Cash for clunkers program great success. - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

baddog

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Apr 2001

Posts: 107089
Share

Post
#1

Cash for clunkers program great success.

10-29-2009, 05:09 PM

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com..._blg=1,1341914

The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.

Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program.

The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.
Tags: None
Deej

I make pixels work

Join Date: Jun 2005

Posts: 24386
Share

Post
#2

10-29-2009, 05:11 PM

Obama HAter!!!

Deej's Designs n' What Not
Hit me up for Design, CSS & Photo Retouching

Icq#30096880
Comment
Deej

I make pixels work

Join Date: Jun 2005

Posts: 24386
Share

Post
#3

10-29-2009, 05:12 PM

Acute Observation... right

Deej's Designs n' What Not
Hit me up for Design, CSS & Photo Retouching

Icq#30096880
Comment
mynameisjim

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2007

Posts: 2985
Share

Post
#4

10-29-2009, 05:21 PM

Yep, auto sales went from negative to positive and it would have happened anyway during a recession and a tight credit market.

Sure.

Edmond's has written two stories using very dubious numbers and statistical methodology to bad mouth the program. I'm not sure what their agenda is but they clearly do not like this program on an editorial level.

jim (at) amateursconvert . com Amateurs Convert
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#5

10-29-2009, 05:24 PM

I was not for the program. I do find those numbers very disturbing and well they feel like BS.

Though I will admit the program by all other reasonable accounts did more than it was planned on doing. BTW, I am judging most of my programs thoughts on what it was before they jacked it as a economic move and not the environmental one it started as.

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
Sly

Let's do some business!

Join Date: Sep 2004

Posts: 31378
Share

Post
#6

10-29-2009, 05:34 PM

The administration is now attacking Edmunds saying those numbers are deceiving. So who knows.

It's government. It's a given it costs way more than anyone will ever let on.

Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.
Comment
marketsmart

HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 20419
Share

Post
#7

10-29-2009, 05:42 PM

i read that people bought cars they couldnt afford because of the program and that the repo rate will be ridiculous in the next 24 months...
Comment
mynameisjim

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2007

Posts: 2985
Share

Post
#8

10-29-2009, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by marketsmart

i read that people bought cars they couldnt afford because of the program and that the repo rate will be ridiculous in the next 24 months...

That was also an Edmund's report that got re-reported in a bunch of different places.

I would ask Edmund's why both of their reports contradict each other. One says that people bought cars they couldn't afford because of the program. The other says that people would have bought cars regardless of the program.

Can't have it both ways.

jim (at) amateursconvert . com Amateurs Convert
Comment
BlackCrayon

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 19634
Share

Post
#9

10-29-2009, 06:03 PM

Why did it cost the government 24k per car when they were only paying for 4500 each? They seem to have forgot to mention why..

you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..
Comment
jMEGA

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 671
Share

Post
#10

10-29-2009, 06:18 PM

You Racist!

Design | SEO | Photo / Video Editing
( ICQ 49354667 )
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#11

10-29-2009, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by BlackCrayon

Why did it cost the government 24k per car when they were only paying for 4500 each? They seem to have forgot to mention why..

Because they are saying people would of bought the cars anyways. So for every 4500 they gave up on a car they would of already bought just adds to the costs.

What is their take on the original issue of the plan, you know the environmental one? Ya remember removing X number of cars from the road forever, bumping gas millage over cars people were driving, etc.

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
Sly

Let's do some business!

Join Date: Sep 2004

Posts: 31378
Share

Post
#12

10-29-2009, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by mynameisjim

That was also an Edmund's report that got re-reported in a bunch of different places.

I would ask Edmund's why both of their reports contradict each other. One says that people bought cars they couldn't afford because of the program. The other says that people would have bought cars regardless of the program.

Can't have it both ways.

No, those are two separate things. You may initially intend on spending $15,000 to purchase a new car, then a program comes along and you spend $30,000 to purchase a new car (which you can't afford.)

Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.
Comment
DaddyHalbucks

A freakin' legend!

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 18975
Share

Post
#13

10-29-2009, 06:36 PM

There are some really bad polluters on the road, but like many things, it comes down to cost/ benefit. Is it worth $24k each to get them off the road? I dunno.

Boner Money
Comment
theking

Nice Kitty

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 21053
Share

Post
#14

10-29-2009, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by DaddyHalbucks

There are some really bad polluters on the road, but like many things, it comes down to cost/ benefit. Is it worth $24k each to get them off the road? I dunno.

125,000 won't make a dent in pollution caused by cars...there are millions of cars on the road.

When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...http://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html
Comment
After Shock Media

It's coming look busy

Join Date: Mar 2001

Posts: 35299
Share

Post
#15

10-29-2009, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by theking

125,000 won't make a dent in pollution caused by cars...there are millions of cars on the road.

Technically it does. Sort of how math works and all.

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
Comment
theking

Nice Kitty

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 21053
Share

Post
#16

10-29-2009, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

Technically it does. Sort of how math works and all.

Technically it will not make a measurable dent in pollution caused by cars or the gas that is consumed by cars.

Last edited by theking; 10-29-2009, 07:03 PM.

When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...http://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html
Comment
The Demon

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 7336
Share

Post
#17

10-29-2009, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by baddog

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com..._blg=1,1341914

The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.

Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program.

The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.

Most people don't understand the different between real growth and artificial growth. If a consumer buys a car now within the cash for clunkers program, he's not going to buy the car he planned to buy in 2011. These stupid stimulus programs don't do a damn thing. People need to stop blindly listening to Bernanke and Obama's administration. They've failed in virtually every economic aspect they've engaged in since Obama became president.

Greed is Good
Comment
Wagerboy

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2006

Posts: 2290
Share

Post
#18

10-29-2009, 07:05 PM

Edmounds makes money based off USED cars, NOT new like the Cash For Clunkers program required. Trust me, I know

The Main Program That Makes Me Fucking Money!!

Teens Getting Pounded
Comment
will76

Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 18037
Share

Post
#19

10-29-2009, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by baddog

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com..._blg=1,1341914

The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.

Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program.

The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.

How did it cost tax payers $24,000 for a car when the max credit they were giving was like 3 or 4K ???

ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread)
FNCash | Media Revenue
Comment
will76

Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 18037
Share

Post
#20

10-29-2009, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by marketsmart

i read that people bought cars they couldnt afford because of the program and that the repo rate will be ridiculous in the next 24 months...

I don't follow the logic, it was just a 3 - 4K credit.

People who buy things that can't afford typically have to finance it. The banks, especially the way they are now are not going to let people finance a lot more t han they can afford. How much income you make and your credit score is factored in.

So its not like, well we could only get financed for a 20K car, but now that there is a 3-4K credit we can go buy a 50K car and finance 46K... Sorry doesn't work that way.

More realistically people should have used the credit to buy what they would have normally been approved for, for 4K less. If they were normally approved to finance 20K they should have bought the 20K car and financed 16K because of the credit, saving them money. But in most cases if they were approved to finance 20K they probably bought a 24K car, used the 4K credit to get them back down to 20K. So they get a little nicer car but have no savings on their monthly note because of the credit.

ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread)
FNCash | Media Revenue
Comment
Pleasurepays

BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 11913
Share

Post
#21

10-29-2009, 07:22 PM

BREAKING NEWS - In an unprecedented move, a Presidents Administration pats itself on the back for its own efforts, declaring them a success.
Comment
baddog

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Apr 2001

Posts: 107089
Share

Post
#22

10-29-2009, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by mynameisjim

That was also an Edmund's report that got re-reported in a bunch of different places.

I would ask Edmund's why both of their reports contradict each other. One says that people bought cars they couldn't afford because of the program. The other says that people would have bought cars regardless of the program.

Can't have it both ways.

They did not say everyone.

Originally posted by will76

How did it cost tax payers $24,000 for a car when the max credit they were giving was like 3 or 4K ???

I guess you did not bother to read the article.

The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
Comment
marketsmart

HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 20419
Share

Post
#23

10-29-2009, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by will76

I don't follow the logic, it was just a 3 - 4K credit.

People who buy things that can't afford typically have to finance it. The banks, especially the way they are now are not going to let people finance a lot more t han they can afford. How much income you make and your credit score is factored in.
.

people bought cars.. without the credit, they would have stayed in the cars they were driving.. thats what i read..

US people are dumb and can't seem to pass up a good deal..

same reason why people bought houses with interest only loans knowing they couldnt afford the payments when the mortgages reset...

its the whole credit model in the US... why not buy today and pay tomorrow..

its the "whimpie model from popeye"...

Last edited by marketsmart; 10-29-2009, 09:05 PM.
Comment
will76

Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 18037
Share

Post
#24

10-29-2009, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by baddog

I guess you did not bother to read the article.

No I didn't. So if they divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle. But yet they were only giving people a 3-4K credit. WTF did the rest of the money go???

Originally posted by marketsmart

people bought cars.. without the credit, they would have stayed in the cars they were driving.. thats what i read..

US people are dumb and can't seem to pass up a good deal..

same reason why people bought houses with interest only loans knowing they couldnt afford the payments when the mortgages reset...

The housing deal was totally different, you had the govt trying to be PC and make sure EVERYONE can get a new house. You had people getting financed with 0 down without showing any tax returns to prove income. While the people were stupid enough to do it, the govt and greedy mortgage brokers allowed them to do it.

Much much different with car loans. Go try to get a car loan with bad credit and no income, good luck. Especially these days. The people might want a car they can't afford, but in 99% of the cases they not going to be allowed to get it.

Last edited by will76; 10-29-2009, 09:09 PM.

ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread)
FNCash | Media Revenue
Comment
marketsmart

HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 20419
Share

Post
#25

10-29-2009, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by will76

No I didn't. So if they divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle. But yet they were only giving people a 3-4K credit. WTF did the rest of the money go???

The housing deal was totally different, you had the govt trying to be PC and make sure EVERYONE can get a new house. You had people getting financed with 0 down without showing any tax returns to prove income. While the people were stupid enough to do it, the govt and greedy mortgage brokers allowed them to do it.

Much much different with car loans. Go try to get a car loan with bad credit and no income, good luck. Especially these days. The people might want a car they can't afford, but in 99% of the cases they not going to be allowed to get it.

you are missing the point... people with good credit make dumb decisions too...

what i read was that people bought cars with payments that they could barely afford...
Comment
baddog

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Apr 2001

Posts: 107089
Share

Post
#26

10-29-2009, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by will76

No I didn't. So if they divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle. But yet they were only giving people a 3-4K credit. WTF did the rest of the money go???

Probably processing the paperwork.
Comment
cykoe6

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2005

Posts: 4499
Share

Post
#27

10-29-2009, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by will76

But yet they were only giving people a 3-4K credit. WTF did the rest of the money go???

Originally posted by baddog

Probably processing the paperwork.

The government's specialty is taking a dollar and turning it into 10 cents.

бабки, шлюхи, сила
Comment
STAROTICA

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 1079
Share

Post
#28

02-03-2010, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by marketsmart

i read that people bought cars they couldnt afford because of the program and that the repo rate will be ridiculous in the next 24 months...

and that is not generating jobs....HOW????

look at all the new jobs in the repossession sector to come!!!!
Comment
moeloubani

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 4235
Share

Post
#29

02-03-2010, 09:55 PM

americans shit on again by their government....again
Comment
WarChild

Let slip the dogs of war.

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 17263
Share

Post
#30

02-03-2010, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by will76

No I didn't. So if they divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle. But yet they were only giving people a 3-4K credit. WTF did the rest of the money go???

It's pretty simple really.

690,000 cars were sold in total. So you divide the 3 Billion by 690,000 cars. It works out to $4347 and change per car sold.

What they are trying to say, is that of those 690,000 sold only 18% of them were sold specifically because of the cash for clunkers program. They somehow claim that the remaining 82% of cars would have been sold even if no program existed. So instead of dividing the $3 Billion spent by 690,000 cars to get ~$4350 per car, they're diving the $3 Billion by 18% of the total 690,000 cars sold or about 124200.

3,000,000,000 / 124200 = $24154 and change or roughly $24,000 cost per car.

.
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...