The C4C program replaced three TENTHS of ONE PERCENT of cars on of the road.

Smog savings? Negligible, especially considering that most smog is produced by industry and heavy transport.

Gas savings? About 30 million barrels of oil/year. We consume about 7 billion barrels of oil/year, so the savings are about 4 tenths of one percent of our annual consumption. Put another way, if you figure that a barrel of oil makes about 20 gallons of gasoline and you price gasoline at $2.70/gallon, that's an annual gas savings of about $69M. If the average life of a new car is 10 years, we'll see $690M in gas savings.

Jobs? Officials estimate 42k jobs saved. Let's be generous and say that those jobs will be sustained for six months. Let's be even MORE generous and assume that all of those jobs pay the average U.S. autoworker wage of $28/hour. That's $1.2B in wages saved.


Soooo...we have a program that generated a savings of $1.9B but cost $3B to implement.



Somebody PLEASE tell me that my math is wrong.

I'm interested in signing up. Gas is over $2.70/gallon here right now.

Ok, assume $3/gallon. The program still nets over a billion dollars less than it costs.

Guess I should buy that gas guzzler.

Once the economy kicks back in and China resumes converting 30 million people to the middle class (who want electricity, cars. gadgets, heat, lights, etc) every year.

In the next decade China will add an ENTIRE UNITED states to the world economy (consumption).

Hell if the average gas price of the next decade is $5 I will be pretty happy at that.

I think $6 is more likely.

Lets put it this way if you needed to sell me a futures contract in which I pay you up front in dollars and you are required to supply me gasoline what would you price it at.

I use about 600 gallons per year so I would be prepurchasing 6000 gallons. You would really price it at $3/gallon? A mere 10% over current prices? Hell inflation alone over decade will be in the 30%-40% range.

Just by the effect of compounded inflation we will have $4 gas by 2019.
That assumes consumption remains static - it wont
That assume supply remains static - it will decline
That assumes taxes (including potential carbon taxes) will never go up - :)

You think gas is always going to stay that price

:rofl:

This program cost us $3B and generated $2B in stimulus.

that Misanthrope Little Shitbag,Caused.

...and saved $1B in the process.

Dont make the perfect the enemy of the good

...and STILL come out one billion dollars ahead.

So I cannot confirm that your numbers are correct...

But I do think you're leaving out one thing about this program:

The psychological benefit. Hope.

Everyone who participated in this felt new hope in what could be done. Maybe I'm being a Pollyanna, but I think that's important.

:shrug:

Was it worth it to mess with our psyches?

Why or why not?

Seriously, I'd like to know

And I'm in no position to know.

This program was designed to take pollution-producing old cars off the road, and replace them with more fuel-efficient cars.

It was not designed to get us out of our cars altogether...

I expect when our oil supplies diminish to the point of having $6.00 gasoline, then people will start using other forms of transit.

And not before.

:shrug:

How do you decide who to give hope to?

Some days I'm an idiot!

As for your question: It isn't a decision. It's more of a gut feeling. I don't know how to explain it any better than that...

I get a vibe from someone I trust, and I go with it...

That's about how it works.

I'm fortunate that I'm not often wrong about who to hope in...

Does that help?

:hi:

Which people should the government give hope to?

b/c w/o hope, they are obnoxious, self centered, egotistical boneheads...

:evilgrin:

You know always enjoying the great outdoors...taking some great pics and generally telling the world that the majority of the trips they take in their cars are not needed!

If you can't beat 'em . . .

Switch to a vehicle with 385 Horsepower

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Touche!

last summer proved that. At "just" 4 bucks, the amount of driving nation wide dropped off.

The main problem this highlighted though was that we have a really piss port public transportation infrastructure. We don't have trolleys anymore, our train system is antiquated and grossly underfunded and many major cities have a lacking or vastly inefficient bus system.

Gas is going to go up again, but unless the problems I just stated are fixed, we will be right were we were last year only much worse. Unlike last time when gas went up do to over speculation by a select few, the next time around won't be the case and there won't be a sudden pull back in prices when they reach a point of detriment.

There were some truly serious issues arising from the high gas/oil prices last time. The lion began to chew on our ears before we were able to pull our head out of it's mouth.

We won't be so lucky next time.

Further economic activity. Even if you limit it to just those 42k jobs, those people are going to be able to spend a little more on sending their kids back to school and other necessities, which all runs back into the general flow of the economy.

I'm allowing for paying 42,000 people over $58k/year.

I'd love to see automobiles largely disappear from the landscape. I have a deep and abiding loathing for them.

My 'car?' a bicycle of course. I refuse to even ride in them if at all humanly possible.

At age 55, I have owned two of them, and that was a long time ago.

In my part of the country, as in many others, nobody goes anywhere if they don't have a car.

This continent was a far better place without automobiles, which destroys far too much for the luxury of dubious convenience.

I would rather see the 'motorization of America' undone and mass transit returned to the keystone role to move people around. Autos are corporate poison that adds nothing to this country or world.

Of all the things we could disagree on, this is oner of my most passionate, enduring and incontrovertible. Get rid of autos.

mass transit based society, but given the fact that we are living the existence of a 60+ year old infrastructure that was based solely on the auto, it would take some time to convert our current situation into one that is without cars.

Cities, as they are currently designed and laid out, are auto-centric. It's not just a matter of putting in mass transit that would suddenly fix everything. The problem of rezoning comes into play.

A sea change has to be made on the auto-centric psychology of this nation.

As gun owners defend their second amendment rights, I foresee a gigantic portion of society holding on to their vehicles much in the same way Charlton Heston exclaimed, "you will pry my gun out of my cold dead hand".

You think people on the right are screaming and going nuts now over health care? Just imagine that fight when the day comes when we have to move to a autoless nation when there not enough gas/oil to go around. It's not going to be pretty.

Yes, a transition would be much easier if we properly fund and deploy a logical laid out transit system. However, given our current landscape of dealing with the right wing nuts, do you honestly believe that they, who seem to hate anything that is proposed by the Democratic Party, would jump willingly into accepting a nationwide system without them calling it "A commie plot to socialize our god given right to own cars!!", I know, it doesn't makes sense but that is what we are up against.

Henry Ford's revolutionary priced and mass produced invention, true.

But there was life there that got along fine without it arguably better.
So forgive me if I say with all due respect you have no vision or courage.

I understand that is an epidemic that I don't want to just pick on you regarding. But I don't buy it, and we will have a new transportation paradigm soon enough, if only because of less oil supply, and as global warming becomes bad enough to require dire measures to address it.

I invite you to think more about this, because it sounds like you know you are wrong too. Cheers.

A bicycle isn't really an option.

get a new job, or perhaps if mass transit had not been bought out and killed for decades by Detroit, you would have a better way to get there now.

I am so, so unmoved and without sympathy for long commuters, it is incredible.

Most of thee large land mammals of this land can't even roam freely destroying much of their genetic depth as species, and that means a fuck of a lot more then you getting to work a bad way that destroys, blights and damages so much in the world.

Earth First!, not cars.

Please tell us how the janitors and cafeteria workers are supposed to afford $2000/month rent or housing payments.

"Move closer to your job" is just as idiotic a statement as "If you can't find work, move somewhere you can." It completely ignores the reality of the situation and makes me wonder if you've ever even been in that predicament. My guess is no.

not my statement. I reject that housing anywhere for anyone has to be prohibitively expensive. There is nothing idiotic about not allowing rich housing enclaves to develop.

You point to another problem as pervasive and wrong as the automobile. You might find my socialist bend and luddite nature ridiculous and even 'idiotic.'

But I assure you I am no idiot, and I believe in what I say with deep fervor. Enough so I am well known locally for nearly dying for my belief system.

I hit my head pretty hard in that three story fall during that tree sit. If you ask my old friends at Free Republic where I posted until being banned in 2001, it was likely the fall causing my lack of common sense.

In other words, I have heard the 'idiotic statement' argument my entire life, even before falling protesting a city tree cut for a Nike store in the town Nike was born. Good luck getting anywhere with that with me. In fact, I appreciate the amusement your response afforded me. Have a good day.

It's the rest of your argument that's all fucked up.

Figure out how many CO tons are not released.
Now multiply that my the cost to recover one tone of CO2 from the air.
That is the savings in CO2 but that is today.

Also you are not factoring in the compounded effect of income in the combined economic model.
The job gets him/her off unemployment which adds to the govt savings
The worker at the plant will now spend that money somewhere. That extra consumption (Combined with others) will require that places to hire (or not fire) workers. The increased sales will increase goods orders and inventories which require spinning up production at one plants etc.

Although I'm thinking that's an intentional failure. For whatever reason you're choosing to play dumb.


"Smog savings? Negligible, especially considering that most smog is produced by industry and heavy transport."

Ergo, even if the plan had reduced a larger number of polluting cars on the road, it wouldn't have had any effect on industry and heavy transport, and you'd still be whining.

"Gas savings? About 30 million barrels of oil/year. We consume about 7 billion barrels of oil/year, so the savings are about 4 tenths of one percent of our annual consumption. Put another way, if you figure that a barrel of oil makes about 20 gallons of gasoline and you price gasoline at $2.70/gallon, that's an annual gas savings of about $69M. If the average life of a new car is 10 years, we'll see $690M in gas savings."

0.69 billion dollars is a whole quarter of the cost of the entire Cash for Clunkers program. And the whole idea of the program was to stimulate car sales, not save the environment. The improved gas mileage was just the icing on the cake. So that one stipulation has ended up paying for a quarter of the whole thing.

"Jobs? Officials estimate 42k jobs saved. Let's be generous and say that those jobs will be sustained for six months. Let's be even MORE generous and assume that all of those jobs pay the average U.S. autoworker wage of $28/hour. That's $1.2B in wages saved."

What part of a six month job is generous? Furthermore, creating jobs causes feedback. 42K is huge. And why should you believe that? Because if some recent program had cut 42K jobs, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

"Soooo...we have a program that generated a savings of $1.9B but cost $3B to implement."

Spending money is the whole point of economic stimulus, John Von Neumann.

Gas savings:

Yes, $690M is a little less than 25% of the cost of the C4C program. Consider it "icing" if you wish, but I'll be fair and include it in the program benefits.

Jobs:

Why is "six months" a generous estimate? Because the US builds about 8 million cars a year, so the C4C-initiated 700k cars sold represents a little over a month of production...and that assumes that ALL of the cars sold were U.S. made (which over half of them weren't).

Your math assumes an immediate palpable benefit measured in savings rather then expenditure. By your calculus, we didn't save anything, so it's bubkis.

The benefit is that its a move in the right direction.

1. The cars are more fuel efficient. No matter WHAT the price of gas is or becomes, those individuals will be spending less on gas than if they kept their previous cars.

2. Oil savings before C4C? Zero barrels. Savings after? 30 million.

3. Jobs saved before C4C? Zero jobs. Savings after? 42,000. 42,000 people earned a wage who would have otherwise been on the unemployment dole.

It's not the size of the dent, it is the fact that we are DENTING.

So on the gubmint spreadsheet, you post a loss of $1 billion. But if that's all we're concerned about here, then we've got bigger issues than your math because none of these measures, whether C4C or any others, will post a gain on the books. But that's not the point. The point is to start goosing this economy, and if we can get a bit of environmental benefit out of it, so much the better.

The direct cost vs benefit is accurately reflected in your math. However, a stimulus is just that. It's intended to promote growth. The math you're looking at is the "seed" so to speak. Seeds cost money. But once the impact is allowed to unfold in the greater economy, you'll see growth, jobs saved/created, and stimulation of small business via programs like this. That creates a better climate for businesses, a better climate for consumers, and more confidence in any potential economic recovery.

I wish the entire stimulus had consisted of programs like C4C.

The OP needs to read up on Keynesian economics.

My point is that we could have done that AND given away 600 million gallons of gas and still come out $1B ahead.

How much CO2 is saved? What is the recapture costs of that CO2? That is only the cost today, figure the inflationary pressures and determine the average cost over the 10 year period.

How many gallons are saved? What is the average COST over the next decade of that savings? It sure as hell is nowhere near $3.00 per gallon. Be sure to add the CO2 savings for explorations, drilling, extraction, refining, and transportation for those saved gallons.

We could have done many different things with billions of dollars, but large cash infusions into an economy tend to peter out rather quickly. With a program like C4C, you're laying the groundwork for continued, sustainable economic activity and growth. That's why we turn to things like stimulus programs rather than "Let's just throw a trillion dollars directly at people."

Continuing my bad garden metaphor, stimulus programs of this nature are more geared towards laying deep roots that will weather economic turbulence. Top-heavy programs like the one you use as an example are a very shallow form of stimulus and are often blown away in a short period of time with little to nothing to show for it.

It generated 700k car sales (about one month of domestic production...about two weeks if you consider that over half the cars sold were foreign).

...and the program is over.


How does that generate sustained economic activity?

It buys time. I mean, there's a lot more to it than that, but breathing room for a hard hit industry in this kind of economy is nothing to sniff at. Given unemployment and the expectations of anemic economic growth, some of those jobs saved may very well be lost in the long-term. In this economy, however, sparing people the worst and merely lifting them into the not-so-great is often the best possible outcome.

I don't think C4C is going to be the savior of the auto industry, but it undeniably helped. And in these times, with so many industries being decimated, that's something.

Given how Washington is, I'll take that something wherever we can get it.

My contention is that there were ways to generate the same benefit that would have cost less.

But, I've had a lot of negative things to say about the stimulus, so when I see a program that I think is even a passingly good idea, I want to say so.

I think C4C managed a kind of three-in-one hit that you don't often get out of Washington. Not only did it provide economic stimulus, it put the money in the hands of working Americans, it reduced our dependence on oil a bit, and it reduces a little pollution. Of course, none of it in shattering, paradigm changing ways, but I'll take what incrementalism I can get on these things. My criticisms of the administration are in the vein "No, the President cannot fix all these problems at once, but he needs to at least be moving in the right direction."

It's not often you get a government program that hits many different areas while being soundly productive and moving in that right direction.

The vouchers were only good towards the purchase of a new car. That's not money in your hand, it's a coupon.

But you're essentially right. This program accomplished its goals, and it did it well, even if it cost more than it had to.

You're also forgetting the residual effect of those wage-earning spending THEIR money.

The residual effect comes from 42k people being employed and spending money.

If we just PAID 42k people to sit around and do nothing instead of having them employed as a result of C4C, we'd have the same residual effect...but it'd cost a billion dollars less.

....and having more money for other things...

The effect to the economy is the same.

...and has very little stimulative effect here in the U.S.

It's like throwing it down a rat hole.


But if it is spent on goods that otherwise wouldn't have been purchased, it's stimulative effect is multiplied.

If we say that an autoworker job has a far-reaching effect on other jobs and segments of the economy, then we have to make the same allowance for the jobs of people like refinery workers and gas station employees.

From tax revenues generated from their employment.

I think 2 years would be the magic number for us to break even for the program.

However, the program "created" the sale of 700,000 cars...about half of which were foreign.

350,000 domestic automobiles is about 3 weeks' worth of domestic production. That's far short of 2 years.

That is not entering your equation.

Remember the 6 months of employment from the OP?

read on Keynes...

We need more like this... to get us out of the hole

Whether you pay them $58k/year to work or to sit at home, their contribution to the economy will be the same.

...except we'd have saved a billion dollars had we just paid them to sit at home.

the longer you keep them off line... yes that is a real cost.

Also the residual effect in the economy and the psychological effect of actually WORKING.

Also you are forgetting that the people who exchanged those cars have started to spend, and may actually spend more to get their new rides certain things, like a better radio, or covers.

The residual effect is not just 52K... it is far more than that.

John Maynard Keynes understood that, and we should relearn the lessons... it takes spending to get out of the hole in a deep recession.

Oh and there is another effect. The shovel ready projects most people discount, because they prevented lay offs... but this is an actual effect on people who lost jobs.

not 42k autoworker jobs...and my calculations give them each a $58k/year salary, even though I'm sure many of them make much less than that.

if you give someone without a job, or prospects of a job, $58 grand to not work for a year, they will likely save most of that money (wouldn't you? knowing that this is all you are getting?) give someone a job and they will spend more money, because they have a rational expectation that they will continue to make money.

once the program ends?

If anything, it's rational to assume that they'll be laid off again...especially since a good portion of these sales would have taken place in the next six months, anyway (which subtracts from future sales....and production needs).

that if people are working, they are more optimistic about future prospects, reality be damned, and will therefore spend more. logical? perhaps not. but human.

that people that don't have a job to go to every day frequently do other things to stimulate the economy...whether it be painting their house (increasing its value) or working under the table.


I was incredibly generous with my employment calculations. I really don't think that optimism will skew the numbers appreciably.

Gas savings.

30 million barrels of oil * 20 gal gas per barrel * 10 years = 6 billion gallons saved
6 billion gallons of gas saved over the next decade. $2.70 is insanely low. The average over the next decade is at lest going to be $5.00. Likely much higher but that lets go with $5.00.
That is $30 billion worth of saved gasoline. Gasoline cost which will be replaced by US consumption.

CO2 savings

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/co2.shtml

20 pounds of CO2 per gallon (not even including the CO2 costs of production, refining, transportation, etc)

6 billion gallons of gasoline * 20 = 120 billion pounds of Co2. 2000 pounds per ton = 60 million tons. The cost of a single ton of CO2 credit in european cap & trade is about $20 so that is about about $1.2 billion is saved CO2 alone. CO2 sequentering is about double that so the cost to avoid putting 60 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is more like $2.4B. Now that number will likely rise with inflation so an average 10 year benefit of $4.0B isn't impossible.


So $30B in savings by reduced gasoline consumption (like a $30B pay raise for consumers who will spend it on other goods and services) and another $4B in CO2 benefits. That doesn't include the benefit of reduced pollution. The true effect (multiplier) of a billion in more wages.

Remember don't count just the workers but also the increased compensation of salesmen which is contributed back into the economy.

You also failed to account for unemployment. Employed employees don't collect unemployment thus there is a cost savings.

Another way to look at it is per vehicle
* Average rebate: $4200
* MPG for the vehicles being scrapped: 15.8 760
* MPG for the new cars: 24.8
* Assumed miles driven per year for each: 12,000
* Gallons of gas saved per year: 280
* Tons of carbon dioxide saved per year: 2.8

So if the vehicle is kept 10 years it saved 2800 gallons of gasoline and 28 tons of CO2.
Current CO2 trading (not sequestering) which represents the "market value" of CO2 reduction is $22/ton. The true cost of sequestering the CO2 starts at around $50/ton and can't be done for vehicles cost effectively (yet).

So gas savings @ $5/gallon = $15,000
CO2 savings @ $22/ton = $600
Total savings per vehicle = $15,600 on a $4200 pricetag.

is that you fail to take into account the CO2 cost of production of these new automobiles (along with the 700,000 more that will be needed since there are now 700,000 fewer used cars on the market than you might expect) as late as 2007, Ford estimated that production of a mid-sized car emitted roughly 6.9 tons of CO2, or an estimated 7% of it's lifetime carbon emissions. Toyota, claims more like 18%, by the way. http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/usa/‘cash-for-clunkers’-and-lifetime-co2-emissions-10675.htm> if we're doing the math, then we need to take that into account.

sure, these particular vehicles were mostly already manufactured, but as noted above, GM fired up factories to replace them in inventory, so it's a bit of a wash there.

Another way to look at it is per vehicle
* Average rebate: $4200
* MPG for the vehicles being scrapped: 15.8 760
* MPG for the new cars: 24.8
* Assumed miles driven per year for each: 12,000
* Gallons of gas saved per year: 280
* Tons of carbon dioxide saved per year: 2.8

So if the vehicle is kept 10 years it saved 2800 gallons of gasoline and 28 tons of CO2. Car production CO2 is 7 tons for a net reduction of 21 tons.
Current CO2 trading (not sequestering) which represents the "market value" of CO2 reduction is $22/ton. The true cost of sequestering the CO2 starts at around $50/ton and can't be done for vehicles cost effectively (yet).

So gas savings @ $5/gallon = ~$15,000
CO2 savings @ $22/ton = ~$450
Total savings per vehicle = $15,450 on a $4200 pricetag using CO2 trading.

So gas savings @ $5/gallon = ~$15,000
CO2 savings @ $50/ton = ~$1100
Total savings per vehicle = $16,100 on a $4200 pricetag using CO2 sequestering*.

* While you can't sequester CO2 from vehicles cost effectively you could sequester other CO2 sources to produce the same net reduction.

that managing a nation's economy is the same as balancing their checkbook. Totally ignores the synergistic effect of jobs.

which is shocking that this particular poster omitted it. Cash Flow and the benefit of reduced interest on debt. All kinds of economic benefits.

is what c4c was all about. In that it is proving to be a preventative measure to have taken. One job means everything to that one person, don't you ever forget that.

You can't really quantify the effect of taking all those cars off the road and replacing them with higher mileage cars. Then of course the fact that there is a money multiplier that has to be added on to those saved wages. And the fact that the government is finally giving an incentive for car companies to sell more fuel efficient cars and improve their technology, something that is hard to quantify as well.

Indeed, giving 3 billion dollars to car companies in exchange for actual cars seems like a great investment compared to the bailouts.

Yes, at least C4C provided tangible benefits.

Compared to the bailout in both directly measurable benefits and price, C4C was a freaking bargain.

No wonder you have so many offensive posts.

:eyes:

It's SO much better to cheer lead than to analyze.

You are totally missing the point of what it means to be a liberal/progressive. Unfuckingbelievable.

:eyes:

:eyes:

...and I never claimed to be either "liberal" or "progressive". Some of my views are more liberal, some are more conservative....but almost all involve rational thought.

No point in talking to a right-winger any more.

:hi:

Well maybe you could work for Arthur Anderson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen

You bash everything Democratic, anything from Obama, and today engaged in the Ted-hating. You feel more sympathy for gun-wielding terrorists at the teabagging meetings than the people trying to speak to their reps. Tell me again, why are you here?

Seriously, why does stating facts threaten you so?

I dunno, why don't you tell us.

Nice talk - I'd expect nothing less from a Republican.

The ones who don't analyze the plans they advocate, for example.

I've had enough of arrogant people like you.

See ya!

:hi:

Government worker that would deny any others the same benefits he enjoys.

He is only here to take a dump in the punchbowl.

We spend far more than we take in on a federal level, so every additional spending goes right to debt. Since there's no prayer of actually reducing the size of the debt without defaulting it, we have to pay the interest on that debt in perpetuity, which acts as a drag on the economy. There are a lot of terms for the kind of short term thinking that C4C represents and few of them are complimentary.

like to promote-that running an economy the size of ours is no more complex than balancing your checkbook at home. Totally ignores the synergistic effect of jobs on an economy and a whole host of economic thought and theory.

I agree.

C4C is a perfect example of the astonishingly tiny crumbs that we are so happy to get from our overlords. It is wasteful in the extreme and the biggest beneficiaries are the parasites that are bleeding us dry.

Political cover so they can say they did something without actually doing anything. After all, the mid-terms are coming up...

All sheep share a common destiny.

Many of the cars turned in lacked more modern safety devices such as ABS or airbags. Newer cars are also less injurious to pedestrians.

The Obama uber alles posse plus car haters plus, probably, more than a few trolls.

The OP makes a specific series of points. They can probably be argued on their merits. But no.

not much to discuss past that.

The benefit just in reduction in gasoline usage and CO2 emissions is worth around $35B over the next 10 years a 10x return on investment.

That doesn't included the compounded effect of worker wages in the economy,
That doesn't include the medical benefits from improving air quality.
That doesn't include the safety benefits of 7000 consumers having safer vehicles.
That doesn't even include the unemployment cost savings of working employees not collecting unemployment.
That doesn't even include the derivative business gains (cars use steel & glass so steel & glass orders will be up, etc).

Just using the two most Fox News linear thinking direct economic benefit items GASOLINE USAGE and CO2 EMISSIONS the program is an amazing success.

I thought the cherry-picked stuff was glaringly obvious. Guess not.

I was addressing the lack of such discussion, using unrecs and snarks instead.

I was commenting on the childishness.

It wasn't a discussion but more like a monologue and not a very good one.

Therefore contributing revenue to state budgets, which have been slashed due to reduced revenue from the recession. Here in MA, each new vehicle generates 6.25% sales tax, registration fees, excise taxes, which help bolster a state budget that's been on life support for the last year or two. Inspection fees mean income for the service stations doing the inspections. Auto insurance fees mean people in that business keep their jobs. All of these people keep their jobs, and keep generating the $$ that keep our govt running.

never a long-term solution...

automakers happy, dealers happy, customers happy, and the economy gets a small boost (but a bigger raise in morale)

I know 2 people who took advantage of the program including my friend who just recently lost her husband. She was stuck with 2 cars, one with over 100k miles and the other over 200k. The 200k car qualified for the program. Fortunately her father did know a car dealer owner that sold my friend her car at dealercost and of course she got $4500 for the clunker. She has a new car for her family and very low reasonable car payments.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

They are allowed to be harvested for parts and the steel will get recycled. Both direct values of the program that are not easy to calculate. How much value does the recycled value of the steel represent. How much free inventory for junkyards and parts shop do the 700K add in direct value?

These are direct benefits that cannot be obtained by your direct pay analogy.

towards in order to get the full cost/benefit picture. Otherwise you are only figuring in about 1/3 of the value of the program into your "savings". Besides no one knows that these jobs are temporary. You can arbitrarily chose to be pessimistic or optimistic on that question. It's a wait and see proposition.

If you have the rebate data, I'd like to see it.

That's all the voucher is good for.

I'm not arguing that it created jobs or decreased gasoline consumption. I'm arguing that it was an expensive way to achieve its results.

Did you factor in the sales tax paid to local/state governments on the purchase of NEW cars? It's actually pretty high.

Also, the corporate income tax to the Federal government that would come from Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. when their bottom line is impacted by moving that much brand new product (I'm not sure how the taxes would work for GM at this time, given their situation). Not to mention Federal taxes on the incomes of the auto dealers that moved the products and the companies that junked the clunkers.

If we're talking about net benefits, the tax income that the sale of a new car generates is offset by the cost of that tax to the car buyer.

As far as "moving that much brand new product", the 700k new car sales attributable to C4C represent a little over a month of U.S. domestic production. Considering that half of the cars sold under this program were foreign, we're talking three weeks of domestic production.

What we need is a new CCC or a program to put people to work. They can repair parks (there is a backlog of maintenance needs at federal and most state parks now).

The cash for clunkers was meaningless bullshit, made to make it seem like Obama is actually throwing working people a bone and not his corporate buddies.

Yes, it benefited automakers, but it did also provide some benefit to both workers and car buyers.


My argument is that C4C's cost exceeded its return.