 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2952 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:32 am |
|
So if these numbers are accurate, it would have been better had the Cash For Clunkers program just bought 125,000 new US manufactured cars/light trucks with an average value of $24,000 and given them to 1/8 of a million lucky Americans who were picked at random (and who were below a certain income level).
Not that I would agree with that either.
But at least those 125,000 Americans would not have to deal with the additional debt of a new car purchase.
Also, it would have guaranteed that every new CFC car was made in America - unlike the real program - which as we know, many cars were made offshore using offshore workers.
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:36 am by McRocket
|
lightoftruth
Member/DJ
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:42 am |
|
McRocket wrote: So if these numbers are accurate, it would have been better had the Cash For Clunkers program just bought 125,000 new US manufactured cars/light trucks with an average value of $24,000 and given them to 1/8 of a million lucky Americans who were picked at random (and who were below a certain income level).
Not that I would agree with that either.
But at least those 125,000 Americans would not have to deal with the additional debt of a new car purchase.
Also, it would have guaranteed that every new CFC car was made in America - unlike the real program - which as we know, many cars were made offshore using offshore workers.
Oh but is a bit worse than that. It actualy created some shortages which allowed the dealers to RASIE THE PRICE of the cars![[grin]](/forums/themes/default/grinning-smiley-007.gif) .........
|
Big_Mike
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:43 am |
|
George Aligator wrote: The 24k spent putting Mom and Dad in a new Family Truckster seems a lot better stimulus than the billions used to give Wall St. sharks multi-million dollar bonuses with which to buy houses in St. Barts. Perhaps no bailout would be ideal, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, can we?
In this, GA, we totally agree.
I hate the idea of socialism, but if it's going to be forced on us, let's at least have socialism for the poor and not the rich.
|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2952 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:45 am |
|
lightoftruth wrote: McRocket wrote: So if these numbers are accurate, it would have been better had the Cash For Clunkers program just bought 125,000 new US manufactured cars/light trucks with an average value of $24,000 and given them to 1/8 of a million lucky Americans who were picked at random (and who were below a certain income level).
Not that I would agree with that either.
But at least those 125,000 Americans would not have to deal with the additional debt of a new car purchase.
Also, it would have guaranteed that every new CFC car was made in America - unlike the real program - which as we know, many cars were made offshore using offshore workers.
Oh but is a bit worse than that. It actualy created some shortages which allowed the dealers to RASIE THE PRICE of the cars.........
Oh well....like I said...'not that I would agree with that either'.
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:46 am by McRocket
|
BuckFan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 14098 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:09 am |
|
By my calculations, which are a relevant as Edmunds, Cash for Clunkers saved the taxpayer
$250 million unemployment benefits (39,000 workers, 6 months. $270/mo) and added $828 million in sales tax (690,000 cars, $20,000 per car, 7% tax) and $190 million savings in COBRA subsidies and costs (39,000, $800 av/mo., 6 months) and then another $500 Thousand for wage taxes (39,000, $70,000 salary, 6 months) and then the fuel savings of $32 million per year (690,000 cars, 11,099 av. mi/yr, $2.50/gal, 9 mi/gal ave savings) or $16 million in the six month period. This does not include the financial ripple of home foreclosures of laid off workers, lost real estate taxes, other misc. taxes, etc.
So the US government saved taxpayers and the owners of the new cars around $1.3 billion in the six month period from Cash for Clunkers to when Edmunds says the cars would have been sold. If they were wrong, the savings would increase $217 million per month of them being wrong.
So Cash for Clunkers really only cost $2463 per car according to the Edmunds analysis and easily could be a break even if sales lagged a year instead of 6 months.
|
obamasecondterm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 48 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:17 am |
|
Program worked pretty well!
|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2952 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:21 am |
|
BuckFan wrote: By my calculations, which are a relevant as Edmunds, Cash for Clunkers saved the taxpayer
$250 million unemployment benefits (39,000 workers, 6 months. $270/mo) and added $828 million in sales tax (690,000 cars, $20,000 per car, 7% tax) and $190 million savings in COBRA subsidies and costs (39,000, $800 av/mo., 6 months) and then another $500 Thousand for wage taxes (39,000, $70,000 salary, 6 months) and then the fuel savings of $32 million per year (690,000 cars, 11,099 av. mi/yr, $2.50/gal, 9 mi/gal ave savings) or $16 million in the six month period. This does not include the financial ripple of home foreclosures of laid off workers, lost real estate taxes, other misc. taxes, etc.
So the US government saved taxpayers and the owners of the new cars around $1.3 billion in the six month period from Cash for Clunkers to when Edmunds says the cars would have been sold. If they were wrong, the savings would increase $217 million per month of them being wrong.
So Cash for Clunkers really only cost $2463 per car according to the Edmunds analysis and easily could be a break even if sales lagged a year instead of 6 months.
A couple problems with your numbers.
One, the CFC program lasted less then 2 months, not the six months you are using for workers.
And two, you twice use the figure of 690,000 vehicles.
But the Edmunds.com report (which you referred to) estimates only 125,000 new vehicles bought that would not have been bought had CFC not existed.
(not that I am saying I agree with the Edmunds.com numbers)
BTW, I am curious why you used the the number of workers as 39,000?
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:25 am by McRocket
|
Pigasus
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:21 am |
|
Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring. ![[fallingdown]](/forums/themes/default/laughing.gif)
|
Emaus_40
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 04:05 am |
|
Tsalagi1 wrote: somehow I don't think this will make a lot of noise with our fellow colleagues on the other side of the aisle...gee..who knew?
They, and sadly too many on our side as well, care nothing about how much money is flushed down the toilet on these programs because they can just reach into our wallets and take more whenever they want. Damn depressing, ain't it?
|
Emaus_40
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 04:14 am |
|
Pigasus wrote: Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring.
That's not exactly a counter argument and it's a little light on details and facts.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 11:24 am |
|
PATruth wrote: Sounds like Obama is really streamlining government. If it now only costs 20,000 to waste 4,000 I think we are headed in the right direction.
It's like an author buying copies of his own book on Amazon.com to raise his sales rank. It makes the numbers look good, but ultimately, a waste of money.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 11:25 am |
|
Emaus_40 wrote: Pigasus wrote: Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring.
That's not exactly a counter argument and it's a little light on details and facts.
Yeah, Pigasus, what are you basing your conclusion on?
|
George Aligator
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 11:28 am |
|
Emaus_40 wrote: Tsalagi1 wrote: somehow I don't think this will make a lot of noise with our fellow colleagues on the other side of the aisle...gee..who knew?
They, and sadly too many on our side as well, care nothing about how much money is flushed down the toilet on these programs because they can just reach into our wallets and take more whenever they want. Damn depressing, ain't it?
I think the Dems will point to the cash for clunkers act as one of their achievements. The folks who got the deals are happy, the car industry is happy and lots of voters will compare the expenditure favorably to the Wall St. bonus scandal.
GM is back, sales are picking up and the new car line is at last competitive with the imports. Ford is ahead of GM. Americans want to feel proud of their auto industry and they will have the chance by 2012. Not all this is due to Obama, of course, but preventing a long Chapter 11 autopsy was crucial.
Right now, Americans are nervous about the debt because they are nervous about the recovery. If voters feel solid ground under their feet, they won't care about the debt any more than they did when Reagan broke the bank.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 11:29 am |
|
George Aligator wrote: Emaus_40 wrote: Tsalagi1 wrote: somehow I don't think this will make a lot of noise with our fellow colleagues on the other side of the aisle...gee..who knew?
They, and sadly too many on our side as well, care nothing about how much money is flushed down the toilet on these programs because they can just reach into our wallets and take more whenever they want. Damn depressing, ain't it?
I think the Dems will point to the cash for clunkers act as one of their achievements. The folks who got the deals are happy, the car industry is happy and lots of voters will compare the expenditure favorably to the Wall St. bonus scandal.
GM is back, sales are picking up and the new car line is at last competitive with the imports. Ford is ahead of GM. Americans want to feel proud of their auto industry and they will have the chance by 2012. Not all this is due to Obama, of course, but preventing a long Chapter 11 autopsy was crucial.
Right now, Americans are nervous about the debt because they are nervous about the recovery. If voters feel solid ground under their feet, they won't care about the debt any more than they did when Reagan broke the bank.
I think Cash for Clunkers summarizes the entire Obama Presidency: A huge mistake, which might have looked good at first but ultimately cost the US taxpayer a huge sum for very little in return.Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 11:30 am by The Engine
|
Joe Steel
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 11:49 am |
|
Emaus_40 wrote: Pigasus wrote: Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring.
That's not exactly a counter argument and it's a little light on details and facts.
OK. Here's some details.
Edmunds created the $24,000 number on the basis of traditional relationships. We were in a recession; traditional relationships didn't hold. That's what causes recessions.
The charge against CARS is guesswork based on a false premise.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
Joe Steel wrote: Emaus_40 wrote: Pigasus wrote: Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring.
That's not exactly a counter argument and it's a little light on details and facts.
OK. Here's some details.
Edmunds created the $24,000 number on the basis of traditional relationships. We were in a recession; traditional relationships didn't hold. That's what causes recessions.
The charge against CARS is guesswork based on a false premise.
Pretty weak spin...
So how much do you think the actual cost per car? You'd have to calculate, by using the average number of cars sold, subtracted from the total sold during the program, and divide the cost of the program by that number.
Good luck, spin doctor! 
|
Thoughtless
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:15 pm |
|
There are other federal programs that work just as well.
I'm from a farming area. The USDA pays us to not plant anything, and we buy new pickup trucks with the money.
|
Joe Steel
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 01:23 pm |
|
The Engine wrote: Joe Steel wrote: Emaus_40 wrote: Pigasus wrote: Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring.
That's not exactly a counter argument and it's a little light on details and facts.
OK. Here's some details.
Edmunds created the $24,000 number on the basis of traditional relationships. We were in a recession; traditional relationships didn't hold. That's what causes recessions.
The charge against CARS is guesswork based on a false premise.
Pretty weak spin...
So how much do you think the actual cost per car? You'd have to calculate, by using the average number of cars sold, subtracted from the total sold during the program, and divide the cost of the program by that number.
Good luck, spin doctor!
The actual cost per car was whatever CARS paid divided by the number of payments I believe the average reported in the article was $4,000.
Now, if you want to discuss some other, more abstract, aspect of the program's economic value, you'll have to change the terms the discussion. Simple arithmetic isn't enough.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:07 pm |
|
Joe Steel wrote: The Engine wrote: Joe Steel wrote: Emaus_40 wrote: Pigasus wrote: Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring.
That's not exactly a counter argument and it's a little light on details and facts.
OK. Here's some details.
Edmunds created the $24,000 number on the basis of traditional relationships. We were in a recession; traditional relationships didn't hold. That's what causes recessions.
The charge against CARS is guesswork based on a false premise.
Pretty weak spin...
So how much do you think the actual cost per car? You'd have to calculate, by using the average number of cars sold, subtracted from the total sold during the program, and divide the cost of the program by that number.
Good luck, spin doctor!
The actual cost per car was whatever CARS paid divided by the number of payments I believe the average reported in the article was $4,000.
Now, if you want to discuss some other, more abstract, aspect of the program's economic value, you'll have to change the terms the discussion. Simple arithmetic isn't enough.
I think the arithemeticmetical concept of this entire string is going right over your head.
The author of the report is saying that most of these cars would've been sold anyway-so most of the money spent ($4,000 per car) was completely wasted. The only benefit, if it could be called that, is in the extra cars, which were sold as a result of this program.
So, when you divide the cost of the program by the number of extra cars sold, it works out to $24,000 per vehicle.
Comprende?
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:12 pm by The Engine
|
loxy3
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3052 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:14 pm |
|
The Engine wrote: Joe Steel wrote: The Engine wrote: Joe Steel wrote: Emaus_40 wrote: Pigasus wrote: Yet again, simple-minded right wing dupes fall for another ridiculously inflated red herring.
That's not exactly a counter argument and it's a little light on details and facts.
OK. Here's some details.
Edmunds created the $24,000 number on the basis of traditional relationships. We were in a recession; traditional relationships didn't hold. That's what causes recessions.
The charge against CARS is guesswork based on a false premise.
Pretty weak spin...
So how much do you think the actual cost per car? You'd have to calculate, by using the average number of cars sold, subtracted from the total sold during the program, and divide the cost of the program by that number.
Good luck, spin doctor!
The actual cost per car was whatever CARS paid divided by the number of payments I believe the average reported in the article was $4,000.
Now, if you want to discuss some other, more abstract, aspect of the program's economic value, you'll have to change the terms the discussion. Simple arithmetic isn't enough.
I think the arithemeticmetical concept of this entire string is going right over your head.
The author of the report is saying that most of these cars would've been sold anyway-so the money spent ($4,000 per car) was completely wasted. The only benefit, if it could be called that, is in the extra cars, which were sold as a result of this program.
So, when you divide the cost of the program by the number of extra cars sold, it works out to $24,000 per vehicle.
Comprende?
He is in his own little world the engine, wanting to believe the sky is blue, noone is without a job, banks are lending again, the malls are full, those poor that couldn't afford a new car got one, all because of his saviour. Nothing is gonna bring his head down out of those clouds anytime soon.
|
Current time is 08:19 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
|
