The GOP candidates are seem to spend as much time talking about Obama as they do their primary opponents. But I haven’t heard any of them bring up ‘Cash for Clunkers’. Likewise, I don’t hear any Dems bring it up as a plus for Obama.
Have I just missed it or has ‘Cash for Clunkers’ fallen off the radar for both parties? And if so, why?
It was pretty popular, as I recall. Lots of people now own cars that they purchased partly with money from CfC, and most of them don’t want to be told that they’re contributing to the socialization of America by having done so. As to why the Democrats aren’t talking about it, well, they’re trying to let the GOP self-destruct in the primaries for as long as possible. The longer the Democrats can go without having to to argue, the more impact their arguments will have on Election Day. They want as many positive things as possible in the news cycle then, so they’re not bringing them up now.
Too long ago.
It was a popular program, so the GOP isn’t in a hurry to bring it up. On the other hand, the evidence that it was effective is pretty mixed, so Obama probably isn’t in a hurry to bring it up. On the other other hand, the auto-industry is doing pretty well (or at least, better), so while cash for clunkers may not have been a great program, the wider gov’t intervention into the auto industry seems to have done what it set out to do (which some Dopers may argue wasn’t such a great goal in the first place, but I doubt most American voters would agree).
So I suspect Obama will talk up the general program of saving the auto-industry as the election gets closer, but probably not refer to C4C specifically.
Also C4C helped Japanese automakers as well as American ones. But, you have to keep these things simple, and the auto bailout leading to both a profit for the government, preserved jobs, and a US auto industry growing in market share is a much simpler message.
Interesting timing, given this recent news item:
Quoting above is from an AP story pulled from the Chicago Tribune online.
The evidence is mixed? Companies on the verge of collapse have current car sales (that admittedly cannibalize future car sales) to keep them afloat long enough for (a) the eocnomy to recover and (b) for them to get their respective houses in order. It wasn’t a magic bullet but it was helpful wasn’t it?
Really! That could be a great sign for the economy if people are able to buy new cars. If they’re not, though, it’ll probably spiral downwards as the poorest people spend more and more of their income trying to keep a crappy old car running for another thousand miles.
Cars tend to cost a fairly constant amount to run after about ten years. There will be the occasional major blowup but generally it averages $500-$1000 worth of maintenance per year for stuff built between 1988 and 2000.
Cash For Clunkers was important only to car junkies like myself who saw some valuable, rare iron destroyed. It really made no difference one way or the other economically. If you’re going to attack a sitting President you might want to fire away at something big, like unemployment in the face of by far the largest increase of the national debt in history.
But even that isn’t going to get the job done. Unless we have a total economic collapse or someone gets pictures of President Obama in the Oval Office doing something untoward he’s a mortal lock, and even then it will be close. The Republicans have nothing to offer this election cycle. Obama has the charisma and the image that the others lack. Cash For Clunkers can’t even begin to damage that.
It made a big difference. It is hard to find a better way to reduce pollution than taking some really, really nasty old cars off the road; the older the better. In the same way, it almost certainly saved some lives as at least some deathtraps were replaced by safe, modern cars.
All in all, a win for everyone. What we need now is a CfC for old power-hog fridges and freezers.
It made no difference. 690,000 cars sold for a government cost of $2.8 billion? Peanuts in both categories. Additionally, a substantial number of the traded-in vehicles were inoperable to begin with, and given the age of the vehicles in question none of them were unsafe per se.
Also, Cash for Clunkers went a long way toward stimulating Japan’s economy. The Ford Focus was the only American car in the top 10, with two vehicles in the top 10 being Ford and Chevrolet pickups, hardly efficient vehicles.
Its stated purpose was to reduce CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions; there is genuine doubt whether the cost per ton was worth it. That is, the same money could have achieved bigger reductions if spent in other ways. However the other benefits that you mention may change that calculus.
Uh, well no, not really. Only cars registered for the road were eligible for CfC.
Honda and Toyota are at least as American as the “big three”.
Registration is pro forma. Send in the slip with your payment and it’s done.
As for the Japanese car companies being almost as American as the Big 3, that’s true in assembly only. The profits go home to Japan. They are Japanese companies, after all.
Cheer up. Maybe in 2013 President Obama will have a “Dinero for Desktops” program…
And in sales.
The fat cats might be in Japan, but money to an American fat cat is just as lost from the American economy as money to a foreign fat cat. The employees who get paychecks, which are what really matters economically, are still mostly here.
Make up your mind. Either it’s peanuts, or it stimulated the “wrong” economy, but it can’t be both at once.