Cash For Clunkers Success

rholland · 10-30-2009, 06:46 AM

Cash for clunkers was a big, well run success, it only cost the tax payers of America $24,000 per vehicle traded in.

Quote:

Taxpayers' real cost of cash for clunkers: $24000 a car, Edmonds ...‎ - 10 hours ago
The program, which cost taxpayers $3 billion, gave car buyers up to $4500 ... sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in cash for clunkers. ...

What happened to the other $19,500 per vehicle?

jjski78 · 10-30-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rholland

Cash for clunkers was a big, well run success, it only cost the tax payers of America $24,000 per vehicle traded in.

What happened to the other $19,500 per vehicle?

It went into a fund to hire computer hackers to monitor all the dealership computers that became US Government property when they logged into cars.gov

37L1 · 10-30-2009, 07:21 AM

It appears to have been another government "feel good" program with no real lasting benefit for the money spent other than to add to the growing deficit.

As usual, the taxpayers did not get their dollars worth.

But hey, it feels good so it must be a success.

jjski78 · 10-30-2009, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37L1

It appears to have been another government "feel good" program with no real lasting benefit for the money spent other than to add to the growing deficit.

As usual, the taxpayers did not get their dollars worth.

But hey, it feels good so it must be a success.

One of these days the fools on the hill will realize all these "feel good" entitlement programs really feel like 80 grit scouring your butthole.

**Kronos1965** · 10-30-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37L1

It appears to have been another government "feel good" program with no real lasting benefit for the money spent other than to add to the growing deficit.

As usual, the taxpayers did not get their dollars worth.

But hey, it feels good so it must be a success.

Very true but the people who bought cars and the auto industry probably don't feel that way.

It was a bad program because it addressed a symptom instead of a root cause of the problem. It was a consumer confidence booster; candy for a kid that needs a meal instead.

37L1 · 10-30-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

Very true but the people who bought cars and the auto industry probably don't feel that way.

It was a bad program because it addressed a symptom instead of a root cause of the problem. It was a consumer confidence booster; candy for a kid that needs a meal instead.

The auto industry cleared some inventory but their sales tanked when the program ended.

The government couldn't handle the paperwork, they are still trying to clean this program up and it ended months ago. Not a good omen for The Government Option Health Care Plan.

I'm not so sure it was a consumer confidence builder in the long run particularly when the results of this boondoggle are analyzed regarding its goals, costs, effectiveness, etc.

All it appears to be is "food stamps" for the auto industry and the small percentage of consumers who were ready to take advantage of this program.

The vast majority foot the cost of it and get less than nothing in return.

**Kronos1965** · 10-30-2009, 08:51 AM

This was the report from another source-corraborating and clarifying some points made by Edmunds

August 2009 - Auto Sales Review

Had the buyers been asked if they would have purchased without the program in place, it would have been better proof that the program was a success or failure.

rholland · 10-30-2009, 09:20 AM

$3 billion divided by 125,000 (number of vehicles sold on cash for clunkers) equals $24,000 per vehicle.
$56,250,000 went toward the cash for clunkers, and $2,437,500,000 went, who knows where.
$2,437,500,000 loss
$56,250,000 spent
Only a liberal could think that this is well managed tax dollars.

Papa_D · 10-30-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rholland

$3 billion divided by 125,000 (number of vehicles sold on cash for clunkers) equals $24,000 per vehicle.
$56,250,000 went toward the cash for clunkers, and $2,437,500,000 went, who knows where.
$2,437,500,000 loss
$56,250,000 spent
Only a liberal could think that this is well managed tax dollars.

Or could have been seen as a success even if every single one of those people would not have purchased a vehicle otherwise.

You can frost a dog turd but guess what Progressives, it's still a dog turd, lol.

They might as well drop money from a helicoter, it would probably have a better effect on the economy and it would certainly be more fairly "re-distributed," lol.

Pops · 10-30-2009, 01:26 PM

About like the jerkoffs selling these for $6k and saying the Government will rebate $4k of it under the "Electric Car Incentive" Bill???

**Kronos1965** · 10-30-2009, 08:43 PM

Would this have qualified?

YouTube - Smart with hayabusa engine

**walleeme** · 10-30-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37L1

It appears to have been another government "feel good" program with no real lasting benefit for the money spent other than to add to the growing deficit.

As usual, the taxpayers did not get their dollars worth.

But hey, it feels good so it must be a success.

But wait!
The people who got new cars have to pay tax on the rebate.
So we will get it back.

/sarcasm off

Papa_D · 10-31-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walleeme

But wait!
The people who got new cars have to pay tax on the rebate.
So we will get it back.

/sarcasm off

That's good because the citizens will need that money to pay for all the other free crap the government is unconstitutionally giving away such as money for houses.

Hey, I have an idea, why don't we all just send our pay checks to Wall Street executives and the Federal Reserve and cut out the Congressional middle man, I'm sure things would be much more cost effective that way way...

jjski78 · 10-31-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walleeme

But wait!
The people who got new cars have to pay tax on the rebate.
So we will get it back.

/sarcasm off

Actually they won't. In fact, they also qualify for another tax credit. If you buy a new car in 2009, you get a tax credit in the amount of the sales tax paid. I bought two cars this year, can't wait for my tax return.

Back to the original intent of the thread. I actually did some research and there were almost 3/4 of a million new vehicles sold under cash for clunkers. What Edmunds was alluding to is that only 125000 of them were sold due to the program. In other words, those 125000 car buyers would have kept their cars if it wasn't for the government program. So in reality, the government did only pay out $4500 per car, and if you do the math, it doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room for program operating costs. So all in all, even though I hated the program because it was executed poorly, you really can't say it was mismanaged to the point of billions of dollars of waste.

HemiETR · 10-31-2009, 11:38 AM

We've (us middle classes) been doing your second paragraph since the Reagan Administration, continued for Bush senior and cont. for Bush Jr. We all agree the system isn't perfect.

If the cash for clunkers or health care option was from a conservative all you'd be on board. But, since both of those take from the rich (which us hard working American's will never be, but Repub's like for you to think you will be) Hahaha

IMO, we do need a health care option and the Cash for clunkers ultimate goal was to take these 10 mile per gallon vehicles off the road, which they did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_D

That's good because the citizens will need that money to pay for all the other free crap the government is unconstitutionally giving away such as money for houses.

Hey, I have an idea, why don't we all just send our pay checks to Wall Street executives and the Federal Reserve and cut out the Congressional middle man, I'm sure things would be much more cost effective that way way...