"White House, Edmunds in war of words over 'clunkers'"

http://www.detnews.com/article/20091029/AU...over--clunkers-

Anyone with 1/2 a brain or who is not in the WH understands that Cash for Clunkers was a waste of money that did nothing to improve the problems of the auto industry.

Edmunds shows that tax dollars were given to people who were going to buy a new car anyway and motivated all of them to buy the car earlier. It didn't create more demand for crappy cars and it didn't create more buyers.

An absolute waste of tax dollars.

I always knew the guys at Edmunds were a bunch of right wing nutjobs. I always thought their car reviews seemed to be heavily influenced by Fox News.

A quote from the article: 'White House said. "Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis." '

Why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah. It takes one to know one.

But it did help out with the most prosperous quarter in the U.S. in a long while.

Do republicans just like extended recessions or a depression?

I suggest you go read up on it and then come back and take your medicine.





Yes, clearly, I am opposed to this joke of a clunker program because I love extended recessions.

Do you like beating your wife?

LAME!

Let's call "Cash for Clunkers" what it really was: A government subsidy of $25k/car to the automakers.

Okay:

3rd quarter growth up 3.5% from 1.9% projected due to cash for clunkers



pwned

I'm going to give you one hour to edit this post and your simpleton thinking before I respond.

Uh, largest quarterly growth in 2 years.

quarterly growth graph

Without massive government intervention, there would most likely be another negative quarter.

Without cash for clunkers, the growth would have been modest comparatively but not what it is.

What's the simpleton thinking here?

Facts are facts.

I will edit this post:

Fact is, massive government spending has averted another negative growth quarter. Without the bailout to banks, cash for clunkers, and other mega spending via you and me (on ourselves by the way), 3.5% growth of the overall U.S. economy would not have occurred.

While you may not agree with the method/policy, fact is massive spending has marked a an overall economic spurt.

Hate the game, not the facts.

Let's think about this for a minute. We borrowed a ton of money to pay people to buy cars they were going to buy at some point anyway. We are borrowing tons of money to pay people to buy houses they were going to buy anyway. The government is running a deficit of $1.4 trillion this year. Interest rates are effectively at zero for banks. We have just gone through the worst economic downturn since the Depression. So working from an incredibly low base and with enough stimulus to raise Lazarus from the dead, we were only able to generate gdp growth of 3.5%, and we only did it by borrowing consumption from the next 6 months? My man, we are in serious, serious trouble. The gov't can't keep running cash for clunkers programs and can't keep running trillion dollar plus deficits - what happens when we have to stop?

Here is what passes as hard-hitting analysis from Thunder:




Then he follows it up 4 hours later with:



Good. Now that we've establish that a "long while" is 2 years, let's completely destroy your premise.

First, recessions end on there own, regardless of whether there is government spending or not. It is the natural market cycle. Second, all the money that the government has spent will have to be paid back. You do understand this, right? Therefore, you can claim GDP growth but there are still fewer jobs as unemployment has increased and Obama's little trick will probably stunt, not stimulate, sustainable growth that will set us on the path to lasting recovery.

Finally, if we hypothetical agree (we don't) that "massive government spending" averted another negative quarter, then you'll have to admit that these numbers will only stay positive for as long as the government has money. Given the bmudssa plan Pelosi announced today, we as a country aren't going to have ANY money for a long time.

I hope you're happy.

Because the government had so much money under republican control and George W. Bush.

Fail

Edit:

BTW economically speaking, significant positive growth in over 2 YEARS is pretty significant.

As opposed to flat and negative growth.

Well, it's nice to follow by facts especially with time stamps.

Wow.

By my calculation, that would be about 2 hours.

But hey!!!

Let's stretch all the facts as they may lay!!!

Hilarious!!!!

Republican math is sweet.

It's ok if Obama does it because Bush did. Great. That is a validation of the GWB spending principles. I'm glad to see that you support them.

I think you'll find here that many conservatives weren't/aren't happy with what Bush did with spending. See, we can say it because we don't toe the party line and we "actually think for ourselves." Democrats "just do what they're told" and follow the Messiah's orders.

If there was any FAIL, it was you're attempt to categorize "2 years" as a long while. Using that logic, you'll also agree that GWB was responsible for "significant positive growth" over a period that must be EONS in your world since it lasted 5+ years. Good work.

Actually, I added the 2 additional hours in as part of a "fix." I'm actually borrowing from daylight savings time for the next few years to make my point. I'll reconcile the details later but for now, I'm going to pretend to be smart like all you libs and have a press conference and announce to the world how I just found a solution to not having enough time in the day.

I think more troops should be sent into Afghanistan and should have been there from the very beginning.

But hey, I'm just a storm trooper.

Nice try.

Even more awesome because daylight saving time (or "savings" [sic] as you call it) could/can only give you an hour!!!!


Math skills rule!!!!


Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

You missed the point. Completely.

Not surprising.

Because the hilarity becomes even more hilarious.

One hour of time change cannot be two, it's a law of mathematics.

but I digress

I'm just missing the point completely.

Republican math skills are completely awesome!

But the point is, I will still try and argue mathematical analysis while not even understanding simple math skills!

Science haters are sweet!

Mr. Simpleton,

Cash for Clunkers used billions to pay tax payers to buy their cars now instead of in future months. They bought this year's overstock and we basically stole sales from next year's auto sales. Next year's cars will be sitting in the lots and you still will be clueless about how this "growth" was inflated at a cost of huge debt.

Sincerely,

Your Republican Friend Who Understands Much More than You

You routinely miss points and sound dumb on this board.

Numbers don't lie

Thanks for trying.

Post in a "future of months" about what you're "theory" is.

But let's not come up with facts to back our arguments, but whacked out attacks.

That's been a great pub plan for years.

Facts:

Let's hear them:

fighting facts with original facts

slander upon slander, you are hilarious jt

Spoken like a true simpleton.

The problem with using facts with you is that your track record shows an inability to understand them.

Wow, are you just stupid or ignorant?

Because my premise was that if were not for cash for clunkers the GDP would not have been where it's ended.

Thanks for backing be up bro.

Thanks for playing.

And, according to your article the GDP would be 3.5% growth as opposed to 1.66% growth without cash for clunkers.

Oh, did I get my math wrong JT?

Maybe I should just beat my wife some more moron...

your same freakin article



plus:

3.5 - 1.66 = 1.84

hmmmm

it appears to me that 1.89% does not equal 1.84%


Really it seems that all republican math skills are the same...

PRICELESS!

Exhibit 4 of Mr. Simpleton's thinking.

It doesn't matter that this isn't "growth" but merely massive debt that will inhibit true expansion in the auto industry.

It doesn't matter that we had to borrow months and months of consumption just to get a modest 3.5%.

You do realize that C4C ended, we can't continue to borrow trillions and the 3.5% is superficial, right?

Tell me you're at least that smart because, so far in this thread, you've been quite ignorant of reality.

well, at least I can resolve simple math with which it seems you cannot.

Exhibit 5: Ignore response and focus on typo in article cited.


So, a typo in the article I cite proves that 3.5% isn't artificially inflated and not true 3.5% growth?

THAT is your argument? A TYPO?

You're an even larger idiot than I first imagined.

Well, as long as you're so inherent on being concise...



I love it!

As soon as I'm slandered, JT & friends nit pick!

You must have won World in debate!!!!!!

So again, I will post:

Without cash for clunkers, our GDP would be nowhere near where it is:

rebuttal please... without slander this time...

I'll try this again:

republican nightmare

useless facts


Or what JT try's to write off as me just being a dumbass because I think 3.5 = 1.66 when it's really 1.84% and I'll just tray and slander anyone, and everyone I can to fulfill my agenda... (because this is his rebuttal earlier):

JT's infinite knowlegde

Methinks you sound like a great conservative!!!!!





Oh, wait, it's not possible because numbers don't lie...

Or, if you're just republican you can say whatever you feel and it's right without supporting facts!


I'm in hysterics!!!

Okay I am done reading your retorts that are clearly reaching.

Thunder, you need to realize that this country is going down the tubes, and IIRC, the massive spending did not really take place until 2006, what happened in 2006...

The Dems won back the house and Senate. Are you going to give credit to Bush for all the proserpous years that we had from 2001-2006?

We cannot keep spending at the rate we are. Taxes will go up, because lord knows congress (both parties) cannot keep spending.

Also while we are at it let's dispel another myth from the left.... go back to 2000, look at your 1040... now go to 2001 with presumablely more income, tell me what your tax bill was.... now tell me how rich you are?

I hope you enjoyed those tax cuts that EVERYONE got, because they expire in 2011.

The 3.5% is not an indication of "growth" because the C4C program spent billions of dollars to accelerate months and months of auto sales into a short period of time. C4C was ended because of the extreme cost. Now that is doesn't exist, what will we use to create fake growth?

Cars and houses people were going to buy 'anyways'? What the hell does that mean... when? Dude, the housing and American auto industries were in SHAMBLES... trust me, I've worked in both. Of course people would buy again, eventually... but how long 2 years, 3 years, 4 years? I'm not saying C4C was an answer to any problems, trust me. We shouldn't be harping on deficits by this administration when we are now fighting a new war (Afghan) and cleaning up the mistakes from another (Iraq).

We spent 430 million A DAY in Iraq under Bush. That's like 1.5 million/person in the country... again, PER DAY.
Hard to fault anyone when the previous folks are spending that on Defense alone.

It was either C4C or lose the US auto industry, and possibly suffer worse repercussions. It's not an easy choice, it never was. We faced Amageddon this past year, and maybe have only delayed it. But the risks this year were such that desperate measures were called for, which C4C was just part of. We really faced the global collapse of nations this year. It was that close. And it's not over, but we did buy some time. Really the choices were made with the risks in mind.

Evenso, I think the worst is yet to come and we will see governments around the world collapse.