Cash for Clunkers: An exercise in futility

[ozzmdj]

I am almost numb from watching our government interfere in markets it does not understand.....American Thinker- Print Article

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Cash for Clunkers: Toyota passes GM as top seller - Aug. 17, 2009

The average fuel economy of vehicles being traded in under the program has been 15.8 miles per gallon, according to the latest government data, while the fuel economy of vehicles purchased has averaged 25 mpg, a 58% improvement.

I still think it apparent that there are compelling economic and environmental benefits behind the cash for clunkers program. If each of these new cars used on average one gallon of gasoline a day, today 360000 gallons of gasoline would get us as far as 568800 gallons of gas used to get us. Which is benefiting us today as well as tomorrow.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Cash for Clunkers: Toyota passes GM as top seller - Aug. 17, 2009

The average fuel economy of vehicles being traded in under the program has been 15.8 miles per gallon, according to the latest government data, while the fuel economy of vehicles purchased has averaged 25 mpg, a 58% improvement.

I still think it apparent that there are compelling economic and environmental benefits behind the cash for clunkers program. If each of these new cars used on average one gallon of gasoline a day, today 360000 gallons of gasoline would get us as far as 568800 gallons of gas used to get us. Which is benefiting us today as well as tomorrow.

And yet:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Americans oppose any further funding for the federal “cash for clunkers” program which encourages the owners of older cars to trade them in for newer, more fuel-efficient ones.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 33% of adults think Congress should authorize additional funding to keep the program going now that the original $950 million allocated for it has run out. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

These numbers are virtually identical to the findings in mid-June just after Congress first approved the plan when 35% favored it while 54% were opposed.

Men favor continuation of the program more than women. African-Americans like it more than whites. Lower-income Americans, not surprisingly, are more supportive of it than those who earn more.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans and 51% of adults not affiliated with either major party are opposed to continuing the “cash for clunkers” program. Democrats are closely divided over the question.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

Fifty-three percent (53%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the program, which gives rebates up to $4,500 to owners who trade their older cars in, will hurt new car sales next year. Twenty-six percent (26%) say it is very likely.

54% Oppose More Money for ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Program - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Oddball]

I still think it apparent that there are compelling economic and environmental benefits behind the cash for clunkers program. If each of these new cars used on average one gallon of gasoline a day, today 360000 gallons of gasoline would get us as far as 568800 gallons of gas used to get us. Which is benefiting us today as well as tomorrow.

At whose expense??

Where do you think the money for the handouts comes from, the Tooth Fairy?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I still think it apparent that there are compelling economic and environmental benefits behind the cash for clunkers program. If each of these new cars used on average one gallon of gasoline a day, today 360000 gallons of gasoline would get us as far as 568800 gallons of gas used to get us. Which is benefiting us today as well as tomorrow.

At whose expense??

Where do you think the money for the handouts comes from, the Tooth Fairy?

True the tooth fairy's budget is a little too small for a $3 billion program. But if such a program results in things like lower demand for gasoline, a diminished dependency on "foriegn oil," and better environmental quality you and I benefit as well even if we dont receive the $4500 subsidy.

 

[Oddball]

How does trashing perfectly good cars before the end of their servicable lifespans accomplish any of that??

Seems to me you're ignoring the energy expendatures it takes to manufacure and deliver cars to begin with.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Well you're assuming that the cars are perfectly good and I am assuming that many may be starting to get crappy. But the fact is that they are no more recent than 2001 and get pretty shitty gas mileage. We're talking about cars that are getting to be over a decade to 25 years old. What is the average "lifespan" of a car in the United States, especially all those 90s SUVs that seem to be extremely popular trade ins?

And what would the energy costs to manufacure and deliver cars be in relation to the energy savings overtime?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Instead of destroying the 'clunkers' (I saw some of these clunkers; a lot of them were nice cars), they should have donated them to Purple Heart or some other organization for those who don't have any means of transportation.

 

[Vel]

I still think it apparent that there are compelling economic and environmental benefits behind the cash for clunkers program. If each of these new cars used on average one gallon of gasoline a day, today 360000 gallons of gasoline would get us as far as 568800 gallons of gas used to get us. Which is benefiting us today as well as tomorrow.

At whose expense??

Where do you think the money for the handouts comes from, the Tooth Fairy?

True the tooth fairy's budget is a little too small for a $3 billion program. But if such a program results in things like lower demand for gasoline, a diminished dependency on "foriegn oil," and better environmental quality you and I benefit as well even if we dont receive the $4500 subsidy.

Really? You believe this? This program had NOTHING to do with the environment and everything to do with trying to boost sales for GM and Chrysler. As to the lower demand for gasoline.. if that happens be ready to pay higher gasoline taxes to make up the federal budget difference.

 

[Vel]

How does trashing perfectly good cars before the end of their servicable lifespans accomplish any of that??

Seems to me you're ignoring the energy expendatures it takes to manufacure and deliver cars to begin with.

You know, anyone but the federal government would find a way to profit from the clunkers. Scrap metal recycling... used parts... rubber recycling..but Nooooo..

 

[oreo]

Dealerships are already complaining that they haven't been reimbursed from the government. Some are stopping the program until they are paid.

Can anyone imagine how they would handle health care--LOL

 

[Meister]

Dealerships are already complaining that they haven't been reimbursed from the government. Some are stopping the program until they are paid.

Can anyone imagine how they would handle health care--LOL

Right you are.

GOLDEN, Colo. -- Cars may be selling fast under the Cash for Clunkers program, but the government’s payments are coming in slowly, according to Colorado dealers waiting for their claim money to come in.

The slow pace may force some dealers to stop taking part in the program and in the end, consumers may pay the price.
Government Slow Paying Dealers For Cash For Clunkers - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

 

[DavidS]

This helps the dealership industry -- made up of customer service reps, accountants, receptionists, salesman, managers, marketing executives and corporate executives. They make more money, they go out and spend that money -- say at the local diner. The waitress makes more money, she spends that money. That business makes more money, etc. etc. Wait, this economic theory sounds familiar to me....

Could it be Supply Side Economics, i.e. Reaganomics? But instead of giving the rich money, which they'll horde and save instead of spend, the middle class actually SPEND the money.

This is a great idea and I'm glad they put more money into it.

 

[Meister]

This helps the dealership industry -- made up of customer service reps, accountants, receptionists, salesman, managers, marketing executives and corporate executives. They make more money, they go out and spend that money -- say at the local diner. The waitress makes more money, she spends that money. That business makes more money, etc. etc. Wait, this economic theory sounds familiar to me....

Could it be Supply Side Economics, i.e. Reaganomics? But instead of giving the rich money, which they'll horde and save instead of spend, the middle class actually SPEND the money.

This is a great idea and I'm glad they put more money into it.

So we bail out the auto industry with our taxes...now we're talking billions here. Then we bail them out again with billions more. Yeah, I get it.

 

[Fatality]

This helps the dealership industry -- made up of customer service reps, accountants, receptionists, salesman, managers, marketing executives and corporate executives. They make more money, they go out and spend that money -- say at the local diner. The waitress makes more money, she spends that money. That business makes more money, etc. etc. Wait, this economic theory sounds familiar to me....

Could it be Supply Side Economics, i.e. Reaganomics? But instead of giving the rich money, which they'll horde and save instead of spend, the middle class actually SPEND the money.

This is a great idea and I'm glad they put more money into it.

haliburton, haliburton!!! BOOOOOOOSH!!!!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

At whose expense??

Where do you think the money for the handouts comes from, the Tooth Fairy?

True the tooth fairy's budget is a little too small for a $3 billion program. But if such a program results in things like lower demand for gasoline, a diminished dependency on "foriegn oil," and better environmental quality you and I benefit as well even if we dont receive the $4500 subsidy.

Really? You believe this? This program had NOTHING to do with the environment and everything to do with trying to boost sales for GM and Chrysler. As to the lower demand for gasoline.. if that happens be ready to pay higher gasoline taxes to make up the federal budget difference.

When I first heard about this program I assumed that the cars you could buy were limited to GM and Chrysler stock. Even though I can't figure out that borrowing money from China (or was this money that was just printed?) for this program is a good thing, I thought 'ok, they're trying to help out all the dealers who got shut down by helping to get their inventories sold off'. That was my rationalization anyway. Then I heard that Toyota and Fords were the biggest sellers and was just . . . even more perplexed.

And why is it taking so long for uncle to get the money to the dealers? This is the same government that whipped out a mega-billion dollar stimulus (cough, cough) package over night and yet . . . . dealers are having to be out all this money cause uncle can't even do this efficiently? So uncle underestimated and underfunded the program to begin with and getting the money back to the dealers is taking forever. And these are the same people who want to run health care?

 

[MarcATL]

It takes a real Right-Wing Extremist Nutjob to find fault with this MASSIVELY succesful program.

The bottom line is its boosting the economy.

Those Rethuglican dealers complaining about not getting their cash as yet will get it in time, they have no worries.

RW nutjobs would rather see the economy continue to decline instead of get the much needed shot in the arm.

BTW, the majority of the buyers were already wanting to buy, but just needed that incentive.

The plan is a MAJOR succesful.

Only in Right-Wing Nutjob Bizzaro World is down up and up down.

 

[EriktheRed]

It takes a real Right-Wing Extremist Nutjob to find fault with this MASSIVELY succesful program.

The bottom line is its boosting the economy.

Those Rethuglican dealers complaining about not getting their cash as yet will get it in time, they have no worries.

RW nutjobs would rather see the economy continue to decline instead of get the much needed shot in the arm.

BTW, the majority of the buyers were already wanting to buy, but just needed that incentive.

The plan is a MAJOR succesful.

GM is recalling over 1,000 of it's recently laid-off workers due to increased demand.

 

[Oldandtired]

It takes a real Right-Wing Extremist Nutjob to find fault with this MASSIVELY succesful program.

The bottom line is its boosting the economy.

Those Rethuglican dealers complaining about not getting their cash as yet will get it in time, they have no worries.

RW nutjobs would rather see the economy continue to decline instead of get the much needed shot in the arm.

BTW, the majority of the buyers were already wanting to buy, but just needed that incentive.

The plan is a MAJOR succesful.

GM is recalling over 1,000 of it's recently laid-off workers due to increased demand.

You say it is successful to offer well to do people a 4500 dicount on their next major purpose...and they go for it?

Facts you can not deny:

The only ones buying a new car in this economy are those with two things...money and credit
Those that planned to buy a car in October or later will simpoly buy it now so they can save 4500...anyone who knows they will need a new car in October that waits until October is an idiot.
Those that can not afford a new car is seeing their inventory of options for a decent used car diminish greatly
In essence..and I heard this analogy yesterday and it is ideal:

If you levelled all structurally sound buildings in NYC and rebuilt them.....thus creating tens of thousands of jobs....is this a good thing?

The CARS program is no different. Smoke and mirrors...and people like you are falling for it.

NO ECONOMIC GROWTH...simply a talking point for the 2012 campaign

 

[Oldandtired]

GM is recalling over 1,000 of it's recently laid-off workers due to increased demand.[/QUOTE]

And they will be laid off again in January when the deamnd is gone.

So at the cost of 3 Billion, we gave 1000 people a job for 3 months.

Sounds like a great success.

Do you really think it is a success when wealthy people with good credit say "sure I will buy something that has a 20% discount"?

Jeez....people are really gullible.