Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?

ateixeira

What's the cost if they did nothing and Detroit basically close for business? The government may have ended up owning Ford, too. What's the GNP of Michigan?

It's far too difficult to calculate the actual costs and benefits but the point is Edmunds' article acts like it did nothing, and we all know supply was short, and production increased as a very direct result.

There were people who could not even find certain cars.

gotenks243

"No, the same numbers could not be used to make those claims. "

Explain to me how it can't. 39% of cars sold under C4C were domestic brands (careful, not the same as saying 39% were US produced cars, it was actually more). Therefore "we" "spent" $3b to sell 48,750 domestic branded cars, or $61,538.46 per car. This is all based on the same methodology as Edmunds. It also makes just as little sense.

ateixeira

From AN:

Auto gains help U.S. economy grow in Q3
Cash for clunkers, residential growth spur consumer spending
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter for the first time in more than a year as cash-for-clunkers and other government stimulus programs helped lift consumer spending and home building, fueling an unexpectedly strong advance.
Signaling the end of the worst recession in 70 years, the U.S. Commerce Department today said the economy expanded at a 3.5 percent annual ...

nippononly

That, of course, is where they go awry, concluding that the upturn which was solely due to the C4C sales and will not be repeated somehow "signals the end of the worst recession in 70 years"...

No guys, bad analysis, Q4 will be as bad as Q2 was, and the rate of unemployment continues to rise, even though it has already been in record territory for many months now.

bpraxis

Great comments once and all and to summarize many of your sentiments:

The Cash For Clunkers program is the height of economic folly and will have many negative unintended consequences.

So we print more money that we do not have burying us deeper in dept to provide corporate welfare to move future sales into the present.

Have we lost our minds in the US?

The US produced 50 percent of world production in 1905 with only 3 percent of the world's population.

It was a quaint old notion of letting the free market work with a minimum of government meddling.

gagrice

All the tax dollars wasted on C4C and new home owner tax credit gave a very false picture of the economy. All designed to take the pressure off the President and Congress. Smoke and mirrors. So tell that to the 530,000 new jobless claimants last week. Or those that no longer get Unemployment benefits. Selling a few extra cars by wasting Billions is a political ploy. Looks like the Edmund's brass are not buying it.

stever

Here's the number and recent trends:

"In the week ending Oct. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 530,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week''s unrevised figure of 531,000. The 4-week moving average was 526,250, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week''s unrevised average of 532,250."

Weekly Jobless Claims Drop 1,000 (123jump.com)

"Private and government estimates indicate, though, that it [stimulas spending] has had a positive impact on 800,000 to 1.5 million jobs. Growth signals end to recession, but unemployment may still be on the rise (The Hill)

ateixeira

Actually they did say "helped lift" the economy, so I don't think they were attributing all of it to C4C.

islanddiva

Who but the government can get away with a "stimulus' program that actually costs taxpayers SIX TIMES MORE than the $4500.00 benefit, and then get away with it?? Need any proof that the government has NO business in business? Look no further than te US Postal Service! It's utterly broke and another example of why bureaucrats have NO business being in business! Period.

Consumer spending has stalled yet again as potential car and home buyers wait for yet another cash for clunkers hand-out. (And BTW just what is all the excessive waste and scrap from all those "recycled" clunkers doing to the environment????) The home-buyers incenctive will soon expire. But WAIT, people aren't buying now, as the feds might just renew it and make the economy all better again. And perople aren't cars now either, since after all, the government might just be handing potential car buyers another $24,000 cookie sometime in the future. This is NOT sustainable, when will it stop?

Hold on to your hats, "Cash for clunkers" was just a sound-bite for what's coming next! Government-sponsored healthcare is just around the corner! If you think Obama-care will be a panacea, first ask why congress and the president himself won't be covered under his mandated plan.

And be sure to stop by your local governtment-run post office at about noon on any given day to see what your doctor's office will soon be like.

Thank you Edmunds for your report on the true costs of CFC! And brace yourself for the wrath of congress and the white house. They HATE it when you expose the truth.

hpmctorque

A really timely cartoon with a strong message!

club216

Where were you and all the others when we were spending money we didn't have during the last administration. Bush took us from a surplus to an extreme deficit buying items that cost millions and millions per unit and never used. Where were the F-18 aircraft on 9/11? What was the cost per unit to the American taxpayer of all of Dick Chaney's "projects?" No, C4C would not be my perferred choice for selling autos but you have to start cleaning up this mess somehow and by the way how many jobs did the program save. Remember, an extra 100,000 + were sold using your figures but the others might not have sold either.

srs_49

I don't think it's grandstanding, but just looking at the numbers in another way. Under CFC:
1. 690,000 vehicles were sold
2. Edmunds claims only 125,000 of those were sales that would not have otherwise of happened, and
3. 2 Black Ford Fusions were sold (I'm making that one up).

So, someone would be perfectly justified in claiming the C4C program cost:
1. $4000 per vehicle
2. $22,080 per new sale (a sale that might not have happened otherwise)
3. $1.38 billion per Black Ford Fusion sold.
4. $XXX per D3 vehicle sold

Or any other way you might want to slice and dice the numbers.

The administration got its panties all tied in a knot when someone questioned the administration's conclusions - some might call it "spin". Nothing new or unusual there.

Whether it was related to the C4C program or not, the reported 3.8% growth in the economy last quarter, as opposed to the expected 3.5% growth, was a positive sign investors have been looking for and sent the stock market up almost 2% yesterday. A lot of this is about consumer confidence. If consumers feel things are improving, then they will be more likely to loosen their purse strings and start spending again. Being able to point to the growth numbers and say "see, the recession really has ended" is a lot of what this was all about.

club2step

Without even debating whether or not the CFC program stimulated non-rebate sales, what I want to know is where did the additional $19,500 (24,000 - 4500 rebate) of our tax money go?

kernick

This is NOT sustainable, when will it stop?

Exactly. These handouts started a couple of years ago when we got those $600 or $1,200 "tax-rebate" stimulus under Bush. That was a short-term fix to a slowing economy from the decades of going deeper and deeper into debt by consumers. So then we have the Great Recession, and the government continues to go deeper and deeper into debt because consumers have tapped themselves and the banks out.

So now we're at the point where BOTH the consumer and the government are running out of reserves to spend. The situation is just like you having $3,000 income and having bills of $3,500 each month. If you go to your bank account giving yourself short-term relief, you can keep going. What happens when the $ runs out, and you can't borrow any more. Our government is borrowing $ from foreign investors and governments to keep afloat (Treasuries). Someday they may say, you owe so much you can't pay what you owe us back, so no more money. What happens when the U.S. government can only spend what it collects? Then every U.S. citizen is going to have to live on what they actually earn.

I see these government stimulus plans as harmful as a drug addict taking stronger and stronger hits of a drug. It makes people happy now, but the future gets bleaker and bleaker with each stimulus. We're artificially living a higher lifestyle than we can afford. Our society and government are like a drunken sailor spending their paycheck within a few days of getting it.

gotenks243

"Without even debating whether or not the CFC program stimulated non-rebate sales, what I want to know is where did the additional $19,500 (24,000 - 4500 rebate) of our tax money go?"

The fact that you're having to ask this is proof of how misleading the Edmunds article is. The "additional $19,500" represents $4,500 for every C4C car sold "that would have been sold anyway."

This is not government waste, this is lying with numbers.

nippononly

Of course, the "every C4C car sold "that would have been sold anyway." is based on surveying the buyers and asking them if they were ready to replace their car this year anyway, and would have done so regardless of a government incentive.

In answering such a survey, it's easy to SAY yeah, you would have bought a new car this year regardless, when maybe the old car would have given you another trouble-free year or two and you might well have waited to replace it.

So, it might not be $24,000 per C4C sale. And there's no way to ever pin it down as a "fact". This program could be considered a success of sorts if it were a springboard that led to wider spending across all industries, and the consequent increase in jobs and reinvestment by small business that would engender.

At present, I see little evidence that will turn out to be the case. Call me a pessimist.

ateixeira

Edmunds claims only 125,000 of those were sales that would not have otherwise of happened

So that's 18% ... I don't agree with that.

I'm working with a huge sample (one neighbor) but she got her new car under C4C and could not have afforded it otherwise, so from my experience it's 100%. :P

I'm sure the real number is much higher than 18%, c'mon.

Not to mention it increased transactions prices for ALL cars sold, including non-clunkers.

Plus the reduction in imported barrels of oil.

Plus all the jobs saved at dealershiprs and in auto manufacturing.

They're looking at just one of the many ways the program helped the economy.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

srs_49

...where did the additional $19,500 (24,000 - 4500 rebate) of our tax money go?

It went to the other 4.52 cars that were bought under the C4C program that (according to Edmunds) were going to be purchased anyway, for every car sale that the program actually created (the 125,000 number from Edmunds).

4.52 x 125,000 = 565,000
565,000 + 125,000 = 690,000 vehicles sold under C4C.

hesaid

"Without even debating whether or not the CFC program stimulated non-rebate sales, what I want to know is where did the additional $19,500 (24,000 - 4500 rebate) of our tax money go?"

Dealers would have sold cars even without the CFC program in affect right? So essentially the government used taxpayer money to assist people that would have bought a car even if the CFC program were not in affect. That $19,500 was split up among everyone That's great for me as a car buyer but is it fair for me to ask you to help pay for my car when I am not finacially stressed and didn't really need your help? Because that's what it amounts to.

andre1969

That's great for me as a car buyer but is it fair for me to ask you to help pay for my car when I am not finacially stressed and didn't really need your help? Because that's what it amounts to.

Well, this C4C rebate was never meant to be welfare. There's nothing saying that it was only meant for the poor or financially strapped. It was merely an enticement to get more people to buy a new car, whether they needed one or not, could afford one or not, in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

jef98zj

I bought another vehicle (Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland) on April 8, 2009 - long before the C4C program came along - and I am totally happy with it. The C4C would not have worked for me, so I would not have gone with it anyway. The bad news is that the dealership I bought from (one of the best performing dealers in its area) was one of the almost 800 dealerships closed after Chrysler chose to sell/give its soul to the devil.

That being said (posted), the cost to the taxpayers for the next many years will be staggering, and our children will have to pay for it along with all these other government programs. So much for, "we must do it for the children."

I see Dear Leader and his peepz are using the White House web site to rip yet another privately owned entity, claiming that C4C was a success. Yeah, right... another example of our tax dollars at work.

econobiker

Did the government ever explain how a 1998 Dodge Neon and 2008 Hyundai Accent qualified under the program? I found these two on the CARS website pdf list of traded-in vehicles after the program finished.

The Dodge Neon never came up as qualifying on the CARS website and the Hyundai Accent actually did show as qualifying even though EPA gas mileage estimates for the Accent were way higher than the 18mpg CARS threshhold.

I called the CARS toll free number and the guy said he had no clue why certain autos were qualified.

Anyone ever hear about these?

houdini1

Auto Nation, the big national car dealer jumped in on Obama's side by saying that Edmunds had it all wrong and that C4C was a big success.

I am sure that from their standpoint it was a huge success. It allowed them to get rid of their discounts and jack up their prices before they applied the rebates, essentially putting most of the rebate money in their own pockets.

stever

Warren Brown over at the Washington Post said this today:

"Car dealers constitute a potent lobbying group. If the current slump lasts long enough and runs deeply enough to threaten their businesses, look for them to grease up the lobbying machine for another C4C push, just in time to take advantage of congressional concerns about the 2010 election year."

Real Wheels

hesaid

"Well, this C4C rebate was never meant to be welfare. There's nothing saying that it was only meant for the poor or financially strapped. It was merely an enticement to get more people to buy a new car, whether they needed one or not, could afford one or not, in an attempt to stimulate the economy."

Welfare or a Redistribution of Wealth - what's in a name? It seems your argument is that "the ends justifies the means." and most taxpayers are going to disagree with that when they understand the numbers. Let me put it another way, hypothetically speaking, would it be fair for me with a $175k income, living in a $500k house to go door to door in a poor neighborhood and collect money from people saying that a govenment program makes it law that they have to give me money so I can buy a new car? No, that would be outrageous but the only difference is that Uncle Sam does it via taxes as opposed to me doing it door to door. I don't mind doing my part to help jumpstart the economy but I'm offended when the government uses my money for a plan that was not well thought out.

deltheking

Here's the newslink indicating that the White House disagrees with Edmunds CFC analysis. Some harsh criticism of Edmunds by them !

link title

So folks and Edmunds mods-What is your response? What do you have to say ? :shades:

andre1969

No, that would be outrageous but the only difference is that Uncle Sam does it via taxes as opposed to me doing it door to door. I don't mind doing my part to help jumpstart the economy but I'm offended when the government uses my money for a plan that was not well thought out .

Well, if you're poor enough, you really can't afford a new car anyway, so giving you an extra $3500 or $4500 for your old clunker, which then gets you back into a car payment, increased insurance, etc, really isn't doing you any good. Plus, if you're poor enough, you're not paying much in taxes anyway. I think you need a taxable income of around $33,000 to end up paying $4500 in federal taxes, anyway. And that's not counting other exemptions and deductions. I think the standard deduction is around $5250 and each personal exemption is around $3300. So, if you don't itemize and use the short form, don't put into a 401k and don't have health insurance taken out, you'd probably have to make about $41-42K before you racked up a $4500 federal tax bill. So if you qualify for C4C, you're not paying any taxes at all that year.

Karen_S

Edmunds response right here:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/10/edmundscom-responds-to-white-house-criticism- .html

:shades:

discboy321

I never liked the idea of Cash for Clunkers. There were to many requirements. The biggest one I thought was the cut off year was something like 1994, I mean I do not see many clunkers in that yr and newer. They should have had like 1970 through 1990. The government did Nothing in the way of Helping the Real people that needed help and that is the poor and middle class who make up the majority of working people. They only help the rich .
I can only hope when the banks need more bailout money that the government wakes up and not loan anything out to them any more.

dodgeman07

My sister and her husband bought a new 2009 Toyota Venza using C4C by trading their 15 year old 3rd vehicle, a Jeep Grand Cherokee, in!

They have an annual income over $400K and a net worth in excess of 8 figures!

They AND Toyota were happy to take the U.S. taxpayers money replacing a vehicle they would have replaced this year anyway!

:P

carfan26

Cash For Clunkers ... yeah ... what a bad idea. Let's see ... hmmm ... sell more cars ... hmm keep more auto workers, dealerships and dealer's employees working .... they in turn buy groceries, make rent/house payments (help keep property values out of the toilet) and buy manufactured products (hopefully American made) with their money (even pay some of it in taxes and keep schools open, police, fire and roads in existence) ... people trade in their poor MPG cars for higher mileage cars ... hmm less foreign oil to buy (and likely cleaner air) ... Yeah, who came up with this dumb idea? Did it cost tax payer money ... yeah, but its going to people who need it, who are helping keep the economy and our country running ... as opposed to the money spent to pump up the million dollar bonuses of CEO's and to make paper millionaires on Wallstreet, or tax cuts so the already insanely wealthy can be more insanely wealthy.

I am with ya discboy321, stop bailing out the banks and CEO's, let's put the country to work and make it great again.

colloquor

That's a perfect example of the somewhat ludicrous aspect of the program. Although I understand one of the primary reasons for the C4C program was to get older gas hogs off the road, here's one thing that bugs me about that. Let's say you're a person who always bought cars based on fuel efficiency, and tried to do the right thing regarding conservation - not a tree hugger mind you - but just tried to conserve resources such as fuel, and his or her own money! CFC discriminated against that person because he or she was driving, for example, a 1986 Corolla that was rusted out and on its last legs - a definite clunker - but, not a qualifying vehicle under the requirements of the program.

Personally, I think this is wrong. All older cars, regardless of fuel economy ratings, should have qualified. This is another case of the government rewarding those who have been guilty of major excesses in the past, just like Wall Street bankers.

kernick

Did it cost tax payer money ... yeah, but its going to people who need it,

I think there are people who need food, utilities, rent and clothing. Buying all those things would have stimulated the economy just as much or more than buying new cars, many which were Hondas and Toyotas.

People who are buying new cars don't "need it". A new car is a luxury. If you're buying a new car today if you don't have the cash to buy it, you're a fool.

This country and the consumers do not need more debt, we're drowning in debt - THAT's the problem. Encouraging people and the government to go further into debt is asinine. It's got to stop. We need to produce more than we consume.

stephen987

Discboy, you're off by nine years. Like so many posts on the C4C program, yours displays the remarkable gift for drawing conclusions from faulty evidence.

Over and out.

carfan26

A Dodge or Chevy woulda been better, but Venzas are made in Georgetown Kentucky. More than 30 Kentucky-based suppliers provide parts for Venza production. 70 percent of the components used in the vehicle are being made in the United States. The Georgetown plant employs about 7,000 people.

So your sister and her husband just played a part in helping a lot of folks who really needed it to keep their jobs, to keep their families supported and stay off government unemployment (not to mention all those people who these workers will spend their money with.) Since your sister and her husband likely pay income tax, they just got a little back ... got into a more fuel efficient car to boot. Sounds like a sweet deal for all.

Will we have to pay the $4,500 incentive back? Yep sure as sure can be. When the economy gets a little better and perhaps when the special tax treatment Bush gave the wealthy is taken away (you know, ... making sure people who have net worth's in excess of 8 figures pay their fair share), paying down the budget deficit should be job one.

grj0034

Actually there was no cut off on how new the car could be, but rather how old. I think that cut off was 1984, meaning no pre-1984 cars. While the program was going on, my daily commute took me past several dealers' "back lots" where they parked all the clunkers awaiting death. Majority of them were Blazers, Durangos, Grand Cherokees and Explorers from the 1990s. Also lots of Aerostar & Astro vans.

Newest seen:
Circa 2002-2003 Buick Rendezvous
Couple of 2002-2005 generation Explorers

Most notable:
late 1990s Mercedes ML320
mid 1990s Mercedes S500
Chrysler "TC by Maserati" coupe in pretty good shape.
mid 1980s Chevy Caprice that looked to be in mint condition

Interestingly, out of probably a couple hundred clunkers, not one Expedition, and the only Suburban was from the late 1980s.

carfan26

I sorta took the C4C program (especially during the tight credit time it took place in) as a way to "stimulate" people who could afford a new car, to buy one, while at the same time, moving up the MPG ladder.

I fully agree, the country running a debt is a bad thing and it has to be addressed ASAP. However, without the economy being stimulated where's the tax base, with high unemployment (its high now and would have been higher if not for some steps taken early this year) it costs our government millions, with the ridiculously wealthy not paying what they can afford in taxes, and with some pretty pricey overseas operations going on, we would have no chance to pay down the deficit (regardless of everyone's stand on fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we are going to fight wars there, we have to pay for them, and never, absolutely never in the history of our country have we cut taxes during wartime, especially to the wealthiest.) So, the C4C is only a temporary boost, and certainly not perfectly administered, but it helped keep some working.

keywestpirate

me , myself think that you are right , i looked a chevy silver pick up.
the price was 18,500, then the scam came up(cash for cluckers)
the raised the price up 5,500, i saw it for my eyes, i wish i had a camara to take a pic of the prices, to me , i think it is nothing but a scam to get poeple that could not really afford to buy a car and did
here is wre the [non-permissible content removed] comes in ,,,,,, trying to pay for that new car, the banks were in on it too,
they financed every one ,,,, new they are getting the cars back for free, and you lost your down payment, and still owe the banka lot more then the car is worth,,
i think i will keep my junker, and see what other scam the government is trying to pull over the peoples eyes

the key west pirate

berri

C4C just moves sales up and artifically increases transaction prices. Short term disruptions to normal supply and demand can lead to longer term problems. Jacking up the deficits higher with this nonsense will continue to weaken the dollar and historically a weakening dollar leads to lower standards of living. Think of it this way, if you spend money which the treasury has to borrow for C4C, this just leads to further weakening of the dollar which leads to higher oil and gasoline prices for all Americans whether they participated in C4C or not. No way is the country better off with this C4C garbage beyond a quarter or so of the artificial stimulus which then leads to longer term movement in the opposite direction as the market seeks equilibrium. Same goes for first time home buyers (the recent increasing home sales also reflects higher transaction prices not just unit volume because government subsidies distort market pricing), same for the upcoming appliance subsidies, etc. If the economy needs stimulus, you're better off just creating public works jobs like roads and then letting the newly employed spend their money in a rational rather than government distorted manner to meet their needs. Why is it the Democrats always want to control or distort economic matters while the Republicans always want to spend our money subsidizing the wealthy's tax cuts? Man, we need some new political parties in a hurry in this country!

gagrice

I think you see the situation how it really is. For every dollar printed with nothing to back it up, the dollar in your pocket is worth less. I'm also fed up with both parties. Using trumped up statistics to make things look better than they are. Every move designed to get votes, with no regard for the future of the country.

dodgeman07

Will we have to pay the $4,500 incentive back? Yep sure as sure can be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with most of what's stated in your post. The long term consequences of Washington's reckless spending are one important thing, but the devaluation of the U$D is another more serious short term issue. U$D is simply toast next year and we can't stop that now but it can be bought under control. Repubs & Democrats in D.C. are spending money like drunken sailors in a cat house. It has to slow down soon!

I was initially in favor of C4C but agree with Edmunds that 80% of the sales would have been made this year w/o C4C. Many of the C4C sales would have been in the Sept-Dec 2009 timeframe and not August. Some June-July were postponed to August. It was a blip on the radar screen that has disappeared.

Auto sales will stay low through 2011 and the big GM bail-out will come crashing down on a slightly better economy two years from now. Sorry to see that $100 billion in taxpayer money gone but at least some people kept their jobs an extra 2 years right?

gravedigger187

First of all, the government did try to stimulate the economy, but they did not think it out. This might have made cars jump off the lots, but what happens next year when the job market doesnt pick up as much as they hope it will. REPOS!!!!! Next thing is what happens to goodyear and all the gas station/mechanic shops. Where is there stimulus package. Lets say half of the cars that were traded need tires in the next 2 to 3 months and two thirds would have need spark plugs or brakes. THis is the kind of a-s backward thinking that our government is doing. I have an idea. Lets pressure American the car manufacturers to make a decent car at a decent price and the American people will have enough faith to trade a little more often for newer and better cars. It just kills me that our government misleads it people and shows a total lack of respect for us.

imidazol97

>to take advantage of congressional concerns about the 2010 election year."

Now that is somethiing I can see happening. Politicians always know which side the dollar bill is buttered on.

imidazol97

>So folks and Edmunds mods-What is your response?

Edmunds will be on the next Enemies List from the Nixon Obama White House. We'll hear a White House emissary tell the other news outlets to ignore what they have to say because they are biased. We'll see their press credentials cut off keeping them out of the White House briefings. And Edmunds won't get any more representatives from the administration giving them interviews.

Just because Edmunds was right.

ateixeira

They're worth USD$10M and they bought a plain ol' Toyota?

That alone doesn't make any sense.

dodgeman07

They're worth USD$10M and they bought a plain ol' Toyota?

That alone doesn't make any sense.

-----------------------------------------------------

Why doesn't it make sense? Do you think they built up that wealth with reckless spending? Maybe a $300K Rolls is what all multi-millionaires drive?

The Venza now sits next to an '09 Prius and an '07 Lexus RX 350 in their garage. The Venza is not a bad 'round town beater.

vinnyny

The bottom line on C4C will be reflected in the bottomline for car dealers. IF/when they publish data on the average transaction costs, I'm willing to bet that actual transactions costs for C4C deals were higher than for transactions on the same cars in the same months last year. All C4C did was take taxpayer money and subsidize dealers' bottom lines. Most of the people trading in their clunkers weren't financially sophisticated enough to realize that they were paying more than they should have...

Just like the guy on a roll at a Vegas craps table who tips the cocktail waitress $10 for a "free" beer he could have bought for $5. He doesn't care if he pays more than he should because it's not his money anyway. At least they could have had the sense to limit their largesse to vehicles made in the US.

vinnyny

You obviously haven't read the statistics on which manufacturers sold the most cars under C4C. The big winners were not US manufacturers. The few extra car salesmen that C4C kept employed for another two months is certainly not worth the cost.

I don't support all the corporate bailouts either, but this is just a corporate bailout in disguise.

stever

The big winners were not US manufacturers.

That depends on how you count the cars. The feds did it differently than Edmunds did. More people bought a Focus than any other sedan for example.

Edmunds.com Final Tally: Cash for Clunkers Buys, Trades; Ford Focus No. 1 Buy (AutoObserver)

Mr_Shiftright

Edmunds is presenting their point of view from a numbers-crunching angle, which is fine. I doubt the White House really cares, given the bigger picture it has to deal with.

I think C4C was brilliantly executed and a very gutsy move. Forced bankruptcy, juicy incentives to produce alternate energy vehicles, jobs and plants rescue, and stimulus for showroom traffic---all in a matter of weeks. This is such a far cry from the do-nothings of years past.

Whether the gutsy move will prove justifiable or whether the White House ends up owning General Motors---well, we'll have to see.

But then, the best actions are usually originated by the biggest gambles. No country ever got great, or solved problems, by saying 'No" to every possibility.