-
Way to go Obama!!
- Sep 24, 2009 at 6:11 PM
- By
- Comments (8) Total Views (162) Everyone can see this journal post.
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons
a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 4 million barrels of oil.
4 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 4 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $285 million dollars
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $285 million.
We spent $8.57 to for every dollar saved.
How good a deal was that ???
They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!
Comments:
Voting you popular, BTW. This is wonderful. I'm willing to donate some money to buy the guys in Washington and the White House some new calculators.
Isn't this crazy?
it will be better for the earth though.
Your logic is flawed, you're only using one year worth of savings when these cars will be driven for several years, at least. Additionally, the price of oil fluctuates pretty constantly, trying to say it "averages" at $70 without backing this up with any source or information is severely flawed. The average price of a barrel of oil last year was $91.48. This year it will be lower, if I had to guess an end of year estimate, with the way the price has been rising I would actuallyk go with $75.
However, you can't possibly guess what next years average will be, or the year after that, etc. And in order to calculate the savings you'd have to look at the average price of oil for at least the next five years versus the amount the country would be saving in oil prices by decreased consumption of gas.
Final verdict: your post makes NO sense because your logic is severely flawed and has too many holes.
ITA with Jafra_mommy
Plus oil is a limited natural resource. We need to be less dependent on it.
Yup. Somebody just keeps passing the Kool-Aid.
See... this is what gets me. "Passing the kool-aid"? Why? Because I look at things with a critical eye. The major flaws in the OP's math and logic are glaringly obvious to anyone who reads it and intends to use logic to follow her point. It doesn't work because there are way too many factors that at this point she can't put into the equation because those factors occur in the future.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who's drinking kool-aid. I have the ability to sit down, read something, and think critically about it. You, on the other hand, find something that you agree with (even though it really makes no sense) and make some random comment that really has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil, money saved vs. money spent, or really the entire journal.
I recently was in a small car accident. During the time of my van being repaired I got a rental. It was new Kia Sedona. And let me tell you I wasted more gas in one week of using that thing. My 99 town and country is the best on gas. Alot of the newer vehicles dont save as much gas as the older ones. The only reason alot of poeple took advantage of the deal was just to save money and to be able to get a new vehicle. But saving gas should not be the main agenda. Since alot of them dont do that. Besides alot of Americans need bigger vehicles to get around. Its time for these vehicle companies to start making vehicles that do not rely on oil and are bigger. But then the government wouldnt get their money so that wont be happening any time soon.
Already a member? Click here to log in
Yup. Somebody just keeps passing the Kool-Aid.
- proud2Bmomma
Message Friend Invite