The Cash for Clunkers program worked very well. It just burned through its budget faster than expected and the question is, should they add funding to keep it going or consider that to have been an adequate stimulus? So the appropriate cartoon would be a car that ran out of gas and the donkey with a gas can asking for more … but I forget that Lisa isn’t trying to draw good cartoons. She’s just here to provide illustrations for Republican talking points.
How about a long line of vehicles at a one-pump gas station with a “Gone Fishing” sign on the door. There are too many government programs and less workers every day to help fund the programs.
As as been said above, this problem raises very serious questions. The proponents of a public option at first insisted it would be cash flow neutral. Then after the CBO said the proposed program would cost $1T over 10 years the proponents said maybe we can cut a few pennies here or there. Current estimates are $900B.
As can be seen above if a program designed and funded to last 3 months is bankrupt in 6 days just what do you think will happen with ObamaCare? When the all Democratic California legislature examined their proposed program they totally abandoned it because of prohibitive costs. The Massachusetts program has already been forced to cut back 30%.
I understand the strong desire people have for the government to rescue them but we are all one country and our children and grandchildren will foot these bills.
For perspective the Heritage Society released 2009 line items in the budget. The 2009 fiscal year predicts a $1.86T deficit, 69% more than when Bush left office. Total=$4T
1) Housing and Commerce (financial/housing bailouts) $758B
Keeping strictly to the statement that the Cash for Clunkers worked well, yes it was extremely popular. The main problem, in my area, is not the fact that the program ran out of money but that the purchasers are having trouble picking up their new cars. The government has to sign off on each of those clunkers before the dealership can get the cash. Understandably, the dealerships will not release the new vehicles until the gvt. says everything is clear. Last I heard, it was backed up and sold cars were sitting on the lots.
This is one of the most deliberately obtuse recitation of talking points I’ve ever seen from Benson, which is saying a lot. The Cash for Clunkers program needs more money because it was an overwhelming SUCCESS. Despite being mocked and derided by the right, the program offered a tangible benefit, which spurred spending, which saved and created jobs. If Health Care Reform is such a success, everyone will choose the Public Option, which will simultaneously kill private health insurers, and ensure a Democratic majority for decades. Which is what the Cons are afraid of, but can’t articulate.
Cash for Clunkers is a SUCCESS? Is it a success because it spent money we didn’t have? What did it stimulate and at what final cost? It has saved a few jobs (temporarily) by throwing money at a few select American people, many who now have car payments and are spending less elsewhere in the economy. When the program again runs out of money what will happen to car sales and those jobs that were “saved”? If our government would stop picking our pockets, small business pockets, and our grandkids pockets for these lame programs and reduce the amount of taxes we pay we would all have more money to spend so that businesses could create more jobs for all.
My husband just got back from taking our car in to be serviced at the dealership. They are completely out of Corollas. The program was unarguably hugely successful.
The purpose was to stimulate people to go to dealers and buy a new more efficient car, plus, get poor efficiency vehicles off the road as a bonus. Dealers were flooded with customers and the alloted funding only lasted a week instead of three months, duh!
Name one Madison Avenue ad campaign that pulled ‘em in as dramatically. It is the REPUBLICANS who were very quick to look for more money for the program.
Now if we could just get as much support for health care for humans as “wealth care” for corporations.
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 14 years ago
The Cash for Clunkers program worked very well. It just burned through its budget faster than expected and the question is, should they add funding to keep it going or consider that to have been an adequate stimulus? So the appropriate cartoon would be a car that ran out of gas and the donkey with a gas can asking for more … but I forget that Lisa isn’t trying to draw good cartoons. She’s just here to provide illustrations for Republican talking points.
GLENN B WOODEN over 14 years ago
How about a long line of vehicles at a one-pump gas station with a “Gone Fishing” sign on the door. There are too many government programs and less workers every day to help fund the programs.
GNWachs over 14 years ago
As as been said above, this problem raises very serious questions. The proponents of a public option at first insisted it would be cash flow neutral. Then after the CBO said the proposed program would cost $1T over 10 years the proponents said maybe we can cut a few pennies here or there. Current estimates are $900B.
As can be seen above if a program designed and funded to last 3 months is bankrupt in 6 days just what do you think will happen with ObamaCare? When the all Democratic California legislature examined their proposed program they totally abandoned it because of prohibitive costs. The Massachusetts program has already been forced to cut back 30%.
I understand the strong desire people have for the government to rescue them but we are all one country and our children and grandchildren will foot these bills.
For perspective the Heritage Society released 2009 line items in the budget. The 2009 fiscal year predicts a $1.86T deficit, 69% more than when Bush left office. Total=$4T
1) Housing and Commerce (financial/housing bailouts) $758B
2) Medicare, Medicaid $701.7B
3) National Defense $690B
4) Social Security $680.5B
Those 4 items represent 70% of the budget.
Gladius over 14 years ago
Keeping strictly to the statement that the Cash for Clunkers worked well, yes it was extremely popular. The main problem, in my area, is not the fact that the program ran out of money but that the purchasers are having trouble picking up their new cars. The government has to sign off on each of those clunkers before the dealership can get the cash. Understandably, the dealerships will not release the new vehicles until the gvt. says everything is clear. Last I heard, it was backed up and sold cars were sitting on the lots.
ianrey over 14 years ago
This is one of the most deliberately obtuse recitation of talking points I’ve ever seen from Benson, which is saying a lot. The Cash for Clunkers program needs more money because it was an overwhelming SUCCESS. Despite being mocked and derided by the right, the program offered a tangible benefit, which spurred spending, which saved and created jobs. If Health Care Reform is such a success, everyone will choose the Public Option, which will simultaneously kill private health insurers, and ensure a Democratic majority for decades. Which is what the Cons are afraid of, but can’t articulate.
wminfield over 14 years ago
Cash for Clunkers is a SUCCESS? Is it a success because it spent money we didn’t have? What did it stimulate and at what final cost? It has saved a few jobs (temporarily) by throwing money at a few select American people, many who now have car payments and are spending less elsewhere in the economy. When the program again runs out of money what will happen to car sales and those jobs that were “saved”? If our government would stop picking our pockets, small business pockets, and our grandkids pockets for these lame programs and reduce the amount of taxes we pay we would all have more money to spend so that businesses could create more jobs for all.
BigAlthegal over 14 years ago
My husband just got back from taking our car in to be serviced at the dealership. They are completely out of Corollas. The program was unarguably hugely successful.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
The purpose was to stimulate people to go to dealers and buy a new more efficient car, plus, get poor efficiency vehicles off the road as a bonus. Dealers were flooded with customers and the alloted funding only lasted a week instead of three months, duh!
Name one Madison Avenue ad campaign that pulled ‘em in as dramatically. It is the REPUBLICANS who were very quick to look for more money for the program.
Now if we could just get as much support for health care for humans as “wealth care” for corporations.
countrycousin4sure over 14 years ago
i would like to know more about this program
raycity over 14 years ago
Sure was happy my tax money helped people drive new cars I never could afford one
nomad2112 over 14 years ago
Just like the $700 billion bank bail out, they don’t even know where the money went.
nomad2112 over 14 years ago
fennec - I don’t care who wrote the check, do you?