"A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.
Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the economy's expansion in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation's gross domestic product growth. [That's a gummit lie because moving government money around is not expansion.]
The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.
The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales." Money CNN
Posts
15 comments:
There where so many restrictions with this clunker deal i didn't even bother to take advantage seems like a big fraud deal to me.
You didn't buy a car, but you helped someone else buy one. Now, don't you feel good about that?
I don't think we'll ever know the real cost of destroying cars that lower income people could afford and now have to pay more in a scarce market.
Murray sez:
Gee,I wonder if I will be able to claim a charitable tax deduction on my share of paying for the clunkers.
Oh, I imagine the salesmen who got some commission money to pay their mortgages . . . and the guys in the clean-up shop who had work getting the new cars ready for delivery, to keep them employed for another couple weeks . . . and the people working in the factories making those sold cars . . . I imagine those people were pretty happy about the whole deal.
For a month. Unfortunately, they would have had those same jobs in Sept and Oct and the low income people would have had cheaper cars. And the tax payers would have been better off.
Unfortunately, "they" might not have had those same jobs in September and October.
There's no shortage of available used cars.
"They" also pay taxes.
No shortage? Did you see how many they destroyed? What do you think that does to those left?
Murray sez:
Call me dense or stupid but I absolutely cannot understand why people like Anon don't care that they helped someone else buy a car, house or helped pay their mortgage with their hard earned tax dollars. Do they think the money came from some place else? Wait till their grand children find out how much they will be owing!
Norma:
I read that 625,000 cars were sold so that means 625,000 cars were destroyed. My husband sells used cars and he isn't suddenly getting rich because there's a shortage in the market. Check out some used car auction websites if you want to see just how many used cars there are out there. There are far, far more than 625,000.
Murray:
I am comfortable enough that it doesn't hurt me to help keep business in business. Believe it or not, in this country economy, money moves around. The guy who bought a car paid taxes on that car, he buys gasoline for that car, he buys tires and oil for that car. He gets to work in that car. The guy who sold the car, the one who prepped it, and on and on...get dollars in their pockets to spend.
If you oppose handing out tax money it seems a contradiction to agree with T. Sowell's idea that handouts ought not to be watched for misuse.
I don't have children or grandchildren.
This is the article that mentioned the 625,000 figure:
http://www.slate.com/id/2226156/
Thousands of cars were destroyed--some were beaters that a worker or student could have purchased for $4-500; but I know there were much more expensive cars being destroyed also. Eventually, maybe not in 2009, that will be reflected in increased costs for used cars. It's a simple supply and demand. Plus, all it did was decrease the sales in the fall of new cars. If we tax payers have to shell out $24,000 to induce someone to buy, that doesn't sound like a good trade--it's similar to the $48,000 we're spending for the housing credit. But you are right--the gov't is involved at many levels in all areas of the economy, so many we hardly notice--particularly in the food industry. The degree to which a person believes the gov't needs to be involved seems to determine how the story is written, but Edmunds certainly doesn't strike me as a political wingnut. And they will pay--they will certainly pay--for calling out Obama on this.
Murray sez:
Anon, you said "Believe it or not, in this country economy, money moves around. The guy who bought a car paid taxes on that car, he buys gasoline for that car, he buys tires and oil for that car. He gets to work in that car. The guy who sold the car, the one who prepped it, and on and on...get dollars in their pockets to spend."
Well, there were 625,000 people that were already doing this with their present care BEFORE they destroyed them. Now they are doing it with 625,000 new cars. So I ask you, what changed besides the additional taxes and prepping? We're back to square one only it cost us 3 billion dollars to get there! If this is such a great idea then let's just give everybody $4,500 to buy a car and don't trash anything.
I had another response but somehow it got trashed. Norma?
Don't look at me, I didn't trash anything.
Murray sez:
Maybe Obama's Blog czar deleted it. I like my last one better anyway. It's in simpler terms that Anon just might understand.
Post a Comment