Philman

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

Laughing, I don't doubt that you are laughing all the way to the bank.

Where the heck do you think this money is coming from? The sky? Every dollar that your father was given by Cash for Clunkers, and Chrysler, was stolen from the pockets of our children and children's children. We are irresponsibly building up a national debt that cannot be paid back. That will result in complete dollar collapse and economic collapse eventually.

The first $4,500 came from the "Cash for Clunkers" program, the second $4,500 came from the Chrysler bailout money. You people are so selfish and self interested, it disgusts me! Obviously, you are okay with stealing from other taxpayers. I'm not!


On Aug 02 01:36 PM Laughing wrote:

> who cares its called helping out the poor people by giving them a
> little extra cash, what a lame article. I talked my father into
> buying a new car, he traded in his 1981 station wagon, rust and all,
> got $4500 plus $4500 more for buying a Crystler, wound up paying
> 18k. I gave him the money to do it, I didn't need a second car either
> but was worried ever since he told me about how the brakes went out
> while he was driving it and he had to downshift and use parking brake
> just to stop!!! You tell me where else anyone could have got 9k
> for a car worth $400 (and who would have even bought it, trust me!)?
> Its a great program, he would never have bought a car otherwise and
> now I have a ride next time I'm in town visiting.

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

Your blog name is fitting, Mr. Machavelli, as it appears that you believe "anything that benefits me is good economics". The article describes the true cost of foolish programs like this. One thing left out, however, is the adverse economic impact upon used car dealers and their customers.

The "Cash for Clunkers" program is yet more welfare for the well-to-do. People who aren't rich enough to qualify for the hefty loans needed to buy a brand new car (and the cost of a new car is hefty, even with government giveaway money) are sh-t of of luck! They pay taxes, and their money gets given away to richer folks who just need a little incentive to buy new cars.

Meanwhile, a lot of quality used cars are going to be junked, driving up the price of used cars for the rest of us! Fat cats, like Machiavelli, obviously don't give a damn about anyone less fortunate than you. So, just like his namesake, he does whatever is good for him, without concern over the consequences for others. This article is excellent in bringing out, at least in part, some the consequences of government waste and overspending.

Cash for Clunkers is bad economics and bad for America!


On Aug 02 12:25 AM Machiavelli999 wrote:

> This guy, like most people on this site, has no clue about how economies
> work.
>
> I won't even go into the details. HORRIBLE ARTICLE!

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

Sorry, my friend. You obviously didn't read this article or the Edmunds.com article. Let me quote from Edmunds:

"Edmunds.com's research shows that typically 200,000 vehicles worth less than $4,500 are traded in for new vehicles every three months."

Accordingly, Edmunds is talking about ONLY the type of vehicles which would qualify for cash for clunkers. Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the car market knows that far more than 200,000 used car trade-ins happen every month, let alone every quarter. The used car market is far larger than the new car market, and, even now, the car makers will sell about 10 million vehicles in this depression year.

You should read things before you launch your claims of authors throwing BS. Because if you don't, you will be throwing BS yourself, which it what you've done here.

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

You are slinging BS by taking the words out of context. I am sure you know, just as I do, that when he says "low mileage" he means low miles per gallon. Everyone knows that all the clunkers are old cars with high mileage. That is a given. They would not qualify for the program if they weren't.

Also, the article states that the 200,000 car figure data comes from Edmunds.com, which, apparently, has indicated (and they are about the most expert source of such data that exists) that this is the normal number of "low mileage" (or "low miles per gallon" old cars) that are traded in for new "high mileage" (or "high miles per gallon" new cars) every 3 months.


On Jul 31 01:43 PM dancingdad wrote:

> Avery must be a republican because he does math like one. His arguments
> are like the ones Bush made going into Iraq. First note he said
> 200,000 low mileage cars are traded in a normal 3 month period. (
> I'm willing to bet a large percentage of the clunkers coming in are
> high mileage ones.) He then assumes that all the clunker cars replace
> all the normal trades (bad assumption). His faulty logic leads him
> to conclude that 222,000 clunkers - 200,000 normal trades so we get
> 22,000 additional trade activity for $1B. All wrong, all worst case
> assumptions, typical republican BS.

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

You guys need to learn economics. You either didn't read the article or can't understand the concept being discussed.

The math is absolutely correct. The idea is that a certain number of cars/trucks would have been sold anyway - Edmunds says 200,000 clunkers are traded in for fuel efficient vehicles EVEN WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES!

The cost to the government of a "stimulus" is NOT $3,500 - $4,500 per car, because many buyers are getting the money even though they WOULD HAVE BOUGHT ANYWAY, without the program.

At $4,500 per extra car, the program costs the government $45,354 for each extra sale, above those that are normally sold anyway, exactly as the article states.