Cash for Clunkers, Obamacare, and Government Maff

September 14, 2009 12:00 PM 11 comments

I received this email recently and just had to share it:

I guess I must be on the wrong page?

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

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

They claim 700,000 vehicles, right?  So that’s 224 million gallons per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.  5 million barrels of oil is about half of one day’s US oil imports.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $70 per barrel.

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

How good a deal was that ???

They’ll probably do a great job with health care though!!!

 

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.

 

11 Comments

  • Yup, that’s right. We are all suckers and anybody that believes that the “clunker” program was a good idea doesn’t understand that it was a giant government marketing scheme. And guess what? Now that people have nice, new cars to drive, they will probably be apt to drive more. More driving, more car exhaust. Whoppee.
    .-= vulcanhammer´s last blog ..Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug dies at 95 =-.

  • You lost me at the second math problem. Is there anyway you can explain this without so much math please? My brain just isn’t conditioned to think about numbers.
    .-= Burro´s last blog ..Universal Prosperity Insurance =-.

  • That’s the answer you get when you use government math. The equation is missing the interest that has to be paid on the 3 billion borrowed dollars that was used to pay for the cash for clunkers program.
    .-= Forgotten Liberty´s last blog ..9/12 Tea Party in D.C. What a Turnout! =-.

  • You are only factoring in the first year’s savings. Presumably a lot of the cars traded in would have been driven more than one year, and of course the life expectancy of new cars might be up to ten years. So there will be more savings in coming years. You are also not factoring in the boost to the economy from all of these new car purchases. The benefits of this program were not just environmental, but also economic stimulus. The cash for clunkers program helped to reduce dealer inventory and increase demand for new vehicles.
    .-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Nixonland =-.

    • Yes but consumers have a limited number of dollars. Money spent on cars was pulled away from money spent on clothing, televisions, vacations, etc. And as someone working in the car industry I can tell you sales of cars have slowed a lot since the program ended, charities stopped getting donations, used cars became more expensive, and poor people who need a very cheap car to buy can’t find them anymore.

  • After almost 2 decades of stagnant growth induced by massive govt. stimulus spending, it is nice to see that we, also, are willing to help stimulate the Japanese economy through irresponsible government spending.
    .-= burro´s last blog ..Universal Prosperity Insurance =-.

  • I agree with you, the numbers just don’t justify the cost of cash for clunkers. In addition, 700,000 cars that ran were destroyed. Many of them were in good shape. This has had a large negative impact on auto repair shops, parts stores, used car sales, car donation charities and low income citizens. All of this could have and should have been avoided.

  • Remember that this program was set in place as an effort to provide a stimulus response within the automotive sector in the last two fiscal quarters of the year. We will not see the results for several months if not next fiscal year. Just because the results are scant right now, doesn’t mean it was a total failure.
    .-= Donate Used Cars´s last blog ..REPORT: Ford could have problems with SYNC patents =-.

Leave a Reply


*
CommentLuv badge

Trackbacks

Other News