Politics Cash For Clunkers Revisited

Come on and say it - $3-$5 billion that benefited...the rich! Taxpayers in general and those who needed to buy used cars paid for this. If any analysis actually assessed the impact of the cars taken off the road relative to the increased prices for the remaining used cars on the road I am interested.

Certainly if some people are selling cars and can sell them at a higher price they benefit and this could be stimulative, but people who buy those cars pay more and this is not stimulative - so that nets to zero.

For every car taken off the road that had to be replaced the net is zero.

If a car was scrapped and was not in use, it could be a net stimulus - but the cars that fit in this category was small - and the only people who had surplus cars are people who can afford to have surplus cars. Poor people do not have extra functional cars, if they sell a car it gets replaced and replacing that car with a higher priced car at an inflated price is taking money out of their hands and putting it in the hands of others. and those needing a car without a trade, pay the inflated price taking money out of their hands and putting it in the hands of others.

Is it really this difficult for you to acknowledge this? Acknowledge it and move on, please.
--- merged: Jan 8, 2013 at 6:05 PM ---
I guess this answers my question, although I have not read the specific report referenced. $1.4 billion wasted or to save about an average of about .6 mpg. Perhaps the money could have been spent more efficiently to get a better result if mpg savings was the goal - but cash for clunkers was not stimulative - and on a net basis benefit the rich.

Car Allowance Rebate System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[17]
--- merged: Jan 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM ---

Car dealers, car manufacturers, auto labor unions, recyclers certainly benefited - all with powerful lobby interests. Coincidental? Not at all.

 

Ace...you highlighted one study.

The GAO reviewed numerous studies:

The CARS program helped to stimulate the economy, thereby achieving one of its broad objectives. Several indicators can be used to assess the program’s stimulative effect on the economy, including vehicle sales, Gross Domestic Product, and employment. The studies we reviewed showed that the program helped to stimulate economic activity as measured by these three indicators. However, our review of the studies also found that the extent of the program’s stimulative effect on the economy is uncertain.​

​

We can debate the level of stimulative success....but not based on one study alone.

Was Cash For Clunkers A Success? « True Cost – Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

But we know that you cant accept that any Obama program achieved any level of success.

 

A pure transfer of wealth. From hard-working poor folks to rich, corporate and union folks.

What don't you understand about the old bait and switch? Here is a coupon for $1 off, I only raised the price $.50, and I only had a 100% markup on the uninflated price, but actually if you buy this special anti-stain protection - I will throw it in for $1, so it like you get it for free. Come on in and buy a product you don't need! Do it today, the coupon expires tomorrow!

Wonder why the program floundered, even poor people know a sucker deal - but they could not avoid the inflated prices created by the program.

 

Read the GAO report and then we can discuss it.

And please dont talk about transfer of wealth while persistently and unabashedly touting the imaginary economic benefits of supply side/trickle down voodoo economics.

 

Seconded.

 

I wouldn't mind if the price of gas went up to $15/gallon to cover the wars, stop importing from OPEC and Venezuela, Nigeria, and to pay for cleaner energy production. But that doesn't seem to be too popular and the people that make up the 'market' are stupid.

 

Liberal economic policy has devastated opportunity for upward mobility. The wealth disparity between the super rich and the poor is one thing, the wealth disparity from the middle class and the poor is growing and a permanent underclass is being created - crime, sport, entertainment, or the blessing of the ruling class are becoming the only avenues for poor people to improve their lives. Today, urban inner-city adolescents can not even get entry level jobs to get a foothold into the workforce and you want to lecture me about supply-side economics??? Really?

I suggest beltway liberals go out and mingle with real people and try to understand the issues they face. Young people need entry level jobs, the type of jobs that trickle down from rich people or those who have invested their earned capital trying to achieve real wealth accumulation.
--- merged: Jan 14, 2013 10:19 PM ---

So, not only do you want to screw the single mother trying to work her way out of poverty and provide a better life for her children - but you want to screw the vast majority of working Americans putting a sever burden on their ability to provide for their families. Imagine a two parent household with both working, spending about $400 per month for gas - raise the price 4 -5 fold and that goes to $1,600 - $2,000 per month. Is that what you really want. Or, do you think that their wages would magically go up 4 fold at the same time? I guess we could go back to the lifestyles of those living in the 1800's - but wait what would you do with all the horseshit? I guess it is just trading one environmental problem for another.

 

Liberal economic and social policies are responsible for allowing the underclass to become middle class - the labor movement of the 1930s; the post WWII programs of the GI bill, minimum wage, mortgage interest deduction and the FHA; the civil rights movement, the affirmative action programs of the 70s, women's workplace rights of the 90s.

These are the programs that provided for upward mobility for the working poor.

In terms of very young people, it starts with providing a healthy learning environment in early education....liberal programs. For young people needing entry level jobs or displaced workers needing new jobs, it is the liberal policies of providing greater access to post-secondary education (including trade schools), job training and retraining, a real minimum wage that provides a living wage, etc.

The Reagan years and more recently the Bush years, the decade of the 2000s, that was the lost decade for both the working poor and the middle class.

 

Yes, they are part of the problem. If they are wasting $400/month, or $4800/year somehow on gas, they need to do something different.

Just because one small group would be inconvenienced, doesn't mean that the change that would happen to society over the next 10 years wouldn't be a better thing for the rest of us.

The amount of money we waste a year on oil and gas products is crazy.

 

i can think of few things that would be worse than $15/gallon gas. our entire economy and infrastructure is built around affordable gas. do you like having food at the grocery store when you go? this would cripple the economy and make a lot of people suffer, and of course it would be the middle and lower class hit the hardest.

gas prices keep going up and people keep driving the same amount. it's because we HAVE to. it's the way our system is built for better or worse. you pull that rug out from under us and you would likely see total collapse of society. the cheap, clean energy solutions just aren't there yet, but they want to make sure and remove oil before there's an actual security net to catch us.

 

Who are "they" who want to remove oil before there are productive alternatives in place?

Funding alternative energy R&D, enforcing lax environmental laws regarding permitting of drilling and balancing oil production with environmental safety is hardly removing oil from the mix.

 

We both live in the Midwest, I think they grow enough food around here to sustain the population. It doesn't have to go very far, especially if they had to diversify what was being grown a little more. Even train travel for food wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities.

But we don't HAVE to buy the F150 super double cab to drive one person to their office and back the next town over. Why big trucks are exempt from CAFE standards, I have no idea, but it is a problem that Obama has fixed.
Fuel Economy Standards Expected for Big Pickups | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto

For some reason, the baby boomers think that $1/gallon gas is their right until they die, after that, they could care less if it goes to $50/gal...

I am shocked that it is so high. I spent less that $500 last year, and that is only because I have to travel to my parents house. $4300 is like 1000-1,200 gallons, and if your car gets 20mpg it would go 20,000-24,000 miles. If it got 80mpg, it could go 80,000-96,000 miles, it wouldn't cost much technologically to make an 80mpg car, but the leasers who flip new cars don't care about fuel efficiency since it would cost them more up front, yet it doesn't pay off when they trade it back in. Or, just because GM, Ford, Toyota, etc makes the right type of hybrid pick-up truck.

Public Transit only works in the big cities and as transport between big cities. It can work to get people to specific destinations as well.

 

I should have been more specific when referring to liberal policy - most notably I refer to post 1960. In addition there are/have been liberal policy that has been good and noteworthy, however on a net basis liberal policy has hurt classes of people - people liberal say they care about.

Workplace equality results from free market competition. If qualified woman have an equal opportunity to compete in the workforce they help their employers become more competitive or they operate their own companies in a more competitive manner in the market. the key is equal opportunity to compete - not government mandates/affirmative action/quotas/artificial wage manipulation/etc.

How do you explain 50%+ young adult unemployment in many urban zip codes?

Many school systems run or controlled by liberals completely fail young people. These young people have no choice but to go to failing schools. These young people have to go through virtual combat zones to go to school. These young people attend schools in systems where the costs per student can be as high as $15,000 per student per year compared to other systems that do a better job at significant less cost.

What is a living wage?

President Obama got his tax increase on the "rich", what is going to be different? Nothing. Tax rates adjustments are not the answer to this problem.

 

Data would suggest otherwise.

If you have data to support the "workplace equality from free market" please post.

Eight years of failed Bush policies that contributed to the lost decade of the 2000s and the worst recession in 75 years with the lowest economic demographic impacted the greatest.

Inner cities and rural schools certainly face greater challenges than suburban schools in large part due to school funding formulas based in part on property taxes.

But the Obama "Race to the Top" program has resulted in 40+ states (including many red states) participating in education reform.

A wage that if working full time would put one above the poverty level.

The Bush tax cuts were enacted to be temporary, as a stimulus, and it failed.

The reason they were legislated as temporary was because of the debt impact. The tax cuts, most notably on the top bracket, contributed as much as $1 trillion to the dbt, with projections of an additional $3 trillion over 10 years if top rates were made permanent.

 

The US infrastructure was built based on vehicle on-road travel - and low fuel prices. If over-time we change our infrastructure, that is o.k., but we should not do it abruptly - there is no reason to. We have an opportunity to make incremental changes and we should make those changes based on efficiency, not political ideology. And, yes oil companies have a vested interest in selling gas and keeping the US hooked on vehicles that use gas - and yes we can expect them to advocate for what is in their interest - we need policy makers with conviction to do what is best for the country regardless of special interest advocates. we should not act offended when special interests fight for their cause - it is a part of our system.

Hostile??? I don't think that is the correct word. Single motherhood is a strong (some say the strongest) indicator of a household in poverty. Who is in favor of children being raised in poverty? Can we agree that we are all against children being raised in poverty. Or, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "hostile".

When you talk to single mothers you find that their concerns go from one issue to another. When the most pressing concern is addressed they focus on the next. When it comes to employment, transportation is extremely important. In most cases employers are not tolerant of being late or leaving early. Picking up children and taking children to daycare can be a challenge while also trying to work. Public transportation is not always a good option. These women often depend on used cars, often with reliability issues. Paying for the car, insurance and the repairs easily can turn a positive situation into a negative one. think about a situation where she has a car that need a $1,000 repair and a week in the shop - what do you do - repair it or sell it and buy an operational car? Now all of a sudden getting another car is not an option? Or the woman trying to get off of welfare and she gets a job offer, finds daycare and finds the scheduling doesn't work with public transportation options and she needs to buy a car - give or take a few hundred dollars and that opportunity can not be realized.

I have a sister who is a single mother, now her youngest is 17, I know very well the issues she has had to face. I can give countless examples of how government policy has worked against her rather than help.

 

Workplace equality comes from people having an equal opportunity to compete. We people have that opportunity employment biases go away. For example when blacks were given an equal opportunity to compete for jobs in the military, military opportunities became color blind. The did not need affirmative action/quotas/etc.

The election is over, can we move on from the vague campaign talking points that targeted low information voters. Are you suggesting the the Bush tax cuts caused the recession - tax cuts extended by Obama, tax cuts mostly adopted under Obama's current plan? Or what policy are you talking about.

Is that the core problem in your view?
--- merged: Jan 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM ---

We have been through this - greed is the answer you seek - or indulgence. For example I ride a motorcycle for pleasure. I will go out on Sunday morning and ride for hours for no reason other than personal pleasure.

This is what I mean by hostile.

No, get married before having children. Have a traditional family with a mother and a father. Have both parents give a shit about their children. Children should have grand-parents, aunts and uncles. And I am not saying non-traditional families can not work on a individual case by case basis.

better options, one is affordable used cars for those who need them - no one is arguing against public transportation. Understand that in many urban settings public transportation does not offer the flexibility needed for a single working mother to function or handle all of her responsibilities.