Too popular

[NatGertler]

The arguments that the public option should be avoided because it will prove too popular remind me of the claims that Clash 4 Clunkers was a failure because it ran out of money too quickly... because it had achieved its goals of generating more car sales more efficiently than expected. Oh, no! Popuar and efficient! We can't have that in a government program!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The arguments that the public option should be avoided because it will prove too popular remind me of the claims that Clash 4 Clunkers was a failure because it ran out of money too quickly... because it had achieved its goals of generating more car sales more efficiently than expected. Oh, no! Popuar and efficient! We can't have that in a government program!

I caught one Fox bit where they ran a story on the poor poor car salesmen who were burned by Cash For Clunkers, because sales went straight back down after the program finished, and so the sales boost was only for a limited time.
Um... well, no shit fox.

[Village Idiot]

I caught one Fox bit where they ran a story on the poor poor car salesmen who were burned by Cash For Clunkers, because sales went straight back down after the program finished, and so the sales boost was only for a limited time.
Um... well, no shit fox.

Yeah, it went quickly because people just needed a bit of financial help in buying a new car. But the important thing is that these old, polluting, and fuel-wasting heaps are off the road, making a better future for all of us (if only by a miniscule amount). And that is the real reason there was so much opposition to the cash-for-clunkers program...if it could be proved that one program like this worked, there would be others.

And the same is true of health care reform.

[Lord Destiny]

Politics, sadly, remains over most folks' heads. So it's kinda easy to understand why FoxNews is able to so easily distort the facts and still build credibility in its audience.

But the "Cash for Clunkers" concept is right down on every adult's level -- the cost of buying a car. And yet FoxNews still distorts and misleads in its coverage...and their viewers STILL don't get it...

...that FoxNews blatantly LIES to them.


Oh what fools these mortals be...

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But the important thing is that these old, polluting, and fuel-wasting heaps are off the road, making a better future for all of us

I thought the important thing was that in the midst of a massive financial crisis, people went and out brought new cars, providing a shot in the arm for an industry that probably would've copped a hiding otherwise (as you can live without a new car).

[badMike]

The arguments that the public option should be avoided because it will prove too popular remind me of the claims that Clash 4 Clunkers was a failure because it ran out of money too quicklyThe other strange argument I heard was some nitwit on Bill Maher who was trying to compare the public option to the post office. His argument went sort of like, "The post office is so bad that private companies, like FedEx and UPS, had to step into the business and become wildly successful. Therefore we shouldn't have a public health care option because it will be bad like the post office." Of course the guy didn't realize that this argument had completely obliterated his earlier complaint that a public option would be too efficient and drive private companies out of business.

[bartl]

The arguments that the public option should be avoided because it will prove too popular remind me of the claims that Clash 4 Clunkers was a failure because it ran out of money too quickly... because it had achieved its goals of generating more car sales more efficiently than expected. Oh, no! Popuar and efficient! We can't have that in a government program!
The problem with the CURRENT proposals (this is not to say that future proposals can't fix this problem) is not potential popularity of the plans among the recipients; it's the potential popularity of these plans among employers. Or, more precisely, the fine for not having any employee plan, which automatically puts employees on the public plan, would be less than most insurance plans currently cost. Also consider that the body controlling the public plan, the body regulating the private plans, and the body that decides whether a private company is allowed to operate, is all the same body, with no Congressional oversight. Finally, consider the government's past behavior of using its power in one area to exert power to which it is normally forbidden to exercise (such as using highway funds to set the drinking age, or regulation of interstate trade to make it illegal to grow and smoke your own marijuana), and it makes a government monopoly on heath care a very dangerous situation. And President Obama has previously declared that a public option for health care is a stepping stone for a government monopoly.

[bartl]

The other strange argument I heard was some nitwit on Bill Maher who was trying to compare the public option to the post office. His argument went sort of like, "The post office is so bad that private companies, like FedEx and UPS, had to step into the business and become wildly successful. Therefore we shouldn't have a public health care option because it will be bad like the post office." Of course the guy didn't realize that this argument had completely obliterated his earlier complaint that a public option would be too efficient and drive private companies out of business.
Let me paint you a picture of a U.S. government run health system. I may have done this before, but it bears repeating.

You make an appointment to see a doctor for your child at 9:00 AM. You arrive at 8:30 AM, to discover a waiting room full of patients, ALL of whom have a 9:00 AM appointment. You wait until noon, when the doctor FINALLY shows up. And he sees the patients in order of arrival. Finally, at 2:30, having waited in the office for 6 hours, your child gets to see the doctor, who, without examining him, recommends that he be institutionalized.

That's an unrealistic picture of the future, you might say. Maybe. But it is an extremely accurate picture of the current system. My wife and I took in brain-injured foster children for several years, and, by law, we were required to take each one regularly to the Medicaid (for those outside the U.S., that's the government medical program for those who can't afford medical care) neurologist (we also took them to our own physicians).

I have no great hopes that any public option, once it is the only option, will not become Medicaid for everybody, with no option to see one's own doctor at one's own expense.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And President Obama has previously declared that a public option for health care is a stepping stone for a government monopoly.

When?

Where?

Bullshit.

Give us a link Bart - and I wanna see a declaration, not some 'If you think like I do and read between the lines'...

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That's an unrealistic picture of the future, you might say. Maybe. But it is an extremely accurate picture of the current system.

Yeah, that'd be the one they are trying to move away from by making it better for all.


I have no great hopes that any public option, once it is the only option, will not become Medicaid for everybody, with no option to see one's own doctor at one's own expense.

You love this whole 'our system will be totally different to the successful one's we'd be basing it on' don't you?

[JCAll]

Let me paint you a picture of a U.S. government run health system. I may have done this before, but it bears repeating.

You make an appointment to see a doctor for your child at 9:00 AM. You arrive at 8:30 AM, to discover a waiting room full of patients, ALL of whom have a 9:00 AM appointment. You wait until noon, when the doctor FINALLY shows up. And he sees the patients in order of arrival. Finally, at 2:30, having waited in the office for 6 hours, your child gets to see the doctor, who, without examining him, recommends that he be institutionalized.

That's an unrealistic picture of the future, you might say. Maybe. But it is an extremely accurate picture of the current system. My wife and I took in brain-injured foster children for several years, and, by law, we were required to take each one regularly to the Medicaid (for those outside the U.S., that's the government medical program for those who can't afford medical care) neurologist (we also took them to our own physicians).

I have no great hopes that any public option, once it is the only option, will not become Medicaid for everybody, with no option to see one's own doctor at one's own expense.

I'm sorry that sort of thing has to happen to you, or anyone for that matter, but really that's every doctor's appointment I've ever had in my life. The hospital staff around here, and in most please by the sounds of it, rand from insensitive to ignorant buffoons. Personally, I can (almost) handle doctors that detach themselves from their work, possibly they need to to stay sane, but people that can't read and chew bubblegum at the same time should not be working the front desk.

Or maybe I'm just jaded. But either way, I don't see how putting them all on the government's dime instead of the private health insurers' (or leaving it as is) is going to change hospital hiring policies.

[Charles RB]

The arguments that the public option should be avoided because it will prove too popular remind me of the claims that Clash 4 Clunkers was a failure because it ran out of money too quickly... because it had achieved its goals of generating more car sales more efficiently than expected. Oh, no! Popuar and efficient! We can't have that in a government program!

You know, I DID wonder why I kept hearing the American government had failed when the scheme was a big success in Germany...


You make an appointment to see a doctor for your child at 9:00 AM. You arrive at 8:30 AM, to discover a waiting room full of patients, ALL of whom have a 9:00 AM appointment. You wait until noon, when the doctor FINALLY shows up.

This has never happened to me in 23 years of using the NHS. Are we just hiring/training more competent people?

[Imaginos666]

I caught one Fox bit where they ran a story on the poor poor car salesmen who were burned by Cash For Clunkers, because sales went straight back down after the program finished, and so the sales boost was only for a limited time.
Um... well, no shit fox.

A few years ago at a public event (a chamber of commerce banquet or something) I was sitting next to an older gentleman who was touting his love for Fox News.

"I like Fox News because they report and let you decide."

He actually said that. Out loud.

[bartl]

You love this whole 'our system will be totally different to the successful one's we'd be basing it on' don't you?
Just for the record: the fact that I am against sacrificing virgins to the volcano god does NOT mean that I am against people dying in volcanic eruptions.

In other words, you are invoking the logical fallacy of the false dilemma; just because the current system is bad does not mean that any change would be for the better.

[bartl]

When?

Where?
March, 24, 2007, at an SEIU forum, "I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately." Note that while later in the speech, he gave other options which he would find acceptable, this indicates that he would prefer the government-only system. Here's a full transcript:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/events/healthforum/obama_transcript.html

In June of 2003 (I had to go to mediamaters.org for the full quote), Obama says, "OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim's talking about when he says, "Everybody in; nobody out." A single-payer health-care plan, a universal health-care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House. "

Once again, it shows that while Obama would be willing to take in-between steps, he favors a government monopoly.

Now, go ahead with the name calling.

[Village Idiot]

and it makes a government monopoly on heath care a very dangerous situation. And President Obama has previously declared that a public option for health care is a stepping stone for a government monopoly.

But the government WON'T have anything to do with health care...just the funding of the health insurance. That's how Medicare works. And the Veteran's health care program.

All the government program will do is reduce the cost of overhead.

[Village Idiot]

...you are invoking the logical fallacy of the false dilemma; just because the current system is bad does not mean that any change would be for the better.

Well, at least he is invoking SOME logic.

And you are assuming that ANY change would be worse. "Let's leave it as it is. Change scares me."

[Charles RB]

Why all this talk of "monopoly" anyway? Private health care still exists in countries with universal coverage.

This is one of those annoying "let's pretend these things don't exist in other countries" things the Republicans like doing on social issues.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

March, 24, 2007, at an SEIU forum, "I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately." Note that while later in the speech, he gave other options which he would find acceptable, this indicates that he would prefer the government-only system. Here's a full transcript:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/events/healthforum/obama_transcript.html

Odd that he doesn't see employer provided coverage going way - with universal coverage, it becomes less expensive to have health insurance, and less of a need.
As such, why would employers provide it?


In June of 2003 (I had to go to mediamaters.org for the full quote), Obama says, "OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim's talking about when he says, "Everybody in; nobody out." A single-payer health-care plan, a universal health-care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House. "

Once again, it shows that while Obama would be willing to take in-between steps, he favors a government monopoly.

Well, that's not a declaration now is it?
Also, he doesn't say he wants a government monopoly, he wants a system where everyone is covered - as Charles points out, universal health care doesn't mean that there won't be private health insurance - it just won't be provided by your employer, it becomes an optional thing.
It'll also get a heck load cheaper as they'll have to drop their prices to keep customers - they'll panic big for the first couple of years, but if they change their ways and lower prices and provide better options than the public option, they'll still be there.



Now, go ahead with the name calling.

Sure thing stinky!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Or maybe I'm just jaded. But either way, I don't see how putting them all on the government's dime instead of the private health insurers' (or leaving it as is) is going to change hospital hiring policies.

Well, the government will have higher standards in who they hire - it's why their programs always cost more, they have to do it right.

[bartl]

But the government WON'T have anything to do with health care...just the funding of the health insurance. That's how Medicare works. And the Veteran's health care program.

All the government program will do is reduce the cost of overhead.
Where in the bill does it say that?

[bartl]

Well, at least he is invoking SOME logic.

And you are assuming that ANY change would be worse. "Let's leave it as it is. Change scares me."
You truly are an idiot, aren't you.

A logical fallacy is NOT logic, and there is nothing I said which implies that change scares me.

[Village Idiot]

You truly are an idiot, aren't you.

If I am, what does that make you for arguing with me?

[Iangould]

The arguments that the public option should be avoided because it will prove too popular remind me of the claims that Clash 4 Clunkers was a failure because it ran out of money too quickly... because it had achieved its goals of generating more car sales more efficiently than expected. Oh, no! Popuar and efficient! We can't have that in a government program!

I hear there's a waiting list for the new XBox.

I guess that proves the private sector can't run anything.

[bartl]

If I am, what does that make you for arguing with me?
I thought it would be clear by now. Many here, with whom I will discuss issues, will not be convinced by anything. I have no intention of convincing them of anything. There are, however, intelligent and reasonable people here, some of whom are undecided on issues. Once I have given the basic information, then I can just ignore most of the name calling, misstatements, etc., unless I feel I can add more useful information. I will, of course, sometimes make exceptions for people I like here (which is pretty much most of them), at least when I don't think it's too much a waste of time.

However, even though the first part of my message was in agreement with you (that you are an idiot), I figured that I owed the rest of the people why I thought you were, as opposed to why you think you are.

[Village Idiot]

Once I have given the basic information, then I can just ignore most of the name calling...

You ignore yourself? You are the one who started with the name calling. As usual.

[bartl]

You ignore yourself? You are the one who started with the name calling. As usual.
Hmmmm...
And you are assuming that ANY change would be worse. "Let's leave it as it is. Change scares me."
Be happy that all I did was capitalize on what you call yourself.

[Steven Grant]

If everyone stopped behaving like six year olds, I'd greatly appreciate it, 'cause this is really tedious. And I don't care who started it.

- Grant

[Black Vespa]

The arguments that the public option should be avoided because it will prove too popular remind me of the claims that Clash 4 Clunkers was a failure because it ran out of money too quickly... because it had achieved its goals of generating more car sales more efficiently than expected. Oh, no! Popuar and efficient! We can't have that in a government program!

I would say "Ca$h 4 Clunker$" was a failure because the program transfers money from taxpayers to car buyers. And it's exactly that: a transfer. The money taken from taxpayers can’t be used for something else.

“That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen.”

Frederic Bastiat’s essay --tells the story of a shopkeeper who hires a glazier to repair a broken window, providing work and income for the glazier in the process....that is what is seen.

What is unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done if he didn’t have to pay the glazier. He could have bought shoes for his children, providing income for the shoemaker, who in turn could buy leather to produce more shoes. The glazier’s gain is the shoemaker’s loss. There is no net gain, no job or income creation, from this transaction.


the Broken Window Fallacy

[Steven Grant]

I would say "Ca$h 4 Clunker$" was a failure because the program transfers money from taxpayers to car buyers. And it's exactly that: a transfer. The money taken from taxpayers can’t be used for something else.

While this is true, you could just as easily say roads are a failure because the money spent to build and maintain them can't be used for anything else. "Cash For Clunkers" didn't transfer money to car buyers anyway, it transferred it to car dealers and manufacturers, and in doing that it also took a lot of old gas hogging cars off the road and replaced them with theoretically more efficient and safer newer models, creating benefit not only for the car buyers but for everyone who shares the environment with the car buyers. Does that mean the money can't be used to, say, pay for school lunches? Sure, at least in the meantime, though theoretically that money gets pumped back into the system via taxes, spending and employment and "recirculates" into other public functions, like school lunch programs or troop buildups in Afghanistan.

Frederic Bastiat’s essay --tells the story of a shopkeeper who hires a glazier to repair a broken window, providing work and income for the glazier in the process....that is what is seen.

What is unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done if he didn’t have to pay the glazier. He could have bought shoes for his children, providing income for the shoemaker, who in turn could buy leather to produce more shoes. The glazier’s gain is the shoemaker’s loss. There is no net gain, no job or income creation, from this transaction.

Yes and no. Again, that's an extremely shallow view of the process. If the shopkeeper's business is seriously impeded by the broken window - say, it defeats any security he has and allows for his stock to be looted and vandalized, or in other ways creates an unsafe or uncomfortable shopping environment that drives customers from his shop - not having the window repaired more seriously limits his ability to buy shoes for his children, or anything else. The net gain comes not from the immediate expenditure to the glazier (though just like the shoemaker, the glazier can also use the money to buy more glass to repair more windows etc., and may even enable the glazier to hire other glaziers to fix even more windows, so the job creation bit is hardly an absolute either, and if there's a difference I'm missing you'll have to explain it, but it seems to me the example rests on a false distinction between shoemaker and glazier on account of their professions than any practical economic distinctions) but from the long term benefit of the expenditure.

So Bastait's parable is kind of... rubbish...

- Grant

[Black Vespa]

While this is true, you could just as easily say roads are a failure because the money spent to build and maintain them can't be used for anything else. "Cash For Clunkers" didn't transfer money to car buyers anyway, it transferred it to car dealers and manufacturers, and in doing that it also took a lot of old gas hogging cars off the road and replaced them with theoretically more efficient and safer newer models, creating benefit not only for the car buyers but for everyone who shares the environment with the car buyers. Does that mean the money can't be used to, say, pay for school lunches? Sure, at least in the meantime, though theoretically that money gets pumped back into the system via taxes, spending and employment and "recirculates" into other public functions, like school lunch programs or troop buildups in Afghanistan.



Yes and no. Again, that's an extremely shallow view of the process. If the shopkeeper's business is seriously impeded by the broken window - say, it defeats any security he has and allows for his stock to be looted and vandalized, or in other ways creates an unsafe or uncomfortable shopping environment that drives customers from his shop - not having the window repaired more seriously limits his ability to buy shoes for his children, or anything else. The net gain comes not from the immediate expenditure to the glazier (though just like the shoemaker, the glazier can also use the money to buy more glass to repair more windows etc., and may even enable the glazier to hire other glaziers to fix even more windows, so the job creation bit is hardly an absolute either, and if there's a difference I'm missing you'll have to explain it, but it seems to me the example rests on a false distinction between shoemaker and glazier on account of their professions than any practical economic distinctions) but from the long term benefit of the expenditure.

So Bastait's parable is kind of... rubbish...

- Grant

consider this : suppose the window was not broken, the shop keeper would have spent the money on shoes, and at the same time would have had the enjoyment of a new pair of shoes *and* of a window.

[Steven Grant]

consider this : suppose the window was not broken, the shop keeper would have spent the money on shoes, and at the same time would have had the enjoyment of a new pair of shoes *and* of a window.

Okay... not sure why that's important... In the parable, the window is broken, I'm not the one who broke the window. Or is the parable that the shopkeeper has hired the glazier to repair/replace a window that wasn't broken? If so, why did he do that? Did he want a more modern appearance for his store, to draw in customers? Did he want more sunlight coming in during the day, to keep him from getting depressed since he has to be there ten hours a day? Did he wake up one morning and say, "Hell, I feel like putting in a new window pane, even though it'll use up all the money I was going to spend on shoes and job production, but I'd rather have a new window so screw it?" We're missing the chain of reasoning here, and the chain of reasoning affects everything.

It doesn't matter how you look at it, the parable falls apart.

Again, you could just as easily say the shopkeeper spent money to see a movie, and that's money he can't spend on his kids' shoes, but so what? The movie ticket you buy keeps a lot of people employed, and a whole industry continuing, down to the local scene of the theater owner and his employees being able to pay their rent and grocery bill, and that money flows to the landlord and grocer, who use it to pay their bills, or invest in the stock market, or loan out to a relative starting up their own business, etc. Any money you spend is money you can't spend on something else, but money never comes to a dead end unless it ends up in Scrooge McDuck's vault.

- Grant

[NatGertler]

I would say "Ca$h 4 Clunker$" was a failure because the program transfers money from taxpayers to car buyers.Not exactly. But since that was ho the program was intended to function, its hard to see how that's a failure. It may have been arguably a bad idea, but it was a successful bad idea, in terms of doling out the money.
And it's exactly that: a transfer. The money taken from taxpayers can’t be used for something else.One can make that claim for any transaction, and thus claim that any transaction is a failure. In this case, it's factually wrong on the surface; C4C was part of deficit spending, so it's not money taken from taxpayers, it's money to be taken from taxpayers. And since part of the point is to create an economic boost, if the boost is successful, it will generate more tax money to be spent, so it may not detract from any other spending in the long term.
And add in the fact that money doesn't disappear - this is money that will be spent and spent again, it just won't be in the immediate control of the government now.

[bartl]

Not exactly. But since that was ho the program was intended to function, its hard to see how that's a failure. It may have been arguably a bad idea, but it was a successful bad idea, in terms of doling out the money.
The success of a solution is not whether or not it functions as intended, but whether or not it actually succeeds in solving the problem it was implemented to solve. Therefore saying that it performed as it was intended to function is, frankly, irrelevant. Consider: if it does not function as intended, but solves the problem anyway, is it a success or a failure?

The question is whether or not it created a sufficient economic boost to pay for itself.

[Lord Destiny]

Let me paint you a picture of a U.S. government run health system. I may have done this before, but it bears repeating.

You make an appointment to see a doctor for your child at 9:00 AM. You arrive at 8:30 AM, to discover a waiting room full of patients, ALL of whom have a 9:00 AM appointment. You wait until noon, when the doctor FINALLY shows up. And he sees the patients in order of arrival. Finally, at 2:30, having waited in the office for 6 hours, your child gets to see the doctor, who, without examining him, recommends that he be institutionalized.

That's an unrealistic picture of the future, you might say. Maybe. But it is an extremely accurate picture of the current system. My wife and I took in brain-injured foster children for several years, and, by law, we were required to take each one regularly to the Medicaid (for those outside the U.S., that's the government medical program for those who can't afford medical care) neurologist (we also took them to our own physicians).

I have no great hopes that any public option, once it is the only option, will not become Medicaid for everybody, with no option to see one's own doctor at one's own expense.

So... your fear of the public option is that we will have to put up with what we ALREADY have to put up with...?

Only the RICH get to see whichever doctor they want whenever they want. The rest of us endure long waiting room visits to see whatever doctors our insurance ALLOWS us to see. And that's my ONLY option because that's how ALL the doctors and insurance companies operate.

[Lord Destiny]

Why all this talk of "monopoly" anyway? Private health care still exists in countries with universal coverage.

This is one of those annoying "let's pretend these things don't exist in other countries" things the Republicans like doing on social issues.

Because the Republican slaves of Big Money Corporate overlords cannot win an argument without bald-faced LIES.

And it works because their supporters don't care that they're being lied to.

[bartl]

So... your fear of the public option is that we will have to put up with what we ALREADY have to put up with...?

Only the RICH get to see whichever doctor they want whenever they want. The rest of us endure long waiting room visits to see whatever doctors our insurance ALLOWS us to see. And that's my ONLY option because that's how ALL the doctors and insurance companies operate.
You didn't read my post. I said that we also took them to our own physicians. And we were hardly rich. Of course, what you might mean is that if ANYBODY has to deal with that system, then EVERYBODY has to deal with that system.

I have been buying my own health insurance for the last 6 years. That means that I actually read the policies and see what they cover and what they don't, and make my choices, at least based on what NJ state law allows (I have helped others choose private insurance, and have worked on an unsuccessful attempt to start a professional organization; the lack of success was due to the attempt to offer insurance through the organization, and having to navigate through the crazy quilt of state regulations).

I am VERY much in favor of the United States government coming up with a uniform health insurance code, and allowing interstate purchase of any policy that conforms to or surpasses that code, with encouragement to individual states adopting the code (not unlike the UCC), under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services. I would also not be against the U.S. creating medical schools in the same model as the service academies, where the students pay no tuition, and the graduates are assigned to government hospitals based on needs of the moment for a specific period of time for several years after graduation (as opposed to the less formal structure now, where the graduates have to pay their living expenses, and can choose in advance the kind of service they will provide).

[Steven Grant]

The success of a solution is not whether or not it functions as intended, but whether or not it actually succeeds in solving the problem it was implemented to solve. Therefore saying that it performed as it was intended to function is, frankly, irrelevant. Consider: if it does not function as intended, but solves the problem anyway, is it a success or a failure?

The question is whether or not it created a sufficient economic boost to pay for itself.

But creating an economic incentive wasn't the objective of the Cash-For-Clunkers program. The objective was to give drivers an incentive to get their polluting gas guzzlers off the road and replace them with more ecologically sound modern cars.

In that regard, the program was a huge success, and its main flaw was that it didn't provide enough capital to accommodate all the drivers who wanted to take advantage of the program.

- Grant

[Lord Destiny]

There is a big difference between the advertised political goal of a program, and the actual function of that program.

Cash for Clunkers is a 100% success. Its function was to encourage people to trade in bad-gas-mileage vehicles for better-gas-mileage vehicles. In that, it was a perfect program.

The advertised political goals of improving the economy is something else. But even if the overall economy continues to slump, there is no room to argue that this program did not help the economies of the businesses who participated.

So... only in the Orwellian Newspeak of modern Republicanism could this be a failure.