The Web site Edmunds.com contends that the Cash for Clunkers program was a costly incentive because many people would have bought cars anyway. It claims that only 18 percent of car sales wouldn’t have happened without the program — so the per-car incentive cost of those 125,000 cars was $24,000. But the White House countered that Edmunds’ claims are at odds with a number of other reviews of the program, including by Moody’s, and by third-quarter economic growth.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
28 Comments
Cash for clunkers was another far left socialist spending program that didn’t work.
“JWink” gives us –
“…far left socialist spending program that didn’t work.”
Don’t be silly.
Nothing “far left socialist” about it. It helped keep food on the table for thousands of American mechanics, sales-persons, dealers, and auto workers.
You hate the philosophy? Fine.
WE Blog CONs have a nearly impeccable record of being wrong.
So you’re reduced to “…far left socialist…” rhetoric.
I think the statement “…many people would have bought cars anyway” is misleading.
Yes, people were probably planning on buying another car at some time. But what kind of car where they planning on buying? Most of those people probably would have bought a much older, high mileage, low gas mileage car that was cheap. This incentive allowed most of those people to buy their very first “new car” that was reliable and got high gas mileage.
The point of the program wasn’t just to get people to buy cars to stimulate the economy, it was to get old gas guzzlers off the road and more high mileage cars on the road.
Yep. And now auto sales are way down because folks thinking of trading up did it. It’s the thought that counts, anyway. Good intentions trump responsibility in Liberal Land.
But the program has made lots of good used parts, tires etc… available to keep rest of the “clunkers” rolling.
Cash for clunkers is an absolute disaster in both principle and execution, but what do you expect when the government interfers in the private sector…
It’s Bush’s fault.
Using taxpayer dollars to prop up a failing economy is only going to make the tax debt unsustainable
O’BAMA math says that it has helped created/saved jobs as well, even though no economist can figure out how to measure ‘created/saved’ as it applies to unemployment which is 9.8 percent and rising.
My experience in helping a new car buyer during cash for clunkers brough me to find Edmunds unreliable and vulnerable to industry dollars. I wouldn’t put much value in their opinion.
How are those new cars selling now that cash for clunkers is over?
Oh and in my experience? 100% of new car sales was due to cash for clunkers. My buyer was not even considering a new car until the program was rolled out.
Why not ask the car dealers what THEY thought of it?
Certain less scrupulous local dealers are STILL trying to sell cars by claiming they will pay cash for clunkers.
If Congress has any sense, they’ll defund some defense project and revive cash for clunkers with about 50 billion dollars of new funding.
Having visited a car dealership during the Cash for Clunkers, it was appearance that it did increase the volume of sales. I have no doubt that it did motivate both those already planning on buying and those who then saw it as a good time to buy.
As I stood in the lot I saw trucks and cars I wish I had that were the trade ins.
Better then what I had and it was disheartening to think they were going to be destroyed.
Now it did effect the economy, it did save for now some jobs both within the dealership and those businesses that feel the value of that dealership and it’s employees. It may have been nothing more then the next month. But money was infused into the economy none the less even if it is the effect of having found food today so you will not starve to death till next week.
Two things.
First the attack by the White House on any one opposing the “official” view is troubling. Using power to silence dissent and discouraging free speech disagreement must be part of the “change” coming to America.
Secondly, Mr. Brownlee provided point counter-point and gave the [29 Oct] Obama White House the last word, when the facts are there is a response [31 Oct] or counter from Edmunds to the Whiner-In-Chief.
Atlanta
Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl is defending his company’s claim that the Cash for Clunkers program was basically a lemon, saying a recent report simply reiterated what’s well known in the car industry: Incentive programs are “eyewateringly expensive.”
Besides the no-nonsense price tag (an Edmunds’ specialty) there’s nothing new about the premise of the report, Anwyl contends. (The White House used dealer reports to highlight the program’s success while Edmunds used comparative historical sales figures to get its numbers.)
“We got real math behind this for the first time,” says Mr. Anwyl in a phone interview, before landing a friendly jab referencing this summer’s “Beer Summit” at the White House. “We need to send an invitation to the President to come out, we’ll have a beer and a photo opportunity, and walk him through the data. He might find it eye-opening.”
More seriously, Anwyl says: “It’s shocking and somewhat troubling that this is something the White House would pick up. This administration more than any other administration is invested heavily in the auto industry, so you would hope that they would had done a little more homework than their response suggests.”
The upside of the unusual strategy is scoring political points and rousing the liberal base. The downside is appearing thin-skinned and potentially losing credibility.
(By the way, one journalist has apologized for comparing White House media strategy to Nixon’s “enemies list”.)
The difference with this latest brouhaha is that Edmunds.com can hardly be characterized as an opposition front. In fact, Anwyl says, most of its employees are Obama supporters.”
I know libs beat me up for cut and paste. But I do add my two cents (opinion) with the posts generally, and in this case, present a side [info from source] not provided by the thread author. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I also have a personal note on the Cash For Clunker program.
I could have traded in my 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid under the CFC Program. That car was purchased in calendar year 2002 and had approximately 150K miles on it. In good condition, it was worth approximately $4400 as a trade in. (more private party but there were issues with doing that).
At any rate, I could have traded in my Honda Hybrid for my new Toyota Prius IV. That car would have been crushed and destoyed. A car which got 44-45 MPG on average off the roads. (clunkers cannot be resold except for scrap)
Instead, I traded in my old pick-em-up truck because that was worth the whole $4,500 in cash. It was a great pick up! In outstanding condition, and I had intended to keep it as my post retirement beat-it-up boat hauling fishing truck.
My wife and I were going to get the Prius with or without the clunker program. We are blessed with very good jobs/income and didn’t need a break. But who wouldn’t take the $4,500, or FREE MONEY?!?
So, I thought I’d take my “savings” or the FREE MONEY delta, and buy a used Pick up to replace mine. Guess what? The price of used cars skyrocketed during the clunker program (I also believe you cannot be from Kansas and not have a pick up, so demand is high). Since it’s a nice-to-have thing, I can wait for the prices to decline post CFC. They haven’t yet, maybe because people cannot afford new cars during the recession? And I bought a car made in Japan so I helped the economy loaning us money.
So I had issues with the Clunker Program from a personal note.
The handout program turned me into a taker, despite priding myself on my financial indepedence.
Lastly, we shouldn’t be patting ourselves on the back for borrowing money from China and Japan to handout to people. Of course this policy will result in higher sales in any industry. But it’s long term effects?
Amway,
“I also believe you cannot be from Kansas and not have a pick up….”
Yeah, that would seem to be the case, but then why do so many Kansans call me up and want to borrow mine to go get that mattress or sofa etc.? I’ve had three such calls so far just this weekend!
wow
y’all can’t pASS up the chance to bi*ch about them libs up there in dc.
every move is looked at and looked at until you find the smallest reason to freak out in public and whine endlessly.
another brownlee blog on bush jr did so well here we are with a socialist commie birther terriost govt.
you people need to grow the hell up and try to move forward.
No, I disagree, most of them would not have bought new cars, but rather older used ones.
If they would have bought cars anyway, why did it increase so much and then drop so much after it was over?
I don’t own a pickup truck. But I think a rental program for trucks so you can move items would be a great business idea.
I do agree that crushing the older vehicles wasn’t a good idea. I am one of the people who has never bought a new vehicle. But even then I was thinking of buying a new vehicle. Too bad on the second round, my 1999 Dodge Grand Caravan flex fuel (which was in the top 10 traded in vehicles first time around) wasn’t in the allowed trade in for the second time around. And now my tranny went out this week, and I’m stuck without a vehicle.
I’ll probably once again make the trip to Missouri to buy cheaper than they sell here.
“why do so many Kansans call me up and want to borrow mine”
Bumper Sticker:
Yes I own this pickup
No I will not help you move
(Better buy one now, in true socialism, the government should take your pickemup truck and give it whomever needs it.)
“(Better buy one now, in true socialism, the government should take your pickemup truck and give it whomever needs it.)” [AmWay]
Not surprisingly, AmWay STILL doesnt understand that he/she doesnt understand socialism, or he wouldnt post such LIES!!
The “Clunker” program wouldnt have included a 2003 Honda, that makes 44-45 mpg… Shoot, not even my ‘99 Metro qualified…
I need a pick up truck.. about 6 hours a year..
Cons, they’ll whine about cfc, but were mum about the bush hummer tax credits. Guess if it benefits one of their betters, they’re ok with it!
It is clear is that it was a fiscally wasteful giveaway that did nothing for the environment, nothing for the overall economy, but did benefit car dealers to a degree.
Typical Government band-aid that really does nothing to solve the problem.
The American car makers the Fed now has an interest in did poorly.
Everyone else is now experiencing some of the worst sales months in their history.
Offers like that screw with the sales cycles.
BlueJay
Posted November 1, 2009 at 8:56 am | Permalink
Certain less scrupulous local dealers are STILL trying to sell cars by claiming they will pay cash for clunkers.
—————————————————-
What is unscrupulous about the offer?
Incentives? give to the people instead of company it will end up in thier hands in the end . But let us touch it first and spend it the way we want!The latest incentive 24 billion . COME ON MAN its listed there was 305,662,385 US citizen in USA Jan.22.09 24 billion could make 240,000,000 citizen milliares come on man it will end up in banks,car,house,(FUEL).asking for help for me people not big comanies.txs ken