We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Black Is White: Sibby Shows Cash for Clunkers Has No Negative Impact on Donations

Steve Sibson and I have picnicked together twice this summer. We played the bad kids in class at Saturday's Glenn Beck picnic, distracting ourselves with small asides on what we were hearing.

But our positive personal interaction does not change my opinion that Mr. Sibson has a bad tendency to hear what he wants rather than what is. His post this morning about Cash for Clunkers is a stunning example of Sibby's disconnect from logic and reality.

Sibby's headline: "What Cash for Clunkers Is Destroying." His tag line: "It is obvious that Cash for Clunkers are destroying donations like these."

He then copies and pastes this KSFY article about the Wheels to Work program in its entirety (Sibby! Learn to use blockquote!). I expect the KSFY article to perform the normal function of evidence and support Sibby's argument. Silly me.

Among other things, Cliff Chandler's report says...
  • "While [Wheels to Work] has been operating in the Sioux Empire for 15 years, the only started to take off within the past month"... the same month Cash for Clunkers was in effect.
  • "Suzanne 'Lynn' Cheesman said, 'We set a goal of ten cars. We know it's a big item to donate and we're blown away.' Tires, Tires, Tires offered to fix the donations up, making sure they're safe for the road. Since the first of the month, more than 30 cars have been dropped off."
  • "'So we're going to have enough cars to cover enough people on our waiting list and to help people in the future,' said Karen Hattervig of Wheels to Work."
The KSFY report Sibby cites says not one word about Cash for Clunkers. It says not one word about Wheels for Work or any other auto donation program suffering. As a matter of fact, it says the exact opposite, that Wheels for Work is enjoying unprecedented success in Sioux Falls.

There's plenty of legitimate ground on which to argue the merits of Cash for Clunkers. But Sibby's post this morning is illogical and irresponsible. I like Steve, but he needs to take his head out of his bucket and listen to what the people he cites are actually saying.


  1. It is having a negative effect on used car dealers, however, and that is direct from the horses mouth so to speak. The used car market has effectively dried up.

    But as a relative of mine says, in about two years when many of the people who bought these expensive cars thru Cash for Clunkers are then unable to keep up the payments, it will be the time he is looking for a good used car and there should be plenty of repossessed ones around! There are unintended consequences when the gov't meddles in the free market, and not all of them good.

  2. That sure isn't "obvious" from what Sibby wrote. Evidence, Linda M?

  3. Steve Sibson9/01/2009 11:25 AM

    Cory, how can you donate a "Clunker" that the Obama communist regime requires to be destroyed for being an evil gas hog?

  4. Steve Sibson9/01/2009 11:48 AM

    What a second Chandler's report does not say:

    "the same month Cash for Clunkers was in effect."

    Cory those are your words.

    The report attributes the success to a Christian radio station:

    From January first to August first of this year, the program received just three car donations, but things quickly changed when LIFE 96.5 stepped in. Suzanne "Lynn" Cheesman said, "We set a goal of ten cars. We know it's a big item to donate and we're blown away."

    Cory, you should be ashamed at yourself. A very deceptive trick. It is you who has his head in the bucket for promoting something that is illegal, while it is Christians who deserve the praise.

  5. Steve, you claim CforC is destroying donations. The article you post says that donations went up during August. CforC was in effect during August. CforC evidently did not destroy donations. I can't be any more straightforward than that.

    (And you'll note I use quote marks to delineate my words from my sources', unlike you.)

    I don't use deceptive tricks, and I don't need them. Deal with your own conscience, and stop projecting onto me.

  6. Linda, www.preownedcar.com says something different. Overall effect of CARS on the used car market:

    " * Normally, incentives on new vehicles drive used vehicle prices down. According to Manheim Consulting chief economist Tom Webb, every $1,000 in new vehicle incentives decreases used vehicle prices by $750. However, new vehicle inventories were low even before CARS started on July 24, which has helped to support higher used vehicle prices.

    * Furthermore, CARS has actually increased demand for used vehicles. Many consumers went to dealerships intending to participate in CARS but found out their trade-in was ineligible, so they decided to look for a used vehicle on the same dealer’s lot.

    * Dealers are thus bidding up auction prices as they acquire more used vehicles to sell to customers who cannot trade in their clunkers. According to Manheim, the Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index for July was at its highest level since September 2007."

    Source: http://news.preownedcar.com/2009/08/24/effect-of-cash-for-clunkers-on-used-car-price/

  7. [Whoops! I hit "Delete" too fast: sorry, Travis!]

    The following comment comes from Travis Miller of Sioux Falls:
    Guys and Gals -

    The thing that stands out most to me out of this discussion is that it is the Hearts of Christians who made that many donations possible, despite Cash for Clunkers and the downturn in the economy.

    All things being said it boils down to this, when you take the government out of the equation, in almost all aspects, the Christians will stand in the gap.

    Praise be to God

    Travis M - Sioux Falls, SD

  8. So I guess CforC not only hasn't destroyed donations, but it also has helped the used car industry. Erin, you are brilliant! (But as Erin says, it doesn't take brilliance to just read the facts.)

  9. Erin / Cory -

    Wouldn't reducing the inventory of used cars, which in turn raises the retail (supply & demand) that in turn helps dealers by increasing their profit, end up hurting the person that is struggling that needs a cheap car?

  10. I said cash for clunkers has destroyed the used car market for a person we know who only deals in used cars. There have been I think 700,000+ perfectly good cars destroyed, and you don't think that has an effect on people who only deal in used cars?


    Here's a link from a good ole lib rag, the Huffington Post stating the same thing.

  11. Travis: A reasonable point... and not at all what Sibby was saying in the original post I critique here. Sibby's argument is still bad-wishful thinking. Let's not lose sight of the original point of the post: that Sibby's post utterly fails to make its case.

    Now, let's go back and actually read what Erin submitted. CforC has increased used-car demand, which is good for the used car industry overall. That pretty much refutes Linda's contention that CforC has hurt used car dealers in general and that the market has effectively "dried up."

    And even if you can point to individual exceptions where a dealer is losing money, well, both Erin's and Linda's articles note the used car industry was already in the tank. To turn around now and try to ascribe all that destruction to CforC is, at best, like griping that your medicine tastes bad as it cures the tummy ache you've had for three days.

  12. Cory -

    I agree that you covered what you were critiquing in Steve's article.

    The comments I made on Christians filling the gap as well as the person who truly suffers in the C for C deal was just my 2 cents.

    Depending on how slow the Government is on reimbursements, dealerships and their employees may take it in the shorts as well.

    That is a lot of cash that is not necessarily flowing anymore… I hope it doesn’t affect anyone’s ability to cash a payroll check.

    Travis M

  13. Steve Sibson9/01/2009 4:26 PM

    "Sibby's argument is still bad-wishful thinking."


    I thought by now you would have pulled your head out of the bucket of Progressive Kool Aid and apologized for saying I am illogical and irresponsible.

    Here is the logic:

    a): The donations at issue are older cars
    b): Cars for Clunkers buys older cars, and then destroys them
    c): Cars for Clunkers is destroying would could have been perfectly good donations.

    What is irresponsible:

    A): Using other peoples' money to over pay for cars.
    B) Taking perfectly good cars and destroying them.

    The Progrssive left has been forced to face the reality:

    A) Do we consider the environment so important that we take $3 billion out of American citizens pockets to lower the supply of affordable used cars.

    B) Honor those Christians who donated their used cars to single parents who could not afford them.

    Environmental extremism versus helping the poor. Cory, Obama, along with the rest of the Progressive movement, chose the environment. Poor people are just political pawns to be used as part of some communist revolution.

    And who benefited the most...Toyota. And what did they do; close down an American plant and moved jobs to Canada and Japan. Does that sound tike economic development in America?

    Who benefited second...the banks who financed the car loans.

    Who loss; the American taxpayers, the working poor, and Cory on this debate.

  14. Wow. Sibby can run out of bounds, through the bleachers, and out around the parking lot, screaming about communist revolution and other absurdities. I'll just keep marching the ball up the field, talking about the actual point.

  15. Steve Sibson9/01/2009 9:03 PM

    "I'll just keep marching the ball up the field, talking about the actual point."

    That even though donations went up, they could have been even higher if the government was not paying $4,500 for them?

    And point 2, after paying $4,500 to destroy the cars, nobody will be able to donate them in the future.

  16. Right, Sibby. You finally got it. They will donate cars that are better for the planet and for everyone's pocketbook. A win, win, win.

  17. Steve Sibson9/02/2009 11:23 AM


    Thanks so much for giving Cory's readers another example of the Progressive's use of tricks and deceptions to convince their victims that government intervention is a good thing.

    Flemings claim that Cash For Clunkers is good for "everyone's pocketbook" is "illogical and irresponsible". Here is a link to My web site where you will learn the economic truth regarding Cash For Clunkers:


    If Cory wants to be fair he would use that link on a post that apologizes for accusing me of being illogical and irresponsible when in fact he, Fleming, and Obama are guilty of that behavior. They are the ones with their heads stuck in a bucket of Progressive Kool Aid. Many will believe theIR propaganda because progressive is such a grand sounding label. But that too is deceptive. The accurate label for the Progressive Movement would be a fascist/Marxist/socialist/communist revolution. That is Obama's "CHANGE".

  18. Steve:

    Let's use the scientific process:

    1. Theorize that cash for clunkers will lead to decreased donations.
    2. Gathering evidence, in this case looking at what the article says happened. The article says the program is doing great.
    3. Test the theory. In this case the theory predicts that cash for clunkers would hurt charitable donations. The evidence does not support that conclusion.
    4. Refine theory....

    Just because something seems plausible doesn't make it true.

  19. Steve Sibson9/03/2009 5:36 AM


    You are missing the fact that a Christian radio station's promotion caused the success.

    Again, simpled supply and demand economics. If you have less supply, then prices go up and used cars become less affordable.

    And I laid out the logic in an earlier comment. You do know how to comprehend what you read?

  20. Steve,

    I totally understand your logic. It seems quite plausible in fact. But, the facts simply don't support your position. If there had been a massive drop off in donations I would accept your theory without challenge. In this case, it doesn't seem like the generally accepted theory of supply and demand economics is predicting the correct outcome.

    Also, why are you personally attacking me by questioning my reading comprehension? I put forth my logic in my comment without insulting your intelligence. How about a little civility?

  21. Steve Sibson9/04/2009 11:34 AM


    Again, You are missing the fact that a Christian radio station's promotion caused the success. That had nothing to do with Cash for Clunkers.

    You still have that reading problem. If you want to bark incivility, then go after Cory for being illogical and irresponsible when it is he and you who are illogical and Obama who is irresponsible.


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.