Personally, this Cash for Clunkers falls way short
Did we just subsidize the auto industry and not do jack shit for our energy dependence? All because we are so happy to show the Party of No a program works and the Dems do know how to stimulate an econmy? It seems to me that getting $3500 to trade in a car and get a 4 mpg increase is a bunch of bullshit and $4500 to get 10mpg more is elephant shit. Now that I have a long commute to work I get to listen to more NPR and they made an interesting point about how the Auto Industry was able to get there mitts on the bill and strip out the original intent. Reducing the increase limit to get the cash and the type of cars you had to buy.
Geeeeeeeee, what a shocker, the lobbyists win again and so does big oil and we lose. Long term nothing changes yet again. woopdeeedo, we go from cars that get 15 to 25mpg….wow. Amazing. What an improvement. Woho. What a joke. I’m pretty sure cars were getting better MPG 15 years ago.
I guess I’m the sober guy at the strip club pointing out the fake breasts and the cellulite. Call me the party pooper, the wet blanket, the nattering nabob of bullshitivity. Whatever, I could care less.
We had a real chance to subsidize cars that get great gas mileage. We had a chance to push customers into buying cars that really get good mileage and change behavior. But alas, now gas prices can go up and the money people are “saving” with a more fuel efficient car will be negated as they will no doubt drive more miles (proven to happen with greater efficiency) and with demand increasing as the economy comes back gas prices will no doubt increase. Kick the can down the road. Hooray, Saudi Arabia is saved!!!! Hizzah! Allah Akbar!
I’m sorry, didn’t we already bailed out the auto industry once. All we did here was give them a $3500 coupon courtesy of my tax dollars. I’d rather we do it the George Bush way and I get the money and pay off my credit card and leaving a little to buy that case of beer I had my eye on as I passed them to my 30 pack of Natty light.
All this gimmick did was keep the Auto Giants from having to lower their inflated prices and keep propped up used car prices so when the cars are driven off the lot the car you are driving isn’t worth 20% less what you paid…it’s now worth 35 to 40%.
Cash for Clunkers couldn’t me be more appropriate.
I think it could be better but I’m happy to see a stimulus aimed at actual consumers and not just banks.
Do the math. The net improvement in gas mileage is significant. The average gas mileage of vehicles sold was 25.4 mpg, compared to 15.8 mpg for vehicles traded in. 83 percent of trade-ins were trucks, while 60 percent of new vehicles sold were cars. If the average car is driven 10,000 miles a year, I calculate that gasoline consumption will fall by 60 million gallons a year because of the program.
You got it right, this was just another theft from the treasury.
Farsider/Outlier: Its always a “theft” of the treasury when the guvmint actually does something to help the regular guy! Not only is the program working, but this morning on Cspan they discussed this issue. One dealership sold 90 cars in two days. More than sold since early 2008! Outlier are you a “birther” and a “deather”, or just a rebiblican intent on destroying any attempt to help the average american citizen?
Just think if the car companies lowered their prices by $4500 they would have made all these sales – no goverment funds required. This is just another giveaway – sure it is popular – it’d be popular if Obama stood on the street corner and handed out hundred dollar bills to passers by. And who cares about 60 Million gallons a year ? We consume 378 million gallons a day.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
If these more efficient cars were worth the investment – if it saved people enough money at the gas pump versus the cost of the car people would buy them without subsidies. Government handouts like this do not fix the problem – they exend it.
“You got it right, this was just another theft from the treasury.”
More proof you don’t even understand how the government works. The money is borrowed, not revenue.
Chrysler matched the 4500 rebate for a total of 9K on their cars for awhile.
Car companies did water down the MPG requirement so that this program does not go as far as it could to help create a long-term market for very fuel efficient cars, but then again, the Ford Focus is apparently the top selling car in this program which is a step in the right direction.
Of course it is borrowed – will it one day be repaid ? How much will it really cost after interest to finance this giveaway ? If we don’t pay it back with ‘reveue’ what will we use ? Magic pixie dust ? Hope and Change ?
I’m sorry, didn’t we already bailed out the auto industry once. All we did here was give them a $3500 coupon courtesy of my tax dollars.
Holy shit, I actually agree with Don Viti. He may be an idiot but for once he’s actually said something intelligent. I knew it would happen eventually! I’m so proud of you!
“If we don’t pay it back with ‘reveue’ what will we use ? Magic pixie dust ? Hope and Change ?”
Printed dollars, which will lead to inflation, which will devalue our currency, which will mean we won’t be able to buy as much imported stuff, which will lead to more manufacturing in the US, which will … c’mon, grow up. There’s nothing being done here that wasn’t being done under all your favorite conservative icon presidents — deficit spending to prop up a consumer economy. Stop pretending this is about one party vs. another. ONe party is bullshitting you and you like to believe it. Simple story for simpletons like you.
” I’d rather we do it the George Bush way and I get the money and pay off my credit card and leaving a little to buy that case of beer ”
Would that also include the money WASTED by mailing letters to everybody telling them they may get a check, and then the letter telling them they will get a check, and lastly the letter telling them that the check will be mailed shortly?
Bwhahaha…
Mike W agrees with you DV. Case closed.
Why does everybody just mention the money that the car dealerships make?
What about the people in car dealerships that got to keep their jobs?
What about the money sales people make that they can now spend out in the economy?
What about the unemployment checks that don’t have to get written?
The Free/reduced school lunches that don’t need to get paid by school districts?
The money that people who took advantage of the program may spend in the near future for oil changes and upkeep of the car that they didn’t do before because their cars were junk anyway?
Personally, the impact of the program may be greater then we think.
I’m with you Suzanne, as much as I am against bail-outs–if this is the one that can touch real people, than I go with this one. Get those cars off those lots–BEFORE–they have to close their business.
So far, roughly 120,000 clunkers have been traded in for more fuel efficient cars. Eighty-three percent of the vehicles traded in were SUVs or trucks. Sixty-six percent of new purchases were cars that get, on avaerage, 28 MPG. The average net benefit (including trucks and SUVs purchased by the program), is 9 MPG.
The program still has enough money for another 130,000 new cars to be purchased. Because of the enormous popularity of the program, it is expected to be out of money by mid-week.
By Friday, it is expected that 250,000 vehicles will have been traded in with a net gain of 9 MPG per vehicle. The average American puts 12,000 miles a year on a car. Do the math. It’s a pretty good start.
Compare this program to GWB tax break for gas guzzling trucks and SUVs, just as things were heating up the Middle East. Talk about having your priorities mixed up. Let’s put some more big vehicles on the road, guzzle some more gas and throw some more pollution in the air. Oh, and subsidize the oil industry while we’re at it.
The philosophies of the two parties couldn’t be more evident than by this comparison. I’ll take the dems approach and raise you $2 billion to continue the program.
What is clear is peoples behavior can be influenced by tax code and economic policy. The Obama Administration is looking ahead and trying to slowly change peoples behavior for the better. As a country we’ll be better off, if only slightly. The Bush Administration kept us tied to the past, reliant on oil and without concern for any environmental consequences. It’s tax policy that encouraged the manufacturing of gas guzzlers and delayed the country’s efforts to become energy independent. That’s bad policy.
Business isn’t stupid. Look around. Auto manufacturers are frantically designing, building and putting fuel efficient cars. on the market. That comes from leadership and policy that enhances what most of us already know we need to do.
If bailing out the auto industry means finding ways to steer them to building more fuel efficient cars, than so be it.
somewhere in Saudi Arabia the oil minister is laughing at the US
sumwear in DC deh lobbyust iz laffin too
Why stop at cars there are lots of things we cannot afford or have determined are not worth the price that we could all have if the government would just subsidize them. How about the poor boat salesmen ? How about a government voucher for fine dining – I hear their sales are really down? Fine wine anyone ? It’ll do the waiters good to have some extra business.
But that bottle of wine has a very different impact on the economy and people then the car does – you can compare Apples to Apples but you are trying to compare less than an apple seed to an apple.
You getting drunk on wine or removing polluters from the streets.
Sorry if I leave you drinking on your own while I support giving my son some less polluted air to breathe.
Nice try, but government isn’t invested in keeping those businesses going.
Fine dining is already heavily subsidized by the fact that business entertainment is tax deductible.
Farming for certain commodities is heavily subsidized by the government.
As is oil, coal and natural gas exploration and extraction.
Home mortgages are subsidized.
The government has been in the business of providing incentives for certain types of business or consumer behavior since forever. Which isn’t to say that these are all worthwhile, but it is SOP. Cash for clunkers is at least a consumer-oriented one, with a limitation that these other subsidy programs don’t have.
Farming is heavily subsidized as well.
Amen, anon4. We need to subsidize the behavior we want. The Republican strategy is to shame behavior they don’t like. That doesn’t work very well. I think we should try to work with human nature and not against it.
Hey, everyone loves a bargain. Why I hear public education is subsidized.
Yeah I agree with you Donviti. My concern, does it really help the person taking advantage of it? If the person is like my brother who did take advantage of it, they are getting rid of a clunker and getting a smart car. BUT only if they can afford the trade. My brother could pay cash for the balance after said trade. How many people who are already struggling and couldn’t afford to have car payments will take advantage? Will it be like the people who were given loans to buy houses they couldn’t afford? I hope that anyone who took advantage of the cash for clunkers are in the position of my brother and don’t hurt themselves in the long run. Coming up with a new monthly payment of any kind if you can’t afford it isn’t good. And this to me seems like only a temporary fix not a long term one. I just don’t like the way it is costing money we don’t have and putting us more in debt.
“The Republican strategy is to shame behavior they don’t like.”
They must have learned that in church.
“I just don’t like the way it is costing money we don’t have and putting us more in debt.”
The time for that kind of thinking was back when the economy was healthy — and the problem is that nobody was thinking that way back then. To put this as simply as possible, when the private sector isn’t spending, the only way to float the economy is with public spending.
I happily got rid of my nickle and dime-ing me Jeep of 10 years for a nice shiny new car. and getting a new chrysler/dodge/jeep netted me 8k off the sticker, so instead of 22k, it cost me 14k and i saved a whopping 3 miles a gallon, from 16mpg – 19mpg, but now i gots a warranty, new tires, brakes, mechanical parts and a peace of mind that my family wont break down on rt 1 on the way to the beach.
and now your car is worth $10k. congrats uz is what dey call “upside down” in da buziness
My nephew just turned in an old 1996 truck F150 with 220,000 miles and bought a small ford. His payments are less than $199 a month. He and his family of four could never have bought a car without this program. All you repukes screw yourselves into the ground. You dont want anything that benefits the people, this program does.
you arent up side down when you pay cash and keep cars for 8-10 years.
I think Republicans are afraid of this program. It’s a popular, easy-to-explain stimulus program. It’s hard to argue about how awful the government is when people are driving away with their shiny new cars.
I agree, UI. They’ve now put themselves in the position of opposing a popular program simply because they don’t want to see Democrats getting any credit for doing something popular. This is hissy fits elevated to strategy.
The F-150 trade is also saving about $900/yr in fuel as well (based on $2.40/gal 12000 miles/year 15mpg vs 28mpg. But fuel prices are gonna drop right?
Your nephews savings will of course be greater as he averages nearly 17000 miles/yr. His savings will be about $1200/yr or in other words about half of his $199/ mo car payment. $100 bucks a month for a brand new car with warranty? Not too shabby.
Don’t assume you know how someone votes just because of an opinion on one thing. I didn’t say it wasn’t a good way to help those who can take advantage of it. I just said I hope that no one did that couldn’t afford it. I am one of those who buys a new car, keeps it for many years so I have no car payment. My parents taught us to do that. They are in very good financial shape and owe nothing to anyone. Everything they have is paid for and they pay cash for anything they want. I kept my last car 14 years. It owed me nothing when I sold it. I didn’t use it as a trade in. I now have a 2001 car with only 74 thousand miles. I bought it with intentions of keeping it for more than 15 years. It is a better car than my last one so should have no problems. I don’t like having car payments. So yes I was brought up to be wise with money and not waste it. Just hope that the people who took advantage of the program can really afford it. And I never said it was not a good program, just said it is a short term fix and puts us more in debt. We need long term solutions more. Because I tried to help a friend out who had bad credit I also ended up with a 1999 car that he could not pay off and get out of my name, so that car which is now paid off belongs to my 22 year old daughter. He ran it to the ground and we had to put a new engine in it but live and learn. All I’m saying is some people look at this kind of program see a way for a new car even if they can’t afford the payment. If they can then it is a win win situation.
28MPG-9MPG=19MPG. If the average participant is upgrading from 19MPG to 28MPG, then they’re using about 1/3rd less gass and creating 1/3rd less carbon.
OK, by that math, I get an annual savings of about $127 million dollars to the American consumer, saving over 50 million gallons of oil. If each gallon of oil produces 19.64 pounds of CO2, then that’s very nearly a billion pounds less CO2 in the air annually. Of course, the United States consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day, putting over 6 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide in the air from oil alone.
If the average price of a new car is $28,400.00 then the government’s $1 billion spurred $6 billion of consumer spending. If the government had given Americans a $1 billion tax cut, most figures I’ve heard suggest that Americans wouldn’t spend the whole thing. So, as a stimulus, it’s a pretty value for the money, although you then have to subtract taxes and the amount that will go off-shore.
No doubt the carbon offset benefits are commendable and long lasting. As a benefit for car companies, not so much. Sure dealerships are moving lots of inventory now, but when the stimulus money dries up and those who were on the fence about buying a new car already have, well you know. Empty dealerships.
Short term gain (except for lower carbon) while kicking the can down the road.
“The Republican strategy is to shame behavior they don’t like.”
Liberals and Conservatives both do PLENTY of that. The only difference is the behaviors and which group of people you wish to shame.
I definitely agree that this is a short-term stimulus, and it should be. That was always the purpose of stimulus, to give a short term boost while the economy recovers.
Everyone needs to get over the blame game. We, all of us are to blame in a way. We as a whole regardless of party elected the powers that be. Everyone of us is human and make mistakes. It is what we do with what we learn. Stop the name calling and the blame game and hope for all out sakes that this administration can turn things around. It didn’t take just 8 years to get us where we are today. It took a lot longer than that and it will take a while to get us back on track. Each party needs to take a good look at themselves as a person. I hope that no matter what party, you want this administration to succeed. To want anything other than that is just plain wrong. Get over the past and look forward.
“i saved a whopping 3 miles a gallon, from 16mpg – 19mpg”
And you think 19MPG is GOOD??? It’s still a guzzler by today’s standards.
So if it’s such a great program, why aren’t the figures on it released prior to the vote for more funds? Let’s see…transparency…I think I heard that once.
Let me see…the government buys 2 car companies and then gives people incentives to buy from those companies – all with our tax money. Great program!
My washing machine’s going, can the govt bail out Maytag?