"Washington — The nearly $3 billion “Cash for Clunkers” program approved by Congress in 2009 did little to boost the environment and created few jobs, a new study released Wednesday found."
"A Brookings Institution study found the $2.85 billion program “provided a short-term boost in vehicle sales, which were pulled forward from sales that would have occurred in subsequent months. There was a small increase in employment but the implied cost per job created ($1.4 million) was far higher than other fiscal stimulus programs.”
"The study — from researchers Ted Gayer and Emily Parker — said the “Car Allowance Rebate System,” or CARS did little to boost employment. This is at least the fourth major study since 2012 that has raised questions about the value of the program."
From The Detroit News
7 comments:
Raised questions about the value????
There are no questions. The program was an unvarnished give-away to auto manufacturers with the brunt borne in the short term by the poorest segment of the population who could not find affordable used cars for a year (my son), and in the long run by whomever will have to pay back $3 billion dollars plus interest while choking their own economic growth to do so (my son and his generation).
The real winners in these government programs are the guys who come up with the catchy names like "Cash for Clunkers" and "Car Allowance Rebate System."
Like we needed a study to show this. They could have called it Cash for our Voters.
A Brookings Institution study found the $2.85 billion program “provided a short-term boost in vehicle sales, which were pulled forward from sales that would have occurred in subsequent months.
Really? The "Oldest Think Tank" just now figured that out?
Study says 'Cash for Clunkers' created few jobs
In fact, the only jobs it created were those for think tank researchers trying to determine if it created any jobs.
Duh.
Who didn't know this was a failure and a flop. Not only did it not do what it proposed, it removed perfectly good used cars from the market. Many poor people cannot afford to buy a new car. Even IF you consider the savings from having a vehicle with higher gas mileage capabilities, the cost of buying a new car versus just buying an older car and getting somewhat less mileage just doesn't pencil out. The best value is in buying the older car. Costs less. Less to insure and register. Plus many don't even have to be smogged. It is a no brainer. poorer people, young people getting a first car: the older vehicle is the best bang for the buck.
Not only did the market for used cars become more expensive, due to lack of supply, the availability of parts for those cars and trucks that people (like myself) continue to drive has become more expensive. Parts are harder to find.
Everything that this clusterfuck of a President and the Liberals touch turns to ashes. We are so screwed, because we will never be able to muster enough people with the brains to vote them out.
Once again, conservative pretty much said this would happen and it did. Want to know more?
Post a Comment