Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24k per car?

[Wraith]

Edmunds: Ya rly.
White House: No wai!Yesterday, Edmunds released an analysis of the Cash for Clunkers program. It concluded that each car purchased under the program cost the taxpayers roughly $24,000. You can read the full release here (http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html) to see how we arrived at that number.

Well, it appears as though the White House doesn't like people going around calling its programs expensive. "This is the latest of several critical 'analyses' of the Cash for Clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn't withstand even basic scrutiny," it wrote on the official White House blog.

We have, of course, responded (http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159486/article.html). Decide for yourself who's right here, we know where we stand.White House Disputes Edmunds' Cash for Clunkers Analysis (http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/10/white-house-disputes-edmunds-cash-for-clunkers-analysis.html) (Edmunds)



Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold (http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html) (Edmunds)


Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/10/29/busy-covering-car-sales-mars-edmundscom-gets-it-wrong-again-cash-clunkers) (White House)


Edmunds.com Responds to White House Comments on Cash for Clunkers Analysis (http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159486/article.html) (Edmunds)

[Generation ABXY]

Does anyone else think that this administration seems to have some particularly thin skin?

[ShivaX]

Does anyone else think that this administration seems to have some particularly thin skin?

I imagine thats the side effect of people saying outlandish shit on a daily basis and having it accepted as fact. The media sure isn't going to bother to factcheck anything, so it falls on them to do it.

I mean after literally months of "death panels" I can't blame them for being a little jumpy.

[Generation ABXY]

So, was that a yes? ;)

[Vulture]

i don't think thin skinned is the proper characterization. i am unfortunately at a loss to find an equatable characterization.

it seems the responses issued form the white house are, well, mayb necessary now? as shiva has said, who the fuck is gonna fact check this?

[Kagger]

i don't think thin skinned is the proper characterization. i am unfortunately at a loss to find an equatable characterization.

it seems the responses issued form the white house are, well, mayb necessary now? as shiva has said, who the fuck is gonna fact check this?

Clearly not CNN, because it wasn't on SNL.

[ShivaX]

So, was that a yes? ;)

It was a "Yes, but I understand why."

[Xerxes]

Clearly not CNN, because it wasn't on SNL.

Don't get the Ref!

Also, maybe the administration should move to ignoring every thing in the media. Worked for the last guy.:eek:

[Widgetcraft]

Maybe I'm just not following Edmunds' logic... They seem to be saying that, because some of these sales would have happened anyway (according to their projections based on previous years), we were paying the full price for the car purchases, or something? I don't really get it, I tried reading the articles at Edmunds.com thoroughly but most of it just seemed to be bashing the program instead of explaining the number they came up with.

[Khrymsyn]

Maybe I'm just not following Edmunds' logic... They seem to be saying that, because some of these sales would have happened anyway (according to their projections based on previous years), we were paying the full price for the car purchases, or something? I don't really get it, I tried reading the articles at Edmunds.com thoroughly but most of it just seemed to be bashing the program instead of explaining the number they came up with.

Basically, to boil it down to the best of my understanding, Edmunds is saying this...
(I'm only going to use one month as an example)
In August of 09, 1.26 million cars were sold. Normally in August, estimated sales would be approximately 1.22 million cars. Therefore due to cash for clunkers, in reality there was only 45k cars sold due to cash for clunkers in the month of August.

By estimating expected sales per month, and adding/subtracting what actually happened, it appears the Cash for Clunkers system only increased overall car sales volume by 125,000 cars. The cost of the program was 3 billion. So, 3 billion divided by 125,000 cars = $24000 total taxpayer cost per increased car sale.

It ignores any other economic aspect or environmental aspect. Just examines A) cost of program divided by B) actual estimated increase in sales over expectation.

[jeffbax]

Regardless of what it cost, it was a stupid program to begin with and should have never happened. It accomplished nothing but wasting another $3 billion. If people really want to save money, they can buy used already.

[Narradisall]

I would have liked a system similar to the German one. Thats much more of a environmental rather than economical scheme though.

[Goronmon]

It ignores any other economic aspect or environmental aspect. Just examines A) cost of program divided by B) actual estimated increase in sales over expectation.Which to me seems like a worthless analysis and worthy of criticism.

[Khrymsyn]

Which to me seems like a worthless analysis and worthy of criticism.

ALL analysis is worthless without context and discussion.

In the case of this Edmunds report, it appears all they are saying is that Cash for Clunkers was damn expensive for what it did. Is it worthless analysis? I'd say that highly depends on how you feel about the program to begin with.

[Goronmon]

Edit: I find it interesting that the first month for Cash for Clunkers, Edmunds thinks the program actually hurt sales. I wonder how they account for that.

[CappinCanuck]

Edit: I find it interesting that the first month for Cash for Clunkers, Edmunds thinks the program actually hurt sales. I wonder how they account for that.

Oh, there's plenty of fucked up logic all over the analysis. I saved $5 because i didn't buy a Starbucks latte, so I have $5 dollars more/saved. See, I can make stupid analysis up too that seems like something is being worked out but really, it's bullshit. (I don't actually have any more money)

I couldn't be bothered to waste any more brain power on this ass of a report. The fact that it's getting attention, despite heaping of manure, is the very reason I'm so happy that the White House went after it right away. Too bad it took them so long to grow a pair.