sound like. The Honda Fit is rated 35 MPG on the highway and the Mazda 6 is rated 25 MPG. So now you have a little more money in your pocket and the rest of us will have a little less.

I just did a little googling (you can look up 'CAFE standards rebound effect' if you want to find more) and found this article and

this one which partially rebuts it (saying the rebound effect is real but doesn't negate as much of the positive fuel reduction as the critics claim that it does. I think I also remember that the guys at Brookings argue against CAFE based on the rebound effect too.

” One, improving gas mileage of the fleet doesn't necessarily lead to reduced oil consumption/emissions because people tend to drive more “

I love phrases like “doesn't necessarily”…lets you say almost anything you want.

It also gives several good con side points on this type of program. One, improving gas mileage of the fleet doesn't necessarily lead to reduced oil consumption/emissions because people tend to drive more (I think this has been documented after the CAFE standards were raised in the 70s, if I'm not mistaken.) Two, this is more a subsidy for our newly owned auto companies than a real stimulus, because we're just shifting buyers to new cars vs. used cars. That's a zero sum game, most likely, not a creation of actual demand.

At any rate, politically you may be right Jazz, but I don't think that's so clear cut either. The program is popular among those who benefit from it but that'll still be under a million people, and the GOP might end up hurting it's standing among voters if it appears to be pandering to support what amounts to another bailout, even if some consumers do see some direct benefit from this particular bailout.

I had a 1986 Dodge D50 Power Ram Sport 4 wheel-drive pickup, a small truck manufactured by Dodge but with a Mitsubishi engine, one that is widely regarded as “moody”, at best. I bought it from my Stepfather when he purchased his new truck, and it came to me in 2003 as a one-owner, always-garaged, fully functional truck with 105 thousand original miles. That being said, I live in Phoenix. And the A/C was gone. Enough said. And the thing leaked… power steering fluid, engine oil, windshield wiper fluid for God's sake. Two years ago I had to put a new carburetor on to pass emissions… $800. And it was still a terrible every day vehicle… 18 mpg at most, GUTLESS, leaky… and no a/c. Miserable. I wanted to sell it but, seriously, who wants to buy this… thing? Someone looking for a beater for $500, (or less) maybe. So it stayed in my garage, leaking fluids and collecting insurance payments.

I also had a 2006 Mazda 6. Pretty good car… I purchased it brand new when I was engaged to be married and had practically no debt. Flash to 3 weeks after I bought the car and my engagement fell through… half my income gone. Bills to pay on my own… gas prices going up, debt being accumulated… $366/month car payment becoming a drag. And it's rated at a combined 24 mpg or so. Not that great.

So here we are in 2009. I have a truck I don't use, a car payment that is too high… and a new wife who works 45 miles away from our house (yes, a different engagement/marriage. A lot can happen in two years… don't judge me). What we really needed was a commuter that had better mileage than either my Mazda or her Subaru Forester (her car before our marriage.. also rated around 22-24mpg combined). But trying to trade either of our cars with little or no equity or trying to trade in my truck (yeah, right) would have been pointless, most likely resulting in us still having the POS Dodge and a car payment just as high as our current payments. So it’s almost as though the CARS program was written specifically for me. The thought of getting $4500 trade-in value for my pickup, and being able to trade in my Mazda for the tiny bit of equity I had, being applied towards the sale price of a brand-spanking-new Honda Fit practically had me salivating.

So I did it. As soon as my local Honda dealer gave me the go-ahead, I showed up with a printout of my insurance records, my registration, a copy of the web page indicating my 1986 Dodge had a combined fuel economy rating of 18 mpg, and a price quote from the Costco Auto Program. I arrived at 1:00 p.m. and had the Honda Fit in my garage by 5:00 p.m. My car payment is now $100 less a month, I have a car that is averaging close to 40 mpg on the highway (with very conservative driving habits, of course), and I don't have to look at my POS Dodge taking up half of my garage (and liability insurance payments) anymore. More money in my pocket (more money to spend, if you buy into that philosophy), less fuel being consumed, and fewer emissions in the air. Win, win, win.

If I remember correctly, the CARS.gov website has specifically stated from day one that the program would either run until November or until the funds were exhausted. People crowing about all of the “confusion” of the program or how it has been “poorly administered” are repeating talking points and are just plain wrong. How is it that a program that works too well and runs out of funds quicker than anticipated is defined as a failure? Would I have done this deal anyway without the added incentive from the government? NO. It would have been foolish. Hearing people make the argument that it's just summer car deals from the rich or middle class that would have been made anyway makes me laugh out loud, and then makes me kinda angry. They have no idea what they're babbling about. The program, whether or not you agree with how it's being paid for, or with the political affiliation of the author, or with the ultimate goals of the program itself… whatever… worked. And it worked well.

That being said, I can understand why there’s opposition to further funding. I mean, hey… it was a billion dollars, and it’s gone. Sorry. But if another 2 billion is approved, that means more ordinary Americans like myself will get a well-deserved break. How can I be opposed to that? I can’t. I’m not. Period.

We are buying fuel efficient cars here so we don't have send soldiers to die over there.

Anyway, apparently the program will only be extended until this Friday.

On top of that, the liberal position of destroying perfectly good cars that poor people would love to have to drive to an imaginary job is a surefire looser.

Punishing those who bought fuel efficient cars previously and rewarding those who bought gas hogs only makes sense to Democrats.

Now that they are distorting the market, all of the purchasing will be pushed up while the incentives are in place. Once they end, the market will have a depression while consumption catches up with supply. This will occur in 2010 – about as stupid a move as possible for Democrats in congress.

Democrats have now shown they can’t administer a new program on a small scale without total chaos and tremendous expense. Not a good sign for healthcare.

If the GOP is shooting itself in the foot, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the head. One is a wound – the other fatal.

From a small government/fiscal responsibility perspective the GOP should vote against it. From a political perspective they should support it. Since the program will be extended no matter what the GOP does it's probably pointless for them to fall on their swords for this one.