Cash for Clunkers Program a Success, What do you think? Vol. Team Economics

[j burner]

Waste of tax money, complete waste of the so called "clunkers" which are perfectly good vehicles. The government is using our tax dollars to buypeople's cars for $4500 (no matter what the actual value of the car is), and then they destroy them. Instead of doing something good with the cars, likedonating them to people who can't afford a car, they inject the engine with silicone and destroy the car. So now, there will be less used cars for peoplein the market for a used car, which will drive up the price of used cars due to the decline in supply.

Yea, it increased sales at dealerships, and got people shopping for new cars, at the cost of $ 4 billion to the taxpayers. And, like all other government runprograms, it cost twice as much as they said it would (original price tag was $2 billion, they went through that in about a week).

 

[sneakerfan93]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by sneakerfan93

My mom just exchanged her 1994 Lexus ES 300

for a brand new 2009 IS 250 sedan

...I think the program is pretty reliable for people to get rid of their old cars and buy a new one.

but think about it like this....that 1994 was probably still ridin around good...that car could've gone to someone who can't afford a new car, instead its being junked.

It was about to be my car lol

...Trust me it was a real clunker(160K miles, scratches, and bumpy on theroad)

 

[deuce king]

I sitll can't understand why people complain so much about how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In the grand scheme of things each Americanpays little to nothing seperately for this government program. At the end of the day, everyone HAS to pay taxes, from that point you as a citizen really haveno say so where your tax money/earned income is spend, it may suck but at the end of the day that's the bottomline, like it or not. Most of the oppositionfor this program act as though they themselves are paying for the Cash for Clunkers program solely.

 

[selrahc123]

People are buying something they don't even need. Not little things but something thats going to put them thousands of dollars in debt.

The government can't even afford it so basically they are going in to debt, just to put people in debt. But in the long run they won't be in debt

because they're going to own every damn car compony. Screw Obama

 

[selrahc123]

Double post

 

[sundoobie]

I know dudes are buying junk cars meant to be destroyed for less than $500, fix em up so they can at least roll into the dealership. Trade that in and payingcash for a new vehicle and turning it around and selling the new vehicles or breaking em down for parts.

Working that system!

edit...

Who read that article in the Sunday NYT Magazine? Article was all about all the rascist/non-politically correct type stuff he says and passed it off as his sense of humor.
Just read it. Interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...ml?_r=1&ref=magazine

Perhaps this is why some people you talk to find Obama's humor off-putting and smug, an expression of hidden contempt that belies his twin mantras of hope and change.
It definitely makes him look insensitive and arrogant.

 

[hollakid619]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by cguy610

For those that are against this program, are you against all government transfer payments? (Against all tax rebates, subsidies, etc, etc)

Or just this one.

true tax rebates? no...b/c tax income is MY money... not the govt's

yea, but it did happen...there's nothing we can do about the past now...it's time to rebuild...that's what this attempt is. i don't see the issue.

...so you're ok with YOUR taxpayer money being spent by other people for new cars?

and if you don't pay taxes... I don't think you really don't have a say in this...it's easy to spend other people's money.












No, but im sure the people buying cars pay taxes just like you and me. Im not completely convinced its the best route but it makes more sense than just writinga fat check to each car manufacture. At lease the American people benefit from this and not just the greedy banks and car companies. The gov is also givinggrants to companies that are researching ways to make more ozone friendly vehicles and EXCLUDED all the manufactures and were in financial trouble. It mostpeople may not agree with this route but its to help stimulate the economy instead of sitting back and watch vol. 2 of the great depression.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

I know dudes are buying junk cars meant to be destroyed for less than $500, fix em up so they can at least roll into the dealership. Trade that in and paying cash for a new vehicle and turning it around and selling the new vehicles or breaking em down for parts.

Working that system!

It has to be registered in your name for a year. They already thought about that.

 

[18th letter]

Man this is just another program designed to get people to borrow more money. I called in to see if my car was eligible and they were like "well whatwould you be interested in purchasing?" and I was like an 03 accord, and they were like "nah it has to be a brand new car"

 

[mateen cleaves]

Originally Posted by goukiteg

The repo business is going to be a good business in a few months.

 

[j burner]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

I sitll can't understand why people complain so much about how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In the grand scheme of things each American pays little to nothing seperately for this government program. At the end of the day, everyone HAS to pay taxes, from that point you as a citizen really have no say so where your tax money/earned income is spend, it may suck but at the end of the day that's the bottomline, like it or not. Most of the opposition for this program act as though they themselves are paying for the Cash for Clunkers program solely.

Well, if the government stopped WASTING tax money, we could use it to I dunno...pay China back, get the national debt down (instead of spending somuch money that we need to raise the cap on the national debt so we can borrow more $$$. We are about to reach the $12 TRILLION debt mark. Which by the way,Obama's budget defecit is 1/3 or our total debt as a nation

). But back to the topic, the government takes about 30% of my salary right now, you actlike thats peanuts. Why should I pay 30% when they could just stop using everyone's money for BS and I could pay 10% or 15% of my income in taxes? Thefact is people are sick of watching the government take their money, then spend it on crap. If I work for 20 years at the same wage I make now, and continueto pay the same income tax, thats $200,000 + less in my pocket for retirement. Not a small number.

 

[chicagos finest 23]

This will just put more people in debt who don't need it. They had an old car for a reason (-_-)

 

[sorkoram]

paperwork for it is a pain in the %#%

 

[theswoosh]

Its funny how so many people complain about the the Cash for Clunkers program as well as the nationalized health care program yet they drop the ball on so manyother issues that are worth while. The clunkers program is a somewhat innovative program designed to stimulate the economy and put poor people in newer morereliable cars. Its a reality that poor families often live far away from city centers in rural communities where owning a working car in good running conditionis the ONLY way to be employed. Second, many of the vehicles that will be purchased by this program are/were manufactured in the US (yes toyota has plantshere) thus increased sales will equal people keeping there jobs. and Finally lets ponder one point. If one Tomahawk missile costs $1mil and we fire 30 in aday, what is the bigger waste of money if we have to fight street to street and we still haven't won?

 

[mistah majestic]

It is a success

 

[JayDean03]

Originally Posted by Al Audi

[font=verdana, arial, geneva]HERNDON, Va., Aug 5, 2009 - Audi today affirmed an August consumer sales offer that adds a $1,000 incentive to transactions eligible for the federal government's "Cars Allowance Rebate System" reimbursement program, more commonly known as "Cars for Clunkers."[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, geneva]The $1,000 consumer incentive is valid on transactions from today to August 31 and applies to Audi models ranging from the 2009 Audi A3 to the 2009 Audi TT Roadster quattro. A table of all eligible Audi models for the CARS program and the Audi CARS Allowance incentive campaign follows. Not all 2009 Audi models are eligible for the CARS program. The federal government has not ruled on which 2010 models will be eligible under the program. As offered in July, special 60 month APR and Lease terms through Audi Financial Services are also available to complement the CARS program.[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, geneva]"The CARS reimbursement enacted by Congress is a tremendous opportunity for consumers interested in upgrading to vehicles that offer better fuel efficiency and reduced emissions," said Mark Del Rosso, Chief Operating Officer, Audi of America. " Now that some uncertainties surrounding the launch of this federal program have been cleared up the time is right to enhance the deal even further."[/font]

jus test drove the s6 less than an hour ago. i wish mybeater was eligible for it tho

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by J Burner

Originally Posted by Deuce King

I sitll can't understand why people complain so much about how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In the grand scheme of things each American pays little to nothing seperately for this government program. At the end of the day, everyone HAS to pay taxes, from that point you as a citizen really have no say so where your tax money/earned income is spend, it may suck but at the end of the day that's the bottomline, like it or not. Most of the opposition for this program act as though they themselves are paying for the Cash for Clunkers program solely.

Well, if the government stopped WASTING tax money, we could use it to I dunno...pay China back, get the national debt down (instead of spending so much money that we need to raise the cap on the national debt so we can borrow more $$$. We are about to reach the $12 TRILLION debt mark. Which by the way, Obama's budget defecit is 1/3 or our total debt as a nation

). But back to the topic, the government takes about 30% of my salary right now, you act like thats peanuts. Why should I pay 30% when they could just stop using everyone's money for BS and I could pay 10% or 15% of my income in taxes? The fact is people are sick of watching the government take their money, then spend it on crap. If I work for 20 years at the same wage I make now, and continue to pay the same income tax, thats $200,000 + less in my pocket for retirement. Not a small number.

I wasn't trying to imply the amount of money or the percentage you pay in total taxes is peanuts, I'm saying that your portion JBurner to the Cash for Clunkers Program in itself is well......peanuts, that's go for me and eveyone else on here. Now I total agree with you thatgovernment spending has to decrease significantly. We need to stop borrowing money from China and pay down on the national debt because it's not going tojust simply go away. However, at the same time, tax money will ALWAYS go towards something, or some program that somebody doesn't like, that's justthe way it is. So as of right now, people can either pay taxes and or choose not to pay taxes, which ever you feel is best for you. Do you want thegovernment to stop spending in it's entirety??

 

[theswoosh]

And a note on health care. Do you honestly believe that YOU are not passed on the cost of treating uninsured americans who wait until a completely preventable,easily treated condition balloons out of control and they visit the ER because they have no other means of medical treatment. Seriously, if its good enough forour elected officials to use the it is good enough for us. Besides you can always keep your private insurance if you love it so much. And you can thank otherlike minded Americans when you get a costly medical condition later in life and you reach your limit on your policy and you "loose" your coverage.

 

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by SwanginOn4z

i say it, my aunt just went and traded her beat down 1999 mazda protege and got 5500 off the trade to get her a new 2010 kia sportege off the lot wit 7 miles on odo. she only payd 280 a month and after all the cash back and no interest, her down payment, and her trade in the car in total only costs 14k.

this is what its about

 

[rexanglorum]

The economics of it are lousy and it fails to seriously deliver in terms of environmental benefits.

The economics of it are taking money from one party and giving it to another so the net benefits are either not great or are negative (every stage of thistransfer involves a fairly large expenditure of resources) and then to top it all off, you have to destroy perfectly good property that still had some realvalue.

Also, these types of one time transfers tend to do a bad job at really changing consumer habits. Consumers base their consumption on lifetime expectations ofincome and in that regard the best way to stimulate increased demand is to see president Obama's agenda continue to become mired.

Third, the fact that the program ran out of money shows that people like free money, so Congress succeeded in giving away free stuff and we are supposed totake them seriously now? It is obvious that the program was priced incorrectly, it should have been lower for optimum effect.

Finally, demand side economics is ultimately a failed venture. Demand side economics is being resigned to simply having to trade inflation for unemployment andafter the nation is drowning in debt or its printing presses are exhausted, the nation ends up with with both.


On the environmental front, the standards were not strict enough. The reason is because this was meant as a subsidy for American firms, particularly the twogovernment controlled firms. If they had serious mileage requirements, they would have failed to move a lot of the vehicles that are produced by the firmswhich they control.

Suppose for a moment that trucks and SUV's are really a threat to global and national security (I have some doubts but lets us all agree they are for themoment), the best way to increase fuel standards is to phase in a national gasoline tax, a substantial one and off set it with tax cuts elsewhere. That givesconsumers and producers much more flexibility while still accomplishing the ends which many want to see accomplished.

 

[j burner]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by J Burner

Originally Posted by Deuce King

I sitll can't understand why people complain so much about how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In the grand scheme of things each American pays little to nothing seperately for this government program. At the end of the day, everyone HAS to pay taxes, from that point you as a citizen really have no say so where your tax money/earned income is spend, it may suck but at the end of the day that's the bottomline, like it or not. Most of the opposition for this program act as though they themselves are paying for the Cash for Clunkers program solely.

Well, if the government stopped WASTING tax money, we could use it to I dunno...pay China back, get the national debt down (instead of spending so much money that we need to raise the cap on the national debt so we can borrow more $$$. We are about to reach the $12 TRILLION debt mark. Which by the way, Obama's budget defecit is 1/3 or our total debt as a nation

). But back to the topic, the government takes about 30% of my salary right now, you act like thats peanuts. Why should I pay 30% when they could just stop using everyone's money for BS and I could pay 10% or 15% of my income in taxes? The fact is people are sick of watching the government take their money, then spend it on crap. If I work for 20 years at the same wage I make now, and continue to pay the same income tax, thats $200,000 + less in my pocket for retirement. Not a small number.

I wasn't trying to imply the amount of money or the percentage you pay in total taxes is peanuts, I'm saying that your portion J Burner to the Cash for Clunkers Program in itself is well......peanuts, that's go for me and eveyone else on here. Now I total agree with you that government spending has to decrease significantly. We need to stop borrowing money from China and pay down on the national debt because it's not going to just simply go away. However, at the same time, tax money will ALWAYS go towards something, or some program that somebody doesn't like, that's just the way it is. So as of right now, people can either pay taxes and or choose not to pay taxes, which ever you feel is best for you. Do you want the government to stop spending in it's entirety??

No, not at all. Taxes are necessary to run a country, but in a perfect world the only thing citizens should be taxed for is to pay salaries for electedofficals and national defense. Everything else is unnecessary. I mean really, the government doesn't even know how much of the bailout money was funneledto banks in foriegn countries, which was not its purpose. They spent a trillion taxpayer dollars, and literally have no clue where large sums of it went.

 

[cwalk1950]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

Originally Posted by cguy610

Articles like the one wawaweewa posted fail to take into account the big picture.

$3 Billion is only $21 for each tax payer. Then you need to factor in that the government is taxing all aspects of production and the increase in sales tax revenue. So while the inital cost out the door may be $3 billion, the government will recover most likely $1 billion at the minimum through all the tax revenue and the increase in economic growth.

Under $3 billion for 0.5% increase in GDP. That's a pretty good program. Imagine if we saw that kind of return in any of the other stimulus measures.

ummmm ... sooooo ... i want 100 billion dollars ... come on man thats only like $60 per person give or take a few bucks, whats wrong with that? just cough it up ...

THIS DOES NOTHING TO SUSTAIN GROWTH IN OUR ECONOMY AND WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT ... IT IS YET ANOTHER WAY FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE AWAY PEOPLES HARD EARNED MONEY AS THEY SEE FIT ...

isnt that the government's job?

 

[osmosiskix]

hmm this deosnt seem bad....

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by J Burner

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by J Burner

Originally Posted by Deuce King

I sitll can't understand why people complain so much about how and where their tax dollars are being spent. In the grand scheme of things each American pays little to nothing seperately for this government program. At the end of the day, everyone HAS to pay taxes, from that point you as a citizen really have no say so where your tax money/earned income is spend, it may suck but at the end of the day that's the bottomline, like it or not. Most of the opposition for this program act as though they themselves are paying for the Cash for Clunkers program solely.

Well, if the government stopped WASTING tax money, we could use it to I dunno...pay China back, get the national debt down (instead of spending so much money that we need to raise the cap on the national debt so we can borrow more $$$. We are about to reach the $12 TRILLION debt mark. Which by the way, Obama's budget defecit is 1/3 or our total debt as a nation

). But back to the topic, the government takes about 30% of my salary right now, you act like thats peanuts. Why should I pay 30% when they could just stop using everyone's money for BS and I could pay 10% or 15% of my income in taxes? The fact is people are sick of watching the government take their money, then spend it on crap. If I work for 20 years at the same wage I make now, and continue to pay the same income tax, thats $200,000 + less in my pocket for retirement. Not a small number.

I wasn't trying to imply the amount of money or the percentage you pay in total taxes is peanuts, I'm saying that your portion J Burner to the Cash for Clunkers Program in itself is well......peanuts, that's go for me and eveyone else on here. Now I total agree with you that government spending has to decrease significantly. We need to stop borrowing money from China and pay down on the national debt because it's not going to just simply go away. However, at the same time, tax money will ALWAYS go towards something, or some program that somebody doesn't like, that's just the way it is. So as of right now, people can either pay taxes and or choose not to pay taxes, which ever you feel is best for you. Do you want the government to stop spending in it's entirety??

No, not at all. Taxes are necessary to run a country, but in a perfect world the only thing citizens should be taxed for is to pay salaries for elected officals and national defense. Everything else is unnecessary. I mean really, the government doesn't even know how much of the bailout money was funneled to banks in foriegn countries, which was not its purpose. They spent a trillion taxpayer dollars, and literally have no clue where large sums of it went.

Well I completely agree with you there. As far as the bank bailouts go, to me it was used to keep the Recession from getting worse than where it was alreadyat. Whether we want to believe it or not, financially we are out a point in time be it before the Recession or after that if certain companies fail or closeup shop there can be drastic consequences. However, I think certain government programs are implemented with the intend to help the average American or anyAmerican who is or may be less fortunate, ie. Cash for Clunkers, Medicare, Welfare. Of course with anything there are people that abuse the priviledge, butthe overall theme from tax payers perspetive is either help thy neighbor, or ever man for themselves. I think everyone should ask themselves which category dothey fall in under.

 

[be23forlife]

pessimist...