US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

If it worked as well as you claim, Faun...then why HASN'T it been repeated? The American economy has been grinding along for YEARS now! Are you saying that it couldn't have used a shot in the arm? So why didn't the Obama Administration repeat Cash For Clunkers?

Asked and answered, con tool.

Asked and avoided is more like it! Your so called answer is that the recession had ended and it wasn't needed? Really? So the worst growth of GDP of any President going back to before Ike didn't need any help? Is that what you're claiming? That if it HAD needed help...that Barry and his band of idiots would have trotted Cash For Clunkers II out?

That's an amusing concept, little buddy...really...it's the kind of nonsense that I'd expect from Georgie!

If it worked as well as you claim, Faun...then why HASN'T it been repeated? The American economy has been grinding along for YEARS now! Are you saying that it couldn't have used a shot in the arm? So why didn't the Obama Administration repeat Cash For Clunkers?

Asked and answered, con tool.

Asked and avoided is more like it! Your so called answer is that the recession had ended and it wasn't needed? Really? So the worst growth of GDP of any President going back to before Ike didn't need any help? Is that what you're claiming? That if it HAD needed help...that Barry and his band of idiots would have trotted Cash For Clunkers II out?

That's an amusing concept, little buddy...really...it's the kind of nonsense that I'd expect from Georgie!

Stop lying. I answered your question. You make not like the answer, but answer it I did.

Referring back to the chart I posted earlier, you can see how low car sales were when they passed cash for clunkers and how sales rose steadily since late 2009...

The program wasn't needed again. That's the answer whether you like it or not.

So a "successful" program that according to you stimulated the auto industry wasn't needed? How can that be when the economy was growing at a snail's pace? You've got Barry overseeing the worst recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office...you've got the economy grinding along at under 2% growth...but there was no reason to trot out a redo of Cash For Clunkers?

If THAT is your answer, Faun...then you're starting to embarrass yourself in this string...just saying...

Do you really need me to explain that chart to you??

Are you really too stupid to understand it?

Faun!! He is a con tool. Why do you ask?

 

[Faun]

Asked and answered, con tool.

Asked and avoided is more like it! Your so called answer is that the recession had ended and it wasn't needed? Really? So the worst growth of GDP of any President going back to before Ike didn't need any help? Is that what you're claiming? That if it HAD needed help...that Barry and his band of idiots would have trotted Cash For Clunkers II out?

That's an amusing concept, little buddy...really...it's the kind of nonsense that I'd expect from Georgie!

Asked and answered, con tool.

Asked and avoided is more like it! Your so called answer is that the recession had ended and it wasn't needed? Really? So the worst growth of GDP of any President going back to before Ike didn't need any help? Is that what you're claiming? That if it HAD needed help...that Barry and his band of idiots would have trotted Cash For Clunkers II out?

That's an amusing concept, little buddy...really...it's the kind of nonsense that I'd expect from Georgie!

Stop lying. I answered your question. You make not like the answer, but answer it I did.

Referring back to the chart I posted earlier, you can see how low car sales were when they passed cash for clunkers and how sales rose steadily since late 2009...

The program wasn't needed again. That's the answer whether you like it or not.

So a "successful" program that according to you stimulated the auto industry wasn't needed? How can that be when the economy was growing at a snail's pace? You've got Barry overseeing the worst recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office...you've got the economy grinding along at under 2% growth...but there was no reason to trot out a redo of Cash For Clunkers?

If THAT is your answer, Faun...then you're starting to embarrass yourself in this string...just saying...

Do you really need me to explain that chart to you??

Are you really too stupid to understand it?

Faun!! He is a con tool. Why do you ask?

The answer to that question exposes his ignorance whether he answers it or not. That's why.

 

[Oldstyle]

A highly paid con tool you mean...right, Georgie? OK...I admit it...the Koch Brothers pay me six figures a year to debate YOU on an obscure internet chat site! I've been exposed!!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

I'd love to hear how having it's competitors go belly up would cause Ford to go belly up as well. It's a business concept that I seem to have missed in Grad School!

 

[Rshermr]

Georgie isn't smart enough about economics to understand that a company filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that they are closing their doors and laying off all their workers!

Ford would have been gone? Ford didn't take part in the Obama Auto Industry Bailout...so why would they have been "gone"?

I think it's fairly evident that Rshermr is back on his pain killers again...

Yet even more ignorance spewed by the con tool.

Had GMC and Chrysler gone down, Ford would have gone down too.

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? They want GMC and Chrysler, their rivals, to receive the money.

You really do have shit for brains. Can't you con tools do any better than you?

So let me see how this would work...General Motors and Chrysler "go down"...and that would somehow make their competitor, who one would assume would pick up a whole lot of additional sales, go down as well? I would love to hear how that works, Faun! How does losing your competition make you go belly up as well?

Sorry, shitferbrains, you failed to answer the question....

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? Why would they want their competitors to be bailed out?

The answer to that question reveals just how stupid you are.

Ever heard the name Mulally, me boy. Look up the name with the term auto bailout. You will learn who he is and why ford would have gone down also.

So, Faun, con tools do not understand supply chains and their ramifications. I am sure the boy will come back saying Mullaly is wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars. That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars. How does that work exactly?

 

[Faun]

I'd love to hear how having it's competitors go belly up would cause Ford to go belly up as well. It's a business concept that I seem to have missed in Grad School!

There's a lot you missed.

First ... I note you failed for the second time to answer the question.

You don't even have a guess why Ford appeared before Congress to bail out their competitors? You really don't know shit, just as I said.

 

[Faun]

Georgie isn't smart enough about economics to understand that a company filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that they are closing their doors and laying off all their workers!

Ford would have been gone? Ford didn't take part in the Obama Auto Industry Bailout...so why would they have been "gone"?

I think it's fairly evident that Rshermr is back on his pain killers again...

Yet even more ignorance spewed by the con tool.

Had GMC and Chrysler gone down, Ford would have gone down too.

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? They want GMC and Chrysler, their rivals, to receive the money.

You really do have shit for brains. Can't you con tools do any better than you?

So let me see how this would work...General Motors and Chrysler "go down"...and that would somehow make their competitor, who one would assume would pick up a whole lot of additional sales, go down as well? I would love to hear how that works, Faun! How does losing your competition make you go belly up as well?

Sorry, shitferbrains, you failed to answer the question....

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? Why would they want their competitors to be bailed out?

The answer to that question reveals just how stupid you are.

Ever heard the name Mulally, me boy. Look up the name with the term auto bailout. You will learn who he is and why ford would have gone down also.

So, Faun, con tools do not understand supply chains and their ramifications. I am sure the boy will come back saying Mullaly is wrong.

All they understand is lying to further their agenda.

 

[Oldstyle]

If I'm a widget manufacturer who supplies 3 main clients with 3 different types of widgets and 2 of those customers announce that they are going out of business...guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to stop building the two types I won't be needing any more and I'm going to build a whole shit load of the ones that the remaining customer is going to need now that they have a virtual monopoly.

 

[Oldstyle]

This concept that if one company fails that others won't move into the vacuum created by that failure is a fairy tale put forth by companies that think declaring themselves "too big to fail" will mean that the government will have to bail them out.

 

[Rshermr]

If it worked as well as you claim, Faun...then why HASN'T it been repeated? The American economy has been grinding along for YEARS now! Are you saying that it couldn't have used a shot in the arm? So why didn't the Obama Administration repeat Cash For Clunkers?

Asked and answered, con tool.

Asked and avoided is more like it! Your so called answer is that the recession had ended and it wasn't needed? Really? So the worst growth of GDP of any President going back to before Ike didn't need any help? Is that what you're claiming? That if it HAD needed help...that Barry and his band of idiots would have trotted Cash For Clunkers II out?

That's an amusing concept, little buddy...really...it's the kind of nonsense that I'd expect from Georgie!

If it worked as well as you claim, Faun...then why HASN'T it been repeated? The American economy has been grinding along for YEARS now! Are you saying that it couldn't have used a shot in the arm? So why didn't the Obama Administration repeat Cash For Clunkers?

Asked and answered, con tool.

Asked and avoided is more like it! Your so called answer is that the recession had ended and it wasn't needed? Really? So the worst growth of GDP of any President going back to before Ike didn't need any help? Is that what you're claiming? That if it HAD needed help...that Barry and his band of idiots would have trotted Cash For Clunkers II out?

That's an amusing concept, little buddy...really...it's the kind of nonsense that I'd expect from Georgie!

Stop lying. I answered your question. You make not like the answer, but answer it I did.

Referring back to the chart I posted earlier, you can see how low car sales were when they passed cash for clunkers and how sales rose steadily since late 2009...

The program wasn't needed again. That's the answer whether you like it or not.

So a "successful" program that according to you stimulated the auto industry wasn't needed? How can that be when the economy was growing at a snail's pace? You've got Barry overseeing the worst recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office...you've got the economy grinding along at under 2% growth...but there was no reason to trot out a redo of Cash For Clunkers?

If THAT is your answer, Faun...then you're starting to embarrass yourself in this string...just saying...

Do you really need me to explain that chart to you??

Are you really too stupid to understand it?

It's old style. Of course he is. Poor idiot can not help it. Just plain bad luck.
He has now reverted into a normal pattern. That being not comprehending th question and asking the same question over and over and over. And over.
What I have learned is that os is a congenital liar. And, as you know, it is impossible for liars to have integrity, or class. As everyone knows, you can never believe a known liar like os.

 

[Oldstyle]

Says the George Costanza of the US Message Board? Dude, you've been exposed as a poser so often at this point that your only defense is to put people on ignore.

 

[Faun]

I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars. That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars. How does that work exactly?

Testimony of Alan R. Mulally
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company
House Committee on Financial Services
December 5, 2008

In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford's top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.

The impact of a bankruptcy also reaches beyond Ford and the U.S. auto industry. It would cause further stress to our domestic banking industry and private retirement systems. Goldman Sachs estimates the impact at up to $1 trillion.

 

[Oldstyle]

Tell us all more about how bankruptcy works, Rshermr! I love it when you pretend to know things that you obviously don't!

 

[Oldstyle]

I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars. That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars. How does that work exactly?

Testimony of Alan R. Mulally
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company
House Committee on Financial Services
December 5, 2008

In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford's top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.

The impact of a bankruptcy also reaches beyond Ford and the U.S. auto industry. It would cause further stress to our domestic banking industry and private retirement systems. Goldman Sachs estimates the impact at up to $1 trillion.

So would those Ford dealers who also own GM and Chrysler franchises not make up the loss of GM and Chrysler sales with Ford sales? Duh? That's one of the most idiotic explanations I've ever heard!

 

[Faun]

If I'm a widget manufacturer who supplies 3 main clients with 3 different types of widgets and 2 of those customers announce that they are going out of business...guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to stop building the two types I won't be needing any more and I'm going to build a whole shit load of the ones that the remaining customer is going to need now that they have a virtual monopoly.

Guess what? A CEO of one of America's biggest automobile manufacturers knows more about business in his sleep than you will ever know in your lifetime. That's what.

Despite your con tool idiocy of trying to second guess him; for the sake of his company, he thought it best that his two biggest competitors remain solvent. So much so, that despite not needing a bailout for Ford, he appeared before Congress to help his competitors remain in business.

How many times are you going to prove you have shit for brains?

 

[Oldstyle]

This notion that the car buying public would somehow stop buying cars if GM and Chrysler had to reorganize, downsize or even close completely is nonsense. We don't buy American Motors products anymore. We don't buy Packards. We don't buy Oldsmobiles or Pontiacs. Car companies drop lines or close completely all the time and what happens is their competitors move in and scoop up that business.

 

[Oldstyle]

So the "old boys club" of Detroit stuck together in the face of the recession and the CEO of Ford called for bailouts to help out his fellow CEO's in the car business? Why wouldn't he? If GM and Chrysler are deemed too big to fail then he'll never have to worry about Ford going out of business! All they did was make themselves immune to normal business repercussions.

 

[Faun]

I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars. That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars. How does that work exactly?

Testimony of Alan R. Mulally
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company
House Committee on Financial Services
December 5, 2008

In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford's top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.

The impact of a bankruptcy also reaches beyond Ford and the U.S. auto industry. It would cause further stress to our domestic banking industry and private retirement systems. Goldman Sachs estimates the impact at up to $1 trillion.

So would those Ford dealers who also own GM and Chrysler franchises not make up the loss of GM and Chrysler sales with Ford sales? Duh? That's one of the most idiotic explanations I've ever heard!

LOLOLOL

A con tool in an Internet forum calling Ford's CEO's explanation, of how his competitors bankruptcies would adversely effect Ford, idiotic.

LOLOLOL

You should explain to Ford why you should be their CEO.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars. That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars. How does that work exactly?

Testimony of Alan R. Mulally
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company
House Committee on Financial Services
December 5, 2008

In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford's top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.

The impact of a bankruptcy also reaches beyond Ford and the U.S. auto industry. It would cause further stress to our domestic banking industry and private retirement systems. Goldman Sachs estimates the impact at up to $1 trillion.

So would those Ford dealers who also own GM and Chrysler franchises not make up the loss of GM and Chrysler sales with Ford sales? Duh? That's one of the most idiotic explanations I've ever heard!

LOLOLOL

A con tool in an Internet forum calling Ford's CEO's explanation, of how his competitors bankruptcies would adversely effect Ford, idiotic.

LOLOLOL

You should explain to Ford why you should be their CEO.

On the contrary...it's not idiotic from his standpoint at all! He's simply guaranteed that no matter what...the Federal Government will always be there to bail out Ford. It's like taking out free "failure insurance"!