Obamas Cash for Caulkers costs 57K per home

[asur]

The Obama administration has outdone itself this
time around in stupidity, if the facts below are true.

So far the US taxpayer has reportedly spent ~ $522 Million of Stimulus money
to caulk ~ 9100 homes. That's ~57K per house if true.


Taxpayers shelled out about 25K per car in cash for clunkers.
Cash for caulkers, to date, is far more costly.

Even worse, some homes caulked are worth < 10K in market value (Detroit).

 

[Gipper]

The Obama administration has outdone itself this
time around in stupidity, if the facts below are true.

So far the US taxpayer has reportedly spent ~ $522 Million of Stimulus money
to caulk ~ 9100 homes. That's ~57K per house if true.


Taxpayers shelled out about 25K per car in cash for clunkers.
Cash for caulkers, to date, is far more costly.

Even worse, some homes caulked are worth < 10K in market value (Detroit).

Just another example of why government is always inefficient and ever increasing spending will kill the private sector....could that be the plan of BO and friends?

 

[Popeye]

The Obama administration has outdone itself this
time around in stupidity, if the facts below are true.

So far the US taxpayer has reportedly spent ~ $522 Million of Stimulus money
to caulk ~ 9100 homes. That's ~57K per house if true.


Taxpayers shelled out about 25K per car in cash for clunkers.
Cash for caulkers, to date, is far more costly.

Even worse, some homes caulked are worth < 10K in market value (Detroit).

What do you mean...."IF the facts below are true"?....do we get a link or are we just supposed to take your "facts" at face value?

Btw, is your name Sammy? http://www.******************/current-events/115843-obamas-cash-caulkers-costs-57k-per-home.html

 

[always]

What do you mean...."IF the facts below are true"?....do we get a link or are we just supposed to take your "facts" at face value?

Btw, is your name Sammy? http://www.******************/current-events/115843-obamas-cash-caulkers-costs-57k-per-home.html

POPEYE!! Do you ever read, watch , or listen on your own. Why must we force feed you liberals current information. I saw these same facts on T.V. , of three different stations over the last 24 hours.
YES!! IT IS TRUE!! Obama and FRIENDS paid thru the NOSE, YOUR NOSE, MY NOSE, ALL TAXPAYERS $57 K per home for CAULKERS!! Sound DUMB , HUH, WILL IT IS DUMB!! BUT OBAMA just does not know any better!

 

[LTKrgm]

The Obama administration has outdone itself this
time around in stupidity, if the facts below are true.

So far the US taxpayer has reportedly spent ~ $522 Million of Stimulus money
to caulk ~ 9100 homes. That's ~57K per house if true.


Taxpayers shelled out about 25K per car in cash for clunkers.
Cash for caulkers, to date, is far more costly.

Even worse, some homes caulked are worth < 10K in market value (Detroit).

Well, I haven't researched this calk program, but the Cash for clunkers was OBVIOUSLY not $25,000 per car when the most you could get on a car was $3,000


It was actually closer to $2,000 per car, and, if you take into account that the bailout for the US car companies decreased as a result, as well as the jobs saved / unemployment reduced - that cuts the expense even further.

I'm not saying the Car Allowance Rebate idea was a good one or not, only that, you really should get your facts straight and not just randomly critisize because it "sounds good to you".

 

[asur]

Pops - Here is a link and like others said above, it's been on Fox news.

http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2010/02/democrats-spend-57k-to-weatherize-each.html

- I am somewhat surprised that CNN, ABC and all the liberal media sites
have ignored this story, if they have. I would have expected them to justify it somehow
and maybe they did and I just missed it.


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/edmunds-cash-for-clunkers-cost-24k-per-car/


LTKrgm - The cost computed by Edmunds for each cash for clunker was ~ 24K/clunker.
Although some other studies suggest it was higher.

Obama and the Democrats = corruption and inefficiency. Next time you go vote, take a look at whether or not your Congressman voted for this program, which pays $57K to weatherstrip a single house. A single house that may be torn down anyhow.

 

[dogtowner]

God is it funny to see libs attempt to spin excrement

 

[LTKrgm]

God is it funny to see libs attempt to spin excrement

Using facts.

 

[dogtowner]

Using facts.

not to date.

 

[LTKrgm]

Pops - Here is a link and like others said above, it's been on Fox news.

http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2010/02/democrats-spend-57k-to-weatherize-each.html

- I am somewhat surprised that CNN, ABC and all the liberal media sites
have ignored this story, if they have. I would have expected them to justify it somehow
and maybe they did and I just missed it.


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/edmunds-cash-for-clunkers-cost-24k-per-car/


LTKrgm - The cost computed by Edmunds for each cash for clunker was ~ 24K/clunker.
Although some other studies suggest it was higher.

Obama and the Democrats = corruption and inefficiency. Next time you go vote, take a look at whether or not your Congressman voted for this program, which pays $57K to weatherstrip a single house. A single house that may be torn down anyhow.

Well, I'm only going to take one at a time, otherwise responses can get too convoluted.

But your man Edmons puts up a pretty radical assumption in the middle of his mathematics. He says (from your link)

Edmunds‘ analysis shows that only 125k of the nearly 690k vehicles sold during Cash For Clunkers were incremental.

Those are his words, not mine.

Now, you really have to pay attention to that, because he's saying that 565,000 of the exchanged vehicles were "not incremental" - and then he's zeroing out those costs and only counting the cost towards 18% of the cars.

that's like saying the Average American pays a 90% tax rate, because you've decided to divide all the taxes paid by 18% of the population. (I know - I set myself up, but try to keep on track, OK).


So this man, edmunds has applied a very radical numerical asterisk to his calculation, and on top of that, there are people quoting him sans asterisk. that's madness my friend. It's utter madness.

never mind that his numbers are gross, not net, and it's the net numbers that matter. That right there probably cuts the expense in half (not from 25 to 12, but from 4 to 2).

The university of Michigan's study put the net cost at $2,000 per car - right around where common sense suggests it would be.

 

[LTKrgm]

not to date.

Do you ever contribute to threads or are you just a comment machine?

 

[dogtowner]

Do you ever contribute to threads or are you just a comment machine?

seven whole posts ? earn some stripes noob.

 

[LTKrgm]

seven whole posts ? earn some stripes noob.

I'm still waiting for your first inteligent sentence.

 

[Gipper]

but the Cash for clunkers was OBVIOUSLY not $25,000 per car when the most you could get on a car was $3,000. It was actually closer to $2,000 per car, and, if you take into account that the bailout for the US car companies decreased as a result, as well as the jobs saved / unemployment reduced - that cuts the expense even further.

Have you seen this before?

Edmunds might be off a bit, but you are definitely totally and completely wrong.

Clunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car
Auto sales analysts at Edmunds.com say the pricey program resulted in relatively few additional car sales.
EM

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.

The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm

 

[asur]

I'm still waiting for a specific explanation from the Obama folks
over how the Cash for Clunkers was not a waste of taxpayer money.

All I recall them saying is that it was a successful program and Obama
bragged about how government helped increase auto sales.

Obama never talks about the outrageous cost to taxpayers.