Cash for Clunkers already messed up????

[juddling]

Cash for Clunkers

[NorthSideSox72]

We have a big discussion going in the environmental thread about this. Basically, by "messed up", you mean its actually been more successful than any of the other stimulus items to date.

 

[southsider2k5]

Of course the plan that they get from Communist China works the best

[lostfan]

Of course the plan that they get from Communist China works the best

China's pretty authoritarian obviously, but their markets are pretty open.

[kapkomet]

China's pretty authoritarian obviously, but their markets are pretty open.

We're getting that way. Unless there's beer involved.

 

[lostfan]

We're getting that way. Unless there's beer involved.

Authoritarian or socialist? Because China's economic policies aren't really all that socialist.

[Jenksismyhero]

Looks like the EPA also recently messed with the fuel efficiency ratings, screwing some people out of the program:

 

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-...Clunkers-Deals/

 

How can the EPA change these numbers years later? That makes no sense.

[southsider2k5]

And really thinking of the big picture here, the federal government underestimates the demand for cars so badly that they are talking about shutting down this program after four days, yet we aren't supposed to questing the CBO cost esimates for health care and how many people would decide to go on the plans and how many businesses would drop their coverages? Yeah, ok.

[NorthSideSox72]

Looks like the EPA also recently messed with the fuel efficiency ratings, screwing some people out of the program:

 

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-...Clunkers-Deals/

 

How can the EPA change these numbers years later? That makes no sense.

This was done a year or two ago - the EPA was critized by consumers for setting MPG numbers based on unrealistically conservative driving tests. They adjusted the tests, which was a good thing, because almost no one was getting the EPA estimated mileage from their cars before that adjustment.

 

And this has a good side effect here too, with the CARS program. The new cars have more realistic numbers, so as long as buyers are getting one with better MPG numbers, you actually gain a few extra clicks in MPG in the transfers.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And really thinking of the big picture here, the federal government underestimates the demand for cars so badly that they are talking about shutting down this program after four days, yet we aren't supposed to questing the CBO cost esimates for health care and how many people would decide to go on the plans and how many businesses would drop their coverages? Yeah, ok.

And on that, I agree with you, which is why a government-run health care program is probably not the best answer.

 

[jasonxctf]

I had heard that this was a knockoff of a german program. Did the Germans borrow the idea from China?

[Jenksismyhero]

This was done a year or two ago - the EPA was critized by consumers for setting MPG numbers based on unrealistically conservative driving tests. They adjusted the tests, which was a good thing, because almost no one was getting the EPA estimated mileage from their cars before that adjustment.

 

And this has a good side effect here too, with the CARS program. The new cars have more realistic numbers, so as long as buyers are getting one with better MPG numbers, you actually gain a few extra clicks in MPG in the transfers.

 

 

They did it Friday, right before the program started:

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20090727/BUSINESS01/90727084/

 

The EPA updated the fuel economy figures Friday, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released the final rules for the program.

[NorthSideSox72]

They did it Friday, right before the program started:

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20090727/BUSINESS01/90727084/

Ah OK, that is a different update. I was referring to the broad-based changes in EPA testing from 2006. I didn't realize these were new ones beyond that.

 

Of course, it looks like this change put some cars in, and some out, so its a net zero effect. But this is definitely an example of government agencies not communicating well with one another. The change should have been put in place at the beginning of the program.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Ah OK, that is a different update. I was referring to the broad-based changes in EPA testing from 2006. I didn't realize these were new ones beyond that.

 

Of course, it looks like this change put some cars in, and some out, so its a net zero effect. But this is definitely an example of government agencies not communicating well with one another. The change should have been put in place at the beginning of the program.

 

Net zero for the total number of models, but not necessarily for the total number of vehicles.

[mr_genius]

And really thinking of the big picture here, the federal government underestimates the demand for cars so badly that they are talking about shutting down this program after four days, yet we aren't supposed to questing the CBO cost esimates for health care and how many people would decide to go on the plans and how many businesses would drop their coverages? Yeah, ok.

 

They completely underestimated the scope and demand of the 'cash for clunkers' program. The computer systems couldn't handle the processing, dealers don't know how to 'kill cars' properly before they are sent to be junked, and the time frame was completely off base. It took 4 days to reach a limit, which they thought would take months to do. The plan was a great stimulus idea, but with poor excecution and planning.

[kapkomet]

And really thinking of the big picture here, the federal government underestimates the demand for cars so badly that they are talking about shutting down this program after four days, yet we aren't supposed to questing the CBO cost esimates for health care and how many people would decide to go on the plans and how many businesses would drop their coverages? Yeah, ok.

That was my point under the original post - and we trust these people to run our health care?

 

[Rex Kickass]

That was my point under the original post - and we trust these people to run our health care?

 

30% of insured Americans already do.

[BigSqwert]

That was my point under the original post - and we trust these people to run our health care?

I don't see how you can compare this program to health care. Not a very good comparison.

[southsider2k5]

Sounds like Congress is going to throw another two billion into the fund... so that should last another eight days at the rate we are going?

 

And the funny part, is the $4500 is pretty much like getting a tax cut.

[kapkomet]

30% of insured Americans already do.

And they do OH SO WELL under those medicare and medicaid programs, don't they?

 

Those programs are part of the reason health care costs too much from a private insurance standpoint as well. /waits for trashing of this statement by liberal blogs, even though it's lies.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Sounds like Congress is going to throw another two billion into the fund... so that should last another eight days at the rate we are going?

 

And the funny part, is the $4500 is pretty much like getting a tax cut.

Why is that funny? Nothing wrong with targeted tax-related incentives.

 

I'm glad they are putting more money in, since it obviously works in terms of its main goal. They just need to fix some of the aspects of execution, and tweak the MPG standards a bit.

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't see how you can compare this program to health care. Not a very good comparison.

 

Totally. This program was projected to cost one billion dollars which at $4500 per person comes out to about 22,200 people, and now has at least tripled in size. They couldn't even come close to projecting it right.

 

Health care is supposed to be a one Trillion dollar program and involved an estimated 40,000,000 people, and we are just supposed to take their word that they got it right on something like 1000 X's the scale? Lol.

[southsider2k5]

Why is that funny? Nothing wrong with targeted tax-related incentives.

 

I'm glad they are putting more money in, since it obviously works in terms of its main goal. They just need to fix some of the aspects of execution, and tweak the MPG standards a bit.

 

Because tax cuts don't work!

[BigSqwert]

Totally. This program was projected to cost one billion dollars which at $4500 per person comes out to about 22,200 people, and now has at least tripled in size. They couldn't even come close to projecting it right.

 

Health care is supposed to be a one Trillion dollar program and involved an estimated 40,000,000 people, and we are just supposed to take their word that they got it right on something like 1000 X's the scale? Lol.

Because there was totally a precedent they could establish with a program like this one.

[southsider2k5]

Because there was totally a precedent they could establish with a program like this one.

 

Its been done already in the industrialized world, which is the basis people are using for national health care, right?