Facts On Obama's Cash for Clunker Program

[gman0046]

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons of gasoline a year. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, getting rid of each average Clunker will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles - so thats 224 million gallons per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is about 1/4 of one days US consumption.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.

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

AND THESE CLOWNS WANT TO RUN OUR HEALTH CARE????

[dnf777]

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons of gasoline a year. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, getting rid of each average Clunker will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles - so thats 224 million gallons per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is about 1/4 of one days US consumption.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.

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

AND THESE CLOWNS WANT TO RUN OUR HEALTH CARE????

I don't know enough about the CFC program and all the facts to make a judgement right now. But I do know that what you present does not take into account all of the effects. GM has increased production, recalled workers, and this will result in parts suppliers increasing production. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not as simple as you paint. Its not only about gallons of gasoline saved. Also, you assume a lot of facts that are "not in evidence". Who says the clunkers averaged 15mpg? Who said they only drive 12k per year? Economic issues are almost always more complex than four or five calculations and assumptions. I'm willing to listen though.

[zeus3925]

The average car drives 15,000 miles/year.

[Henry V]

Let's see, do you suppose that any of these cars will last more than one year? What is the calculation if they make it to 200,000 miles? It would appear to be $5.8 billion. If the price of oil is $100 per barrel it appears to be $7.7 billion.

Can someone double check the ratio used between gallons of gas and barrels of oil too?

I see this great piece of logic based entirely on short term thinking is making the rounds on the internets on many right wing websites. Please cut and paste more.

[Gun_Dog2002]

I don't know about oil consumption but the clunkers program seem to involve mostly turning in American cars for Japanese cars. I knew I should have invested in Toyota....

/Paul

[Bruce MacPherson]

I don't know enough about the CFC program and all the facts to make a judgement right now. But I do know that what you present does not take into account all of the effects. GM has increased production, recalled workers, and this will result in parts suppliers increasing production. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not as simple as you paint. Its not only about gallons of gasoline saved. Also, you assume a lot of facts that are "not in evidence". Who says the clunkers averaged 15mpg? Who said they only drive 12k per year? Economic issues are almost always more complex than four or five calculations and assumptions. I'm willing to listen though.

You spend a lot of time trying to determine how you feel about stuff don't you? The CFC program was an unmitigated disaster for the US taxpayer no matter what assumptions you want to make.

[helencalif]

I thought one of the reasons for the cash for clunkers program was to help modest income folks get out of their old gas guzzling clunkers into more economical transportation.

The "clunkers" I saw on TV looked, well, like they were pretty nice cars and not really beat up old clunkers. I am wondering if the people who took advantage of this program were not so poor folks and that they were people who could afford a new car and simply took advantage of the giveaway to get better than blue book trade in.

The poor folks seem to still be driving their old clunkers. They couldn't afford to buy a new car no matter what they got as a trade in for their clunker.

Helen Graves

[dnf777]

You spend a lot of time trying to determine how you feel about stuff don't you?

What's wrong with thinking about issues and trying to educate one's self? I don't rely on talking heads to spoon feed me. I'll try to dumb-down and fit in if that's what you suggest?

[TN_LAB]

I think the cash for clunkers program is/was silly.

However, it's a little more complicated than the simple equation of oil consumption.

Like a wise fellow used to say...."basing one's results of a complex situation on one single variable is what they call voodoo economics."

[road kill]

I thought one of the reasons for the cash for clunkers program was to help modest income folks get out of their old gas guzzling clunkers into more economical transportation.

The "clunkers" I saw on TV looked, well, like they were pretty nice cars and not really beat up old clunkers. I am wondering if the people who took advantage of this program were not so poor folks and that they were people who could afford a new car and simply took advantage of the giveaway to get better than blue book trade in.

The poor folks seem to still be driving their old clunkers. They couldn't afford to buy a new car no matter what they got as a trade in for their clunker.

Helen Graves

Maybe the could have upgraded to one of the nicer "clunkers" that were traded in.

But alas, there were destroyed!!

Pure genius!!