Most Common Clunkers Deals Did Little To Improve Fuel Efficiency, Ap A

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/1737390.html

The single most common swap, which occurred more than 8,200 times, involved Ford F-150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new F-150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F-150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranges from 15 to 17 miles per gallon based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 to 3 mpg over the clunkers.

What an incredible waste of our money.

Just under 12 months to go till we make a drastic change around here.

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

----The real purpose was not to improve gasoline use... It was to help keep the auto companies including dealerships etc. in business and provide jobs for Americans... A side benefit--- when people are working and paying taxes.... they are not receiving un-employment benefits. One company has also been able to return a lot of the bail out money as a result.

---Opponents of people and ideas tend to over simplify everything.

Edited November 5, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[yyz28]

----The real purpose was not to improve gasoline use...

So, we were lied to? LOL! See you can't have it both ways.

The STATED reason for the program was to take environmentally unfriendly vehicles off the road and replace them with vehicles that would give us a positive environmental impact. ...now, you claim the REAL reason was to give a (temporary and VERY over-stated) boost to the auto industry. So, either the target was missed, or we were lied to about the target. This is black and white - which one is it? Just let me know.

Is the Administration and Congress who came up with this plan incompetent or lying? Just wondering.

Edited November 5, 2009 by yyz28

[KRAM1]

Just another example of how well the federal govt. can run anything...and some want it to run their health care programs...go figure! Sort of like the 4 year old getting that first time home buyer rebate...another great example of the govt. running an ill conceived and ill executed program. Can't wait for the "change" to govt. run health care. It just keeps getting funnier and funnier with these guys.

[Censored by Laurie]

So, we were lied to?

Nope.

an improvement of just 1 to 3 mpg over the clunkers.

=

a positive environmental impact.

[forevereagle]

Nope.

Logic has no place here.

[yyz28]

From Edmunds.com - Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com

The entire article is very interesting, but here is the crux of the article:

"Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program."

CBL, We spent 3 billion to get an average of 1-3 MPG better? The math, which has been discussed in other threads on this board, have blown that out of the water, making the point that we could have bought the extra fuel for the cars sold under this program with the 3 billion with money left over.

...but your point doesn't follow the argument I'm making. I'm discussing Screaming Eagle's statement "...The real purpose was not to improve gasoline use... It was to help keep the auto companies including dealerships etc. in business and provide jobs for Americans...", not the fact that the cars purchased under the program did, in fact, have incremental better fuel mileage.

We were told the point of the program was to get old gas guzzling cars off the road and replaced with newer more fuel efficient cars that will have an impact on fuel demand. ...so if Screaming Eagles's statement is true, we were lied to. If it ISN'T true, the program was simply poorly conceived and didn't hit the target it aimed to seek. No matter how you spin the numbers, the postmortem on this program simply proves it was a waste and tax payers paid a large price for virtually zero benefit.

Look, this is real simple, but I know it is VERY difficult for the partisans (on both sides) to admit when "their guy" screws up. It's O.K. to admit an Obama/Democrat Program was a bust. It's O.K. to be critical of the actions of people you support and admire. ...to look at the facts and put your head in the sand and pretend it wasn't an epic fail? C'mon.

[DoubleEagle]

CBL, We spent 3 billion to get an average of 1-3 MPG better? The math, which has been discussed in other threads on this board, have blown that out of the water, making the point that we could have bought the extra fuel for the cars sold under this program with the 3 billion with money left over.

Actually, per a study by the University of Michigan, the net improvement in fleet fuel efficiency that can be attributed to the Cash for Clunkers program is between .6 and .7 MPG.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/20...25/1/102323.pdf

Another study by the University of Delaware concluded that total costs related to the program outweighed ALL benefits by $1.4B.

http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol6/iss8/art4/?sending=10731

Edited November 5, 2009 by DoubleEagle

[KRAM1]

What? facts? How dare you bring up the facts....Truth does hurt sometimes, especially when "your guy" is in the White House. This program was a "face palm" from the very start, throughout the program's administration and now the studies are showing what many folks knew from the very beginning. The program was a dud from the "get go".

Now, about that govt. run health care thing......

[Censored by Laurie]

From Edmunds.com - Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com

The entire article is very interesting, but here is the crux of the article:

"Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program."

CBL, We spent 3 billion to get an average of 1-3 MPG better? The math, which has been discussed in other threads on this board, have blown that out of the water, making the point that we could have bought the extra fuel for the cars sold under this program with the 3 billion with money left over.

...but your point doesn't follow the argument I'm making. I'm discussing Screaming Eagle's statement "...The real purpose was not to improve gasoline use... It was to help keep the auto companies including dealerships etc. in business and provide jobs for Americans...", not the fact that the cars purchased under the program did, in fact, have incremental better fuel mileage.

We were told the point of the program was to get old gas guzzling cars off the road and replaced with newer more fuel efficient cars that will have an impact on fuel demand. ...so if Screaming Eagles's statement is true, we were lied to. If it ISN'T true, the program was simply poorly conceived and didn't hit the target it aimed to seek. No matter how you spin the numbers, the postmortem on this program simply proves it was a waste and tax payers paid a large price for virtually zero benefit.

Look, this is real simple, but I know it is VERY difficult for the partisans (on both sides) to admit when "their guy" screws up. It's O.K. to admit an Obama/Democrat Program was a bust. It's O.K. to be critical of the actions of people you support and admire. ...to look at the facts and put your head in the sand and pretend it wasn't an epic fail? C'mon.

From a July 27th Press Release from the DOT:

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today kicked off a buyer incentive program designed to help consumers purchase new fuel efficient vehicles and boost the economy at the same time. The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly referred to as Cash for Clunkers, is a new federal program that gives buyers up to $4,500 towards a new, more environmentally-friendly vehicle when they trade-in their old gas guzzling cars or trucks.

Wow, you can both be wrong and right...all at the same time.

[yyz28]

From a July 27th Press Release from the DOT:

Wow, you can both be wrong and right...all at the same time.

The DOT release was made AFTER the auto industry pushed for the deal in June when it was on the verge of not passing. Why was it about to go down in flames? Because Democrats didn't feel it did ENOUGH to increase fuel economy of the cars on the road. They used the (as it turns out inconsiquential) benefits to the Auto industry to get enough votes to pass the thing.

...but I'll admit, there were folks pushing the bill for both better fuel economy AND a boost to the auto industry. So I'm wrong they didn't lie... ...which leads you to the other possible conclusion - they were incompetent.

The end result, however, has not changed - $3,000,000,000 didn't accomplish the goals, and based on the stated goals, was spent VERY in efficiently.

...it is worth noting, that the bill was attached to a War Spending bill, as it couldn't pass muster on its own.

[eeally]

You people just hate everything this Administration does. Everything. Anything they have done correctly yet?

Admit it .. You cannot be happy for one minute. Try seeing the middle ground.

[UNT90]

You people just hate everything this Administration does. Everything. Anything they have done correctly yet?

Admit it .. You cannot be happy for one minute. Try seeing the middle ground.

Careful there, people on here have been painted as a racist for much less.

The clunkers for cash was nothing but a pay-off to the auto workers union that supported Pres. Obama. This was corporate welfare. You scream about that Wall St bailouts, but support this? Where is the logic in that type of thinking? The only thing this did is give inflated, false economic indicators for the last economic quarter. It amazes me that some of you on here don't understand that the government is spending YOUR money. Where do you think they get it??

My brother, who is very educated, actually said to me last weekend that he thought everyone deserved free health care! Free!!! WHO DO YOU THINK PAYS FOR THESE PROGRAMS!!!

I will not buy a Chevy again because they were a part of the initial bailout. I am now a Ford man.

Eeally, this rant is directed at the topic in general, not you personally.

[UNT90]

Says it all.

[forevereagle]

The clunkers for cash was nothing but a pay-off to the auto workers union that supported Pres. Obama. This was corporate welfare.

A first in American politics, those damn Democrats came up with this new and creative idea. Republicans would never even consider behaving in this manner.

[yyz28]

A first in American politics, those damn Democrats came up with this new and creative idea. Republicans would never even consider behaving in this manner.

Jesus... why is that the answer to you people? "Well, its ok, because the other side did it." ...you try to discredit a point not by debating IT, but by trying to discredit a politician (or group of politicians) the person arguing the point may or may not have supported.

What an argument with a paper a$$hole. Let's look at each policy decision, regardless of who made it and grade it accordingly. This one gets an F. Not because it came from Obama and the Democrats, but because the program was an abject failure and cost taxpayers way more than the benefit. Its conception is even flawed as the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in or manipulating private industry or consumer behavior, I don't care WHAT administration we're talking about.

I object to this program because it treads where I don't believe Federal Government should tread, and because it didn't meet any of the stated goals. I don't care if the guy who signed it was named Bush or Obama or McCain.

[forevereagle]

Jesus... why is that the answer to you people? "Well, its ok, because the other side did it." ...you try to discredit a point not by debating IT, but by trying to discredit a politician (or group of politicians) the person arguing the point may or may not have supported.

Really? what does that mean? Have I stated a political affiliation? I am pointing out that this is common practice for politicians to reward their supporters once in office. It is the reason that groups vote the way they do.

What an argument with a paper a$$hole. Let's look at each policy decision, regardless of who made it and grade it accordingly. This one gets an F. Not because it came from Obama and the Democrats, but because the program was an abject failure and cost taxpayers way more than the benefit. Its conception is even flawed as the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in or manipulating private industry or consumer behavior, I don't care WHAT administration we're talking about.

Could have fooled me. According to this board, the Republican party hasn't even proposed a bad idea, but the other side is a bunch of idiots that has no clue and we can't wait until they are out of office.

I object to this program because it treads where I don't believe Federal Government should tread, and because it didn't meet any of the stated goals. I don't care if the guy who signed it was named Bush or Obama or McCain.

At least they are trying something. You don't know if something will work until you try it.

Please note that despite my response above, I have no political affiliation. I am just looking for some sort of balance here.

[yyz28]

Really? what does that mean? Have I stated a political affiliation? I am pointing out that this is common practice for politicians to reward their supporters once in office. It is the reason that groups vote the way they do.

When I say "You People" I'm referring to not a group of people with a political affiliation, but rather to a group of people who use "the other side did it" argument. You DID use that argument, which is what I'm reacting to. ...and I object to this going both ways. People who nut-ride Republican or Democratic policy and bash ANY policy of the other side because it is coming from the other side, without bothering to understand the policy, is foolish. "You don't have the right to argue against this program because members of a party you vote for have done the same thing" is a false argument. I don't like it when Republicans foist poorly planned out and executed plans on us, and I don't like it when Democrats foist poorly planned and executed plans on us.

Could have fooled me. According to this board, the Republican party hasn't even proposed a bad idea, but the other side is a bunch of idiots that has no clue and we can't wait until they are out of office.

ROTFLMAO! Dude, then you haven't read much or you just read what you want to. First, there are a good deal of liberals and moderates that post in and even start political threads. You have seen me and several other conservatives rip Republicans when we disagree with them, if you'd take the time to look. In this thread alone there are at least 4 people debating that the program was good and supported it. ...but there are no differing opinions on this board. The political opinion on this board is monolithic and 100% conservative.

When I disagreed with the TARP plan, was it because Bush was a Republican? When I disagreed with the Medicare Drug Benefit, was it because Bush was a Republican? When I disagreed with Healthcare 1.0, was it because Clinton was a Democrat? When I disagreed with McCain/Fingold was it because it was supported by both a Republican AND a Democrat (and signed into law by a Republican President)? ...no, I disagreed and objected because of the policy, not because of the party, color, sexual preference or offensive scent of the politician promoting it.

You're right, I DO want this President and Congress out of power, because more often than not, I believe their policies are destructive and/or don't work. ...but that doesn't mean that if a Republican was in office I would just accept everything they do and not call them out on it because I voted for them. ..and it doesn't mean when they do things I agree with that I would automatically beat them up over it just because there is a "D" at the end of their name.

I'm a conservative, not a Republican.

At least they are trying something. You don't know if something will work until you try it.

...oh, this one is my favorite. "At least they are trying". There was a lot of dissenting economic and political opinion on the effects of this program, because it wasn't new. Things like this have been tried by both parties over the years and they almost always cost more than the benefit is. All one has to do is read a history book and to figure this one out. Government is the least efficient spender in the country. The impact of 3 billion in spending by the government is the same as 6 billion in spending by the private sector. Economists knew this wouldn't work. Political opponents knew this wouldn't work. ...and it wasn't that it was a good guess on their part, because here's the little secret - the people who promoted and passed this plan knew it wouldn't work either, but it WOULD buy favor with the unions which they partially owed for their being in power. That is why this was done. It wasn't to reduce greenhouse gas output and fuel consumption. It wasn't to help consumers out with a few bucks for a new car. It was a payoff, plain and simle.

Please note that despite my response above, I have no political affiliation. I am just looking for some sort of balance here.

So am I, which is why I object to "the other side that you've voted for did it so your argument is moot", because it is intellectually dishonest. I want balance through actual understanding of policies being proposed or executed and then a thoughtful conclusion based on the outcome of those policies.

[UNT90]

According to this board, the Republican party hasn't even proposed a bad idea, but the other side is a bunch of idiots that has no clue and we can't wait until they are out of office.

Please note that despite my response above, I have no political affiliation. I am just looking for some sort of balance here.

These are two conflicting statements contained in the same post. Just sayin

[Censored by Laurie]

When I say "You People" I'm referring to not a group of people with a political affiliation

In all fairness, he could just be a racist.

[fan19740]

I will not buy a Chevy again because they were a part of the initial bailout. I am now a Ford man.

Are you serious? Your next car purchase will be based on whether bailout funds were accepted? If that's the case, then you are missing out on a great lineup from Chevrolet. Ok, I'll take a similar F-150 over a Silverado, but that's about it. I'll take the following:

2009 Malibu > 2009 Fusion

2010 Camaro > 2010 Mustang

Corvette > Ford Shelby GT500

Suburban > Expedition

Honestly, the list goes on. And when comparing GM to other Ford brands, I'll take a Cadillac over a Lincoln any day of the week. Mercury? Do they still exist?

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/report-...lers-dying-off/

[UNT90]

Are you serious? Your next car purchase will be based on whether bailout funds were accepted? If that's the case, then you are missing out on a great lineup from Chevrolet. Ok, I'll take a similar F-150 over a Silverado, but that's about it. I'll take the following:

2009 Malibu > 2009 Fusion

2010 Camaro > 2010 Mustang

Corvette > Ford Shelby GT500

Suburban > Expedition

Honestly, the list goes on. And when comparing GM to other Ford brands, I'll take a Cadillac over a Lincoln any day of the week. Mercury? Do they still exist?

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/report-...lers-dying-off/

Yep, Chevy already has enough of my money, thanks to the federal govt. Ya, I know in the big picture it is probably around a dollar (no, I didn't do the math), but I'll just choose to take my business elsewhere, and did last December. Plus, the fact that GM had to take the bailout shows that they are poorly managed, and, now with Pres. Obama as their defacto CEO, I doubt that they make it through this recession. They might, but I decided not to take that gamble.

Did you see where Ford just turned a 1 billion dollar profit? Yes, this is inflated by the topic of this thread, but they would have turned a profit without the bailout. GM? No.

I want a vehicle whose parent company is assured to be around throughout the warranty, that's why I bought a Ford.

[Rudy]

According to this board, the Republican party hasn't even proposed a bad idea

Thats becuase they arent in the freaking white house and dont run the house or senate right now.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Rudy

[yyz28]

Yep, Chevy already has enough of my money, thanks to the federal govt. Ya, I know in the big picture it is probably around a dollar (no, I didn't do the math), but I'll just choose to take my business elsewhere, and did last December. Plus, the fact that GM had to take the bailout shows that they are poorly managed, and, now with Pres. Obama as their defacto CEO, I doubt that they make it through this recession. They might, but I decided not to take that gamble.

Did you see where Ford just turned a 1 billion dollar profit? Yes, this is inflated by the topic of this thread, but they would have turned a profit without the bailout. GM? No.

I want a vehicle whose parent company is assured to be around throughout the warranty, that's why I bought a Ford.

Ford took federal funds (nothing like the GM bail out) in the early 2000's when they had one foot in the bankruptcy court, but don't let that get in the way of your assertion.

...I'm not for the bail out, and GM could have made it through with out the money. ...and it certainly wasn't CURRENT management who was the problem. Wagoner and Lutz had turned GM back into a world class car company, but were still dealing with the contracts and deals made in the 80's and 90's by others. Lutz, thank God, is still there, though Wagoner was run out on a rail by Obama. Fortunately, so far, the administration has been pretty hands off, and the new CEO is allowing Lutz to continue to run operations, and GM is doing better post bail out than I thought they would. GM will be around for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time to come, and if you really think that GM's warranty is really a question, you're not thinking this through very well.

Now, had you posted this about Chrysler, I'd agree with you. They have one foot in the grave.

[yyz28]

2010 Camaro > 2010 Mustang

Camaro > Mustang since 1967. Hell the 2010 Mustang GT is slower than a 1993 Z28. ...but I digress.

Corvette > Ford Shelby GT500

Ok... No.. Bad fan19740. BAD!!! Don't EVER compare a Mustang (I don't care what fancy name and supercharger you slap on it, it is still a Mustang) to a Corvette. The Corvette is in a class by itself, and Ford doesn't offer anything that should be mentioned in the same sentence with it, especially the ZO6 and ZR1 variants. Dodge at least has the (totally over-rated and near impossible to live with) Viper, but Ford has never been able to compete head to head with the Corvette. Thunderbird was an epic fail. GT40 and Ford GT just couldn't hit the mark.

Next year you can put this up here -

2011 Camaro Z28 >>>>> Ford Mustang Shelby GT500