What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
136 Comments
- Solkre, on 11/06/2009, -2/+50Cash for Clunkers was much more about moving new inventory than improving MPG.
- chiefquanah, on 11/05/2009, -27/+50What a waste of $3 billion, why not do something more constructive like put that money back into our pockets by keeping taxes down. Nah, that's too easy for those in DC plus it doesn't allow them to gain additional control over thier serfs.
- Solkre, on 11/06/2009, -0/+22My Ford was assembled in Canada.
My friend's Honda was assembled in the USA.
Are you loyal to the corp, or the jobs? - DaviDTC, on 11/06/2009, -14/+29Will this one be buried like the last story that criticized c4c that made fp?
http://digg.com/politics/CNN_Clunkers_Taxpayers_pa ...
Remember, Obama can't do wrong. People can't see criticism of his programs. - PolarBearFire, on 11/06/2009, -1/+14My Toyota is made in america, more or less.
- ogkk, on 11/06/2009, -1/+14I don't get how no one understands this.
- Barackalypse, on 11/06/2009, -2/+15I prefer the even older method where crappy companies just go bankrupt and don't take any taxpayer money with them.
- inactive, on 11/06/2009, -3/+14On the bright side, they *only* spent 3 billion dollars on this program.
We've become completely desensitized to government wasting our money. This is like a joke now. - Edfrommars, on 11/06/2009, -0/+11I hope you realize that a large number of Toyotas and Hondas are built here in the US. Conversely, some "American cars" are build in Mexico.
Also, regardless of where the cars are put together, where do you think the raw materials that actually make up the car come from? Steel from America? Yeah right. - chiefquanah, on 11/05/2009, -3/+13Doesn't matter if people know how to spend their money, its their money and not the governments to spend or save as they see fit.
Who would do the investing.... are you saying the gov't invest the money?
You gotta be kidding, they can't spend it right what makes you thing they will invest it right. Look at how many of our so called leaders have filed for bankruptcy and they are running our government. - JHW539, on 11/06/2009, -2/+12We had a hell of a good reason to go into Afghanistan. I think you meant to rant about the pointless Iraq adventure.
- klekamp, on 11/06/2009, -5/+15There should have been higher restrictions on the cars to be purchased. (Such as no less than 30 MPG in city)
- JHW539, on 11/06/2009, -3/+13"The data show the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones."
Funny how the REAL data is very different than what you'd expect from the headline. Average everything up and quit playing games and the truth is that the program saw an average of a 9.1 mpg improvement, or a whopping 57%!
Suck it, Saudis. - LonesomeFighter, on 11/06/2009, -5/+14while the whole clunkers wasn't the greatest success, i prefer it over the previous method of just giving car companies cash. at least this they had to work for it and the citizens got some benefits
- bubba9999, on 11/06/2009, -2/+11Cash for Clunkers was a bailout program for the automakers. The whole mileage thing was a condition of participating in the program, but lets not kid ourselves about what the motive for instituting the program was. It wasn't to reduce emissions or gas consumption - it was to get people to buy vehicles and bail out the automakers.
- xrmb, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9hmm, was't there a requirement that new mpg is > 18 to qualify? Seems like alot of cheating going one... same as with the house tax credit... its just getting abused.
- jp2535, on 11/06/2009, -2/+10not really, we just ended up spending money we didn't have.......that put us more into debt and lowed the dollar value more.
- eastwood24, on 11/05/2009, -11/+19haha, the president has very little control over the global economy and all that cash for clunkers did was basically give a short term jolt for car sales at the expense of future demand.
- JHW539, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8What? Those trucks get around 15 mpg, so it was a 7-20% improvement. RTFA.
- publikjohn, on 11/06/2009, -2/+9well said
- macmcraeart, on 11/06/2009, -7/+14or - you know - why not use that money to invade a god forsaken *****-hole like Afghanistan for no apparent reason?
- inactive, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8Coming from the ***** who still calls them on a friday to ask if he can borrow their truck to move his hipster furniture *****.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 11/05/2009, -4/+11This is so pathetic it is sad. Even if it was free it would be unfair to reward those ready buyers who happened to have a clunker. I bet it will be less of a spike in sales and a rather a spike in permanent US Debt increase. It would be painfully stupid even if it were moral to do such unfairness to your fellow citizens. I hope your kind get a fair punishment some day.
- blingbin, on 11/06/2009, -5/+11a redneck will always be a redneck, now they just have shiny new trucks. you can't help those who don't wish to be helped.
- d3dm, on 11/06/2009, -2/+8Are you saying that anyone who owns a truck is a redneck? That's dumb.
The Ford F-150 truck is the best selling vehicle in America for over two decades (best selling truck for over three decades). - e2superman, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7yes I would like to if they can not compete. capitalism -- can not have it both ways.
- Number23, on 11/06/2009, -8/+13C4C as well as the GM and Chrysler bailouts were for the sole purpose of preserving the sinecures of an important democrat constituency, UAW members.
- macmcraeart, on 11/06/2009, -12/+17why do I get the feeling it should have been called cash for crooks.
- thouthtless, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6wow, so digg decides this is what's wrong with the cash for clunkers program? What about that it only lasted two months... and somehow it's hailed as rescuing our economy?
- unknownpoltroon, on 11/06/2009, -2/+7This comment is more useful than cash for clunkers.
- MistrBrownstone, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6If I had to pay $3 billion to get that raise I sure as ***** would complain.
- 3tcp, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6Odd how you begin by saying 'go to school and study economics' then go on to display a very poor understanding of it.
- Government spending is the least effective method of fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts and tax rebates have shown to be more effective.
- Consumer spending drives the economy, not government. Government spending doesn't fall into consumption.
- Who do you think buys those bonds? Investors. The crowding out effect of government selling debt should not be ignored.
Your comment there at the end about how you feel it is governments responsibility to help companies when their business is a political issue and is mostly unrelated to economics. - starlon2, on 11/06/2009, -2/+7You actually think this public option's going to be worth something. Man, are you going to be pissed when you realize what people on Medicare already know. American government run healthcare sucks balls. You think corporate insurance companies ration, just you wait. And likely your employer will drop your current coverage in favor of the cheaper public option (about 75% Americans think this is going to happen). The only way you're going to be any better off is if you simply don't have health coverage to begin with, and even then you're not going to be happy with the coverage when it comes to life and limb. Democrats are trying to piece together something that will pass with enough votes, but they're not going to get something worth a crap through. Single payer is the only viable answer to insuring that everyone gets equal coverage, and we simply don't have the congressional interest in that system. There's too much damn greed on The Hill.
- KentuckyBoy2, on 11/06/2009, -2/+7SNL had it correct. Japan was happy for the infusion of cash.
- publikjohn, on 11/06/2009, -2/+6yes let them fail
- iamacyborg, on 11/06/2009, -2/+6So, why are the only two choices:
1.) the current situation which sucks balls because the government is ***** with it
2.) an alternative situation which also sucks balls with the government ***** with it in a different way
That's what we call a false dichotomy - iamacyborg, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5Economics is a social science. There are many different schools. The school you're referring to that you apparently paid good money to have pooped into your head is called Keynesianism.
Incidentally, it's Keynsian policies that got us into the current mess, so don't, you know, let repeated, abysmal failure cause you to reevaluate your perspective or anything. - Apocalyptic0n3, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5@BerateBirthers: Because $50 an hour for a line worker is totally warranted, right?
My father works in the auto industry. ArvinMeritor, more specifically. They've never been unionized, and he makes roughly $30 an hour as an equipment specialist. That's more than generous (~$60,000 a year) and, with the money my mother makes (About $40,000 a year), they are in the upper middle class.
Unions have killed the auto industry as much as the Big Three's lack of innovation and stupid spending has. $50 for a worker on the line is freaking ridiculous. $30 an hour for twenty years of loyalty and hard work, hardly slave's pay, is more than reasonable. Work hard, and you'll get the money. Union or not. Unions ensure that the people who don't work as hard get the money as well and that, in my opinion, is an injustice to those who do their share. - ramfire98, on 11/06/2009, -0/+4Read Henry Hazlitt's, "Economics in One Lesson".
Government is not the answer. The answer lies with the consumer, the investor, and the employer. - wonderchemist, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5What about having to meet 2009 emissions vs whatever the old cars were grandfathered in under?
- eastbako, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5Big applause to everyone that abused the program and bought Tahoes and the like.
/s
If you have large family, I wasn't talking to you. - inactive, on 11/06/2009, -2/+6Just like Bush relied on faith instead of reason to believe WMD existed in Iraq, Dems are using blind faith these big government programs actually do work when all the evidence says otherwise.
- homercles337, on 11/06/2009, -1/+4Ummm, this was never about MPG, its about EMISSIONS!
- TyrelVnne, on 11/06/2009, -1/+4Oh man did you guys hear? this guy has an H3! How fancy is he!
- chiefquanah, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3No I didn't study economics in college, but I do have common sense and have learned / educated myself on good spending & saving habits.
Regardless of that though, government never does as good a job spending MY money as I presumably would do otherwise they wouldn't buy a $10 hammer for $50. - dilbert111, on 11/06/2009, -5/+8I took ADVANTAGE of the program like the other 5 people who were trading in the same time I did. What I mean by advantage is that the engine had gone out of my old truck and I hadn't driven it in 6 months. Wasn't worth $500 to salvage. Since the government and particularly the democrats will NEVER understand unexpected consequences of their actions I got $4500 for vehicle I was going to tow away and would have never driven again. So MPG saving for my trade was negative. And those taking advantage of the program werent those who had been laid off or had pay cuts....its the folks that had disposable income. Finally think about those who maybe were laid off....it took all those low entry cost vehicles off the road so prices went up for the other clunkers.
So lets check the score card...it hurt the poor, gave tax money to those not hurt by the downturn...all to keep union folks who have grown fat and lazy building inferior cars in a job. Wait till they take over healthcare....corruption will run rampant.
Every time the government tries to social engineer they fail. Show me the successful govt program which is more efficient than private enterprise and I will give you one of my flying unicorns. - momomathew, on 11/06/2009, -1/+4Somehow, I think the 12% raise is negated by them having a car payment and a higher insurance premium.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3ramfire98 is right. And some 'greedy' libertarian put the damthing online
http://jim.com/econ/
for free. And with no ads. (Oops!) It's almost as if we want to help the clueless get a clue, or something. Nah, easier to think of us as evil & greedy!! - Cputerace, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Cash for Clunkers got ~600,000 cars sold. Only about ~125,000 of those cars would not have sold anyway.
Assuming $20,000/car, that's $2.5 billion GROSS sales, across ALL car manufacturers. Subtract the costs, and divide by the number of car manufacturers, and $1bill profit at ford is not attributable to C4C. - arijfroo, on 11/06/2009, -1/+4I don't think there was any cheating involved. I find it hard to imagine VIN fraud on a massive scale.
This article is suspect though. As I recall, a 4 mpg boost was the minimum to qualify.
Perhaps they didn't recalculate the mileage of the older vehicle to reflect the new scale? -
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is