You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Cliffs: according to Edmunds.com the program only resulted in 125,000 more cars sold than would have been sold without the program. Thus, at a cost of 3 billion dollars, those extra 125,000 car sales cost the taxpayers 24k per car.
Hmmm, I guess it depends on how you look at the numbers to determine if the program was successful or not.
I still think the real shame was destroying all those vehicles that could have gone to someone who desperately needed them. For a country hell bent on recycling and eliminating waste it sure seemed wasteful.
Your a liar. Obama would never create something that would not make sense in the long run and cost the tax payers billions. If you think the gvt screwed this one just wait to see what this healthcare thing does. In before the Obamacantdoanythingwrongeverandwilldefendhimtotheendregardle ssofcircumstance nuthuggers
Your a liar. Obama would never create something that would not make sense in the long run and cost the tax payers billions. If you think the gvt screwed this one just wait to see what this healthcare thing does. In before the Obamacantdoanythingwrongeverandwilldefendhimtotheendregardle ssofcircumstance nuthuggers
lol
__________________
Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. -Proverbs 27:6
Cliffs: according to Edmunds.com the program only resulted in 125,000 more cars sold than would have been sold without the program. Thus, at a cost of 3 billion dollars, those extra 125,000 car sales cost the taxpayers 24k per car.
I still think the real shame was destroying all those vehicles that could have gone to someone who desperately needed them. For a country hell bent on recycling and eliminating waste it sure seemed wasteful.
(Moved for clarity)
Hmmm, I guess it depends on how you look at the numbers to determine if the program was successful or not.
I guess it is! If one were to read the entire article, that $24,000 number comes from just the cars edmunds thinks were sales that wouldn't have happened otherwise based on models of sales most likely from non-recession times!
Edmunds numbers: $3,000,000,000 divided by 125,000 = $24,000
Problem is... that's a completely made up figure. $3,000,000,000 divided by 690,000 (the actual number of CFC cars) = $4347.83
So your thread title should read: Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $4347.83 per car
And that's perfectly fine to be upset with that. I have no problem with that.
It's not about Obama or dems not doing anything wrong... what most of us get defensive about is the purposeful and deliberate misrepresentation of facts that conservatives love to create and regurgitate.
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
I still think the real shame was destroying all those vehicles that could have gone to someone who desperately needed them. For a country hell bent on recycling and eliminating waste it sure seemed wasteful.
BTW... I agree 100% with you on this issue... the mistake the admin did was trying to combine stimulus with a token "green initiative"
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
BTW... I agree 100% with you on this issue... the mistake the admin did was trying to combine stimulus with a token "green initiative"
I qualified my post by saying I thought the math was dubious and probably exaggerated. I do think that it cost taxpayers more than 5k per car. I think any bailout is a bad idea. It just follows this country's decline into a system that rewards failure and stupidity.
My biggest problem with the cash for clunkers is that it was originally a "green" initiative that could also stimulate the car industry. How can you call something an environmentally friendly program when the destruction of the cars turned in greatly outweighed the gains from having newer more efficient cars on the road. It's political spin BS.
Politics today is just a simple shell game ... look over here while tell you how to live and at the same time we steal your freedom and your wallet ... I'm sick of the political ******** and am hoping a true visionary will emerge and lead this country in a positive and logical direction that actually benefits us all and not just one small group.
sorry for my rant ... sleep deprivation is a hell of a drug!
Your part about this being a "green" initiative is spot on. Shows what we already know....that rabid environmentalism and global warming alarmists are using this stuff to push their extreme leftist political agenda.
And such is the nature of our political system... so what's your point?
Some of us support agendas that help some people socially, at the risk of maybe some financial pain for others (and of course some abuse of the process)... while others support agendas that that help people who are already financially independent while all but ensuring those that aren't are continually indebted to them. (And there's still that abuse of the system to worry about.)
If it wasn't a leftist political agenda, it would be a rightist political agenda.
Go start your revolution if you want to change something... let us know how that works out for ya.
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
Problem is that the leftist agenda is inconsistent with the constitution and the founding principles of this nation. Bad businesses can be dealt with...we can choose to stop using them and burn down their businesses if needed. Bad governments are much harder to get rid of and that is why the leftist agenda has always and will continue to fail.
Sounds like a good topic for a new thread... enjoy!
Your a liar. Obama would never create something that would not make sense in the long run and cost the tax payers billions. If you think the gvt screwed this one just wait to see what this healthcare thing does. In before the Obamacantdoanythingwrongeverandwilldefendhimtotheendregardle ssofcircumstance nuthuggers
+ our deficit.
This is all somehow going to be blamed on Bush.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by illjim69
Jesse, stop with all your common sense. It has no place in today's society. Remember the government is here to hold your hand.
Your a liar. Obama would never create something that would not make sense in the long run and cost the tax payers billions. If you think the gvt screwed this one just wait to see what this healthcare thing does. In before the Obamacantdoanythingwrongeverandwilldefendhimtotheendregardle ssofcircumstance nuthuggers
Obama created Cash for Clunkers?
C'mon Dave... though he signed the bill, he didnt (not by a longshot) create the program.
__________________ Gun Totin' Liberals: Left of Center But Always on Target
Sandwiched in between the monumental news about General Motors and Chrysler, the president on Monday proposed a fleet modernization program that would include a "generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars."
Proposed it and signed it into law. But yeah, I guess technically he didn't "create" the program but it sure as hell looks like he's pretty much responsible for it having occurred.
Or is he not responsible for it in the same sense that Bush isn't responsible for legislation passed while he was president?
Artificial inflation of sales while refunding customers who would have purchased to begin with. This shrunk the time frame of purchase in the CFC window instead of months down the line.
Problem is... that's a completely made up figure. $3,000,000,000 divided by 690,000 (the actual number of CFC cars) = $4347.83
While I question their method for determining the number of cars that would not have sold with out the program, it's safe to assume that many still would have.
One of the main purposes of the program was to encourage car sales... but how many of those 690,000 would have sold if the program hadn't existed? I'm guessing quite a few.
Regardless, the program was a gigantic waste of money AND cars because hundreds of thousands of perfectly fine cars were destroyed at an effective cost of thousands of dollars each... when in reality, it doesn't cost near that much to destroy a car.
__________________
Our forefathers made one mistake. What they should have fought for was representation without taxation. Fletcher Knebel
While I question their method for determining the number of cars that would not have sold with out the program, it's safe to assume that many still would have.
One of the main purposes of the program was to encourage car sales... but how many of those 690,000 would have sold if the program hadn't existed? I'm guessing quite a few.
You and I and Edmunds can guess all we want... we'll not know. What we do know, is it certainly sparked a car buying frenzy that all but saved the auto industry and kept the country from falling into an all-out depression. Most agree that it was a timing issue and the economy could not afford to wait for consumer confidence.
Plus you've got people who said it was bad because people who couldn't afford cars were now able to buy them... so which was it? People who could and would anyway, or people who couldn't and did? Either way, it stimulated the economy! Will the repercussions later be worth it? We won't know until later.
Quote:
Regardless, the program was a gigantic waste of money AND cars because hundreds of thousands of perfectly fine cars were destroyed at an effective cost of thousands of dollars each... when in reality, it doesn't cost near that much to destroy a car.
Without considering the situation our economy and the auto industry was in, you are correct. But you HAVE to consider the context.
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000/car
lol
