Cash for Clunkers Success

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

i dont know how anyone could not view cash for clunkers as a success regardless of how moderate you might view it. Making it into some kind of failure erodes credibility.

There are many holes that can be punched into the policies of the current administration (or any administration if you will). Even W. had successes. This is one of Obama's.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32497875...business-autos

[Smooth Operator]

Looks like at least 700,000 sales when this stunningly successful program ends Mon.



Well done, BO...

[JJP]

Just wait to see auto sales 6 months from now, or a year down the line. They will be down. People who were considering getting a car (those who qualified) just bumped up the purchase date to take advantage of the free money. Rob future sales to prop up current sales. Another bandaid solution.

[ArlJim78]

this program can only be viewed as a debacle. spending billions to give to certain people that would have bought cars eventually anyway. there is no net benefit.

the laughable part is to see first hand how incompetent government programs are and the unintended consequences like people turning in US models for foreign cars.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

this program can only be viewed as a debacle. spending billions to give to certain people that would have bought cars eventually anyway. there is no net benefit.

the laughable part is to see first hand how incompetent government programs are and the unintended consequences like people turning in US models for foreign cars.

What difference does it make if the cars turned in were US models?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

this program can only be viewed as a debacle. spending billions to give to certain people that would have bought cars eventually anyway. there is no net benefit.
.

But they were not buying cars. That is the point. We were in a deep recession last year, deeping towards a depression. Nobody was buying cars. Auto workers were laid off. The industry was in deep trouble. The program obviously was a success in that it got thousands spending money in the economy. Which is what is needed to get out of a recession.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Riot

But they were not buying cars. That is the point. We were in a deep recession last year, deeping towards a depression. Nobody was buying cars. Auto workers were laid off. The industry was in deep trouble. The program obviously was a success in that it got thousands spending money in the economy. Which is what is needed to get out of a recession.

people weren't buying cars for a reason and they still won't be buying cars now that this program has ended. the last thing we need is more of the phony borrow and consume economy. we need to save and invest.

this is only a temporary artificial demand, it means nothing in the long run with regard to the real economy. it will make a spike in car sales to be followed by a trough.

I'll bet you didn't know that during the runup to this program car prices were raised, so the deal buyers got wasn't all you might think.

this has next to nothing to do with when the recession ends. government spending does not create wealth or growth, just the opposite.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32512922...nting_america/


While small in comparison to other stimulus programs, Cash for Clunkers adds to the perception that Obama is simply trying to spend his way out of the economic downturn and let future generations deal with the consequences. The White House is expected to announce next week that the federal deficit will be a record $1.58 trillion for the current 2009 fiscal year, about $262 billion less than predicted earlier but still three times as large as last year.

"It fits into that theme of artificially trying to pump up the economy in the short run but in my view at the expense of long-term growth," said Chris Edwards, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. "It increases the government's debt and will probably, like those other temporary programs, produce higher inflation in the future."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by JJP

Just wait to see auto sales 6 months from now, or a year down the line. They will be down. People who were considering getting a car (those who qualified) just bumped up the purchase date to take advantage of the free money. Rob future sales to prop up current sales. Another bandaid solution.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Car sales have been way down. People were waiting, holding off to buy cars. All this did was unleash the pent-up waiters that hadn't bought in the last few months, encouraging them to go ahead and jump into the economy.

I don't see any reason to assume these were "future" buyers. Why do you also assume that car sales will dry up in the next year?

BTW, "cash for clunkers" programs were used last year in several European countries. That's where the idea came from. Worked just as well as it did here. Subsequent sales didn't dry up. Which countries economies are turning around before us?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32497875...business-autos

Im not saying that this is any kind of silver bullet for the car industry. As I said, depending on how you view it, the degree of success is certainly arguable. My point was that there is no debating that this program was indeed a success on some level.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32497875...business-autos

That article confirms that Cash for Clunkers was a resounding success. It retroactively comments on the execution, mostly based upon government underestimation of the popularity and success.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

That article confirms that Cash for Clunkers was a resounding success. It retroactively comments on the execution, mostly based upon government underestimation of the popularity and success.

a resounding success? really, you sound like a high school cheerleader for obama and co. i hope you read the article i put up about whan is expected down the road from this temporary 'success'. we americans are so into now now now-and we continue to rack up debt for down the road.

[Riot]

Your article also says this:

"Earlier this week, the White House revealed that it expects a budget deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to be nearly $1.6 trillion. That figure was lower than initially projected because the White House scratched out $250 billion that it had initially added to the budget as a bank rescue contingency. The administration ultimately did not ask Congress for that money."

It should be noted that 1.2 trillion of this years deficit of 1.6 trillion was from George Bush, and would be there no matter who the President is now. That leaves 4 billion for this year from Bush, and that 4 billion also includes routine overseas military spending on two wars not asked for by Bush in the budget (that's not the way it's done), but is necessary and approved year-to-year by Congress.

So this year, the current administration has already kept the budget low.

Complaints about debt were ignored when Bush took Clintons' massive budget reductions, that would have left us with no deficit if followed, and ignored them, placing us in massive debt via bad management, tax cuts, two wars.

Then due to the recession, Bush had to initiate TARP funding last fall. Although I agreed with TARP, I didn't care for his rushing it through and giving money away to the banks with virtually zero accountability, but that's what he did. He literally didn't seem to care, as he was leaving office.

Ignoring that this occured, or saying, "it's in the past" is silly, as it comprises virtually all the debt we have now as a country, and is what this and every future administration, no matter the political affiliation, will have to deal with until it's gone.

Bush passed Medicare drug spending recently and never funded it by finding the money anywhere - just added this program to the deficit with no worry about how we would pay for it.

TARP, Medicare - Bush didn't care about "pay as you go" or "zero-based budgeting", where you find money to pay for things before you spend it.

This President at least wants any health care reform to clearly be deficit neutral. That's a huge improvement already.

It's funny, the GOP has a rep for financial conservativism while in office, but looking back at the last 40 years or so, that's a false assumption - the Dems are the ones that spend less money during their terms.

Obama was elected partially, I suspect, as McCain's only comment on the economy was massive tax cuts and that he doesn't "get" the economy, and Obama is far more fiscally conservative than Hillary Clinton when they were discussing what they wanted to accomplish.

It's been very popular to attack the current President so early in his administration about "what might be", rather than what is. And what might be 10 years up the road with the deficit is a notoriously moveable number with unreliable predictability in the past.

I want massive healthcare reform in this country, as we should have gotten that years ago (one of the reasons I voted for Obama) - and then we'll see. Every penny spent on healthcare reform, in my eyes, is worth it for this country.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your article also says this:

"Earlier this week, the White House revealed that it expects a budget deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to be nearly $1.6 trillion. That figure was lower than initially projected because the White House scratched out $250 billion that it had initially added to the budget as a bank rescue contingency. The administration ultimately did not ask Congress for that money."

It should be noted that 1.2 trillion of this years deficit of 1.6 trillion was from George Bush, and would be there no matter who the President is now. That leaves 4 billion for this year from Bush, and that 4 billion also includes routine overseas military spending on two wars not asked for by Bush in the budget (that's not the way it's done), but is necessary and approved year-to-year by Congress.

So this year, the current administration has already kept the budget low.

Complaints about debt were ignored when Bush took Clintons' massive budget reductions, that would have left us with no deficit if followed, and ignored them, placing us in massive debt via bad management, tax cuts, two wars.

Then due to the recession, Bush had to initiate TARP funding last fall. Although I agreed with TARP, I didn't care for his rushing it through and giving money away to the banks with virtually zero accountability, but that's what he did. He literally didn't seem to care, as he was leaving office.

Ignoring that this occured, or saying, "it's in the past" is silly, as it comprises virtually all the debt we have now as a country, and is what this and every future administration, no matter the political affiliation, will have to deal with until it's gone.

Bush passed Medicare drug spending recently and never funded it by finding the money anywhere - just added this program to the deficit with no worry about how we would pay for it.

TARP, Medicare - Bush didn't care about "pay as you go" or "zero-based budgeting", where you find money to pay for things before you spend it.

This President at least wants any health care reform to clearly be deficit neutral. That's a huge improvement already.

It's funny, the GOP has a rep for financial conservativism while in office, but looking back at the last 40 years or so, that's a false assumption - the Dems are the ones that spend less money during their terms.

Obama was elected partially, I suspect, as McCain's only comment on the economy was massive tax cuts and that he doesn't "get" the economy, and Obama is far more fiscally conservative than Hillary Clinton when they were discussing what they wanted to accomplish.

It's been very popular to attack the current President so early in his administration about "what might be", rather than what is. And what might be 10 years up the road with the deficit is a notoriously moveable number with unreliable predictability in the past.

I want massive healthcare reform in this country, as we should have gotten that years ago (one of the reasons I voted for Obama) - and then we'll see. Every penny spent on healthcare reform, in my eyes, is worth it for this country.

the deficit is going to be readjusted two trillion higher than originally thought, you're happy they cut out 1/8th of that amount? still a lot more cutting to do.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the deficit is going to be readjusted two trillion higher than originally thought, you're happy they cut out 1/8th of that amount? still a lot more cutting to do.

And where should that come from?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the deficit is going to be readjusted two trillion higher than originally thought, you're happy they cut out 1/8th of that amount? still a lot more cutting to do.

Yeah, I'm happy they cut out 1/8 of that amount. Just like I'm happy 4500 Americans get off the public dole and go back to work, and the ripple effect from that spreading to other industries.

What do you want cut?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, I'm happy they cut out 1/8 of that amount. Just like I'm happy 4500 Americans get off the public dole and go back to work, and the ripple effect from that spreading to other industries.

What do you want cut?

everything possible. we can't keep making budgets year after year that are pie in the sky. i certainly don't see how we can add even more to the bottom line, considering the bottom line is already colored red.