(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Cash for Clunkers Lost Money!
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 3:12:03 PM
|
Interesting analysis on the cash for clunkers debacle. As many critics warned, all this program did was steal car sales from before the program was instituted and from future sales after the program was halted. The program also ended up costing our economy for a very short-term boost in auto sales that were cannibalized from sales that would have occurred anyway. And at what cost once they destroyed usable vehicles in exchange for a few miles per gallon in fuel savings over a few months or a few years at most?
From the Wall Street Journal:
"Last week U.S. automakers reported that new car sales for September, the first month since the clunker program expired, sank by 25% from a year earlier. Sales at GM and Chrysler fell by 45% and 42%, respectively. Ford was down about 5%."
"Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer."
So we did nothing to improve the long-term health of U.S. automakers and we spent $1.4 billion more than we got in benefits. This is just one of dozens of reasons why government isn't the solution to our problems, government is the problem. Government at its most inept........
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cash for Clunkers Lost Money!
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 4:28:44 PM
|
Why do you share facts taht is going to anger the left. The WSJ must be racist to print something like that. How dare them challenge another "failed" government program of Obamanation that did nothing to create jobs or have any lasting positive impact on the economy as a whole. Just more wasted tax payer dollars.
But it was Bush's fault.
|
| Name: |
green,ed
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cash for Clunkers Lost Money!
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 4:30:34 PM
|
The numbers on GM were misleading.In Sept of '08 Chevrolet was selling at employee pricing plus very nice rebates.Record sales at many dealers for Sept. were recorded but no mention of this in the story.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Green, ed
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 5:04:44 PM
|
How dare you question the Right??? You just ruined their post with the facts.
I try to baby them to make them feel part of the political system.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cash for Clunkers Lost Money!
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 5:06:30 PM
|
But it could be a boycott of Government Motors and the o-BAMAmobile. Is it conceiveable that Americans don't want to support GM and Chrysler now that the unions own them? Ford did pretty well.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cash for Clunkers Lost Money!
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 5:34:07 PM
|
Let's see, the numbers put out by the manufacturers themselves were misleading?!?! I don't know about you but they tend not to under report sales as it makes them look bad. Besides, Chevy is only one brand within GM so their sales may have been good but overall the entire company was down. What about the Chrysler numbers? Were they also misleading? The fact is sales stunk before the program because people were waiting for extra cash from the program. And sales spiked during the program. And then it is very reasonable to assume sales would slow after the program.
The real question is whether this program accomplished any long-term good and the answer appears to be no.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What facts?
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 5:40:48 PM
|
GF, I know how you love to grasp at straws and while I appreciate his perspective he presented no facts. I presented data reported by the auto manufacturers themselves. He discussed one unit in one automaker and provided no source for the information, no numbers, just an opinion that the numbers were misleading and sales were strong (maybe they were for Chevy but not for the other brands). Besides, how does that account for the lower sales at Chrysler? Were their numbers also "misleading" or did the sales at Chevy lift their boat as well? How about Ford also being down? Although I didn't miss the irony that the two government-owned automakers are way down while the one that said no to the bailout is only down a bit. You have to wonder why that is the case.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
What Is This?
|
|
Date:
|
10/5/2009 8:07:27 PM
|
Now you are trying to be a keyboard komedian.
Based on your posts here and your steadfast refusal to back up anything you say, you wouldn't know a fact if it did St Vtus' dance in your shorts.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
