Report: Cash for Clunkers Auto Program Cost Taxpayers $24,000 Per Vehicle

[Mr.Fitnah]

Once the interest on the debt is figured in .Who knows how much it will cost.

 

[Article 15]

I'm a Reoublican Art and I sincerely hope its wrong. But something tells me its close.

It sounds to me like they took the amount that the average consumer who used the program paid for their car and tried to apply THAT figure as what the tax payers paid and not the actual rebate.

 

[strollingbones]

you have to look at how they figured this...basically...lets toss out a number we like and pretend its true....

 

[Oddball]

I'm a Reoublican Art and I sincerely hope its wrong. But something tells me its close.

It sounds to me like they took the amount that the average consumer who used the program paid for their car and tried to apply THAT figure as what the tax payers paid and not the actual rebate.

They took the numbers of people who would have likely bought cars anyways, and applied their rebates to people who probably wouldn't have.

 

[Article 15]

I'm a Reoublican Art and I sincerely hope its wrong. But something tells me its close.

It sounds to me like they took the amount that the average consumer who used the program paid for their car and tried to apply THAT figure as what the tax payers paid and not the actual rebate.

They took the numbers of people who would have likely bought cars anyways, and applied their rebates to people who probably wouldn't have.

And I've gone cross eyed.


Ok ... now I get it.


Some shady stats there.

 

[Modbert]

And I've gone cross eyed.


Ok ... now I get it.


Some shady stats there.

Do you honestly expect any less? It's called bullshitting and gaming the numbers to get a desired result. In this case, it's to try and say the Cash for Clunkers program was a failure.

It's as if Republicans are afraid they will drop dead if they have to admit Obama did something right.

 

[Oddball]

How is paying someone around 1/4 of the money it takes to buy something that they were going to buy in any event a "success"?

 

[Modbert]

How is paying someone around 1/4 of the money to buy something that they were going to buy in any event a "success"?

Except the problem is when you start playing with things like "likely" and "probably" that things like accuracy go out the window. I'd like to see where they got their numbers from anyway.

 

[Oddball]

Like it or not, that's how polling works.

Where the numbers came from, I have no idea. All I know is how they're being counted up in this instance.

 

[Article 15]

How is paying someone around 1/4 of the money it takes to buy something that they were going to buy in any event a "success"?

Wouldn't it free up money they would have spent anyways and allow it to be spent elsewhere?

 

[Oddball]

How is paying someone around 1/4 of the money it takes to buy something that they were going to buy in any event a "success"?

Wouldn't it free up money they would have spent anyways and allow it to be spent elsewhere?

At whose expense?...You think that money came from the Tooth Fairy?

 

[Article 15]

How is paying someone around 1/4 of the money it takes to buy something that they were going to buy in any event a "success"?

Wouldn't it free up money they would have spent anyways and allow it to be spent elsewhere?

At whose expense?...You think that money came from the Tooth Fairy?

Yours, mine, and everyone else's, of course.

I thought that besides fuel economy the program was designed to get people spending.

If I'm going to buy a car no matter what and suddenly I'm getting a rebate from the tax payer on my purchase now I can go out and spend that money on other things and get other sectors moving again.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Everyone knows edmonds has a political axe to grind against the White house.

 

[Oddball]

Yours, mine, and everyone else's, of course.

I thought that besides fuel economy the program was designed to get people spending.

If I'm going to buy a car no matter what and suddenly I'm getting a rebate from the tax payer on my purchase now I can go out and spend that money on other things and get other sectors moving again.

Right. At the expense of people who would have spent the money on things like food, clothing and shelter for themselves.

There really is no free lunch.

 

[Article 15]

Yours, mine, and everyone else's, of course.

I thought that besides fuel economy the program was designed to get people spending.

If I'm going to buy a car no matter what and suddenly I'm getting a rebate from the tax payer on my purchase now I can go out and spend that money on other things and get other sectors moving again.

Right. At the expense of people who would have spent the money on things like food, clothing and shelter for themselves.

There really is no free lunch.

I get that but when the gears are locked up you gotta get some lubrication in there to get things moving again.

 

[Oddball]

When most of the people who bought the cars were going to buy one anyways?

Even if that means that auto sales crater, like they did, after the program ends?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wouldn't it free up money they would have spent anyways and allow it to be spent elsewhere?

At whose expense?...You think that money came from the Tooth Fairy?

Yours, mine, and everyone else's, of course.

I thought that besides fuel economy the program was designed to get people spending.

If I'm going to buy a car no matter what and suddenly I'm getting a rebate from the tax payer on my purchase now I can go out and spend that money on other things and get other sectors moving again.

If I was going to buy a car anyway and suddenly got a rebate from joe taxpayer on my purchase, I would save the difference and be joyous that I saved the bucks. I wouldn't go out and spend the difference.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yours, mine, and everyone else's, of course.

I thought that besides fuel economy the program was designed to get people spending.

If I'm going to buy a car no matter what and suddenly I'm getting a rebate from the tax payer on my purchase now I can go out and spend that money on other things and get other sectors moving again.

Right. At the expense of people who would have spent the money on things like food, clothing and shelter for themselves.

There really is no free lunch.

I get that but when the gears are locked up you gotta get some lubrication in there to get things moving again.

The gears didn't get lubricated, sand has been thrown in to the gearbox problem are just beginning .

 

[Article 15]

When most of the people who bought the cars were going to buy one anyways?

Even if that means that auto sales crater, like they did, after the program ends?

IMO, yes because of the capital it frees up.

 

[Article 15]

At whose expense?...You think that money came from the Tooth Fairy?

Yours, mine, and everyone else's, of course.

I thought that besides fuel economy the program was designed to get people spending.

If I'm going to buy a car no matter what and suddenly I'm getting a rebate from the tax payer on my purchase now I can go out and spend that money on other things and get other sectors moving again.

If I was going to buy a car anyway and suddenly got a rebate from joe taxpayer on my purchase, I would save the difference and be joyous that I saved the bucks. I wouldn't go out and spend the difference.

That's you. As we know most Americans love spending "free" money.