Obama WhiteHouse Attacks Edmunds

[asur]

It's a sad day when a non-political website like Edmunds gets attacked for posting some facts on the ill-conceived Cash For Clunks program.

Edmunds knows cars and has for years, Obama knows lies!

Because Edmunds showed that Cash-for-Clunkers was a huge waste of
taxpayer dollars, > 24K for each car sold, the Obama people has gone on the warpath. It's called CHANGE!



http://newledger.com/2009/10/the-wh...ncomfortable-conclusion-on-cash-for-clunkers/

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's a sad day when a non-political website like Edmunds gets attacked for posting some facts on the ill-conceived Cash For Clunks program.

Yeah....we wouldn't want to miss-out on other "hard-hitting" articles, like:

Who Are Obama’s Czars, and Where Are They in the Constitution?

​

 

[asur]

If it makes you feel good about spending 24K to buy a clunker, than what would you pay for a good car?

That's 24K per clunker.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I agree, how dare the white house attack what they say, just becuse they think that that facts do not add up to what there story said...how dare they!

 

[asur]

I don't recall a US President and administration ever going after a legitimate
website that presents facts, without any political agenda.

But then Obama and his cronies will stoop pretty low!

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Let's say for arguments sake that Edmund's is all wet, and they under estimated the number of new car sales cars that the "Cash for Clunkers" program drove. So, instead of 125,000, let's say it was twice that many. That's still $12,000 per car. I struggle with an industry that requires that much subsidy to survive. Oh, by the way, don't forget the delay in paying the dealers forced many of them to borrow money to pay their floor planning costs. This made the profits on these cars next to nothing in the end. Seems like there might have been a better way.

 

[asur]

OK, but the Whitehouse hasn't disagreed that it cost taxpayers 24K per clunker, they just don't want that fact known. Even ford agrees with Edmunds. Ford knows somthin about cars also!


Ford analyst George Pipas basically concurs with Edmund’s calculation of incremental sales, and therefore the cost of the program. But he still echoes the DOT’s line: C4C was a success… as long as you ignore the amount of money spent.

The whole purpose of the program was to provide some kind of catalyst to kick-start the economy, and by all accounts the extra production that was added this year was a boost to the economy.

Indeed it was. The White House says that up to 1.6 of the 3.5 percent increase in 3rd quarter GDP came from a cash-for-clunker-stimulated auto sector. Which explains why they’re lambasting the Edmunds report: like Ford, they have a vested interest in seeing Cash For Clunkers hailed as a success, and possibly even repeated. But that requires glossing over the fact that incremental stimulus estimates range from 30 to 60 percent of clunker sales, meaning that even by the most optimistic analysis, C4C was an expensive endeavor when measured on a per-incremental-sale basis. And, as Edmund’s points out in their retort to the White House’s retort:


However what's sad is that taxpayers are paying for those clunkers, whether they want a invisible 24K car or not!