LOL! So you're saying that the 3 Billion the Government spent for people to purchase these cars boosted the economy? Just realize that this theory relies on two things: 1) Government giving cash back to the people. 2) Trickle down effect. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I love how the tables have turned on both sides on this. How is this different than the $400 that Bush gave back to everyone to spend on anything?
The difference is that the evidence shows those people didn't spent it on ANYTHING - they simply put it in the bank. These programs require the spending, so you don't have that. It's been shown time and time again with hard data that government spending has a larger multiple (trickle down effect) than tax cuts.
It may even be true that only 125,000 additional cars were sold because of C4C, but this is a terrible, irresponsible, and wrong statement. If the other 565,000 owners were willing to soon buy these cars anyway, it doesn't mean the $4k given to each had no economic effect. That's $4k less debt for each, or $4k they would spend elsewhere, or a $4k nicer car than they would have otherwise purchased. Also, because of the rules around the program, they were influenced to make a more fuel-conscious purchase than they otherwise would (on the margin). Dividing $3B by 125k cars is just about the dumbest analysis I have yet to see on C4C. I feel embarassed for the person who did the math and then actually told someone else. Don't mean to kill the messenger, but when bigtexxx praises your post, you know something is amiss.
Did you take advantage of the $7500 15 year interest free loan that was available for some homes purchased in 2008?
This post is so full of fail that it's not even funny. You're basically saying that the person doing the math should have counted the folks the government PAID to lever up their personal balance sheet by taking on a new car. Do you understand how that could end poorly? Do you recognize that loading up on debt - even if the government is paying you to do so (wtf...) - can be a bad thing? Do ya remember the housing crisis and its beginnings?
This is simply false. The people that needed it spent it. The people that didn't didn't. And the people that were holding off on something until later spent it. Just like the C4C.
I think this is the absolute worst criticism I've heard about this program, people actually saying that it can be the beginning of something similar to the housing crisis. houses <> cars People still have to qualify for the credit (which is a big part of the housing crisis) this is a one time event, the housing bubble has being building for a while
so your argument is that Bush's stimulus worked, is that evidenced by the economic meltdown we witnessed at the end of 08?
Lol. I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply pointing out that they're exactly the same. I just find it funny that both sides have gone completely 180 on it.
At least we're starting to admit that this was a 'stimulus' program designed to shovel money to dealers rather then any attempt at a meaningful environmental measure. (25mpg average ---sheeesh!). And saddling individuals with new auto loans -- not sure how that stimulates on going spending...except on more debt servicing. Oh well..... Republicans were never shy about business subsidies either....
Fatty, Honestly I don't remember that many people complaining about the Bush stimulus, I do remember people criticizing after the fact saying it didn't work. Could be wrong.
Exactly. But the gov't was giving away the money for a specific purpose: to stimulate the economy. So if people aren't spending it, it's wasted government spending. With the clunkers program, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, every dollar the government spent was sent out into the economy. That's why government spending is a more efficient means of stimulus than tax cuts. 100% of it is directed at it's target with spending; only a portion is with tax cuts.
the government is paying people to lever up their personal balance sheets on a rapidly depreciating asset. That's bad business, friend.
You owe me a complete cost benefit analysis of this program. Get to work Sam, you've already had several hours to work on this and have come up with nothing so far.
I have several pending unanswered questions to you. Each one of these was posed prior to your request. The courtesy of a reply is requested, prior to my even beginning to entertain your petition. Advance thanks is given.
There are things we can spend money on other than cars, ie infrastructure, and you wouldn't make people destroy perfectly good assets in the process. This was more a bailout for the car companies than a true stimulus or environmental program. And an expensive bailout at that.
The democrats know that if they help the poor make bad choices, they'll stay poor and the dems will always be in office.
Certainly - I was only pointing out the differences between this type of program vs FFB's tax-cuts-for-all.
