Obamas Cash for Caulkers costs 57K per home

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Cash for caulkers, to date, is far more costly.

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

Yeah....whatta shame that you folks (who prefer exterminating those on S.S.) won't be able to accumulate the proper body-count, because o' Gubmint-programs.

​

 

[LTKrgm]

Have you seen this before?

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

So, let me get this straight?

On this forum, all people do is argue? I was looking for inteligent conversation and it seems that there's none to be found here.



Yes, I was wrong on the $3,000 number. It was $4,500

and the other guy was wrong with his $25,000 number.

it's funny that he's "off a bit" and I'm "totally and completely wrong" when any idiot can see that what I said was much closer to the truth.


Ron Reagan would be ashamed to have you using his photo while you post this kind of garbage.

 

[LTKrgm]

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.

If I say it's a waste of money, will you stop quoting that Edmunds freak or, if you must quote him, kindly explain the specifics of his voodoo mathematics every time you do?

 

[Gipper]

So, let me get this straight?

On this forum, all people do is argue? I was looking for inteligent conversation and it seems that there's none to be found here.



Yes, I was wrong on the $3,000 number. It was $4,500

and the other guy was wrong with his $25,000 number.

it's funny that he's "off a bit" and I'm "totally and completely wrong" when any idiot can see that what I said was much closer to the truth.


Ron Reagan would be ashamed to have you using his photo while you post this kind of garbage.

You will get intelligent bebate when you post something intelligent.

And yes, an idiot just might think you are closer to the truth, but anyone with a brain would know you are not. Do you really think it only cost the tax payer $4,500 per car?

If you know anything about government welfare programs you would know they are unbelievable wasteful and Cash for Clunkers is no different. Edmunds is much closer to the truth than you are.

 

[LTKrgm]

You will get intelligent bebate when you post something intelligent.

And yes, an idiot just might think you are closer to the truth, but anyone with a brain would know you are not. Do you really think it only cost the tax payer $4,500 per car?

If you know anything about government welfare programs you would know they are unbelievable wasteful and Cash for Clunkers is no different. Edmunds is much closer to the truth than you are.

What's it like for you, living in a world of assumptions? Is it fun?

Actuall, I think it cost the "taxpayer" about $2,000 per car - that's what the university of Michigan (that Edmunds uses as the basis for his miscalculations) concluded.

If you honestly believe that there were "inflated costs" in a relativly simple cash back program, that increased the costs from $4,500 per car to $25,000 per car - please explain to me what they were.

You probably don't even know what Edmunds was referring to when he explains his calculation based on only 18% of the cars as "incremental" - did you even read what this guy Edmunds said?


Seriously dude - READ a little more and ASSUME a little less. Use your little grey cells once in a while.

 

[asur]

LTKrgm - Edmunds as in Edmunds.com is one of the most highly respected car authorities in the world!

Trust them, the cost per clunker was great than 24K/clunker and Obama himself may not disagree.

I've read elsewhere however it was more like 76K per clunker, but I can't recall if that source proved it.

Edmunds proved it with simple logic and math.

Now this logical thinking is completely missing in the Obama administration. Ie. Cash for Clunkers

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/p...ost.php?do=editpost&p=1328129446/article.html

 

[LTKrgm]

LTKrgm - Edmunds as in Edmunds.com is one of the most highly respected car authorities in the world!

Trust them, the cost per clunker was great than 24K/clunker and Obama himself may not disagree.

I've read elsewhere however it was more like 76K per clunker, but I can't recall if they proved it adequately.

Edmunds proved it with simple logic and math.

Now this logical thinking is completely missing in the Obama administration.

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/p...ost.php?do=editpost&p=1328129446/article.html

Excuse me?

I quoted Edmunds' article. Edmunds' himself is calling his numerical analysis based on "incremental data"

Did you bother to figure out what that means, or, did you just take the number and ignore the rather large exception that Edmunds freely allows himself.

Did you even try to understand what Edmunds himself is actually saying?


Because, it seems to me that you want to take doctored data, ignore the doctoring, and pretend that what you're left with is a fact.


All I'm asking you to do is read Edmund's data for what it is and stop misinterpreting it. Is that so hard?

 

[asur]

LTKrgm - I did read the Edmunds analysis and there is another thread around here that covers Cash for Clunkers in depth.

If you notice, nobody is disagreeing with the
Edmunds analysis, but you! Not even the Obama flunkies in this forum seem to
question them.

But what is important is that time proved Edmunds right.

As they predicted beforehand, cars sales slumped after Cash for Clunkers ended.

The Edmunds dudes know cars!

The fact, you never heard of Edmunds suggests you live in a
sheltered world, or never owned a car.

You sound just like the kind of voter Obama is looking for.

 

[top gun]

Cash for clunkers was one of the best incentive programs ever implemented.

Not only did it pull back from the brink of financial disaster the American auto industry and the lions share of all auto industry suppliers but it also spurred the rapid implementation of much more fuel efficient and less polluting vehicles.

To bash cash for clunkers is to be totally ridiculous... for real. It's painfully obvious that Republicants are simply out looking for anyway possible to compound unemployment and make our country dirtier and more dependent on foreign oil.

 

[Revere]

There are no more fuel efficient vehicles in the US than there were before CforC. And GM and Chrysler are still bleeding to death.

 

[Gipper]

What's it like for you, living in a world of assumptions? Is it fun?

Actuall, I think it cost the "taxpayer" about $2,000 per car - that's what the university of Michigan (that Edmunds uses as the basis for his miscalculations) concluded.

If you honestly believe that there were "inflated costs" in a relativly simple cash back program, that increased the costs from $4,500 per car to $25,000 per car - please explain to me what they were.

You probably don't even know what Edmunds was referring to when he explains his calculation based on only 18% of the cars as "incremental" - did you even read what this guy Edmunds said?


Seriously dude - READ a little more and ASSUME a little less. Use your little grey cells once in a while.

Okay. Lets see if I have this right. You post nothing to back your conclusion. I post the Edmunds study to back mine. And, I am the one making assumptions???

I guess if you believe 2+2=5 one will understand your posts.

 

[asur]

Cash for Clunkers was just another dumb idea to come down the
Obama pipeline. Paying 24K per auto, so that rich people could
get a price break wasn't smart.


Cash for Caulkers just might be dumber.

12/27/2009 Dallas Morning News: The state received millions of federal dollars from the economic-stimulus package to help poor Texans cut their energy bills, but by the end of last month, just seven homes had been weather-treated under the program. The state has spent $1.8 million of $163 million available over the past four months, with most of it going to administrative costs, such as the salaries of state workers.

That works out to ~ 250K/home so far.

 

[asur]

The liberal media never wants to expose the insanity of Obama's plans.

Well it seems ABC ran a hidden story crtical of the delay.
Only 9,100 Homes Weatherized in 2009, Out of a Planned 593,000, According to GAO.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9780935

My gosh, I hope it's delayed forever.

The problem isn't the delay, it's the cost to taxpayers you idiots!

 

[LTKrgm]

Okay. Lets see if I have this right. You post nothing to back your conclusion. I post the Edmunds study to back mine. And, I am the one making assumptions???

I guess if you believe 2+2=5 one will understand your posts.

The Hillarious thing about this is that in my post is an actual QUOTE from the Edmunds website - front friggen page.

I quote Edmunds, but all you saw was my opinion.


This is why you people are such a joke. Obama can read a sentence from Edmunds' website and to you it would all be lies. Rush could read the exact same sentence, and it's "Fact"

It seems, the meaning of the word retard changes depending on who's speaking. Same with the meaning of the word incremental.


Now - Gripper, I know that you will just come back at me with more nonsense, but seriously - before you post, stop, read, think and learn. You're weak in all 4 of those areas and that's no way to go through life.

 

[LTKrgm]

LTKrgm - I did read the Edmunds analysis and there is another thread around here that covers Cash for Clunkers in depth.

If you notice, nobody is disagreeing with the
Edmunds analysis, but you! Not even the Obama flunkies in this forum seem to
question them.

But what is important is that time proved Edmunds right.

As they predicted beforehand, cars sales slumped after Cash for Clunkers ended.

The Edmunds dudes know cars!

The fact, you never heard of Edmunds suggests you live in a
sheltered world, or never owned a car.

You sound just like the kind of voter Obama is looking for.

You didn't answer my question.


What does Edmonds mean when he says "incremental" It's a simple question.

If you don't understand what Edmunds is saying, how can you say he's right when you don't even understand what he said?