A Stadium Full Of Obamanomics

Posted Thursday, September 1, 2011, at 6:35 PM
View 13 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    Welcome back Sam!! I, for one missed your wit, wisdom, and personal outlook.

    You know out here in Nebraska, some enterprising folk put a bunch of cars in a semi-structural circle resembling Stonehenge, and turned it into a tourist attraction called "Car-henge". Maybe the Big BO could hire this guy as a consultant?

    I've been stocking up on the old incandescent light bulbs, knowing that they very well may collectors items someday. I'll bet those boys out in Vegas will still get their hands on incandescents for their big casino signs; I wonder if I can get an exemption...

    -- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Sep 2, 2011, at 10:56 AM
  • Hello Sam;

    I find it necessary to question some of the statements you have made in your article titled "A Stadium Full of Obamanomics". I understand your resentment of President Obama and his policies. However, my research does not support your conclusions. With this in mind, I respectfully submit the following for your review.

    1. "...according to Google Maps, they are rotting away in historic Bush Stadium in Indianapolis, IN.

    Your Google image is out of date. From an article published in the IndiStar on June 10th, 2011.

    The junked vehicles have been removed from the stadium in the past month to prepare for next week's announcement, said Marc Lotter, spokesman for Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard.


    2. So the Obama administration rented out Bush Stadium and filled it up with cars. Hundreds of objects, all containing parts that could be used in cars still on the road, recycled, sold, etc., just sitting there rotting away."

    (where did Obama get the money to rent a stadium? From your grandkids)

    From an article originally published in the Indy Democrat November 11th, 2009

    Old Bush Stadium sits empty except for a few "Cash for Clunkers" clunkers.

    As the Indianapolis Star reported yesterday morning, a salvage company is paying the city $2000 a month to rent the former home of the Indianapolis Indians to store old cars and trucks traded in under the federal government's successful program. I guess the city should be credited for getting something out of the old girl. Still, the aging stadium is still structurally sound and could be utilized for something really really good.


    3. If the engines were working, government thugs destroyed the engines by putting sodium silicate in them. So now we have a possible environmental disaster in the form of thousands of cars, once in working order, destroyed by a nutty and evil government with harsh chemicals, a mere 500 feet from a major river!

    It has been a few months since I was in Indianapolis, but I think the White River runs right by this stadium. Where is the EPA? (the EPA is busy planning fines and jail time for upcoming light bulb violations)

    "Sodium silicate is a fairly harmless chemical that has been widely used in laundry detergent and other consumer products for over 100 years and as a corrosion inhibitor in municipal water treatment plants. It is not considered harmful to humans and is not regulated by the EPA,"

    -Alex Wilson, executive editor of Environmental Building News


    4. "Prior to his nomination, Krueger's chief public policy claim to fame was the Obama administration's "Cash for Clunkers." That program put the already cash strapped US government on the hook for buying thousands of cars off the hands of Americans, as trade-ins for the newer cars. The program was supposed to jump start the US auto industry and stimulate the economy.

    It didn't. And what happened to all those cars the government bought?"

    According to government records published on www.CARS.gov, 677,000 vehicles qualified as CARS transactions. The Maritz study demonstrates that the vast majority (542,000) of consumers indicated that CARS was the main motivation for purchasing or leasing a vehicle when they did. Moreover, an estimated additional 223,000 vehicles sold during July and August 2009 were purchased by consumers who wanted to participate in CARS, but did not qualify, yet they purchased or leased a new vehicle anyway.

    "The 'halo sales' of 223,000 vehicles were an added bonus to the already solid results produced by the CARS program," Fish said.

    Not only do we now know the incentive program created sales that otherwise wouldn't have occurred, a body of research also proves that Cash for Clunkers created jobs throughout the automotive industry, including those at manufacturers and their suppliers. According to NHTSA's Report to Congress, CARS resulted in a $3.8 billion to $6.8 billion increase in gross domestic product and "created or saved nearly 60,000 jobs." And, according to the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research, 40,200 new jobs were created including about 11,000 in Michigan and Ohio alone.



    -- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Sep 2, 2011, at 2:34 PM
  • *

    Geezer, "created or saved nearly 60,000 jobs" is used by supporters of the program because while it cannot be proved, it cannot be disproved, either. It's all government doublespeak.

    Did the people buying cars really benefit? Maybe they were better off in older cars that were paid for, rather than the new cars with loads of debt and payments for 5 or 6 years into the future. We just stole car sales from the next few years to make this year look better, added to the federal debt, and added to personal debts. The union auto workers did benefit a little, I suppose, and that is probably the whole point of the political payoff scheme.

    What can be proved is what it cost the taxpayers which was billions, and the final bill is stil not here yet. The bill for the cleanup, and the increase debt owed by the government.

    The C4C program "required" the government to make these cars inoperable. How does that benefit us, the taxpayers?

    If our government could eliminate unemployment and poverty simply by giving people money, we'd all be employed and rich. But it doesn't work.

    When you give people money, they always ask for more. When you take that money from the rich, they leave the country--at least they move their businesses out of the country. And in between the rich being robbed, and the poor being trapped on Uncle Sam's plantation, you have the government taking half of it all for administration. So of course, the governmental bureaucrats support the idea--they're building govt empires. And the poor support the idea--if you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul's vote.

    But the poor taxpayer, he's left holding the bag full of debts and taxes he has to pay.

    -- Posted by Boomer62 on Fri, Sep 2, 2011, at 4:47 PM
  • Welcome back to the middle track, that toasts a lot of folks, Getting conversation going, so folk know Government's no Joke. (Well, some of the time). (^8

    Good to see you can still light the fuse of conversation. (Well, almost conversation).

    Oh, a comment was made about the in-can-descent bulbs,, alluding to the new Floor-esss-cent bulbs. I don't know about the other folks, but those, ahem, 70,000 hour, $5.+ each bulbs, at least for me, is only lasting about the same hours as the outlawed, and much cheaper bulbs. Mine are dying like flies, at about 500 - 600 hours (made in China). just a thought.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Sep 2, 2011, at 5:37 PM
  • so, where is the proof that it cost billions?

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Sep 2, 2011, at 6:59 PM
  • A big welcome back Sam!

    bigdawg, perhaps the answer you are looking for and a summary of the cash for clunkers can be found at; http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/least_surprising_headline_cash.html

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Fri, Sep 2, 2011, at 11:14 PM
  • thank you chunky, very interesting article.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Sep 3, 2011, at 8:26 AM
  • bigdawg

    You may also want to take a look at the following link which provides a rebuttal to CPB's link.


    -- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Sep 3, 2011, at 9:32 AM
  • bigdawg,

    Here is a much more accurate picture of CARS;


    Not just a rebuttal to Geezer, but actual economic analysis.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Sep 3, 2011, at 9:42 AM
  • *

    677,000 qualifying cars times $2,000 per car =

    $1.354 billion, not including the cost of administering the Cash for Clunkers program. My guess is a total of around $2 billion.

    But we still have to do something with the disabled cars now. More cost.

    If you liked this program, you probably will love your new expensive pig-tail light bulbs, your $1,500 mandated clothes washers, and the taxpayers paying for the president's recent campaign tour in the bus from Canada.

    Just payin' taxes,

    -- Posted by Boomer62 on Sat, Sep 3, 2011, at 10:21 AM
  • Boomer62

    I don't understand your comment - "But we still have to do something with the disabled cars now. More cost.

    The vehicles were sold for salvage at auctions etc. - for parts except for the engine block. The vehicles were then crushed or shredded per requirements of the program. All trade in vehicles VIN's were entered into the nationwide vehicle identification database as salvage. Every aspect of the program from receiving the trade in vehicle to shredding the vehicle included strict reporting requirements with specific time limits. The government did not bear this cost -- the salvage companies paid these costs in exchange for the parts and sale of the salvage material.

    I wonder how many additional jobs that created in the salvage industry?

    See Disposition of Eligible Trade-In Vehicles on page 3 and 4 of the following link.


    -- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Sep 4, 2011, at 8:32 AM
  • *

    While you're shouting "hoo-rah" for the implementation of another gov't subsidy, Geezer...maybe you should check out this:


    According to several reports I read (just by googling "cash for clunkers failure or success") most experts agree that the program was a failure. The program artificially stimulated auto sales when the majority of the auto's sold would have been sold anyway.

    I also take umbrage with your tout of jobs being created via the gov't throwing around money. The same result could have been realized if you would have just thrown the money out of the back of van while driving down the freeway. People chased the idea of something for nothing, and there were no sustainable results to show for it.

    I don't recall you being a champion of subsidies...am I wrong?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 5:45 PM
  • You know whats most infuriating about the "Cash for Clunkers" program? Obama should have learned from the first time the exact same program was tried (unsuccessfully) by Republican president George H.W. Bush. I mean persevering and not giving into failure are qualities I typically admire, but Obama resurrects so many ridiculous right-wing policies from a decade or two ago--policies that have failed both then and now--that he might best be described as Ronald Reagan's resurrected lap dog. He really should quit with the thinly veiled conservatism at some point if he wants to retain his voting base.

    Ya have to get in the way back machine, but here's the article if you are interested in your own edification...


    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 5:46 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: