Are you really trying to lecture a Pittsburgh resident about the steel industry and job loss?
You seem really pissed off at me for something that I never even came close to saying.
Read my post again. You'll see that I was pointing out that the cash for clunkers program wasn't beneficial to the environment. Nowhere did I say that we should or should not trade jobs for the benefit of the environment.
Take a deep breath and look at things with a clear mind. You'll see that even most critics of the cash for clunkers program are in favor of "US truckers [and] steel workers having jobs". We're simply pointing out that cash for clunkers wasn't a very effective way to achieve that. Plenty of stimulus options were available other than the one that required the destruction of perfectly functional automobiles.
I neglected a smiley. My bad. I wasn't pissed, just sarcastic.
Besides, who brought up the environment anyway?
Other than direct cash subsidies to trucking and the steel industry what would have been a more effective way? Continued new car sales has good secondary effects on those markets.
Why was the destruction of "perfectly functional automobiles" a significant problem? There's no shortage of the top 10 vehicles listed for the used market. I checked carmax for a few. If I want a used ford explorer there are plenty.
There are many more cost and fuel effective alternatives on the used market. They are a class of vehicles that are not good for the country.
So rather than hand the automakers a direct subsidy we helped out americans better afford a new car which kept more americans working and with significant economic leverage on the money spent. If we destroyed some engines and the rest are parts or scrap metal to be used elsewhere BFD.
For a lousy $3B? We should have kept going with tighter restrictions and slammed the auto industry with significant CAFE standard hikes.
If the Chinese can't reign in domestic oil use and oil imports while we can, thats a significant economic and strategic advantage for us.