• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate To Put Brakes On Clunkers

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy - Senators to put brakes on ?cash for clunkers?

The Obama administration’s oversubscribed “cash for clunkers” scheme looks likely to founder in the Senate this week as bipartisan opposition mounted on Monday to the $2bn extension passed last week in the House of Representatives.

Republican senators described the scheme, in which car users can take up to $4,500 (€3,170, £2,710) in government vouchers to trade in their vehicles for more fuel efficient ones, as a “boondoggle” – or a waste of time and money – and all but threatened to filibuster the planned extension. This would almost certainly kill prospects of renewing the scheme before the Senate returns from recess in September.

Republicans also pointed out that the administration had originally estimated the first $1bn in funding would last until November. Instead it is expected to run out in the next few days. “When the administration comes bearing estimates, it’s not a bad idea to look for a second opinion,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. “All the more so if they say they’re in a hurry.”

Prospects for overcoming a Republican filibuster were also dealt a blow on Monday with objections from a number of leading Democrats. Dianne Feinstein, the senator from California, and Chuck Schumer, the New York senator, both want to raise the fuel efficiency standards of the subsidised vehicles, 250,000 of which have now been funded.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bingaman, the senator from New Mexico, objected to the diversion of funds from the $6bn allocated to the Department of Energy under the $787bn stimulus programme in February. It is unclear whether the administration could find other sources of cash to extend “cash for clunkers”, or whether it could move ahead without congressional approval.

1. Wow, even The prescient Prof failed to prophesy this present slip up by the president

2. Obama's credibility is crashing a blue streak

3. Just last week, Clunkers cruised thru congress with undiluted democratic endorsement, with a good detachment of red delegates, in addition

4. What a difference a disastrous weekend makes

5. Today, Republicans are fit to filibuster

6. And key dems DiFi, Schumer, Bingaman and McCaskill cavil

7. Health care is dead

8. The dems can't even hold a town meeting on the subject, they'll be pelted with rotten vegetables

9. Most inept political "leadership" in modern American history, makes Carter a Machiavelli

10. He sends out his Treas Secty and Natl Economic Adviser on MTP and FTN Sunday to RAISE TAXES on the MIDDLE CLASS, has to take it all back within 24 hours---LOLOL!


The Prof
 
Most of the time when Republicans object to a Democratic sponsored program, it is not because they have philosophical differences in the program, it is not because they have a better idea, it is simply because Republicans cannot allow Democrats to get credit for anything that works. That's why Cash for Clunkers is getting stuck, it works and the Right WILL NOT ALLOW Democrats or the president to get credit for it.
 
Is Somebody Lying About “Cash for Clunkers”? - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Congress set aside $1 billion to fund the program. If all of that money was going to pay these subsidies, there would be enough money to pay for 250,000 clunkers.

The program went into place on July 24th. One week later, the program was said to be out of money.


In 2006, before the current ills of the automakers, the average number of new cars sold in a week in the United States was 125,000.


So if you believe the numbers, sales involving clunkers as trade-ins last week represented more than two times the weekly sales of new vehicles when the industry was healthy.


Did car dealers sell 250,000 cars last week? If not, where did the money go?
 
Yes, they did. That's why the CforC program is working, and providing stimulus. Republicans want to kill it for the same reason, because it's working.

Actually, no they didn't. And the actual figures show why the program isn't working.

Democrats trying for GOP support for clunker funds - Yahoo! News
The three lawmakers said administration officials told them that 120,000 new vehicle sales had been processed through the program and an additional 100,000 to 130,000 were expected to be processed to reach the $1 billion set aside. Another $2 billion was expected to generate the sale of about 500,000 more vehicles.

As of Monday afternoon, $563.8 million worth of rebates had been processed through the government program, representing 133,767 new vehicles, according to figures provided by the Department of Transportation.
120,000 new vehicles sold sounds like a good thing, right? No doubt Ford and Government Motors are thrilled to have the sales.

Problem is, it's one week's worth of sales. $2 Billion more in the program is one month's worth of sales at best. That's it.

Then those customers are effectively removed from the new car market for the next three to five years.

That's the problem with this sort of program--it's not stimulating anything, it's merely pulling tomorrow's sales forward to today. Aggregate sales over time are not increased--which would be the result of true stimulative effect. Today's bump in car sales will be tomorrow's slump in car sales.

CARS is the crack cocaine of stimulus. Big high, deep crash, lots of damage left behind.
 
Actually, no they didn't. And the actual figures show why the program isn't working.

Democrats trying for GOP support for clunker funds - Yahoo! News
120,000 new vehicles sold sounds like a good thing, right? No doubt Ford and Government Motors are thrilled to have the sales.

Problem is, it's one week's worth of sales. $2 Billion more in the program is one month's worth of sales at best. That's it.

Then those customers are effectively removed from the new car market for the next three to five years.

That's the problem with this sort of program--it's not stimulating anything, it's merely pulling tomorrow's sales forward to today. Aggregate sales over time are not increased--which would be the result of true stimulative effect. Today's bump in car sales will be tomorrow's slump in car sales.

CARS is the crack cocaine of stimulus. Big high, deep crash, lots of damage left behind.

At the moment, the economy needs crack cocaine. Besides, those buyers will be paying off their new cars for 3 or 4 years, who buys cars with cash?
 
At the moment, the economy needs crack cocaine. Besides, those buyers will be paying off their new cars for 3 or 4 years, who buys cars with cash?
NEEDS crack cocaine? That's wrong. Crack cocaine is dangerous whether we're talking the street drug or economic metaphor--it's a bad idea.

As for folks buying cars on debt--that's not a good thing either. This country needs to unwind its existing debt, not add to it.

As for buying cars with cash--I've done that for the past ten years. My last car, my ex wife's car, and the pickup truck I just bought I paid cash. I don't do debt.
 
Most of the time when Republicans object to a Democratic sponsored program, it is not because they have philosophical differences in the program, it is not because they have a better idea, it is simply because Republicans cannot allow Democrats to get credit for anything that works. That's why Cash for Clunkers is getting stuck, it works and the Right WILL NOT ALLOW Democrats or the president to get credit for it.

tell it to difi, schumer, mccaskill, bingaman...
 
Actually, no they didn't. And the actual figures show why the program isn't working.

Democrats trying for GOP support for clunker funds - Yahoo! News
120,000 new vehicles sold sounds like a good thing, right? No doubt Ford and Government Motors are thrilled to have the sales.

Problem is, it's one week's worth of sales. $2 Billion more in the program is one month's worth of sales at best. That's it.

Then those customers are effectively removed from the new car market for the next three to five years.

That's the problem with this sort of program--it's not stimulating anything, it's merely pulling tomorrow's sales forward to today. Aggregate sales over time are not increased--which would be the result of true stimulative effect. Today's bump in car sales will be tomorrow's slump in car sales.

CARS is the crack cocaine of stimulus. Big high, deep crash, lots of damage left behind.

It amazes me how the "NO!" party has to constantly go against anything and everything these days.. and use failed logic and huge assumptions to attempt to prove their point. And on top of that come with zero alternatives to fixing the mess that they got the world into..

First off, who says that the people using the program would be buying a car in 3 to 5 years any ways? Why this assumption? In dire economic times as we are in now, you do not go out and buy expensive durable goods like a car unless you have too or there is a "good deal". How do I know this? I am from Europe, where "cash for clunkers" has been used by almost every government out there to stimulate the economy in part and it has worked more than it has not. It has also gotten old cars off the roads and improved the average fuel efficiency of the European car park. Without the "cash for clunkers" program the average age of the European car park would be far far higher than it is and have the associated problems with it.

Secondly the opposition to this is going against the very principle of the Republican party.. I guess the Dems should have called it a tax cut for those that buy a new car.. what would the Republican's have done then? And yes it is exactly the same principle, you put money in the hands of the people to buy stuff that in turn stimulates the economy.. that is EXACTLY what the "NO!" party has been attempting to promote through its negative obstructionist policies by claiming that tax cuts would be better than the Obama stimulus plan..and yet they are against this which is in fact a very targeted "tax cut" for people with a certain type of crappy car in need of replacement.. go figure... I guess it is because that it was not a "Tax cut" for the billionaires so it is not a "real tax cut".
 
Last edited:
First off, who says that the people using the program would be buying a car in 3 to 5 years any ways? Why this assumption?
Having a "clunker" makes the assumption a fairly safe one. Such cars are high maintenance and are more likely to completely break down in that time frame.

The point remains, bringing tomorrows sales into today does not increase total sales. It merely books the cash sooner.

Stimulus would need to increase total sales. This does not increase total sales. There is ZERO evidence that it will increase total sales. Even in Germany, there is no evidence of that.
 
It amazes me how the "NO!" party has to constantly go against anything and everything these days.
The ONLY way this (or anything else) can fail to pass Congress is for there to be bipartisan support AGAINST it.
 
Last edited:
It amazes me how the "NO!" party has to constantly go against anything and everything these days.. and use failed logic and huge assumptions to attempt to prove their point. And on top of that come with zero alternatives to fixing the mess that they got the world into..

First off, who says that the people using the program would be buying a car in 3 to 5 years any ways? Why this assumption? In dire economic times as we are in now, you do not go out and buy expensive durable goods like a car unless you have too or there is a "good deal". How do I know this? I am from Europe, where "cash for clunkers" has been used by almost every government out there to stimulate the economy in part and it has worked more than it has not. It has also gotten old cars off the roads and improved the average fuel efficiency of the European car park. Without the "cash for clunkers" program the average age of the European car park would be far far higher than it is and have the associated problems with it.

Secondly the opposition to this is going against the very principle of the Republican party.. I guess the Dems should have called it a tax cut for those that buy a new car.. what would the Republican's have done then? And yes it is exactly the same principle, you put money in the hands of the people to buy stuff that in turn stimulates the economy.. that is EXACTLY what the "NO!" party has been attempting to promote through its negative obstructionist policies by claiming that tax cuts would be better than the Obama stimulus plan..and yet they are against this which is in fact a very targeted "tax cut" for people with a certain type of crappy car in need of replacement.. go figure... I guess it is because that it was not a "Tax cut" for the billionaires so it is not a "real tax cut".

Cash for Clunkers is a broken window fallacy, the government is effectively destroying vehicles in order to buy new ones because they believe that since money is moving it is positive. That isn't how things really work.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window]Parable of the broken window - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Replacing functional cars only because the new cares have a possible (It's a possible not a guaranteed better fuel economy) better fuel economy makes no sense what so ever. In theory, everyone could trade in their econoboxes in for SUV's under this program.
 
Cash for Clunkers is a broken window fallacy, the government is effectively destroying vehicles in order to buy new ones because they believe that since money is moving it is positive. That isn't how things really work.
The Clunker program is nothing more that a federal subsidy for the auto industry -- that is, you and me paying for other people to get cars.

In this, its no different that the first-tim ehome buyer's credit, where you get up to $8k to buy a house.

Every dollar spent on these programs runs the deficit up another dollar.
 
The Clunker program is nothing more that a federal subsidy for the auto industry -- that is, you and me paying for other people to get cars.

In this, its no different that the first-tim ehome buyer's credit, where you get up to $8k to buy a house.

Every dollar spent on these programs runs the deficit up another dollar.

Shifting dollars only gives the illusion of stimulus and it never does anything long term. Your right though it's another type of bailout for the auto industry.

Here is a nifty short essay written about 150ish years ago if you want to read it.
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen; by Frederic Bastiat
 
Shifting dollars only gives the illusion of stimulus and it never does anything long term. Your right though it's another type of bailout for the auto industry.
Shifting dollars was the entire basis of the economy under the USSR.
 
Shifting dollars was the entire basis of the economy under the USSR.

As it is in any economy. The US pumps billions into the military and that is nothing but shifting money to others. The US pumps billions into healthcare and that is also nothing but shifting money to others.
 
As it is in any economy.
The US pumps billions into the military and that is nothing but shifting money to others. The US pumps billions into healthcare and that is also nothing but shifting money to others.
Non-sequitur:
-These things are not the basis for the economy.
-These things arent billed as 'economic stimulus".
 
Most of the time when Republicans object to a Democratic sponsored program, it is not because they have philosophical differences in the program, it is not because they have a better idea, it is simply because Republicans cannot allow Democrats to get credit for anything that works.

That's a meaningless partisan opinion with no factual basis.


That's why Cash for Clunkers is getting stuck, it works and the Right WILL NOT ALLOW Democrats or the president to get credit for it.

No Cash for Clunkers doesn't work. The government borrowing billions more from China, on top of the $11 trillion we already owe them and other nations who hold our debt, in order to create a false market in one industry is not a success. It's an illusion. When the money runs out be it now, or two months from now, the auto industry will experience a downturn back to where they were.
 
PeteEU,

The GOP cannot stop ANYTHING the Dems want to do, the "Party of No" is a myth perpetuated by those that realize the Dem's aren't capable of accomplishing many of their signature "plans" and are looking to shift the blame.
 
Secondly the opposition to this is going against the very principle of the Republican party.. I guess the Dems should have called it a tax cut for those that buy a new car.. what would the Republican's have done then? And yes it is exactly the same principle, you put money in the hands of the people to buy stuff that in turn stimulates the economy..

It's not a tax cut when you didn't pay that much in taxes in the first place. It becomes a welfare handout with borrowed money that has to be paid back.
 
More than likely, but what is the significance of that?

Actually the trend in the U.S. has been ever increasing loan terms (now 5+ years) and not owning the cars for more than 2 years give or take.

That's another reason to be against this program as the old over supplied car market needs to be worked through before new cars can be introduced.
 
It's not a tax cut when you didn't pay that much in taxes in the first place. It becomes a welfare handout with borrowed money that has to be paid back.
Thats exactly right.
One you cut taxes to $0, anything you goive back is welfare.

And, the $ you're giving back had to come from someone elses' pocket.
 
Back
Top Bottom