AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Bold words from you who has yet to articulate what a credit default swap is after being asked to do so any number of times. I at least know what it is and how that figured into the total picture as well as AIG's role.

Well I sure didn't see it.

I just saw you running like a scared rabbit every time you were asked to define it. I'm guessing you still can't do it competently in your own words. But you of course are so non partisan and non biased and non judgmental of others that you don't have to back up your words with anything even as you so enjoy pointing fingers at others.

Certainly the program, which ends today, was popular. The first $1 billion, which was supposed to last for months, was accounted for in less than a week. Congress, with a little grumbling from those worried about the cost, quickly poured in another $2 billion on Aug. 6. At a fundamental level, though, what did the cash for clunkers program really achieve?

Net Effect: 13 Percent Jump in Sales
Cash for clunkers had two stated goals: to get greener cars on the road, and to boost the auto industry, and by extension, the U.S. economy. And lo and behold, there are signs that it is working on both counts. The cars purchased under the program get, on average, almost 10 miles more per gallon than the ones being scrapped, and the industry has seen a nice little bounce.

Car sales in July were the highest since August 2008 and up 13 percent over June. Ford actually saw a small year-on-year increase, the first in almost two years, while GM’s four core brands " Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC " all did well. Indeed, GM announced recently that it was adding workers and shifts to help meet the increased demand created by CARS. At current trends, more than 11 million new cars and pickups will be sold this year " not much compared to the 16 million sold in 2005, but a lot better than the 9.5 million that was projected just a few months ago.

“A billion dollars for cash for clunkers looks dramatically more efficient, dollar for dollar, than anything else the Congress has passed yet,” concluded Credit Suisse chief economist Neal Soss in an August assessment.

By comparing the program only to other government initiatives, however, Soss is setting a low bar. For one thing, at least some of the purchases are by people who would have been replacing their cars anyway. In that case, demand has not been created, it just has been moved up a few weeks or months. “We have crammed three to four months of normal activity into just a few days,” Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl wrote in an op-ed in early August.

Then there is the iron rule of subsidy: What helps one industry hurts another " in this case, those businesses that are not seeing sales because families have spent their available money on a new car. Retailers of, say, cashmere, have also been hard hit by the recession, but don’t expect a voucher to buy expensive sweaters.

“We did not magically create more demand for these cars,” says Jeffery Miron, a Harvard economics professor of libertarian sensibilities who is decidedly not a fan of CARS. “We are taking it from other consumers and reducing demand for all the other goods in the economy and transferring it to those who take advantage of the program.”
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/article/cash-for-clunkers-did-it-work/333886/

Cyclop I am NOT going to get into one of these did too did not stupid arguments with you, and if you persist, I will not respond.

I hated this program.

Talk about inefficiencies.

And I agree; we should not be borrowing the people's money to allow people to buy new cars. Maybe, maybe, maybe in some indirect tax-incentive type of way, but definitely not some "trade in this exact car, buy this exact car, and we'll give you $4500".

I asked [my congressional representative] about the mission statement [of HR 3200]. He had stated his mission was health insurance for all. I read to him the full goal/mission statement for the health care bill. The last words are - AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. . . .

. . . Did you know that neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence mentions a right to reproduce? Perhaps we should institute a 2 baby limit. What would you think if that were lobbied for?

Not according to our Science Czar. Obama appointed him. I sent you the words from John Holdron. Not my words-his.

How are your thoughts on a "Global" government?

Google Van Jones. He is a communist. He makes that claim himself. Weirdo from the get go. Green Jobs czar.

At [place], [my representative] spoke. The conference dealt with such issues as the fairness doctrine. In part - our radio stations will be taxed 100% of their operating budget yearly. (Check CNSNews.com - "FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting.")

There is also a doctrine for the internet. This is drafted by our Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. Check him out. He has also proposed bans on hunting, eating meat and proposed your dog may be allowed to have an attorney in court.

Our health care advisor is a proponent of 'complete lives syndrome'. I'll let you figure that one out.

No, I am not happy with the changes. I was thinking of a much brighter path. Not the trojan or cookies the government sites put on my computer or when I try to send an email to multiple people I get the whole thing back with a note of "repo" from towers being instructed to contact the postmaster.

I didn't suggest anything of the kind. Cyclop seemed to believe it though.

Should I try to cure my friend's paranoid delusions inflicted upon her by the rightwing misinformation machine or just start deleting her emails?

Or, in other words, when my tax money goes to pay for something that you like, it's constitutional. When your tax money goes for something you don't like, it's unconstitutional.

Quote:

Should I try to cure my friend's paranoid delusions inflicted upon her by the rightwing misinformation machine or just start deleting her emails?

You should give it an attempt, but honestly, she sounds confused about a large number of issues and conflates them all together.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't suggest anything of the kind. Cyclop seemed to believe it though.

I suggested the exact opposite, in fact - that the dog was trained to react negatively to Obama's name. Not like that sort of thing is difficult.

I can see why petty people would find it cute, and worth sharing. You ought to question why you think it's funny, though.

Cycloptichorn