Cash for clunkers

[datachicane]

And these yahoos want control of the health care system? :saywhat: :irked:

Sure, maybe we can trust'em with atomic bombs, nuclear subs, landing golfers on the moon, warrantless wiretaps, the VA, the CDC, slinging probes around distant planets, etc., etc., but there's no way they could hold a candle to Kaiser Permanente.

:tony:

[trish]

Is it true that the rebate is taxable?

[Sean Malone]

Sure, maybe we can trust'em with atomic bombs, nuclear subs, landing golfers on the moon, warrantless wiretaps, the VA, the CDC, slinging probes around distant planets, etc., etc., but there's no way they could hold a candle to Kaiser Permanente.

:tony:

50 million illegal immigrants agree with you.

[cameraman]

Is it true that the rebate is taxable?

Absolutely FALSE. More internet ********. The CARS Act expressly provides that the credit is not income for the consumer.

[datachicane]

Sure, maybe we can trust'em with atomic bombs, nuclear subs, landing golfers on the moon, warrantless wiretaps, the VA, the CDC, slinging probes around distant planets, etc., etc., but there's no way they could hold a candle to Kaiser Permanente.

:tony:50 million illegal immigrants agree with you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Don't go raggin' on that swarthy lovin'.

http://nycweboy.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/2007/09/25/gay_ahmadinejad.jpg

[Indy]

So explain to me again how it is constitutional that several thousand of my dollars are taken by force to pay for someone else's war?

Article One, Section Eight:
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article Two, Section Two, Clause One:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[cameraman]

So explain to me again how it is constitutional that my $30 is taken by force to pay for someone else's new car?
Article One, Section Eight:
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States Ya answered your own question.

[trish]

Absolutely FALSE. More internet ********. The CARS Act expressly provides that the credit is not income for the consumer.

It seems to be taxable income for the dealer, and I guess some people have taken that info and added to it.

[Sean Malone]

Ok, I changed my mind...forget 'Cash 4 Guitars', I'm lobbying for 'Cash 4 Beer'.:thumbup:

[extramundane]

Ok, I changed my mind...forget 'Cash 4 Guitars', I'm lobbying for 'Cash 4 Beer'.:thumbup:

So I have to give them my beer and watch them drink it in order to get the cash?

:cry::flame::cry:

[Methanolandbrats]

If they really wanted to stimulate the consumer, they would launch CFWTFYW. :thumbup:

[datachicane]

Or this.
http://precisionbioinstrument.com/images/body_ds3_stimulator.jpg

[Napoleon]

Ya answered your own question.


:rofl:

People like him like to pretend that clause doesn't exist and ignore that it was settled year ago that expenditures like that are constitutional. By the way they now have a name "tenthers" who now join the "birthers" and "deathers" in our public discourse.

[Sean Malone]

Let's get back to the real issue... the air is still polluted...the American car companies still in dire shape and the tax payers out $3 billion dollars...
Cash 4 Cars = TOTAL SUCCESS. :shakehead

[Gnam]

If they really wanted to stimulate the consumer, they would launch CFWTFYW. :thumbup:
Racing please. :)

[datachicane]

Let's get back to the real issue... the air is still polluted...the American car companies still in dire shape and the tax payers out $3 billion dollars...
Cash 4 Cars = TOTAL SUCCESS. :shakehead

:rolleyes:
I took my customary dose of Tums this morning.
I'm still going to die, so why bother?
Nice bit of binary reasoning there.

[Sean Malone]

:rolleyes:
I took my customary dose of Tums this morning.
I'm still going to die, so why bother?
Nice bit of binary reasoning there.

So....I'm still waiting for someone other than Obama, Honda and Toyota to tell me how this program was successful.

*pins and needles*

[datachicane]

So....I'm still waiting for someone other than Obama, Honda and Toyota to tell me how this program was successful.

*pins and needles*

I'm still waiting for a working economist to tell me how this program was a disaster.

*pins and needles*

[Sean Malone]

I'm still waiting for a working economist to tell me how this program was a disaster.

*pins and needles*

So you got nuthin? Just what I thought. Eat another Tums.

Allow me...


# Jacksonville State University economist Christopher Westley said that the program "sticks it" to the poor and lower-middle classes by raising the price of the remaining cars in the secondary market, as well as by raising the general price level resulting from the monetary inflation required to finance it. Westley called CARS the "I Hate the Poor Act of 2009."


No detailed report on individual transactions done under CARS has been released by the Department of Transportation, despite a request for such info by the press since July 31, 2009.


Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser argues that subsidizing fuel-efficient vehicles encourages more driving, as the marginal cost per mile driven is less, which causes total fuel consumption to decrease less than expected. He proposes that a more effective policy would be to raise taxes on carbon dioxide emissions.[65] Bruce Belzowski, a scientist at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute, notes that the number of vehicles involved in the CARS program (~250 thousand) is a small fraction of the number of vehicles currently on U.S. roads (~260 million) and thus is not expected to have an appreciable effect on pollution savings.


The Associated Press, in using Edmunds data, noted that many not-so-green cars have also been bought under CARS, notably SUVs, Trucks, Luxury, and Crossover vehicles. Some buyers have been noted to have bought the Cadillac SRX, while other vehicles such as the Hummer H3T, Lexus RX 350, Lincoln MKX, and BMW X3 are qualified under the program, despite being rated under 20MPG, some considerably less than the average 25.3 mpg for cars purchased under CARS. The models also fall under the $45,000 threshold outlined in CARS


Charitable organizations have also bemoaned the program, noting the lack of repairable cars for charity purposes, and a source of revenue to fund programs.


# Despite Transportation Secretary LaHood claims that the program would benefit scrapyards,[56] auto recyclers and scrapyards have lamented the limited profit potential of the program, including the costs of transporting and removal of toxic waste such as motor oil, coolant, refrigerants, gasoline, unrecoverable plastics, and other items)[57] from the car before processing, which can amount to between $700–$1,200 per car. Some recyclers refuse to participate in the program due to this

But that's just those grumpy old people who hate everything. There's plenty of love to go around too.


Ford sales went up in the United States for the first time since 2007, while GM and Chrysler at least improved by slowing their decline.


National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman Eric Bolton pointed out the newer cars purchased under the program are also "considerably safer than the old clunkers they are replacing."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_clunkers)

There you have it...I'm so glad I helped get someone out of their death trap and into a brand new...safe, fuel efficient...Hummer.

Can I get a Tums too?:yuck:

[FTG]

distributing $3 billion in tax rebates would lead to $1.9 billion in retail spending over a six-month period, or about $300 million per month.

Cash for Clunkers, by contrast, has had a much bigger impact. (http://www.slate.com/id/2226156/)

Funny how no one complains about their stock being up 50% since the government starting intervening in the economy.

[datachicane]

Lots of teeth-gnashing over a $30 lottery ticket to shortening a recession.
I suspect the economy has cost every one of us a hell of a lot more than $30, and yet we'd still happily fork over considerably more than that for dreck for two at Appleby's or a bucket of popcorn while sitting through G.I. Joe.

[Sean Malone]

Lots of teeth-gnashing over a $30 lottery ticket to shortening a recession.
I suspect the economy has cost every one of us a hell of a lot more than $30, and yet we'd still happily fork over considerably more than that for dreck for two at Appleby's or a bucket of popcorn while sitting through G.I. Joe.

Point taken...and it's not that I disagree completely with the concept but rather disagree with it's lack of, in my opinion, the rush to implement without a mature objective.

[Lux Interior]

I wonder if cash for clunkers applies to wives too:D

[Methanolandbrats]

Lots of teeth-gnashing over a $30 lottery ticket to shortening a recession.
I suspect the economy has cost every one of us a hell of a lot more than $30, and yet we'd still happily fork over considerably more than that for dreck for two at Appleby's or a bucket of popcorn while sitting through G.I. Joe.

Typical wine and cheese CART fan trashing AppleBEES fine cuisine :D

[Methanolandbrats]

I wonder if cash for clunkers applies to wives too:D

Would they put the old ones in a wood chipper?

[Indy]

:rofl:

People like him like to pretend that clause doesn't exist and ignore that it was settled year ago that expenditures like that are constitutional. By the way they now have a name "tenthers" who now join the "birthers" and "deathers" in our public discourse.

"Tenthers?" Apparently arising from this: “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Perhaps each of us should have the power to govern our own block or subdivision without outside interference, or perhaps there should be one world government and someone in Nigeria should write the regulation telling you how often you must cut your grass -- either extreme is ludicrous. But to imply that someone who thinks the federal government has overstepped its bounds can be labeled and dismissed as a kook is insulting. They are simply people who favor a compromise different than that you favor.

"People like me" are not stupid and do realize that the issue has been settled by Congress and the courts. We may, however, believe that the issue has been settled incorrectly and in a way which has diminished the original intent of the Framers and moved us frighteningly close to the mob rule of unlimited pure democracy which they feared. To say "please show me where it is constitutional that..." is to force the defender of the status quo to defend his position -- in other words, it is an argument, not a statement of ignorance.

[miatanut]

"New Federalism" was the one good I hoped to come out of the Reagan Administration. Instead it turned out to be a way to transfer costs to the states without transferring powers.

The Hamiltonians won, the Jeffersonians lost and the genie can't be put back in the bottle, but I respect the southern States Rights movement for trying.

[datachicane]

The Hamiltonians won, the Jeffersonians lost and the genie can't be put back in the bottle, but I respect the southern States Rights movement for trying.

I would, except- in recent times States Rights seems much more an opportunistic tactic for social conservatives than an actual heartfelt conviction. Witness how neatly some of the most vocal States Rights advocates pirouetted to raw Federalism when states like Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage, or when other states implement stronger environmental policies or move to decriminalize certain drugs.

[miatanut]

I would, except- in recent times States Rights seems much more an opportunistic tactic for social conservatives than an actual heartfelt conviction. Witness how neatly some of the most vocal States Rights advocates pirouetted to raw Federalism when states like Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage, or when other states implement stronger environmental policies or move to decriminalize certain drugs.

Good point. I've noticed that inconsistency.

[datachicane]

Inconsistency is a nicer word than the one that immediately comes to mind, but then, you're probably a nicer person than I am.
:tony:

[dando]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm


A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.

:saywhat:

-Kevin

[cameraman]

Edmunds has an interesting view of things, somehow sales rates would have been consistent with prior years during the crisis if the cfc program had not existed.:saywhat:

Taking relative sales volumes from boom years and applying them to one of the worst downturn years as though nothing would change is truly idiotic.:thumdown:

[G.]

I would, except- in recent times States Rights seems much more an opportunistic tactic for social conservatives than an actual heartfelt conviction. Witness how neatly some of the most vocal States Rights advocates pirouetted to raw Federalism when states like Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage, or when other states implement stronger environmental policies or move to decriminalize certain drugs.

Careful. State's rights vs. Federalism back-and-forth flop-flipping is in vogue for the entire political spectrum. It's the Brand New Thing!

Doesn't mean you're wrong ^^^^, just that it's an equal opportunistic tactic.

[nrc]

Edmunds has an interesting view of things, somehow sales rates would have been consistent with prior years during the crisis if the cfc program had not existed.:saywhat:

Taking relative sales volumes from boom years and applying them to one of the worst downturn years as though nothing would change is truly idiotic.:thumdown:

According to the linked article that's not what they did.


In order to determine whether these sales would have happened anyway, Edmunds.com analysts looked at sales of luxury cars and other vehicles not included under the Clunkers program.

Using traditional relationships between sales volumes of those vehicles and the types of vehicles sold under Cash for Clunkers, Edmunds.com projected what sales would normally have been during the Cash for Clunkers period and in the weeks after.

This was another billion dollar bailout for people who made poor choices. Like the rest of the bailouts it was a very expensive band-aid.

[cameraman]

Using traditional relationships between sales volumes of those vehicles and the types of vehicles sold under Cash for Clunkers, Edmunds.com projected what sales would normally have been during the Cash for Clunkers period and in the weeks after.

That sales data was generated during good times and easy loan approvals. It isn't a valid comparison to assume that there would be no shift in buying habits during a severe down turn.

[nrc]

That sales data was generated during good times and easy loan approvals. It isn't a valid comparison to assume that there would be no shift in buying habits during a severe down turn.

Why do you assume that historic data means only "good times". The prior twelve months should provide plenty of data about what the mix of those vehicles would be under these economic conditions.

[KLang]

Just pissing our tax money away. :cry:

And this same bunch of bozos is about to take over the health care system. :yuck::saywhat::mad:

[Tifosi24]

I am in cameraman's court on this one. As someone with more than a little training in statistics and econometrics, some of the assumptions that Edmunds.com made are questionable. I know the goal of their study is to determine "true cost," but this is something that can't be reasonably estimated until several quarters out and, in general, is a rough guess. I am not trying to cheerlead for one side or the other on the necessity of the CFC program, but this is just Edmunds.com trying to get itself some free press.

On the topic of historic data and sales comparisons, this is a really loose assumption, that again will take many years to quantify. If, as many people say, the world has changed over the past 18 months, then using any sort of historical comparisons is lazy and open to error. I work in the energy industry, and there are a lot of widely held "rules-of-thumb" that my more tenured colleagues used for yearsup until earlier in this decade, and now you would be a complete idiot to use the same assumptions now.

I think what Edmunds did is useful for a purely philosophical debate, but is really lacking, in my opinion, meaningful substance.

[cameraman]

What he said:D

[Sean Malone]

It's actually very, very simple. Did CFC save the American auto companies from going bankrupt? No. Did it save the American automotive companies from federal intervention in the form of bail out loans? No. Did it reverse the effects of 'green house' emissions? No.

Lots of 'no's'. So what did it do...and the question isn't about Edmonds reporting...but CFC.

[datachicane]

It's actually very, very simple. Did CFC save the American auto companies from going bankrupt? No. Did it save the American automotive companies from federal intervention in the form of bail out loans? No. Did it reverse the effects of 'green house' emissions? No.

Lots of 'no's'. So what did it do...and the question isn't about Edmonds reporting...but CFC.

It's a failure. It didn't create a world that fits arbitrary binary constructs.
:tony:

[Napoleon]

Did CFC save the American auto companies from going bankrupt?

It did keep them from liquidating and that is what matters.

Oh, and this is a bit wonkish, but it explains the danger that existed. This is from a definitely left leaning wonkish publication and was written by a guy named Barry Lynn, a fellow at the New America Foundation (where I believe Andrew Longman brother is also a fellow).

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_detroit_went_bottom_up

[Sean Malone]

It did keep them from liquidating and that is what matters.

Oh, and this is a bit wonkish, but it explains the danger that existed. This is from a definitely left leaning wonkish publication and was written by a guy named Barry Lynn, a fellow at the New America Foundation (where I believe Andrew Longman brother is also a fellow).

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_detroit_went_bottom_up

Ford was financially healthy enough to weather the storm and according to the CFC sales it doesn't look like many moved into new Fords. Chrysler needed a buyer no matter what and found one in Fiat but still asked for bailout money. GM needed billions of bailout money and is on life support. So how again did CFC save the American auto industry? For every spin report I read that makes that claim, I've read 4 that claim the opposite.

[nrc]

It did keep them from liquidating and that is what matters.

Not really. GM and Chrysler were already bailed out and sold-out respectively and Ford was and is already on the road to recovery regardless of CFC.

[Napoleon]

Not really. GM and Chrysler were already bailed out and sold-out respectively and Ford was and is already on the road to recovery regardless of CFC.

True, I was thinking about the original bail out.

CFC and all those other programs were really about one thing only, to get as much cash into the system in order to keep money moving through it. It is the economic equivalent of pumping a heart attack victims chest to keep the blood flowing. If they get something else done in the process great, but that is not the primary target. Dropping bales of money out of helicopters would help achieve the same goal but that would be unseemly so instead you get programs like CFC.

[Napoleon]

Ford was financially healthy enough to weather the storm and according to the CFC sales it doesn't look like many moved into new Fords. Chrysler needed a buyer no matter what and found one in Fiat but still asked for bailout money. GM needed billions of bailout money and is on life support. So how again did CFC save the American auto industry? For every spin report I read that makes that claim, I've read 4 that claim the opposite.

I was confusing CFC with the original bailout which is what I was talking about. See my post above.

But read the link. If true Ford would have been f---ed even though it took no bailout money because there are now, to summarize the article, choke points in the economy susceptible to financial crisis, one of them being the suppliers people like Ford use.

[Gnam]

Anyone need a new toaster?


The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided a total of $300 million to the states to set up appliance-rebate programs. California's share is about $35 million, which should provide rebates for at least 375,000 appliances, or about 1 for every 32 households.

Each state's energy office can decide which types of appliances will qualify, how big the rebates will be and other rules as long as they meet federal guidelines.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/24/BUKF1A9HGS.DTL&type=business#ixzz0VppoziNl

[Napoleon]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm

I am calling complete Bull S--- on that story based on this and the charts that accompany it. Eyeballing the charts it looks like the month of CFC saw 4m more unit sales over the other 12 months of the last 13 months on the chart.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/light-vehicle-sales-105-million-saar-in.html

[nrc]

I am calling complete Bull S--- on that story based on this and the charts that accompany it. Eyeballing the charts it looks like the month of CFC saw 4m more unit sales over the other 12 months of the last 13 months on the chart.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/light-vehicle-sales-105-million-saar-in.html

SAAR is a different metric. That chart doesn't represent monthly vehicle sales. The Edmunds press release has a chart that shows the relationship between SAAR and actual monthly sales volume.

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html

[Steve99]

Dropping bales of money out of helicopters would help achieve the same goal but that would be unseemly . . . .
I like this idea. Since Thanksgiving is coming up can they drop turkeys too?

[oddlycalm]

Dropping bales of money out of helicopters would help achieve the same goal but that would be unseemly so instead you get programs like CFC.
Unseemly and dangerous to the indigenous inhabitants... [/Les Nessman] :gomer:

oc

[datachicane]

As God is my witness, I thought they could fly.
:D

[oddlycalm]

I've always felt WKRP was a solid all purpose allegory...:gomer:

oc

[dando]

As God is my witness, I thought they could fly.
:D

4FXSnoy71Q4

:D

-Kevin

[nrc]

More gas guzzler bail-out analysis. This time from the Associated Press.



The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data by The Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers

[Steve99]

The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road,
I have a problem with the part I bolded. Has the C4C spin been so great that now its primary purpose was to sell more fuel-efficient cars, rather than jump-start the economy/help automakers? Or is the writer just trying to make a better story by bending the truth?

[KLang]

I have a problem with the part I bolded. Has the C4C spin been so great that now its primary purpose was to sell more fuel-efficient cars, rather than jump-start the economy/help automakers? Or is the writer just trying to make a better story by bending the truth?

That is the way I remember it being described initially.

[miatanut]

That is the way I remember it being described initially.

Yup. Then politics took hold and the mileage standards dropped. :thumdown:

[nrc]

I have a problem with the part I bolded. Has the C4C spin been so great that now its primary purpose was to sell more fuel-efficient cars, rather than jump-start the economy/help automakers? Or is the writer just trying to make a better story by bending the truth?

It started out as mainly a stimulus program but congress decided to try to add an environmental aspect. In doing so they turned it into a bail-out for gas-guzzler buyers. Plenty of people got bail-outs to trade pick-ups for marginally better pick-ups but because our Miata was never a gas guzzler in the first place we weren't eligible.

[dando]

More gas guzzler bail-out analysis. This time from the Associated Press.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers

Beauty. How a pick 'em up truck qualified in the first place is beyond me. :shakehead :saywhat:

-Kevin

[Indy]

Beauty. How a pick 'em up truck qualified in the first place is beyond me.

Voters like pick 'em up trucks. :gomer:

[Sean Malone]

Voters like pick 'em up trucks. :gomer:

They're also uneducated, live in the mid-west and go to church. Horrible, horrible people!!!!

[Indy]

I have a pick 'em up truck, and I don't even go to church.

But I love Jeebus anyway. :gomer:

[nrc]

Think this article is missing one of the causes for high used car prices?

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110518/D9N9R6BG1.html