Cash for Clunkers quickly runs out of initial $1 billion

[myp]

As many of you have probably heard, the Cash for Clunkers program ran out of its initial funding very shortly after it was started. Now, Congress is trying to pass another $2 billion in funding (the House already voted yes and the Senate is due to vote on Monday.)

It really is amazing how bad the government is at spending and projecting its expenses. If it can't handle something like this, do you really want it handling healthcare?

Some are making the claim that since the $1 billion went by so fast, the program has been a success. They say that consumer spending has gone up by $1 billion. This is NOT TRUE. Where do you think the $1 billion came from? It came from naturally successful parts of the market and was redistributed into naturally unsuccessful parts. It is a redistribution of wealth and in this case the left can't even make claims such as rights because none of those people had a "right" to a new car.

 

[David]

Where do you think the $1 billion came from? It came from naturally successful parts of the market and was redistributed into naturally unsuccessful parts. It is a redistribution of wealth and in this case the left can't even make claims such as rights because none of those people had a "right" to a new car.

Um, no. It came from the stimulus package using undedicated funds placed in said package for any ideas the Fed's or state gov'ts came up with after it's passing, such as CARS.

And this has nothing to do with 'rights' so much as getting gas guzzling jalopies with falling off parts off the roads.

And 1 last thing, why does the right call every public spending project 'redistribution of wealth'? Redistribution of wealth, from a socialist perspective, simply means giving people their fair share. After all, who built all the skyscrapers in New Your City? Major corporations or construction workers? Thus redistribution of wealth in this case would be a more representative splitting of the profits between the corporation that planed the building, the architect that designed it and the construction workers that built it. Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean equal and meaningless distribution of wealth.

 

[DodgeFB]

I saw some of those cars. There are some good dependable cars and trucks that could be used for good things being turned into rubble. It takes energy to recycle all that stuff. And if there is one thing this country does not need it is more junk.

 

[David]

I saw some of those cars. There are some good dependable cars and trucks that could be used for good things being turned into rubble. It takes energy to recycle all that stuff. And if there is one thing this country does not need it is more junk.

I do agree that simply junking the cars is a bad idea but the idea of getting them off the roads is quite good.

 

[Dirk]

And 1 last thing, why does the right call every public spending project 'redistribution of wealth'? Redistribution of wealth, from a socialist perspective, simply means giving people their fair share. After all, who built all the skyscrapers in New Your City? Major corporations or construction workers? Thus redistribution of wealth in this case would be a more representative splitting of the profits between the corporation that planed the building, the architect that designed it and the construction workers that built it. Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean equal and meaningless distribution of wealth.

Precisely. It means fair pay. Not uniform pay. And, if a Government exists, proportionate taxation (as outlined in the constitution).

Our society has evolved into one where one class owns the tools and the other uses them.

The Cash For Clunkers scheme is for environmental benefit (and is otherwise just make-work) - the UK's Government Scrappage Incentive and Germany's equivalent have been very successful by their own standards.

Actually, you may be surprised to discover that i'm opposed to the scheme, even though i'm for the environment. Allow me to explain.

You may think this is some outrageously socialist system - probably for no other reason than that it involves the Government. Which is frankly ironic.

However, the scheme is only for the benefit of the corporate machine. It ends up that there is an artificial demand created. Auto corporations fill the gap by a higher production rate - and thus, create more cash (for themselves). In fact, it discriminates against the worker, who is likely to own an older model and, indeed, an older and cheaper car. Incidentally, the funds for this exercise for corporate profit come from the pocketbooks of the tax-paying worker.

 

[myp]

Um, no. It came from the stimulus package using undedicated funds placed in said package for any ideas the Fed's or state gov'ts came up with after it's passing, such as CARS.

And where did that money come from?

And this has nothing to do with 'rights' so much as getting gas guzzling jalopies with falling off parts off the roads.

Considering that some of the cars were only a few years old and that $1 billion of OUR money went to replacing ~250k of the ~62 million cars in America, I would say it was a very inefficient program. Not to mention, as DodgeFB said, that junking the cars takes a lot of energy as well, which in turn hurts the environment.

And 1 last thing, why does the right call every public spending project 'redistribution of wealth'? Redistribution of wealth, from a socialist perspective, simply means giving people their fair share. After all, who built all the skyscrapers in New Your City? Major corporations or construction workers? Thus redistribution of wealth in this case would be a more representative splitting of the profits between the corporation that planed the building, the architect that designed it and the construction workers that built it. Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean equal and meaningless distribution of wealth.

$1 billion from the pockets of over 300 million current and future Americans went to 250k people- I would say that is redistribution. Most public spending projects are redistribution and that is why people call them that. Even if you consider workers in situations such as big public works, that will only add a few thousand to those who received and it will in no way equal it out for the hundreds of millions that didn't.

The Cash For Clunkers scheme is for environmental benefit (and is otherwise just make-work) - the UK's Government Scrappage Incentive and Germany's equivalent have been very successful by their own standards.

I can make the argument that it doesn't help the environment much considering the scrapping costs and such.

However, the scheme is only for the benefit of the corporate machine. It ends up that there is an artificial demand created. Auto corporations fill the gap by a higher production rate - and thus, create more cash (for themselves). In fact, it discriminates against the worker, who is likely to own an older model and, indeed, an older and cheaper car. Incidentally, the funds for this exercise for corporate profit come from the pocketbooks of the tax-paying worker.

Most government programs concentrate their benefits to a small group of people, whether it be a corporation or a wealth bracket.

 

[Dirk]

And where did that money come from?

The working taxpayer, mostly.

$1 billion from the pockets of over 300 million current and future Americans went to 250k people- I would say that is redistribution. Most public spending projects are redistribution and that is why people call them that. Even if you consider workers in situations such as big public works, that will only add a few thousand to those who received and it will in no way equal it out for the hundreds of millions that didn't.

Oh, it's redistribution alright. But hardly to the people who need it.

I can make the argument that it doesn't help the environment much considering the scrapping costs and such.

You could indeed. And i could imagine this is a reference to Dodge's point, and again, i would agree with you. I was meaning to suggest that environmental aid was the original intention.

Most government programs concentrate their benefits to a small group of people, whether it be a corporation or a wealth bracket.

I couldn't agree more.