Clunkers Program Cost $24K per Vehicle - Government Ready to Waste Even More

In its unabated effort to piss away as much money as possible on pet projects and freebies to pander to as many future voters as possible, the administration spent a whopping $24,000 per incremental vehicle sold under the cash for clunkers program, according to Edmunds.com, an independent data source with no hidden agenda for forging such a conclusion.

At that price, it probably made just as much sense to simply buy the 125,000 incremental sold vehicles and just give them away to some lucky voters. This "spreading of the money" that so enamors our president is really sickening and evidently, there's no end in sight.

With a weak US Dollar crisis brewing and a record deficit with no chance of recovery for decades to come, the government is also on the verge of extending the home-buyer tax credit...but to even more people. They are considering extending it even to existing homebuyers. What next?

Add on the money thrown down the drain at the US automakers when bankruptcy was inevitable (wait, remember when the politicians claimed a bankruptcy would ripple through the entire country and crash the economy? Well, after big auto bankruptcies that were inevitable no such catastrophe occurred - but union votes remained intact), extending the cash for clunkers program when money initially ran out (because it was such a sucker's move on the backs of the taxpayers), kicking off a poorly conceived cash for appliances program, reworking mortgages for people that lied on their applications and had (and still have) no business owning a home, and now extending the homebuyer tax credit program, it begs the question as to why our lawmakers even attach a pricetag to anything anymore. Whatever price tag the "phase 1" has attached to it is moot when pandering politicians continue to extend and memorialize money-sucking schemes later anyway.

The Healthcare Bill will be no different. While they claim it will cost "only" $900 Billion or so now, and have nonsensical clauses, like the ability for states to opt out (if every taxpayer if forced to pay for the public option anyway through their taxes, hell, but then, they might as well get something out of it, so they'll be forced to opt in), the reality is that it will actually cost our country much more in direct and indirect costs and reap untold havoc on America in terms of unintended consequences. Please name the last time our government took on anything of this scale with a favorable outcome.

While the last administration wasn't exactly a beacon of competence and success, the current one is completely rewriting the American way of life and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We voted them in.

I ask you this - If, rather than our children eventually having to pay this debt...If each American had to pay the debt we're taking on (and the debt on top of debt to even service our debt) today to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per family, do you think we'd be engaging in this profligate spending spree? No, we're doing this because we don't have to pay it off - future generations will. It's sickening and shameful.

Comments

[cowlady:]

If there is to be no regulation, then there should be no bail-outs. If there is to be responsibility, then it has to be across the board. The two faces of it all. Don't regulate, then intervene. Virtually no interest EXCEPT when you use a credit card! Then the rate is astronomical. Inverted, distorted, discombobulated and, ultimately explosive. In a couple years, I intend to be living in Israel which, compared to this place, is relatively safe!

Nov 01 04:22 PM

[The Geoffster:]

"In America, freedom and justice have always come from the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and when that fails, the cartridge box."
-The Four Boxes

Nov 01 05:39 PM

[slowwhizz:]

Why is President Obama and the congressional leaders trying to bankrupt the country? Answer: They wish to bankrupt the country and raise it again as a socialist state.

Nov 01 05:46 PM

[The Geoffster:]

That's how I see it too.


On Nov 01 05:46 PM slowwhizz wrote:

> Why is President Obama and the congressional leaders trying to bankrupt
> the country? Answer: They wish to bankrupt the country and raise
> it again as a socialist state.

Nov 01 06:08 PM

[taxpro:]

The same was said about the policies of FDR. We tend to label policies we do not like as socialism. It is a convenient label, but really contributes nothing to the discussion.

Nov 01 08:23 PM

[girolamo:]

While I agree that "Cash for Clunkers" likely didn't make effective use of the money allocated (typical of big government programs), it probably did have the effect of causing some people without clunkers who would not have bought a car to buy one due to the buzz generated. As Edmunds said "...Really, the best consequence is that many consumers are getting interested in the idea of a new vehicle after hearing about Cash for Clunkers; we have to hope that even if they don't qualify, they will buy a vehicle anyway...." Not trying to defend this program, just trying to learn something from the awful experience.

Nov 01 10:53 PM

[dochlee:]

Stupid is always stupid. And more stupid people working together will only result in more stupid outcome. Americans deserve what's coming to them because they ask for it at the voting booths!

Nov 02 01:10 AM

[User 458324:]

HOW DID THEY FIGURE THE $24K BY ADDING ALL THE INTEREST WE WILL BE PAYING ON THE $4,500 PER CAR OVER THE NEXT 100 YEARS,
I LIKE THE WAY YOU BLAME ALL THOSE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE GETTING HELPED OUT BY THE BANKS EVEN THO THE BANKS ARE ONLY DOING 6 MONTH MODIFICATIONS THAT ACTUALLY INCREASE THE MONTHLY PAYMENT AND FOR WHICH THE BANKS GET MONEY FOR EACH ONE THAT THEY DO, IT'S TOO BAD THAT YOU NEGLECTED TO MENTION INSTEAD OF BAILING OUT THE HOMEOWNERS OF WHICH THE TARP COULD HAVE SAVED MORE THAN 10 MILLION FORCLOSURES, BUT MR PAULSON DECIDED TO GIVE IT TO THE BANKS SO THEY COULD BUY STOCK WITH IT, BECAUSE HE REALIZED THAT IT'S MUCH SAFER TO LET 10 MILLION FAMILIES LOSE THEIR HOMES AND HAVE THE PRICE OF REAL ESTATE GO DOWN BY SOME $5 TRILLION DOLLARS THEN TO HAVE THE BANKS GO UNDER AND HAVE TO PAY OFF ON THOSE $55 TRILLION IN CDS'S AND CDO'S, MOST OF WHICH ARE STILL FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE, OH WAIT I FORGOT MAIN STREET NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT, IF THEY FIND OUT THEY WILL KNOW THIS WAS CAUSED BY WALL STREET, NOT MAIN STREET, CAUSED BY THE ONLY PEOPLE BEING HELPED OUT WITH THE BAILOUTS, WALLSTREET, IT'S OKAY THOUGH, CUZ IF YOU THOUGHT WALL STREET WAS ROBBING US BLIND, JUST WAIT UNTIL THE HEALTH INSURANCE BILL GOES THRU, YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE WORKING TO PAY TAXES, YOU;LL BE WORKING TWICE AS LONG TO PAY FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE AND HAVE TO HOPE SOME INSURANCE EXEC. AGREES TO WHATEVER PROCEDURE YOU NEED TO HAVE DONE, HOPEFULLY IT'S NOT AN ABORTION BECAUSE THOSE WON'T BE ALLOWED ANY MORE

Nov 02 01:43 AM

[Destin:]

The "lesser of two evils" seems to grow more evil with every election cycle.

Nov 02 11:24 AM

[robert99:]

The policies of FDR set the socialism trend in motion - and calling a spade a spade adds plenty to the discussion.


On Nov 01 08:23 PM taxpro wrote:

> The same was said about the policies of FDR. We tend to label policies
> we do not like as socialism. It is a convenient label, but really
> contributes nothing to the discussion.

Nov 03 08:53 AM