We figured this out years ago

[rshaw125]

As many posters correctly stated at the time the so called cash for clunkers program was a fraud.


http://news.yahoo.com/why-cash-clunkers-hurt-environment-more-helped-024848694.html

 

[d00df00d]

Was Cash for Clunkers really meant to help the environment? I thought the purpose was to give an adrenaline shot to the auto industry and help car owners spend less on fuel.

 

[sciphi]

An article about the auto industry written by a fashion writer? Seems it's the latest fad...

 

[Kruse]

If I had run the program (and I didn't, so it's not important), I would have had the money taken off on the year-end taxes. Instead, it cost the taxpayers $25K for each $4500 that the buyer received for his (sometimes) foreign-built vehicle.

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
If I had run the program (and I didn't, so it's not important), I would have had the money taken off on the year-end taxes. Instead, it cost the taxpayers $25K for each $4500 that the buyer received for his (sometimes) foreign-built vehicle.


you are begging for this question so I'll bite

how does 4500$ cost 25000$

 

[tinmanSC]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
it cost the taxpayers $25K for each $4500 that the buyer received for his (sometimes) foreign-built vehicle. [ Citation needed]

 

[NHGUY]

As long as those piggish Explorers,S10 Blazers,Astro vans and full size vans got eliminated...it was a job well done.I dont agree with the costs involved and all the red tape,and the fact that the Feds didnt allow US made vehicles only...no imports,but it was a way to get 15mpg hogs off the road. (course they are still selling like hotcakes today,to replace them).

 

[eljefino]

The marketing of C4C to the citizenry had its half truths, and they glossed over the side effects like the shortage of used cars pushing prices up all through the 2nd and 3rd hand "pipelines".

IMO it was a moral hazard like several other bailouts: Oops, you bought more vehicle than you could handle (fuelwise), so we'll overpay for your used SUV and make it all right. The grinch in me would have added another 50 cents or a dollar per gallon fuel tax and sat back for the fireworks.

We are doing better on oil imports, and the worldwide auto industry is in better shape than a few years ago, so the primary objectives were met (with the help of coincidence, too).

 

[MrHorspwer]

Boo hoo. It was three years ago. It happened. Get over it. Shouting "See, I was right!" from the rooftops (of the Internet) won't get you a trophy.

Go watch some football or something.

 

[heynow]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Boo hoo. It was three years ago. It happened. Get over it. Shouting "See, I was right!" from the rooftops (of the Internet) won't get you a trophy.

Go watch some football or something.


Those who don't learn from the past are bound to repeat it.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: Kruse
If I had run the program (and I didn't, so it's not important), I would have had the money taken off on the year-end taxes. Instead, it cost the taxpayers $25K for each $4500 that the buyer received for his (sometimes) foreign-built vehicle.


you are begging for this question so I'll bite

how does 4500$ cost 25000$


I could site several references, all which could be refuted depending if you were for or against the program, but the actual (overall) cost is impossible to figure accurately. Google "how much did the cash 4 clunkers program cost" and by reading most web sites, it will say somewhere in the vicinity of $24K to $25K per car. That includes administration costs and the rebate to the car dealers. But there are other parts of the equation that can't exactly be included. Did the new vehicles have better fuel economy? Of course. Did the new cars have fewer emissions than the old cars? Of course. Did it increase the new car sales? Yes, but some new car sales would have been purchased anyway without the program.
Now did it raise the price of a used car and actually hurt the middle class family wanting to buy a used car? Once again, yes.
My post was not a for or against the C4C program except to say that if I had run the program, it would have been different.

 

[rshaw125]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Boo hoo. It was three years ago. It happened. Get over it. Shouting "See, I was right!" from the rooftops (of the Internet) won't get you a trophy.

Go watch some football or something.


Do you even realize, probably not, that the taxpayers still owe for this? Whomever we borrowed the money from we're paying interest to. China, japan, Thank your grandchildren.

 

[andyd]

Most of the CFC cars I saw were newer than my DDs

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Boo hoo. It was three years ago. It happened. Get over it. Shouting "See, I was right!" from the rooftops (of the Internet) won't get you a trophy.

Go watch some football or something.


Do you even realize, probably not, that the taxpayers still owe for this? Whomever we borrowed the money from we're paying interest to. China, japan, Thank your grandchildren.


Blah, blah, blah. The same small-view political rhetoric that is spewed all over the Internet. Pick a policy/program/decision that you don't like, look at it in the most narrow view possible, then tell everyone why it's so bad. When someone disagrees, tell them they don't realize what they're talking about and how this is *really* gonna affect everyone.

That wasn't even my point though. Discussing the actual program, even a one-sided speech, at least has some merit. The original post is nothing more than "See, I told you I was right." This accomplishes nothing and goes no further than chest-puffing about a subject that is long past. To which I say, your time would be better served watching football.

 

[Cutehumor]

everyone got a bailout, why not gas guzzling drivers?

 

[mechtech2]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Boo hoo. It was three years ago. It happened. Get over it. Shouting "See, I was right!" from the rooftops (of the Internet) won't get you a trophy.

Go watch some football or something.


A truly ignorant statement.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Blah, blah, blah. The same small-view political rhetoric that is spewed all over the Internet. Pick a policy/program/decision that you don't like, look at it in the most narrow view possible, then tell everyone why it's so bad. When someone disagrees, tell them they don't realize what they're talking about and how this is *really* gonna affect everyone.

That wasn't even my point though. Discussing the actual program, even a one-sided speech, at least has some merit. The original post is nothing more than "See, I told you I was right." This accomplishes nothing and goes no further than chest-puffing about a subject that is long past. To which I say, your time would be better served watching football.

View it from whatever "small window" your political polarization allows, but the FACT remains it cost us a lot of great used cars. Not to mention the fact that we paid real tax dollars for it, which over a third were borrowed money.

Some of us like the idea of being financially responsible!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: andyd
Most of the CFC cars I saw were newer than my DDs


There were two basic types I saw: good-condition vehicles, and absolute junkers that were barely roadwirthy.

 

[Tempest]

Moronic programs like this assume you can destroy your way to prosperity. Society was forced to use resources (energy, labor, material) to destroy useful items.

 

[Dwight_Frye]

The fact that it cost taxpayers $25,000 for every $4500 in Cash for Clunkers plus the horrible inefficiency in administering the program is a perfect example of why Big Government is always a failure. If the cubicle drones tasked with this program couldn't get it right, how do you expect them to handle Obamacare ?
hahahahahahahaha just wait......