A Jeep Cherokee turned in during the Cash for Clunkers program is seen at the Riverside Auto Mall, Sept. 12, in Marquette, Mich.
(Carlos Osorio/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Report: Cash for Clunkers was a lemon
A study by Edmunds.com released Wednesday suggests that Cash for Clunkers mostly gave money to people who were going to buy a new car anyway.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer/ October 28, 2009 edition
American taxpayers paid a lot of cash for those clunkers: $24,000 for each new car sold, according to a study released Wednesday.
That’s a lot of money, especially when the so-called “cash for clunker” stimulus program offered only a maximum $4,500 in cash for each person who traded in an old gas-guzzler and bought a new car.
The government could have done almost as well by just giving away cars for free, instead of creating an elaborate incentive program, according to an analysis by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com in Santa Monica, Calif.
What happened?
Well, it’s in how Edmunds crunched the numbers. A valid way to evaluate the program economically, it says, is to look at how many people purchased cars that otherwise wouldn’t have been bought. The firm says that number is about 125,000 cars. By that measure, the government spent $24,000 to generate each sale of a new car.
For comparison, the average price for a new vehicle in August 2009 was $26,915, minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.
In all, the government spent $3 billion on a program that provided cash toward 690,000 car purchases – about $4,348 per car. That makes 565,000 people who got as much as $4,500 to buy a car they would have bought anyway, according to the Edmunds analysis.
A ‘weak’ impact
The analysis may dampen views about the effectiveness of a one of the most visible pieces of President Obama’s $787 economic stimulus package, designed to save jobs across the US.
Hordes of Americans scurried this summer to do paperwork to trade in certifiable clunkers – old cars that got fewer than 18 miles per gallon – and try to trade them in.
“The economic claims have been rendered quite weak,” David Tompkins, one of the researchers, said in Edmunds’ AutoObserver.com, an online publication. Still, the clunker program did help stimulate some car sales at a very weak moment for automakers.
The program also may have some environmental benefits. “Our research indicates that without the Cash for Clunkers program, many customers would not have traded in an old vehicle when making a new purchase,” Mr. Tompkins said.
The law required those old vehicles to go to the junk yard, so they are no longer on the road.
The analysis hinges on how to calculate the number of people who were ready to buy a car even without the subsidy.
Edmunds’ used a team of statisticians, who examined sales trends for luxury vehicles and others not included in the clunker program. They used those trends to gauge where sales would have been for the industry, absent any stimulus program. These “informed estimates” were independently verified, Edmunds says, by examining transaction data.
Let’s do it again?
The study comes as Congress is considering whether to extend a similar stimulus program in the housing market – an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. The move appears to have gained traction this week, thanks to efforts by Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, one of the states hardest hit by the housing downturn.
The housing tax credit is designed to spur buying activity, and thus help stabilize the housing market. Congress is considering a measure that would not only extend the program into next year, but also expand it to include purchasers who already own homes.
Economists are divided over the merits of this and other stimulus programs.
Critics of government stimulus programs say they often simply move money from one pocket to another, or perhaps shift the timing of consumer spending, without having a large impact on gross domestic product (GDP). Backers say the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is indeed helping to boost GDP and has stopped what had been a downward spiral in the economy.
Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmunds, says the firm’s study points to one promising conclusion about the economy: Auto sales were already rising from their recession trough even without the clunker program, though they remain well below their pre-recession levels.
—–
Follow us on Twitter.
( More stories )
Comments
2. G35Man | 10.29.09
It’s funny how some people just have to find fault in everything, manipulate the numbers to do such.
What about the ones that choose to buy a new car because of this program and are happy with it ?
What about the people that had some jobs to go back to because of the program?
Now there will be some more negative stories printed over my comment..
Can’t you try to print something positive for a change ?
3. Marty | 10.29.09
I bought a car under the clunkers program. Got $4500 to replace a perfectly running Ford Explorer with a VW Jetta. I didn’t need the $4500 and usually donate my old cars to charity, but was so mad about seeing my tax dollars wasted this way, decided to go ahead and write a check for the Jetta. Thanks for the $4500 and another idiot program, liberals.
4. Cars4Charities | 10.29.09
Cash for clunkers did not help the US Auto industry or the environment. It just destroyed almost 700,000 cars that ran. Many of those cars were in good shape. Instead of being crushed, those cars should have gone to car donation charities and either sold or given to the poor.
5. Thanks Marty | 10.29.09
Glad that your gas guzzling SUV is off the road with a more efficient Jetta. That is a big switch and a program success, you bought a new car to help the economy that would not of been bought and it was a big gas savings from a Explorer to a Jetta. I hope you enjoyed your rebate and your gas savings, that is money you get to put back into the economy.
6. David | 10.29.09
Yes, thanks Marty, for violating your own principles and acting in a way you think is immoral just to prove “liberals” are stupid. But “liberals” aren’t stupid, you are. “Thanks Marty” says it all. You did everything right, the whole time whining about “liberals” who made it possible for you to make the world a slightly better place, if only motivated by your cynicism.
7. DEEZILSMOKER | 10.29.09
the program was a major failure on many fronts…many people were going to buy new cars anyway in the first place… now there was a big surge in sales…most of which were foreign cars, by the way… now alot were purchased by poor people who could not afford a new car payment.. not to mention higher plate costs( in many states) and much higher insurance premiums than they were paying on their “clunkers” let’s do the math, people… c’mon.. for the amount of miles most people put on.. the annualized savings in fuel would be dwarfed by new spending… don’t forget the polluction created by manufacturing new cars…. the “clunker’s” are already made… their only pollution comes from the tail pipe… now we have to crush them down, make new cars and redistribute them… how much new energy and and new additional pollution is created to make new cars??? and guess what.. they still pollute, too! it takes more energy to make a car than it will consume in it’s lifetime… wake up people!!! do the math!!! look at the whole BIG picture…. these new cars did not just pop out of thin air and magically appear at the dealerships! … not only was it a joke on a pollution front… but also this program did more for foreign car makers than it ever did for the US companies…. what a joke!! there are far cheaper ways to buy votes………….
8. Ben | 10.29.09
Don’t thank Marty.
His $4,500 didn’t get “put back into the economy” until after it was forcibly removed from the economy - a net zero, less the deadweight costs of administration. A net loss, for the economy.
And the value of the fuel saved is more than offset by the value of the vehicle destroyed to do it. Economically it is pointless to destroy a vehicle worth $4,000 to save an estimated $3,500 in fuel over its expected remaining lifetime. And Ecologically… I don’t know, tough call. 2700 gallons of fuel saved over a 10 year life vs landfilling a ton of metal and gunk, and the carbon footprint of building the new car. Which is worse? I don’t know. But to presume Obama knows is foolish.
Oh, and remember- the value of the fuel saving? That’s based on $3.50 a gallon pre-tax, which our dimwit in chief predicted as the cost of fuel, which it isn’t. Go look at the signs. Subtract tax. What’s left is the actual cost.
9. thanks marty | 10.29.09
Thanks for getting your gas guzzling Explorer off the road and buying a Jetta. Your Explorer must have had a trade-in value of less than $4500, otherwise you would not have traded it in. Why were you keeping such an old run down Explorer around if you’re in the tax bracket that, as you say, benefits from donating a car to charity?
Nice try Rush. We know that a good SUV-driving, air-polluting, take-charge-on-the-road conservative would never trade down to “one uh thum rice-grinding VeeDubbyahs”.
10. DanJ | 10.29.09
Here is an idea..Instead of crushing (trashing the cars and environment), why not export the autos to other countries? That would actually generate an influx of cash to this country and perhaps even balance the funds used as the incentive.
11. Don | 10.29.09
Folks, before you go touting the “environmental benefits” of this program, look at the bigger environmental picture. Producing a new vehicle has massive environmental impacts. Consider all the energy costs of mining and shipping the iron ore, processing and shipping the steel, producing plastics from oil, and then shipping the plastic parts, manufacturing the vehicle, and shipping it to the dealer. That is a lot of oil used to produce one vehicle. So folks who trade their cars in every few years are having far more impact on the environment than “buy and hold” car buyers, regardless of how fuel efficient the new vehicle is. The best thing you can do for the environment (and your pocketbook) is to buy a vehicle, any vehicle, and drive it fifteen or twenty years until it dies. And also, don’t relect Osama.
12. Duke | 10.29.09
The pollution/carbon footprint caused by the new cars should also be netted out against the pollution saved by retiring the older cars.
13. Christo | 10.29.09
To “thanks marty”,
Those VeeDubbyahs don’t grind rice, they grind sauerkraut. Oops, they’re actually assembled in mexico, so I guess they grind beans or agave or something.
14. Dan | 10.29.09
I don’t think this is a ‘negative’ story. It’s simply realistic analysis of a program that people hoped would make an impact. It’s really part of a scientific process. Develop a hypothesis, determine expectations, test the theory, review results and make corrections. Two methods of calculating the cost per car sold were used. An optimistic and pessimistic value were developed. Regardless, we should question whether our tax money was effectively used to stimulate the economy. It does not appear so. The cash for clunkers was more of a sugar rush than a protein shake. It’s simply too little money in too small of a section of the economy. Another example that government cannot simply stimulate an economy by spending.
15. Jay | 10.29.09
What about the amount of money that the country is saving due to the fact that those less efficient cars are not in the road anymore wasting gas? What about the lesser emissions of pollutants in the atmosphere?
It will be good if those “statisticians” spend sometime doing that math.
I can’t find anything bad with that “liberal” way to save us all from foreign oil dependency and a healthier environment.
16. merle | 10.29.09
Nice article , it’s hard to beat Bob’s statement .,. well ,, I thought the same this sure could help alot of nice people .,.now they go to auto shredders at steel mills and may bring down the poor boy’s scraper’s that haul away junk .,.,flooding the market reducing the price of scrap steel.,.,. and for anyone that is hooked on the global warming joke .,.a little more heat into the atmosphere ( melt steel ) .,.record snowfalls early .,.,and lowest average temps for the last 11 years .,.find the father of global warming find a increased bank account ,find weather experts that will not testify in court for there verbally spoken words in public ( freedom of speech) in court they have to take the oath out of court they can say it as they wish .,. have you heard of any professionals get called to testify under penalty of perjury ? No . what a waste vehicles for someone now could of used one to go to the doc or the store to feed there family instead of putting the burden on a sometimes helpful neighbor .
17. Jane | 10.29.09
How about riding the bus or owning less cars??? Maybe not as good for the economy, but good for the environment. When will we realize that our current lifestyles (or the ones of two years ago anyway) aren’t sustainable? As for exporting our clunkers overseas…as much as we’d like to believe it, America doesn’t exist in a bubble and environmental harm elsewhere on the planet will ultimately affect us too.
18. Elizabeth | 10.29.09
We were sorry that our old (1970s) Ford 250 was too old to qualify as a “clunker” despite its gas mileage under 10 miles/gallon.
19. Geoff | 10.29.09
I just went to Edmunds and read their report. Not a bad thing to assess, but the last little bit, calculating the cost per newly persuaded buyer was a complete waste of good arithmetic. I have been skeptical of the economic stimulus efforts, but no one criticizing or praising the CFC ever thought that the intention of the program was only to induce reluctant-to-buy clunker drivers to trade-in their cars. Everyone understood that it was an effort to take the perceived need for economic stimulus and create at least one program that applied to Joe Ordinary, instead of just giant financial and manufacturing interests. Everyone knew and accepted that many already intending to buy were getting lucky.
A better measurement would be how do the results of this incentive program compare with the thousands of advertised incentives from the car dealers we experience everyday, and what was the economic effect on the dealers and car industry, and on the local communities. A more difficult thing to assess, but better than pointless, mis-leading arithmetic.
It was logical rubbish, and comes off as a disgraceful piece of political posturing. From a respected information source?
20. Rick | 10.29.09
Good job creating a statistic that can be used as a zinger! “$24,000 per car!” Some pundits are already saying that it would have been cheaper to give away cars. Somehow they haven’t cottoned on to the fact that Edmunds is dividing the total amount of money spent by their estimate of the _difference_ in the number of cars purchased, as opposed to simply dividing the total amount of money by the _actual_ number of cars purchased under the program.
This kind of accounting chicanery misleads people into thinking that there is massive government waste where about 80% of the cost of the program went into the bureaucracy!
No doubt that was the intent here.
21. John | 10.29.09
Missed the point. That clunker program is OUR money. If the money was returned to the taxpayer instead, then the money would have been spent by the taxpayers in ALL areas of the economy. The really killer in this program is that the rebate is TAXED. LOL Again,. if the government would stay out of business, we would be fine. Again, a proposal that really would be a stimulus is this. Modified from other real proposals. There are 350 million people in the United States. Guessing that 100 million actually work and pay taxes. This is subtracting kids, non working people etc…
Now if WE the TAXPAYERS were to get refunded OUR money, then we would stimulate the economy. If someone who is LEGALly in this country, in their lifetime paid $20,000 in taxes, then refund back them $20,000. Now if they paid less in taxes then prorate it. So now we have $20,00 infused from every taxpayer buying in all parts of the economy, think the economy would recover? Some would buy cars. Somebuy different goods, some would even pay off debts- and that is ok because then whoever was owed would have that money again to put back into this economy. Some may even give to charities, etc… And there is NO separation of rich and poor because all that money would HELP this sick economy. Would cost far less than this bonehead governemnt attempt. In fact, would do better than ALL the government attempts. Get government out! Government IS THE PROBLEM ! The government CAUSED it!
22. Star | 10.29.09
“What about the ones that choose to buy a new car because of this program and are happy with it ?”
Why must taxpayers be forced to pay millions of dollars in corporate welfare, when most of these cay buyers could afford to buy a car anyways?
“What about the people that had some jobs to go back to because of the program?”
And what about the used car businesses and junk yards that lost business when the customers essentially threw away some perfectly serviceable cars? The hired hands by the dealers melt the engine with a chemical solution, and the rest of the car is pretty much thrown away.
23. fiat128 | 10.29.09
In my area a bunch of really nice cars got crushed. In fact, most of them were nicer than the car I drive everyday. I wrote about them in my blog:
http://fiat128-theorangefolderchronicles.blogspot.com/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-but-where-are.html
My 179,000 mile 1993 Mazda MPV Minivan leaks and burns oil and according to cars.gov gets 17 MPG making it an official clunker. I might have traded it in but I don’t have stellar credit and can’t really afford the payments (and insurance rate hike) of a new car so I kept it.
Two months after the program ended my clunker broke a timing belt so I’m fixing it and will be contributing to global warming for some time afterwards.
This program was nothing more than a transfer payment to middle class Americans in good credit standing at the expense of those of us already getting boned by the banks for out poorer credit. To add insult to injury, we have to pay for people like “Marty” to ride around in their nice new diesel Jettas while yapping on their iPhones about how bad liberals are.
Nice going Marty and keep on wondering why the guy in smoking clunker gives you the finger all the time.
24. The Bobs | 10.29.09
To all especially Jay,
700,000 cars getting 6 miles more per gallon driving 14,000 miles per year =233million gallons, 2/3 of which are imported. (155Million). $80/barrel, 19.5 gallons/barrel (not exact), total savings/year=$600million/year.
Total imports of crude are 3.6Billion or $288billion. Thus Cash for Clunkers removes roughly 1/450th of America’s dependency on foreign oil. The more non C4C vehicles being driven, the smaller that becomes.
At the same time, C4C cost America over $12billion in trade deficit so C4C cars will need to be driven 20 years to recoup the cost long before which they’ll be considered heavy polluters.
Environmentally, the energy, materials, and labor put into manufacturing cars and their parts, especially in foreign nations with lesser pollution standards, far outweighs the benefits. Besides, many of the vehicles would have been less polluting than many 4th hand vehicles driven in countries where “new” cars sold are often 20 year old super clunkers. Zambia is a great example of this.
On all levels, the Cash for Clunkers program was poorly thought out, even more poorly executed, and by the way, that $4,500 may be taxed as income come next year. Surprise, surprise.
25. T. Chevalier | 10.29.09
My trade in was a 1995 Ford 150 diesel pickup with an extended cab. I had 432+ thousand miles on the vehicle. I was thinking to simply junk the pickup for $850.00 which I was offered for the four wheel drive transmission, goose-neck and wheels. I traded it in on the “junker program” so to purchase a new 4-door KIA Spectra for my wife, not on credit, but paid in full. I felt it was a good deal, at least for my wife, and she is happy with the vehicle. However, I believe the program is a totally unnecessary expense on the tax payers, and the actual lemon is sitting in the White House thinking up some more dip-sxxt ideas that will continue burdening the tax payers for the next 100 plus years. What did I purchase for myself? A Ford 350 diesel 4-door, and I kept the goose-neck and installed it in my new Ford truck.
26. Jimmy Dean | 10.29.09
I have 3 suburbans. All 3 of them diesels(’84,’86 & ‘87)and I get @18-20MPG with all of them. This summer I was able to load up to the roof liner a very heavy load and haul household items from the Midwest to the East coast on 22MPG. I did it and hauled one child as well as myself. Minivans are not equal in safety or capacity and I have not seen very many that are 22yrs.+ hold up mechanically and perform as well. My ‘84 has over 400K miles and still doesn’t burn oil unless pushed over 60 MPH. All diesels with 6.2L engines that have had proper care operate much the same. Once in a while you may even find a model that will get as much as 30MPG. This fact can be substantiated by talking to any decent diesel mechanic. Mans’ effect on the environment is overrated compared to one major volcanic eruption. Most of these environmental discussions are political BS!
27. keep the change | 10.29.09
Why is it that we are waiting on the government to take care of us. Last year (when gas prices soared) I decided to do something on my own about my “Gas Guzzler”. I drive 100 miles a day to go to a job that is unstable. My vehicle got 15 mpg. I (all by myself) decide it was time to do something about it. I went and bought a car that gets 31mpg. I didn’t have to wait for some government run program to “help” me.
I wonder if there is another $4500 dollars out there for me, since I traded my clunker.
28. Duncan Allan | 10.29.09
Perhaps the most satisfying thing about blogs on the internet is the foolishness that you can cite, left, right, and center.
My thoughts on C4C:
Oh clunker, my clunker, our fearful trip is done.
you have weathered every wreck, the price we sought is won!
The dealers near the bells I hear, the horns are all a blazing,
while follow eyes your shaky wheels, the price tag grim and daring.
But oh hark hark hark!
oh the spattered drops of black
where in the block that once had oil,
salt takes the physics back.
Oh clunker, my clunker, rev up and sound your horn!
Rev up, for you the banners strung, for you we’re burning corn!
for you the interstates are clogged, for you the owls are dying,
for you they call, commercials, ads; their pocketbooks are boiling.
here clunker, Transportation
this fuel that’s in your tank,
it is a crime that in your block
salt takes the physics back.
my clunker does not answer, its horn is quiet still.
my clunker does not see the crime; it has no pulse nor will.
my new car, parked now safe and sound within my home garage;
a taxman’s quip, upon my ’ship’ provokes me to a rage.
exalt O’ more, and Ring O’ bells,
but I with mournful tread.
Remember still, my clunker will,
forever now be dead.
for 15 minutes not a bad parody.
-DA
29. Zimminger | 10.29.09
Edmund’s also reported on the types of vehicles sold. If the aim was to get people into economy cars it failed. Trucks and vans were at the top of the list. If the aim was to save fuel it could have been done at much lower cost by also including used cars as purchased vehicles–with less of an incentive, allowing more people to upgrade. But that wasn’t what the Big Three had moldering on their lots and wanted the government to help them get rid of. Trashing the engines was a pointless waste that hurt the recyclers. I looked into the program but my ‘79 van was TOO OLD TO BE A CLUNKER! So I still have it. This program was just a load of B.S. right out of the gate.
30. distirctofcrimminals | 10.29.09
Our controllers in Washington accentual bought $3 billion dollars worth of cars and destroyed them. I know of no other organization that has the audacity to do such a thing. Granted $3 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket when it comes to our national debt responsibility but,it illustrates how foolish and incompetent our elected officials are. We need to stop spending money and start saving. Stop the debt cycle.
31. jerry | 10.30.09
The ” clunker program ” was nothing more then a political payback to the auto unions who were foolish enough to back the Moron-In-Chief. They’re extremely sorry now. That…you can take to the bank. Or not.
32. Heavy foot | 10.30.09
It’s easy to miss the forest through the tree’s when statisticians let numbers fly. Our President, with the 5 minute career, is now breakdancing on TV. because the 2009 3rd quarter GDP rose to 3.?? percent. “Great news, the recession is over” he proclaims. And all the MSM talking heads bow to the “Saviour” greatness and let the tingle go up their legs.
Except, we all know that the C4C program and Wall St. bailouts count as money spent in the economy. Hence, since our government thieves have borrowed that money from future generations and it is actual debt, the GDP growth is a false indicator. It’s as fake as Obama’s “Hope and Change”.
And many fools still want to give control of their spleens, livers, and health to Pelosi, Reid and Obama. AMAZING!!!!
Name 1 government program that has worked as intended and has come in on or under budget.
For those of you who took advantage of C4C, make sure to thank your children or grandchildren for the financial assistance. They will be paying for it.
And hang onto that car. With Obamanomics getting into full swing, you may need that car for a dry place to sleep.
33. Brian | 10.30.09
I’m tired of the government spending our money the way they think is best. A few ill-informed politicians can not possibly make decisions and act as efficiently and cost effectively as millions of individuals making choices in their own best interest. Let the people keep their money and spend it the way they see fit. I guarantee that there won’t be a huge percentage of wasted money on administering that kind of program. Wake up America and quit looking for some politician to tell you what is right and wrong. Use your own mind and independence while you still have it.
34. Caroline Walcot | 10.30.09
regarding: Cash for clunkers was a lemon
So many of the posters have totally missed the point, looking at their navels instead of at the sky. Getting old gas guzzlers off the road means exactly that - not to roll again for charity or for poor folks who cannot afford garage mainentance, nor to go pollute in other countries. Many of the new cars bought had already been made and were sitting around on disused airport runways. It doesn’t matter who bought them or why. What matter is that the new cars will be more fuel efficient, emit less CO2 and noxious fumes. So that means less gunk in the air and, multiplied thousands of times over for quite a few years, means several tonnes less gunk in the air. If Americans keep doing this, many times over, they will make a difference.
35. CashforClunkheads | 10.30.09
Anyone taking $4500.00 of taxpayer money in this time of fiscal irresponsibility should be ashamed of themselves. You no longer have a principle to stand on in arguing against government spending. But somehow, I don’t ever think you did to begin with.
Oh, and you’re welcome.
36. mendowood | 10.30.09
If the government does nothing about a serious recession and it worsens, those who governed get turned out and villified for a century (remember Hoover?). If the government does nothing and the economy recovers, those who governed get no credit.
On the other hand, if the government does ANYTHING and the economy recovers those who governed become beatified (become saints). If the government does something and the economy does not improve or even worsens, “At least they tried” is the refrain we hear about those who govern.
We seem to require government to ACT. Their action’s failures are less punished than doing nothing. Their action’s successes create the possibility of beatification. Guess what guys, it’s OUR fault that our leaders do what they do.
37. mendowood | 10.30.09
In a “followup” to my post #35, imagine that the dogs in this parable are our leaders, and the “UPS Man” is us, the citizens.
The UPS Man always wonders why dogs bark at him when he delivers a package. Looking at it from the dog’s point of view you get this picture:
I’m supposed to protect the house
Here comes the UPS Man
I’ll bark at him
It worked!! he’s leaving
Here he comes again
Bark, bark
It worked!
The UPS Man has trained the dog. The citizenry has trained the leadership, DO SOMETHING, DO ANYTHING!
38. Rich | 10.30.09
When the defense industry spends ungodly sums to design and build planes or tanks the conservatives never complain because military things jive with their authoritarian world view, and are hence exempt from scrutiny; but when we spend some money to preserve jobs for blue-collar workers, they suddenly find their “free-market” religion. The deliberate hypocrisy of the critics needs to exposed and understood…
39. John K. | 10.30.09
BTW, the American car companies aren’t in trouble because of their product, but they’re now in the hands of the very people who caused the crisis in the first place: the government and the unions. What a solution, huh?
40. Gill Bates | 10.30.09
Please follow up on this.
It appears that Edmunds “calculation” was overly simplistic, politically motivated and highly flawed - and they have received much criticism.
I expected more of CSM - not just to repeat other people’s opinions.
41. don | 10.31.09
It did not help the American Economy at all. Right before it was launched China and Japan were getting ready to dump US bonds. The imports were included so Japan could steal more from our country and the scrap metal was all contracted to go to China before the program started. This bought us a little more time before they dump our worthless dollars anyway.
42. RealClunker | 10.31.09
I was driving a 1989 E350 that was getting all of 6 to 7 MPG and blowing blue smoke interior falling apart roof leaked a real piece of junk. So off i went to the local Chevrolet dealer to purchase a new fuel efficient car. Picked out a nice little car and with rebate would have only had to finance about $5400. Plus being a US auto manufacture I would put us people to work right. WRONG!! The car I was looking to buy was made in South Korea and imported into to US. Now real nice touch under this fine goverment program my old junk van didn’t qualify for the Clunker Program. Fine job nice goverment men.
43. None | 11.01.09
This particular story is a good topic and is relevant but biased blogs like this are a waste of Internet space and a prime example of freedom of speech falling apart at the seams. It is one thing to filter expletives but a blog fails as a true source of communication when censors wet themselves over a few negative, non-offensive but truthful comments and end up filtering away at posts with a goal of ‘feel-good’ reading. In the end, the facts are curbed and polarized toward the censors oversensitive opinion.
Take off your rose colored glasses, man up and toss your ToS. We know you won’t publish this post, we don’t care.
44. Robert | 11.02.09
BTW, how many car dealerships have ACTUALLY been reimbursed by the government?
45. LindaP | 11.05.09
I would imagine that this was done to boost up sales for next quarter. Of course it’s going to look bad for a little while, but donating those cars definitely would have gone to better use…
46. kws | 11.05.09
“Our controllers in Washington accentual bought $3 billion dollars worth of cars and destroyed them. ”
No, the cars in question were worth less than $3 billion, but that’s what the Feds paid for them, so that’s even worse.
October sales in many areas have taken a big hit and it is expected to be the same in November. All C4C did is get a lot of people who were probably going to buy a car sometime in the 1ast 1/2 of 2009/early part of 2010 to move up their purchases and got a few people who weren’t in the market to do so. Edmund’s is just pointing out how much it cost per car to get those ‘non buyers’ to splurge and get a new vehicle.
47. anna old | 11.07.09
I don’t understand. I thought they wer’e trying to get the real clunkers off the streets. My 68 chevy van may not burn oil but boy is it thirsty. And my crappy 83 toyota is too old also. Those cars that wer’e turned in as so called clunkers are new and beautiful to me. WHY???? Nobody can tell me why they don’t take the real clunkers. puzzled in washington.
48. Karl Lucas | 11.08.09
The program was good for us and the environment. We traded in an Isuzu Trooper getting <15 mpg on a Hyundai Sonata getting 30 mpg.
This will save us more than 10 gallons of gas a week. We never would have done this otherwise, we just couldn’t afford to. Of course it was great that the Sonata had a $3,000 rebate at the same time and we managed to find a standard shift base model.
49. Thanks for nothing Marty! | 11.17.09
Edmunds methods for determining the cost per car to the federal government under C4C are highly questionable and speculative.
Bush’s recession is unprecedented in recent history, and his wreckless management of the economy, (and its accompanying worldwide reverberations) created unique conditions which likely invalidate past economic predictors.
C4C was an innovative program that needed refinement. One thing that would have made better sense would have been to target funds toward the less affluent, so rich right-wing hypocrites like Marty, “I didn’t need the $4500…” would not have been able to abuse the program.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for Report: Cash for Clunkers was a lemon | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.28.09
2. A new report:taxpayers paid $24,000 for every car sold in the cash for clunkers - TurboBuick.Com | 10.29.09
3. Real Cars of Genius: Cash for Clunkers Cost You a Mere $24,000 Per Car — Report: Feds Could Have Just Given Away Free cars Instead « The Right Cup of Tea | 10.29.09
5. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Cash For Clunkers Cost Taxpayers $ 24,000 For Each Car Sold | 10.29.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Bob | 10.28.09
I think it was disgusting that decent cars turned in were destroyed. Poorer people would have loved to buy those cars at a used car lot, but no, they are gone. This caused a shortage of used cars, which then raised the price of used cars, putting a burden on the poorer buyer.
What a joke this program was.