Comments on: Claire McCaskill Bags On Cash For Clunkers

By: LantermanC

LantermanC — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:05:30 +0000

By shuffling demand around, Claire doesn’t mean just mean that we’re speeding up the car buying process, she means that the person would likely have spent their money on something else, like clothes or a vacation, or a home remodel. We’re just shifting the demand from one sector to another by changing incentives and priorities.
I think Clash for Clunkers is a good idea for the environment, but am skeptical to the economic help it will provide. Also, let’s be honest here, this program is meant to help the poor, which I’m fine with.
It might be wrong, but I wouldn’t have minded seeing a bigger discount if you purchased an American car or more incentive for more fuel efficient cars. After all, if the government owns portions of American car companies, it is in our best interest to see these companies flourish to a point where they can be competitive on their own again.

By: mw

mw — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:46:55 +0000

I am liking McCaskill more and more. She is also calling bullshit on the administration hackery that health care protesters are corporate plants:

"I disagree that the people showing concern over some healthcare proposals are "manufactured" Real folks, strong opinions."

By: Tully

Tully — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:19:31 +0000

And the top-selling vehicle under Cash for Clunkers is ... an SUV! Also in the top 10 are two pickup trucks and another SUV. But apparently you'd never know it from reading the government's reports... Also, it seems like the big winners from C4C is not Government Motors. Ford has done right well.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:27:05 +0000

If we went through a billion dollars in a week, that suggests that maybe we could have had a smaller subsidy (or higher MPG requirements), and still have had plenty of sales.

Kranky – unfortunately, the money isn’t coming out of everyone’s pockets, at least right now. It’s just adding to our colossal national debt. I have genuine fear that we could end up turning into Argentina.

Remember when a billion was a lot of money? Sigh…

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:53:50 +0000

Yes, itâ€™s giving money away. But…

We can always count on you for that one Justin. Since you have proven that you’ll reliably defend every fed gov’t expenditure like this, why bother arguing?

I’ll simply point out that this money is coming out of the pockets of everyone else who pays taxes but didn’t get a car purchase subsidy, and leave it at that.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:44:04 +0000

There’s a little more to the details on this one. Missouri has lost a lot of jobs at companies that supply components that go into new cars and as replacement parts for older ones. Imports, whether assembled in the U.S. or not, do not use those parts. The program, by not requiring purchase of U.S. vehicles disadvantages the so-called “Tier-1″ suppliers who contract to produce things like sparkplugs, water pumps, etc.

Inventory is indeed a problem for Chrysler. I want to C4C a ’93 Grand Cherokee for the ’09 Patriot. Last week there wasn’t one in inventory anywhere in the state of Missouri.

Claire: thanks for using common sense in place of party politics to represent us … even this one voter who never market the Democrat side of a ballot until voting against Jim Talent.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:49:18 +0000

Of the top 10 models of cars destroyed by the program, all ten are from American auto companies. Of the top 10 models purchased in exchange for the "clunkers," 6 are foreign. The federal deficit is being increased in order to destroy perfectly functional cars, who's replacement parts are made in America, in order to encourage Americans to go deeper into debt to finance new foreign-brand automobiles. The government is doing everything it can in order to re-flate the consumer debt bubble and massive trade imbalances of the past decade. What happens when ineterest rates have to rise again?