Skip to main content

Cash for Clunkers Coda

What a shock : analysts at Edmunds.com report the cost to taxpayers of this fraud of a waste of borrowed federal dollars...

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.

Link.


I guess that is on par with the truth about the colossally wasteful spending orgy...err, "stimulus"...when it comes to the taxpayer cost for jobs "created or saved". In a recap of analysis by ProPublica.com :

Assuming the number of created or saved jobs reported by each contract recipient was accurate—which, as we’ve reported before, is still an open question—that breaks down to $533,000 for each job. That’s more than five times the projection of the president’s own Council of Economic Advisers , which estimated in May that every $92,136 in government spending would create one job for one year.


As I heard this morning on the radio, pointing out the dangerous farce that is the ongoing fiscally-reckless leftist chicanery of our ruling DC masters : "Just a spoon full of socialism will make capitalism get better."

I would ask "will they never learn?", but hard statist ideology is not in the business of dealing with reality, it is all about endlessly trying to manipulate it...while charging their gluttonous tab to the rest of us.

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
"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."

Ah, because they say so, that makes it true.
October 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Then i am not part of the majority cause i certainly wouldnt have done it.
October 29, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Tyler Nixon said…
Oh of course, because they disagree with Dana they are immediately questioned as to their truthfulness.

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/profile.html

Looks to me like they know what they are talking about, and certainly have no political axe to grind, by a long shot.

They are not just 'saying so' (as if your own comments on the program have ever approached anything resembling rational numerical or economic analysis.)

I am sure you would say the same about "Blue Book" values or NADA guides, right : "Ah, because they say so, that makes it true."

Good luck with that, if it's the best response you can muster, if a response at all.
October 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Pedro Delgado said…
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.
October 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more