The idea was sound, however it's just going to add to the ever growing mountain of debt this country is accumulating.
cash for clunkers good or bad idea?
- Thread starter drychlick
- Start date
It was a very very bad idea.
Why the heck do I have to help subsidize someone who doesn't want their car while I keep my car? Let them buy their own car.
All this did was make people wait to buy a car until the program came out. Sales will die down again. Now we'll have to wait for the cash for refrigerators program.
What about after market sales? How many junkyards and engine resellers will have to close their doors or lay off people now? How many car dealers will go under waiting for the government money?
All this proves is that a tax cut does work. But instead of a narrow focus on a small industry it would have been better across the board in Feb instead of the 'stimulus' plan.
The one really great thing my cash for your clunkers program shows is how inept the government is in running any customer business. Just wait until they are deciding what healthcare you may or may not get!
Why the heck do I have to help subsidize someone who doesn't want their car while I keep my car? Let them buy their own car.
All this did was make people wait to buy a car until the program came out. Sales will die down again. Now we'll have to wait for the cash for refrigerators program.
What about after market sales? How many junkyards and engine resellers will have to close their doors or lay off people now? How many car dealers will go under waiting for the government money?
All this proves is that a tax cut does work. But instead of a narrow focus on a small industry it would have been better across the board in Feb instead of the 'stimulus' plan.
The one really great thing my cash for your clunkers program shows is how inept the government is in running any customer business. Just wait until they are deciding what healthcare you may or may not get!
Yet it worked very well.
A targeted subsidy is more effective at stimulating demand than tax cuts.
Actually, if it did anything, it cannibalized some future auto sales and made some purchases possible that previously would not have been. A car that was out of reach or unattractive at one price now looks a lot better with $4500 knocked off the tag.
Only the engine is required to be rendered inoperable. The rest of the parts are salvageable.
Junkyards aren't typically hurting for cars or parts. Even if they are, there are part manufacturers who are doing good business as a result of this.
Fewer than would go under if this program hadn't happened at all.
Across-the-board tax cuts were already in effect as part of the stimulus plan. People were saving that money. Savings are normally good, but in a recession, saving money makes the situation worse. If one or two (or ten million) people save money, it's a good thing. If everyone saves money, it's a recession. The purpose of the CARS program was to get people to spend money on a big-ticket item that has significant ripple effects in multiple sectors. To that end, it worked.
How are they "inept"? The program worked better than they thought it would. Most businesses could only dream of being too popular.
Yeah, an awful lot of used car lots are looking pretty empty these days. At least around here.
One perverse incentive that occurs to me is someone buying a qualifying "clunker" for way less than $4500 and then turning around and trading it in with the CARS program.
^There's not a whole lot of incentive to do that, since you're still out whatever you paid for the brand new car. It's not like you're making money. You're just spending less.
But you still got a new car at a steep discount, even if you had to buy a piece of shit in order to do it.
^As long as you're buying a new car, everyone is happy. The guy you bought your junker from got some money, you get a new car, and the dealership gets a sale.
China gets more treasury bills too, but thats a different debate.
China gets more treasury bills too, but thats a different debate.
R
Rocketman
Guest
Only if you equate success to popularity.
A government program is only unsuccessful if it fails to serve the purpose it was designed for and fails to be utilized.
It succeeded on both counts.
R
Rocketman
Guest
^ That's just idiotic, and does open the gate for 'cash for refrigerators' or 'cash for cowbell' programmes.
Neither of which would provide the "bang for the buck" that CARS does.
R
Rocketman
Guest
Even though it's unclear what kind of "bang" CARS has provided. It's main virtue seems to be that it's kept the automotive industry alive--for now.
So it worked.
R
Rocketman
Guest
Why are you guys all arguing by basically repeating that assertion regardless of the way the effectiveness of the programme is challenged?
Because you just said it worked...
R
Rocketman
Guest
Is that a lazy attempt at attributing something I didn't say to me?
R
Rocketman
Guest
Re: sidious, What does that have to do with it being a success?
Similar threads
