and you want these clowns to manage health care??

[chuckakers 370]

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091028-715225.html

The government's "Cash for Clunkers" program may have only added 125,000 vehicle sales, according to Edmunds.com, which said the rest of the units sold would have happened regardless of the program.

In total, the car-shopping Web site said about 690,000 vehicles were sold during the program. Edmunds.com said that based on the actual sales gained from the program, the Cash for Clunkers program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

"Our research indicates that without the Cash for Clunkers program, many customers would not have traded in an old vehicle when making a new purchase," said Edmunds.com senior analyst David Tompkins. "That may give some credence to the environmental claims, but unfortunately the economic claims have been rendered quite weak."

Edmunds.com Chief Executive Jeremy Anwyl noted that while sales are up in October from September, growth would have been even better without the program. He said that suggests the auto industry's recovery is gaining momentum.

Sales surged in late July and most of August as the program was in effect, giving certain new-car buyers up to $4,500 in rebates if they traded in a gas-guzzler. But U.S. auto sales slid in September absent clunker-related deals. Other countries still have so-called scrappage programs in effect.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

if $5000 went to the dealer, where exactly did the other $19,000 go? if it costs $19,000 to hand out $5,000, what are the admin costs of a government/public/consumer option going to be?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Ion01 1]

The real issue here is that we obviously can't trust these greedy car salesmen and CEO who supply goods and jobs to millions! The only answer is to trust the government officials who make millions by taking our money through taxes. The only way we can survive this economic mess is to give more control and power to these perfect government officials who care so much about us! They have learned great lesssons from other great leaders of the world such as one's such favorite philosopher Mao who has made china such a prosperous and wonderful country. The loss of 70 million live is worth the cost of course. It is our great leaders who realize that "political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Obviously our capitalist system is a failure as evidenced in that this country had become the richest and most profitable in the world. Our healthcare system has been so destroyed by capitalism that even canadians want to know "where are we going to go for surgery" is obamacare gets passed. As you have shown.....government is the only answer....only they and thier purity can waiste billions of dollars for nothing more than an image. Only they can attack the rich while excluding themselves and hollywood from the "rich" steriotype. Only they have the answer as we are too stupid and must be "[dragged] to it...."

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

if $5000 went to the dealer, where exactly did the other $19,000 go? if it costs $19,000 to hand out $5,000, what are the admin costs of a government/public/consumer option going to be?

That's not what it is say, 24,000 cash outlay for each vehicle sold during that time period.

What it is saying (with rounded figures) is that for every five vehicles sold during cash for clunkers (gov't outlay=25,000), four would have been sold without the rebate. The addition to net sales generated by the government spending was 1.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Quote

program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

if $5000 went to the dealer, where exactly did the other $19,000 go? if it costs $19,000 to hand out $5,000, what are the admin costs of a government/public/consumer option going to be?

The other 19,000 goes to the cost of destroying the vehicles, moving them to get destroyed, all the paperwork that had to be completed, etc. However, the government hardly even includes such cost in thier estimates as knowone would have voted for such a plan if they knew it would actually cost that much per vehicle. For goodness sakes, they are currently claiming that the latest healthcare bill won't cost anything.....as if thats even possible. Its technically already cost us millions if you look at the salaries of the people writing the bills, the people campagning for it, flying thier private jets here and there to tell everyone how great it will be, the loss in advertising revenures due to these same people and obama getting airtime to talk about healthcare, etc. Once again, knowone ever considers any of this.....

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

if $5000 went to the dealer, where exactly did the other $19,000 go? if it costs $19,000 to hand out $5,000, what are the admin costs of a government/public/consumer option going to be?

Well some of it went to the consumers who got the discount.

[birdshit 0]

ok everybody, gather round. It's neocon circle jerk time!

[billvon 2,400]

>and you want these clowns to manage health care?

Exactly! We need Enron to do it.

[TomAiello 25]

Here's a revolutionary idea--what if nobody "managed" healthcare?

We could just let each individual person manage their own health, and their own care, perhaps in consultation with an expert like a doctor, if they wished.

Ok, that's a pretty far out idea, I know.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,400]

>what if nobody "managed" healthcare?

An excellent idea! We could let people choose their own healthcare, and have a completely optional public option for people who cannot afford other healthcare.

Sadly, I doubt any option that includes such a degree of personal freedom will fly with the republicans. It might succeed, and that would hand Obama a win.

[champu 1]

Quote

That's not what it is say, 24,000 cash outlay for each vehicle sold during that time period.

What it is saying (with rounded figures) is that for every five vehicles sold during cash for clunkers (gov't outlay=25,000), four would have been sold without the rebate. The addition to net sales generated by the government spending was 1.

You're correct but, , I don't think anyone paid attention to your answer.

What I do wonder about this program is if anyone has compiled estimated statistics on abuse. (e.g. going to a junkyard and cutting a vin tag off an already scrapped car and bringing it in to get 4500 off a new car.)

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

>and you want these clowns to manage health care?

Exactly! We need Enron to do it.

Ken Lay was a piker. Let AIG do it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>what if nobody "managed" healthcare?

An excellent idea! We could let people choose their own healthcare...

To do that, you'd have to dismantle our current, disfunctional, employment-based healthcare system. And there are way too many people sucking up slop from that government trough for such a thing to ever happen.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Edunds analysis misses the point. Of course all of those "clunkers" would have eventually been sold/traded in/scrapped, and the owners would have bought something new or at least newer, but that would have been spread over many years. The point of the program was to get people to do it now, instead of in a few years, and replace the clunker with a newly manufactured vehicle instead of a not-quite-so-clunkerish used vehicle, thereby providing an immediate boost to the auto manufacturers. As an additional secondary benefit, gas-guzzlers were replaced with at least somewhat more fuel-efficient vehicles. Both those goals were realized. Whether or not the benefits were worth the cost is something individual people will decide depending on their politics I suppose.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[airdvr 197]

Public option and personal freedom in the same post. That's some funny shit!

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Whether or not the benefits were worth the cost is something individual people will decide depending on their politics I suppose.

thank goodness, then it's just like every other discussion here

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

ok everybody, gather round. It's neocon circle jerk time!

Nice to see you're bringing something productive to the conversation.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

>and you want these clowns to manage health care?

Exactly! We need Enron to do it.

Sarcasm instead of substance. I would expect nothing less from Bill...and nothing more too.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

"Our research indicates that without the Cash for Clunkers program, many customers would not have traded in an old vehicle when making a new purchase," said Edmunds.com senior analyst David Tompkins. "That may give some credence to the environmental claims, but unfortunately the economic claims have been rendered quite weak."

I really didn't think it was being sold as an economic plan with environmental benefits. Rather it was supposed to be an environmental plan with economic serendipity.

[billvon 2,400]

>Public option and personal freedom in the same post. That's some funny shit!

Ah yes. The republicans who want to promote "personal freedom" by limiting people's choices. Well, I guess there are enough people in the US who don't think that that might just make sense to them.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Edunds analysis misses the point. Of course all of those "clunkers" would have eventually been sold/traded in/scrapped, and the owners would have bought something new or at least newer, but that would have been spread over many years. The point of the program was to get people to do it now, instead of in a few years, and replace the clunker with a newly manufactured vehicle instead of a not-quite-so-clunkerish used vehicle, thereby providing an immediate boost to the auto manufacturers. As an additional secondary benefit, gas-guzzlers were replaced with at least somewhat more fuel-efficient vehicles. Both those goals were realized. Whether or not the benefits were worth the cost is something individual people will decide depending on their politics I suppose.

Don

Yes, the governement borrowed future demand for new cars and artificialy incentivized people to use it now.

The governement also distorted the market for used cars by taking many functional vehicles out of circumlation.

All in the attempt to voost up failed auto-makers after throwing money at them instead of allowing them to go through the normal course of bankruptcy that any other failed company goes through.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I really didn't think it was being sold as an economic plan with environmental benefits. Rather it was supposed to be an environmental plan with economic serendipity.

That was not my understanding. Perhaps it depended on who the politicians were trying to "sell" it to?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Next up, "Cash for Clapboard!" Let the government demolish your house, and give you twice it's present market value in cash! Guaranteed to drop vacancy rates, increase housing starts, and jump-start home sales! What's not to love?!

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,400]

>Sarcasm instead of substance.

Sorry you could not understand my post. To state it a little more simply:

There are clowns in both the public and private sectors. The public sector clowns, by and large, are able to create much larger disasters. Not a great argument for putting them 100% in charge.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

>Public option and personal freedom in the same post. That's some funny shit!

Ah yes. The republicans who want to promote "personal freedom" by limiting people's choices.

You must mean like my "choices" on Social Security...

1935 All workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65.
1939 Age restriction eliminated; seamen, bank employees added; additional domestic workers and food-processing workers removed
1946 Railroad and Social Security earnings combined to determine eligibility for and amount of survivor benefits.
1950 Regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Nonfarm self-employed (except professional groups). Federal civilian employees not under retirement system. Americans employed outside United States by American employer. Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. At the option of the State, State and local government employees not under retirement system. Nonprofit organizations could elect coverage for their employees (other than ministers).
1951 Railroad workers with less than 10 years of service, for all benefits. (After October 1951, coverage is retroactive to 1937.)
1954 Farm self-employed. Professional self-employed except lawyers, dentists, doctors, and other medical groups. Additional regularly employed farm and domestic workers. Homeworkers. State and local government employees (except firemen and policemen) under retirement system if agreed to by referendum. Ministers could elect coverage as self-employed.
1956 Members of the uniformed services. Remainder of professional self-employed except doctors. By referendum, firemen and policemen in designated States.
1965 Interns. Self-employed doctors. Tips.
1967 Ministers (unless exemption is claimed on grounds of conscience or religious principles). Firemen under retirement system in all States.
1972 Members of a religious order subject to a vow of poverty.
1983 All federal civilian employees hired after 1983; members of Congress, the President and Vice-President and federal judges; all employees of nonprofit organizations. Covered state and local government employees prohibited from opting out of Social Security.
1990 Employees of state and local governments not covered under a retirement plan

What started out as a safety net has morphed into a huge beast. Only took 70 years. Take a good look at the future of the "public option".

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne