A Cash for Clunkers retrospect

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons
of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons
a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline
consumption by 320 gallons per vehicle, per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per
year. That equates to a bit over five million barrels of oil. Five
million barrels is about five hours worth of US consumption. More
importantly, five million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about
$350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program
to save $350 million. That mean’s we spend $8.57 for every dollar
saved. How good a deal was that?

Now think what a great job our Clunkers in Congress will do on Health
Care.

Some say, “The only positive thing about the “Cash for Clunkers”
program is that it took thousands of Obama bumper stickers off the
road.”


But remember, over-taxed payers— ALL members of Congress have to run
for re-election next year. What a wonderful opportunity it’ll be to
flush the toilet.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:31:00 -0700 (PDT), "Pete E. Kruzer"
> wrote:

>A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons
>of gas a year.
>
>A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons
>a year.
>
>So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline
>consumption by 320 gallons per vehicle, per year.
>
> They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per
>year. That equates to a bit over five million barrels of oil. Five
>million barrels is about five hours worth of US consumption. More
>importantly, five million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about
>$350 million dollars
>
>So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program
>to save $350 million. That mean’s we spend $8.57 for every dollar
>saved. How good a deal was that?
>
> Now think what a great job our Clunkers in Congress will do on Health
>Care.
>
>Some say, “The only positive thing about the “Cash for Clunkers”
>program is that it took thousands of Obama bumper stickers off the
>road.”
>
>
> But remember, over-taxed payers— ALL members of Congress have to run
>for re-election next year. What a wonderful opportunity it’ll be to
>flush the toilet.

Why did you pick a year as your analysis period. You could have
picked a month instead and then you could make it look even worse. Or
you could pick some reasonable time period, say 8 years, and then it
would be about even. You also ignore the potential benefit of getting
some cash flowing in the economy rather quickly. A benefit that is
hard to quantify but almost certainly a benefit and potentially a
large one. There are a lot of subtle economic effects going on and
you ignore them all.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:31:00 -0700 (PDT), "Pete E. Kruzer"
> > wrote:
>
>> A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons
>> of gas a year.
>>
>> A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons
>> a year.
>>
>> So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline
>> consumption by 320 gallons per vehicle, per year.
>>
>> They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per
>> year. That equates to a bit over five million barrels of oil. Five
>> million barrels is about five hours worth of US consumption. More
>> importantly, five million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about
>> $350 million dollars
>>
>> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program
>> to save $350 million. That mean’s we spend $8.57 for every dollar
>> saved. How good a deal was that?
>>
>> Now think what a great job our Clunkers in Congress will do on Health
>> Care.
>>
>> Some say, “The only positive thing about the “Cash for Clunkers”
>> program is that it took thousands of Obama bumper stickers off the
>> road.”
>>
>>
>> But remember, over-taxed payers— ALL members of Congress have to run
>> for re-election next year. What a wonderful opportunity it’ll be to
>> flush the toilet.
>
> Why did you pick a year as your analysis period. You could have
> picked a month instead and then you could make it look even worse. Or
> you could pick some reasonable time period, say 8 years, and then it
> would be about even. You also ignore the potential benefit of getting
> some cash flowing in the economy rather quickly. A benefit that is
> hard to quantify but almost certainly a benefit and potentially a
> large one. There are a lot of subtle economic effects going on and
> you ignore them all.


Pretty typical of brute force anti-change "analysis".

In article
>,
"Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:

> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program
> to save $350 million. That mean¹s we spend $8.57 for every dollar
> saved. How good a deal was that?
>
> Now think what a great job our Clunkers in Congress will do on Health
> Care.
>
> Some say, ³The only positive thing about the ³Cash for Clunkers²
> program is that it took thousands of Obama bumper stickers off the
> road.²

By illustrating your political bias, you lost my respect for your
posting.

Spam away wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>
>> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program
>> to save $350 million. That mean¹s we spend $8.57 for every dollar
>> saved. How good a deal was that?
>>
>> Now think what a great job our Clunkers in Congress will do on Health
>> Care.
>>
>> Some say, ³The only positive thing about the ³Cash for Clunkers²
>> program is that it took thousands of Obama bumper stickers off the
>> road.²
>
> By illustrating your political bias, you lost my respect for your
> posting.

Hah! I'm sure he's just absolutely devastated by that.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> Spam away wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>>
>>> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program
>>> to save $350 million. That mean¹s we spend $8.57 for every dollar
>>> saved. How good a deal was that?
>>>
>>> Now think what a great job our Clunkers in Congress will do on Health
>>> Care.
>>>
>>> Some say, ³The only positive thing about the ³Cash for Clunkers²
>>> program is that it took thousands of Obama bumper stickers off the
>>> road.²
>>
>> By illustrating your political bias, you lost my respect for your
>> posting.
>
> Hah! I'm sure he's just absolutely devastated by that.
>

And he gained some respect elsewhere.... :-)

Steve wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> Spam away wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars for this program
>>>> to save $350 million. That mean¹s we spend $8.57 for every dollar
>>>> saved. How good a deal was that?
>>>>
>>>> Now think what a great job our Clunkers in Congress will do on Health
>>>> Care.
>>>>
>>>> Some say, ³The only positive thing about the ³Cash for Clunkers²
>>>> program is that it took thousands of Obama bumper stickers off the
>>>> road.²
>>>
>>> By illustrating your political bias, you lost my respect for your
>>> posting.
>>
>> Hah! I'm sure he's just absolutely devastated by that.
>>
>
> And he gained some respect elsewhere.... :-)

See how that balances out?

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')