The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/i-really-dont-know-how-to-grade-the-cars-or-cash-30470027.aspx

Subject:  Re: cahs for clunkers - disaster of a program Date:  1/6/2013  6:40 PM
Author:  salaryguru Number:  47222 of 88569

I really don't know how to grade the CARS (or Cash for Clunkers) program as far as it's success or failure, but this is the latest right wing echo chamber nonsense. I think it started with Breitbart and shows up in all of the regular brain-dead teabagger circles. I do know that this article is very misleading and, in places, non-factual. Let's look at the claims one-by-one. I place my comments, corrections and actual data in parenthesis after each claim from the article.

The article starts off telling us that CARS produced tons of unnecessary waste (I'm not sure what this means or how to evaluate it. Is there something known as "necessary waste"? How much of this "unnecessary waste" would have been produced [immediately or eventually] in the absense of CARS? The article definitely overestimates this in every statement it makes.)

The program . . . did little to curb greenhousee gas emissions (This is probably true, but it had a positive impact that was established by the guidelines of the program. People could trade in cars with 18 mpg or less for cars with at least 4 mpg better gas mileage. So, in every case we exchanged old cars with low mpg for more efficient one - in every case. The actual gains were quantified by the EPA and I will provide that data later in this post.)

The article states that "autos are almost completely recyclable". (hmmmm. . . everything is 100% rec