Utopia Talk / Politics / Cash For Clunkers - Cost TP's $24,000

Hot Rod Member	Fri Oct 30 09:11:47 Per Car. Taxpayers' real cost of cash for clunkers: $24,000 a car, Edmonds.com analysis says Taxpayers ended up paying an average of $24,000 per vehicle for the cash-for-clunkers program over the summer when sales that would have happened anyway are taken into consideration, says car-buying research site Edmunds.com. The program, which cost taxpayers $3 billion, gave car buyers up to $4,500 in incentives to trade in their gas-guzzling clunkers to buy new fuel-thrifty cars. It was intended primarily to spur sales, and the economy. But Edmunds.com says a lot of those sales would have happened anyway, with or without the clunkers program. Of more than 690,000 vehicles sold, only about 125,000 of the sales were entirely due to the government's added inducement, Edmunds.com says. The rest of buyers just got lucky by getting the government to kick cash into deals that they would have proceeded with anyhow. When the cost of the program is spread over just those extra incremental sales, the total is $24,000 per vehicle. That's just about $2,000 shy of the average amount paid for a new car by buyers in August, $26,915. To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in cash for clunkers. It then applied those sales against the total adjusted sales rate of all cars to make estimates. "These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data," it says. â??This analysis is valuable for two reasons,â?? said Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. â??First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the programâ??s impact and costs. Second â?? and more important â?? it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy.â?? http://con...iveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Oct 30 10:14:00 I'm still undecided whether it was a good idea or not.
Multi New Member	Fri Oct 30 10:22:24 Wow, that sounds almost as bad as the cost of the Iraq invasion
xyz1 Member	Fri Oct 30 11:18:35 Milton Bradley Member Fri Oct 30 10:14:00 I'm still undecided whether it was a good idea or not. That's because you have no respect for the Constitution. But whatever, you've never claimed to have any apprecation for the law, so I guess it all works out.
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Oct 30 11:20:50 Cash for Clunkers was unconstitutional? OK. Lets hear it.
river of blood Member	Fri Oct 30 23:59:42 First of all: LOL Secondly: Where the fuck does the constitution say that the federal government has to subsidize our car purchases? Power suck that government cock, usians.
Formerly Fred Member	Sat Oct 31 10:30:07 We'll gladly buy some fucking douchebag a new car, but if he is sick we'll let him die in the fucking gutter. This country is fucked beyond belief.
Dukhat Member	Sun Nov 01 09:33:45 The formal analysis of why this sucks is true for every socialist program. The marginal benefits are minor compared to the inframarginal costs. It's like Suddenly subsudizing health insurance for the poor. Yeah, you'll get another million with insurance, but you'll also get tens of millions that would've gotten insurance anyway on the government dole and many of those will have incentive to meet government requirements for subsudized insurance rather than work hard to earn it on their own.
Ninja Member	Sun Nov 01 11:17:16 "Yeah, you'll get another million with insurance, but you'll also get tens of millions that would've gotten insurance anyway on the government dole and many of those will have incentive to meet government requirements for subsudized insurance rather than work hard to earn it on their own. " Ya, god damn those people who would then have insurance, They're costing us so much fucking money by having insurance where they can get preventative care rather than waiting till they need major surgery or have infected tons of people.
Dukhat Member	Sun Nov 01 13:31:48 The number one cause of death in America is obesity-related illness. Try and get these fatasses to lose weight and see where it gets you. Most of these people know full-well the consequences of their actions.
Johan Wayne New Member	Sun Nov 01 16:33:24 Let me guess dikhat - its the negros right?
ehcks Member	Sun Nov 01 17:33:53 The government paid $4500 per trade-in. I keep reading it over, and it still doesn't say where he pulled the extra $19,500 figure from. "His anus" is probably the most realistic answer.
Forwyn Member	Sun Nov 01 17:41:05 "The rest of buyers just got lucky by getting the government to kick cash into deals that they would have proceeded with anyhow. When the cost of the program is spread over just those extra incremental sales, the total is $24,000 per vehicle." Its not saying that every car costs 24,000 of taxpayer funds, its saying that every car that WOULDN'T have been purchased if not for CfC costed the government 24k each, because the rest of the cars would have been bought regardless of the tax credit.
ehcks Member	Sun Nov 01 17:44:37 For one, how did he pick the number for people who were going to buy a car regardless? Would they have bought that specific car? Would they have traded in their older one? And how does that even matter? The main point was to get people to buy a car. The secondary point was to increase average gas mileage. Both of these happened in all of the counted cases. Where's the problem?
Ninja Member	Sun Nov 01 17:53:42 "The number one cause of death in America is obesity-related illness." Way to completely ignore the fact that uninsured people clog up emergency rooms causing everything from longer waits to higher costs to others due to their inability to pay.
Forwyn Member	Sun Nov 01 17:55:04 "For one, how did he pick the number for people who were going to buy a car regardless?" They're estimated numbers. Economists and financial advisers can make generally accurate estimates on purchases for a given month or quarter based on previous performance and the current market situation. "Where's the problem?" The problem he's inferring is that people who would have bought a newer car anyways were still given "cash", effectively raising the price tag of getting new customers who wouldn't have bought a newer car.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Nov 01 18:14:04 These are the guys who did the analysis. They appear to have access to the info to make such an analysis and the skills to do so. Edmunds Inc. publishes four Web sites that empower, engage and educate automotive consumers, enthusiasts and insiders. Our Web sites consist of Edmunds.com (launched in 1995 as the first automotive information Web site), Inside Line (launched in 2005 and the most-read automotive enthusiast Web site), CarSpace (launched in 2006 as our automotive social networking site) and AutoObserver.com (launched in 2007 to provide insightful automotive industry commentary and analysis).
Johan Wayne New Member	Mon Nov 02 03:14:39 As car enthusiasts and car enthusiast magazine publishers they have the skills to pot together scientific mathematical statistical analysies? Thats a new one lol
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 04:32:10 Did you read the entire post? "AutoObserver.com (launched in 2007 to provide insightful automotive industry commentary and analysis)." Are you saying that *every* organization that provides "industry commentary and analysis" no matter the industry are all bunk, or just this one? Either way I would like to see what you base that on.
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 04:35:28 Errr...Im basing this on the obvious fact that you seem to be missing, that statistical analysies is something that takes a few years study of that topic at Uni to be able to do... ""AutoObserver.com (launched in 2007 to provide insightful automotive industry commentary and analysis)" this of course means absolutely nothing in that context.
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 04:36:46 Irritating I even had to waste time explaining that. This is a site for adults, no?
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 04:40:37 In a post titled â??Busy covering car sales on Mars, Edmunds.com gets it wrong (again) on Cash for Clunkers,â?? the White House charged the firm with â??trying to grab headlines and get on cable TVâ?? while the analysis doesnâ??t withstand â??basic scrutiny.â?? Founded in 1966, Edmunds.com is the Santa Monica, Calif.-based publisher of the Blue Book series. Basically a consumer company supplying industry analysis to subscribers, Edmunds.com also offers the â??True Market Valueâ?? tool. So what did Edmunds do to warrant a snarl from the White House? For one thing, its report did grab headlines, including a well-read Monitor report. According to Edmunds, only 125,000 of the 690,000 cars sold during the taxpayer-funded promotion were sales inspired by the program as opposed to those that would have happened anyway. Edmunds then divided that number by the total price tag and voilà: Each car purchased cost the American taxpayer $24,000. Besides the no-nonsense price tag (an Edmundsâ?? specialty) thereâ??s nothing new about the premise of the report, Anwyl contends. (The White House used dealer reports to highlight the programâ??s success while Edmunds used comparative historical sales figures to get its numbers.) â??We got real math behind this for the first time,â?? says Mr. Anwyl in a phone interview, before landing a friendly jab referencing this summerâ??s â??Beer Summitâ?? at the White House. â??We need to send an invitation to the President to come out, weâ??ll have a beer and a photo opportunity, and walk him through the data. He might find it eye-opening.â?? More seriously, Anwyl says: â??Itâ??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.â?? The White House post instead quoted the Presidentâ??s own Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) pointing out that the program increased GDP by 1.7 percent in the third quarter and will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009. It took issue with Edmundsâ?? notion that 80 percent of the payback from the program will take place in 2009, leaving little residual effect on the auto industry into 2010. â??In other words,â?? writes Macon Phillips, the White Houseâ??s â??new mediaâ?? chief, â??all the other cars were being sold on Mars while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program. The CEAâ??s analysis is transparent and comprehensive â?¦ Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis. So put on your space suit and compare the two approaches yourself.â?? (If youâ??re so inclined, here are the links: CEA and Edmunds.com.) Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the countryâ??s largest new-car dealer chain, agrees with the White Houseâ??s tough response, calling the Edmundsâ?? study â??uncharacteristically shoddy,â?? according to USA Today. â??Simply put, theyâ??ve misrepresented the facts, and the White House is completely justified in calling them out on it,â?? Mr. Jackson said. http://fea...-house-cash-for-clunkers-slam/ *** CASE CLOSED ***
Forwyn Member	Mon Nov 02 04:41:36 Yes, I bet the Edmunds guys just started looking shit up to bash Cash for Clunkers from their houses. As owners of 3 successful sites, I bet they're the ones performing statistical analysis, and not hiring anyone knowledgeable in the field.
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 04:43:53 ^ Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the countryâ??s largest new-car dealer chain, agrees with the White Houseâ??s tough response, calling the Edmundsâ?? study â??uncharacteristically shoddy,â?? according to USA Today. â??Simply put, theyâ??ve misrepresented the facts, and the White House is completely justified in calling them out on it,â?? Mr. Jackson said. Great Forwyn, care to show us the math behind their analysis? "Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis."
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 04:49:14 So The White House disagrees with Edmund's analysis? Damn, who could have seen that coming?
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 04:51:10 So Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the country's largest new-car dealer chain disagrees with this bombastic shoddy analysis without any public access to their underlying analysis? What a shocker!
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 04:53:40 Why did you ignore Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the country's largest new-car dealer chain, and *pretend* it was only the WH? disagreeing? Did your method of "debate" just get shown up for being dishonest? Yes, it did...
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 04:54:52 Mr. Jackson profited greatly from the cfc program. Is it any surprise that he thinks it was a good idea?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 04:58:02 All you are giving me is opinion from opposing parties that benefit from discrediting Edmund's report. Got any proof that Edmund's resorted to lying or fudged the report just for the fun of it?
Forwyn Member	Mon Nov 02 04:58:30 "Great Forwyn, care to show us the math behind their analysis?" The only real math up for debate is how many cars were sold solely because of Cash for Clunkers, and how many of those sales were pulled in the months soon to come. I fail to see how this has anything to do with your statement that the Edmunds site, dedicated to industry analysis, is made up of people with no experience in industry analysis. Feel free to back that up.
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 04:59:51 Who to trust here, christian science monitor or...HR? Lets see, HR has one of the least credible reps as a 70 year old, far right extremist, anonymous, total conspiracy theorist hack who noone takes seriously on a message board on the internet and CSM is a respected news source...this is so difficult...
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 05:01:00 "The only real math up for debate is how many cars were sold solely because of Cash for Clunkers, and how many of those sales were pulled in the months soon to come. " Indeed, because that part is pure speculation that the serious car dealers say is bombastic shoddy analysis without any public access to their underlying analysis.
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 05:02:51 Lets see, your source compared actual sales of cars in a good year and pretends, quite simply pretends, that that is the same number that would have been sold in the worst financial crisis for almost a century in which car sales have dried up so badly that the car industry was completely crashing....yeah, thats TOTAL nonsense.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 05:17:57 JW - Who to trust here, christian science monitor or...HR? Lets see, HR has one of the least credible reps as a 70 year old... The CSM is a news agency that is reporting on what The White House and Mr. Jackson are saying about the program. The are *NOT* authenticating the story. JW - Lets see, your source compared actual sales of cars in a good year and pretends, quite simply pretends... Exactly what I was looking for. Please supply your proof that your claim is the method Edmund's calculated their statistics.
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 05:38:25 See how hard it is when they dont even provide the analysis behind it? In actual fact, they did something even MORE stupid...they considered the sales of LUXURY cars and how those sales were unaffected (Duh...) and pretended that all car sales would have behaved the same way...thats just crap. Crap. Ignored from this moment on.
John Wayne Member	Mon Nov 02 05:39:16 And Im not going to be reading your posts anymore, you're too uninterested in serious politics.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 05:41:55 Promises, Promises. Does that include all of your Multis or just this one?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 05:43:23 JW - and pretended that all car sales would have behaved the same way...thats just crap. Crap. Ignored from this moment on. Saying it does *NOT* make it so. Waiting for your proof. :)
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 05:53:38 "To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in cash for clunkers. It then applied those sales against the total adjusted sales rate of all cars to make estimates. " Dumdumdum...read the article first...
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 06:02:34 "To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.comâ??s analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle." MORE: http://rad...r-clunkers-cost-24000-per-car/ See chart at site.
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 06:25:35 ""To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles..." Exactly. I just told you that. Worthless. Comparing historical sales of luxury cars to normal car sales to average joes in the worst financial disaster for almost a century that was this close to having the US auto industry competely crash because of its worst sales (ever?)...is this a fucking joke??? Lol, Im laughing...
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 06:34:33 In case you (selectively) forgot what Bush left for the next guy heres a reminder of how this all went down: "Now that the annual sales numbers are finally in, itâ??s clear that 2008 was a horrendous year for nearly every automaker. Annual car sales peaked at about 17 million in 2006. Industry analysts used to think that a one-time dip to 14 million would be a catastrophe. In 2008, total sales fell below that, to about 13 million. We all know who took the hardest hit: Detroit. General Motorsâ??s 2008 sales fell 23 percent. Fordâ??s annual sales fell 21 percent. Chrysler, probably in the worst shape of all, endured a 30 percent plunge. To put all of that in perspective, consider that holiday retail sales â?? which were the worst in a generation â?? only fell by about 5 percent. And thatâ??s expected to cause a flurry of retail bankruptcies in 2009. A Detroit-sized decline in retail would probably close half the malls in America. Sales will be even worse than in 2008. J.D. Power & Associates predicts 2009 sales of 11.4 million, which would be a crushing 30 percent fall from the peak. Other forecasters think sales could be even lower. Sure, thereâ??s a chance those predictions could be too bearish, but almost all of the factors that influence car sales are going in the wrong direction. The housing bust has reduced the net worth of many Americans. With layoffs mounting, the unemployment rate in 2009 will probably exceed 8 percent, compared to 6.7 percent now. That has trashed consumer confidence and shut down spending. Anybody whoâ??s worried about losing their paycheck isnâ??t going to splurge on a new car. *** Edmunds.com says that rebates and other incentives currently average nearly $3,000 per car, the highest level theyâ??ve ever measured. *** (lol) [See who gains from Detroit's pain.] Loans will continue to be scarce. While the deals are enticing, one catch for many interested buyers is that they canâ??t get a loan. Or they can only get a prohibitively high interest rate. It may be awhile before the credit crunch eases, no matter what the big lenders say. After getting $6 billion in federal bailout money in late December, for instance, GMAC, GMâ??s financing arm, said it would lower credit standards it had raised in October â?? theoretically making loans available to more potential buyers. Dealers will disappear. The sales crunch has already driven some dealers into bankruptcy or liquidation, and thereâ??s no doubt the pain will intensify in 2009. http://www...ismal-2008-means-for-2009.html
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 07:02:41 charper - Exactly. I just told you that. And you did the same thing in that post as you did in your last with that quote. Only posted the portion that supports you while truncating the portion that turns it against you. If you are not going to be honest I see no reason to waste my time on you.
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 07:07:27 " Only posted the portion that supports you while truncating the portion that turns it against you." You are simply a liar. VERY EASY to prove what a liar you are. What portion of your post that I truncated turns it against me? If you are not going to be honest I see no reason to waste my time on you. One poster already left because of your dishonesty today, several more have left over the years according to Fred including Teejay. Please stop ruining this board with your dishonesty.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 07:21:47 "... of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com's analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle."
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 07:25:55 That DOES NOT TURN THE ARTICLE AGAINST ME, you *LIAR* Now, " Only posted the portion that supports you while truncating the portion that turns it against you." You are simply a liar. VERY EASY to prove what a liar you are. What portion of your post that I truncated turns it against me? If you are not going to be honest I see no reason to waste my time on you. One poster already left because of your dishonesty today, several more have left over the years according to Fred including Teejay. Please stop ruining this board with your dishonesty.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 07:26:22 What you are doing is useing the first part of *the article writer's* statement that supports you while leaving out the *REST OF HIS* statement that explains the entire thought. That Sir, is dishonest. Bye Bye.
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 07:27:29 And LOOK at how much YOU *TRUNCATED* that actually DOES turn the article against you... Please stop wasting my time with your dishonesty and try to debate instead. Thank you.
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 07:32:33 "What you are doing is useing the first part of *the article writer's* statement that supports you while leaving out the *REST OF HIS* statement that explains the entire thought. That Sir, is dishonest. Bye Bye. " No, THIS is dishonest: Quoting a small portion of an article THAT DOESNT EVEN REFUTE me let alone turn the article against me...And TRUNCATING THE WHOLE ARTICLE WHILE COMPLAINING ABOUT TRUNCATING A QUOTE...THAT SIR IS UNASHAMED AND ROUTINE DISHONESTY. As for the actual quote that you picked and left out the whole article which refutes YOU: the quote explains their ARBITRARY method of speculative division of three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle, based on a history of luxury car sales from non-recession years. HR= pwned and a proven liar...again.
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 07:33:55 "Bye Bye. " HR runs away...again...ROFL
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 07:39:34 That quote is from *MY* source. http://rad...r-clunkers-cost-24000-per-car/
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 07:47:29 So I DIDNT truncate that from my article then? My, your getting more and mores stuck in your lies...lol...And guess what...YOUR *TRUNCATED* quote where you cut away the whole article refutes NOTHING I have posted. I havent refuted that thats how they arrived at the number, in fact, I EVEN TOLD YOU TAHT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT, YOU UTTER WASTE OF TIME TROLL. Now go away, your stupid lies irritates this message forum.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 09:41:29 charper - As for the actual quote that you picked and left out the whole article which refutes YOU ERR... How does the article that *I* posted refute the article that *I* posted?
charper Member	Mon Nov 02 09:42:54 So I DIDNT truncate that from my article then? My, your getting more and mores stuck in your lies...lol...And guess what...YOUR *TRUNCATED* quote where you cut away the whole article refutes NOTHING I have posted. I havent refuted that thats how they arrived at the number, in fact, I EVEN TOLD YOU TAHT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT, YOU UTTER WASTE OF TIME TROLL. Now go away, your stupid lies irritates this message forum.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Nov 02 10:20:32 LOL, If I were as frightened of admitting an error as you I would hide under the bed and never come out. Good advice, you should follow it.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: