Replies

Now I am in no way defending the stupid cash for clunkers, but the financial analysis you present is a bit askew.

There is at least one major flaw in it.

The money saved is ‘per year’. So the savings is $350 million per year.

or $700 million every two years.

or $1,400 million every four years

or $2,800 million every eight years.

or $3,500 million every ten years.

Now a ten year return on investment is not a very good return, but it is not as bad as the $8.57 for $1.00 that the post claims.

Well, the problem is this: Why should we taxpayers have to subsidize the buying of other people's cars? I didn't get a subsidy. Why should I have to pay for someone else to get one? The cash-for-clunkers is a one-time program. What would happen if the government kept this going, say, annually? The fuel savings over time would never add up before the government was completely bankrupt from the program.

Further, why is it my responsibility to reduce another person's gasoline consumption if he or she is paying for his/her own gasoline?

Why can't I keep more of my own money and use it as I see fit instead of giving it to others for their good for some collective (communist) good?

It's like saying taxpayers should pay for every home to receive more insulation and new, better-insulated windows. In the long run, it would save energy but in the long run, we'd all be dead broke chasing our economic tails and dead from old age.

If it makes sense for one individual to shell out a chunk of money to save operating costs over time, LET THE ONE PERSON SHELL OUT HIS OWN CASH.

He realizes the recovery of operating expense over time by his own individual, lump-sum investment.