Cash for Clunkers already messed up????

[BigSqwert]

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

I was referring to the cash for clunkers program.

[southsider2k5]

I was referring to the cash for clunkers program.

 

So was I.

[Rex Kickass]

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.

 

4500x22200=Ninety Nine Million, Nine Hundred Thousand.

 

One billion dollars would fund 222,222 purchases at $4500 each.

[southsider2k5]

4500x22200=Ninety Nine Million, Nine Hundred Thousand.

 

One billion dollars would fund 222,222 purchases at $4500 each.

 

Still, the point stands.

[kapkomet]

4500x22200=Ninety Nine Million, Nine Hundred Thousand.

 

One billion dollars would fund 222,222 purchases at $4500 each.

You forgot the government's take on the government money.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Still, the point stands.

 

Actually, the point doesn't stand. In fact, in the original legislation, the plan was scheduled for four billion dollars in funding, with the first billion to fund the program only through September.

 

The additional two billion in funding isn't additional funds being tacked onto the program, its funds being allocated to the program early.

[southsider2k5]

Actually, the point doesn't stand. In fact, in the original legislation, the plan was scheduled for four billion dollars in funding, with the first billion to fund the program only through September.

 

The additional two billion in funding isn't additional funds being tacked onto the program, its funds being allocated to the program early.

 

And it made it four days. They HORRIBLY miscalculated

 

[vandy125]

Actually, the point doesn't stand. In fact, in the original legislation, the plan was scheduled for four billion dollars in funding, with the first billion to fund the program only through September.

 

The additional two billion in funding isn't additional funds being tacked onto the program, its funds being allocated to the program early.

 

I know that's how I do my budgeting. I'll budget $12,000 for the year for xyz. $1,000 for the first month. Oops, I went over by $5,000 in the first half of the month. Good thing I have the remaining $6,000 to put in for the rest of the month. I'll just use it early... Oh wait, that's supposed to last the whole year?

 

I suppose we have no idea how long the program was supposed to last, but running out of funds in 4 days that should be good through 65 or so is horrible.

[Rex Kickass]

And it made it four days. They HORRIBLY miscalculated

 

True, but my retail experience also tells me that these kind of things tend to frontload.

 

4 billion may actually be the right number, we just may have seen the bulk of the sales this week, believe it or not.

 

I spent four years working on commission and one thing I learned is that when a sale happened, we got a lot of business up front and sometimes, but not always, a lot of business at the tail end - but most of the time (especially if the sale was longer than one day), we'd have quite a lot of business at the start of the sale, but a few days in - it was like normal.

 

At the end of the day, this seems pretty positive - warts and all. Even if it runs out of the full funding in four more days. When all is said and done, this four billion dollars puts about a million new cars on the road, and maybe someone should tell me why that's such a disaster.

 

I'm sure if it was a plan that cost more money you'd s*** on it for the government spending too much.

[mr_genius]

Also take into account that the feds are getting some of the money back on this in the form of sales tax. Seems to be a plan that killed multiple birds with one stone and really isn't that expensive compared to the other stimulus failures such as the completely outragous bank bailouts.

Edited July 31, 2009 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

Also take into account that the feds are getting money back on this in the form of sales tax. Seems to be a plan that killed multiple birds with one stone and really isn't that expensive compared to the other stimulus failures such as the completely outragous bank bailouts.

 

I wonder if we'd done this in October with 15-20 billion, if it would have been more useful than the loans to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy.

[kapkomet]

True, but my retail experience also tells me that these kind of things tend to frontload.

 

4 billion may actually be the right number, we just may have seen the bulk of the sales this week, believe it or not.

 

I spent four years working on commission and one thing I learned is that when a sale happened, we got a lot of business up front and sometimes, but not always, a lot of business at the tail end - but most of the time (especially if the sale was longer than one day), we'd have quite a lot of business at the start of the sale, but a few days in - it was like normal.

 

At the end of the day, this seems pretty positive - warts and all. Even if it runs out of the full funding in four more days. When all is said and done, this four billion dollars puts about a million new cars on the road, and maybe someone should tell me why that's such a disaster.

 

I'm sure if it was a plan that cost more money you'd s*** on it for the government spending too much.

The government shouldn't be in this crap at all, but they are, because after all [they are the only thing that can fix everything for us].

[Rex Kickass]

The government shouldn't be in this crap at all, but they are, because after all [they are the only thing that can fix everything for us].

 

So you're on record as saying that using 4 billion dollars of money from government coffers to stimulate 15-20 billion dollars of spending minimum is a bad idea in a recession?

 

OK then.

[kapkomet]

So you're on record as saying that using 4 billion dollars of money from government coffers to stimulate 15-20 billion dollars of spending minimum is a bad idea in a recession?

 

OK then.

Actually, yes and no. In this form, it's almost like a tax cut. They'll get their money back - which you liberals say can't happen. At the same time, they should not be incentivizing free market behavior. It's a slippery slope question. Truthfully, I don't want the government in any businesses that it doesn't have to be.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, yes and no. In this form, it's almost like a tax cut. They'll get their money back - which you liberals say can't happen. At the same time, they should not be incentivizing free market behavior. It's a slippery slope question. Truthfully, I don't want the government in any businesses that it doesn't have to be.

 

But this is what governments do when you have a recession. It's the same thing that we did with rebates in 2001, for example, just targeted.

[mr_genius]

I wonder if we'd done this in October with 15-20 billion, if it would have been more useful than the loans to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy.

 

Totally, a program like this would have been much better than a straight bailout. There were a lot of 'experts' in the auto industry that thought no one would bother taking advantage of the program; which has obviously been proven false. A little more innovative vision here and we could have had the program earlier and with more emphasis on high mileage purchases. It's better to be producing, improving, and working within our economic system; advertising, parts production, sales labor, and many other things get a boost in a situation like this. I think there is some consensus on tthat.

 

But you probably won't agree with this; a trillion in middle class tax cuts would have been a hell of a lot better than most of the stimulus that went out. Same principle though if you think about it.

[mr_genius]

Here's another messed up part about the program, just as there is a mass confusion on the most effective stimulus yet which (was horribly executed); congress takes a month off work. Can you imagine if you tried this at work. LOL

 

This is why the government can't run anything. "nope. nope. it's my month off. i don't care if the whole system is breaking down. it's my month off."

[Rex Kickass]

Totally, a program like this would have been much better than a straight bailout. There were a lot of 'experts' in the auto industry that thought no one would bother taking advantage of the program; which has obviously been proven false. A little more innovative vision here and we could have had the program earlier and with more emphasis on high mileage purchases. It's better to be producing, improving, and working within our economic system; advertising, parts production, sales labor, and many other things get a boost in a situation like this. I think there is some consensus on tthat.

 

But you probably won't agree with this; a trillion in middle class tax cuts would have been a hell of a lot better than most of the stimulus that went out. Same principle though if you think about it.

 

I disagree with that for the simple reason that tax cuts are by nature not immediately stimulative. If there had been a trillion in middle class tax cuts passed when Obama's stimulus package was passed, we would see 0 benefit until 2010.

 

On balance, the stimulus plan is starting to look successful, having gone from -6% in the first quarter to -1% in the second quarter in GDP.

[southsider2k5]

I disagree with that for the simple reason that tax cuts are by nature not immediately stimulative. If there had been a trillion in middle class tax cuts passed when Obama's stimulus package was passed, we would see 0 benefit until 2010.

 

On balance, the stimulus plan is starting to look successful, having gone from -6% in the first quarter to -1% in the second quarter in GDP.

 

Which means the Republicans were right because barely any of the spending plans have hit peoples pocketbooks yet.

[southsider2k5]

I wonder if we'd done this in October with 15-20 billion, if it would have been more useful than the loans to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy.

 

Actually the funny part is that when I read about China doing this a long time ago, I said I would rather see a plan like this than the auto industry bailouts, which ended up being a complete and abject failure anyway.

[santo=dorf]

Personally I don't understand why they are rewarding people for getting 2 more MPG on their SUV's. If they really cared about the environment, they would only make SUV dumping people be eligible for buying a smaller car. Perhaps if they gave someone a $6000 credit for going from an SUV/Truck to something more compact, they would get more of these gas guzzlers off the road.

[southsider2k5]

Personally I don't understand why they are rewarding people for getting 2 more MPG on their SUV's. If they really cared about the environment, they would only make SUV dumping people be eligible for buying a smaller car. Perhaps if they gave someone a $6000 credit for going from an SUV/Truck to something more compact, they would get more of these gas guzzlers off the road.

 

The enviornmental stuff is secondary. This is a gift to the auto companies.

[santo=dorf]

that crossed my mind too, but why base it primarily on the MPG of a car? I wonder what the companies' profits are on an SUV sale versus a normal car sale.

[Cknolls]

I disagree with that for the simple reason that tax cuts are by nature not immediately stimulative. If there had been a trillion in middle class tax cuts passed when Obama's stimulus package was passed, we would see 0 benefit until 2010.

 

On balance, the stimulus plan is starting to look successful, having gone from -6% in the first quarter to -1% in the second quarter in GDP.

 

 

My answer to that is new stock market lows within 12-15 months. Then how successful will the non-stimulus be for everyone?

 

[Cknolls]

The enviornmental stuff is secondary. This is a gift to the auto companies.

 

 

Bingo. Sucking union **** again. Obama can't get enough. Unions are great. They destroy our state budgets with outrageous benefits that nobody likes to talk about, but they earn an honest wage. LOL.