Cash for Clunkers! $24,000 each...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

I don't buy the Admin's claim either as their claim is just as extreme as Edmunds' claim is.

I'd put the figure somewhere in between.

Edmunds basing it on a comparison of sales of luxury cars and other vehicles not included under the clunkers program and guessing how that relates is a stetch at best. A quarter of a million cars were sold in the first four days alone and Edmunds says a vast majority of sales would've happened anyway? Again, that's a stretch. I agree that there are sales that would've occured with or without the clunkers program but no where near the extent that Edmunds claims.

We're entering into a pointless conversation. There is ZERO, in my view, good to come from you and I subsidizing one anothers car purchases whether none or all or somewhere in between of the cars sold was due to car TARP. That is for the car people to deal with. You'll note that there are ads offering $5,000 and more off the tag and/or lowered interest rates.

TARP is a disaster. Cash for clunkers is a disaster. Problems banks and car makers would have been forced to fix are now institutionalized and you and I get to subsidize them, likely forever. GM is already asking for more and Geithner was on the hill yesterday discussing not how to make the banks responsible but, how to more easily bail them out...next time.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We're entering into a pointless conversation. There is ZERO, in my view, good to come from you and I subsidizing one anothers car purchases whether none or all or somewhere in between of the cars sold was due to car TARP. That is for the car people to deal with. You'll note that there are ads offering $5,000 and more off the tag and/or lowered interest rates.

TARP is a disaster. Cash for clunkers is a disaster. Problems banks and car makers would have been forced to fix are now institutionalized and you and I get to subsidize them, likely forever. GM is already asking for more and Geithner was on the hill yesterday discussing not how to make the banks responsible but, how to more easily bail them out...next time.

You make good points here. I wasn't arguing with what you said here. I was disputing Edmunds' claims.

[OoberBoober]

These numbers don't add up. If you look at the american auto sales during the time frame of CfC there was a significant spike of sales, compared to usual. Way more than this guys analysis.

http://online.wsj.com/media/48KIKPMP.gif

[Vince]

Originally Posted by chernmax

The Government will do better with Healthcare, trust them!!!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

You make good points here. I wasn't arguing with what you said here. I was disputing Edmunds' claims.

Edmonds knows their business. If they are way off base, how are we to ever know? What would or might have happened has now been totally distorted because now, a new car is a government provided right, at least partially.

Once you distort something on a fundamental level, anything is possible.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Edmonds knows their business. If they are way off base, how are we to ever know? What would or might have happened has now been totally distorted because now, a new car is a government provided right, at least partially.

Once you distort something on a fundamental level, anything is possible.

They may know their business but it's still a guess. I guess about what might have been, or not.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

They may know their business but it's still a guess. I guess about what might have been, or not.

If it's your guess about YOUR business, I am going to give it far more weight than what Barack Obama thinks about YOUR business.

[Tilted]

Their estimates seem entirely reasonable for answering the question they are posing. With most such things, the larger issue is whether or not the question being posed is appropriate to informing the discussion and assessing the propriety of the actions/policies.

I could pose the question, how many of these 'clunkers' wouldn't have been taken of the road eventually anyway? I'd guess the answer to that question is almost none - eventually, almost all of them would have stopped being used anyway - so the program makes no sense as it spent $150,000 for each vehicle it took off the road that wouldn't have been taken off the road anyway. The issue is, how fair is that question and how much does the answer weigh on the assessed propriety of the policy.

But, but, but - all that aside - the numbers don't much matter and only serve as a distraction from the real issue. They give supporters of the policy something that they can create an argument against. The real issue, all numbers aside, is that the government shouldn't be arbitrarily (from a propriety standpoint) redistributing wealth - which is what this policy did. And, it definitely shouldn't be doing that in order to secure and maintain political favor from particular groups and people. It doesn't matter if we spent $20 per car or $50,000 per car - it's not right.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

The real issue, all numbers aside, is that the government shouldn't be arbitrarily (from a propriety standpoint) redistributing wealth - which is what this policy did. And, it definitely shouldn't be doing that in order to secure and maintain political favor from particular groups and people. It doesn't matter if we spent $20 per car or $50,000 per car - it's not right.

And it's just that simple.

This is unconstitutional. Even if it did 'work' it was illegal and wrong.

[OoberBoober]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

And it's just that simple.

This is unconstitutional. Even if it did 'work' it was illegal and wrong.

Ummm...

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

No.

Yes, general welfare does count as trying to stabilize a turbulent economy.