US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...

I note that you lied about this until I corrected you. Previously, you denied sales declined to about where they were before the program began.

You're welcome.

 

[Faun]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

 

[Rshermr]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

But, but......OS has told you that any promotion that works is repeated. So, what can we think? Maybe that gov is not like private industry in such situations. But, but....... That is not what his talking points say.

 

[Oldstyle]

It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...

I note that you lied about this until I corrected you. Previously, you denied sales declined to about where they were before the program began.

You're welcome.

I've been completely consistent in what I've claimed. I'm simply quoting what studies on Cash For Clunkers found...namely that whatever spike in sales took place during the two months CFC was in place was almost completely nullified by the sales downturn after it was over. Those who studied the numbers on CFC found that many of the sales that took place during those two months were sales that were "pulled forward" by people who had intended to buy at a later time but bought early to take advantage of the subsidy.

You're welcome as well!

 

[Oldstyle]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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?

 

[Oldstyle]

President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world.

Just imagine what he could have done if the damn Repubs had been working FOR the US.

Enjoy it because if the Rs keep congress and Trumpery is elected, jobs and economic recovery will end overnight.

Dude, the American economy was the strongest in the world before Barry even took a seat behind that desk in the Oval Office! He's led the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression and it would be FAR worse if the GOP hadn't taken control of Congress in 2010 and stopped him from getting the Cap & Trade legislation he was pushing for! That's not even talking about how the fracking that he opposed helped stimulate the economy by dropping energy costs dramatically! The US economy has slowly started to rebound DESPITE Barack Obama...not BECAUSE of him!

 

[Faun]

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Thanks for the fringe rightwing view.

Claiming FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, which is almost as long as it lasted under FDR, the same as saying he should have been able to end it when he entered office, which with negative 13 percent GDP and 24 percent unemployment, is beyond retarded.

But then you revealed just how retarded you are when you claimed the 1921 depression was just as bad, if not worse, than the Great Depression. Here, in reality, the Great Depression was far worse. GDP bottomed out at -13%, compared to -7% in 1921. Unemployment reached about 24%, compared to about 12% in 1921.

I posted a link to a study done by a FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVE university in the heart of Progressivism.

You...nothing.

The 1921 Depression began just as severe, but due to the management of it by the Republican president, it never grew to the size of the Great Depression.

If you'll notice, I emphasized the points made by the researchers which detail exactly what should NOT be done should we face such a sudden economic downfall in the future. Those itemized points are EXACTLY what the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama has done. It does seem like he intentionally wants to take America down a peg or two, doesn't it?

Ohhh, you posted a link? Doesn't matter to you at all that the contents of that link are nonsensical though, does it?

The Great Depression ended somewhere between 1939 and 1941, depending on whom you ask.

The link you gave idiotically claims FDR extended the Great Depression by 7 years. FDR was sworn into office in March, 1933

If you go by the end year of 1939, FDR wasn't even in office for 7 years. So that would be -- Impossible.

If you go by the end year of 1940, FDR would have been in office for 7 years by then, but then that's claiming FDR could have ended the Great Depression upon entering office. -- Ludicrous

If you go by the end year of 1941, FDR would have been in office for 8 years by then, but then that's claiming FDR could have ended the Great Depression within one year. Given unemployment was around 24%-25% and GDP was around negative 13% -- Asinine.

The only other method they could attempt would be to alter the year in which the Great Depression ended. But then that too would be -- Ridiculous.

Do you need me to post a link to show how stupid and gullible you are?

 

[Faun]

President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world.

Just imagine what he could have done if the damn Repubs had been working FOR the US.

Enjoy it because if the Rs keep congress and Trumpery is elected, jobs and economic recovery will end overnight.

Dude, the American economy was the strongest in the world before Barry even took a seat behind that desk in the Oval Office! He's led the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression and it would be FAR worse if the GOP hadn't taken control of Congress in 2010 and stopped him from getting the Cap & Trade legislation he was pushing for! That's not even talking about how the fracking that he opposed helped stimulate the economy by dropping energy costs dramatically! The US economy has slowly started to rebound DESPITE Barack Obama...not BECAUSE of him!

You can keep calling it the worst recovery since the Great Depression all you want. All that lying does is further expose you as the con tool you have become known as.

Which line is worse... the green line or the red line?

 

[Faun]

It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...

I note that you lied about this until I corrected you. Previously, you denied sales declined to about where they were before the program began.

You're welcome.

I've been completely consistent in what I've claimed. I'm simply quoting what studies on Cash For Clunkers found...namely that whatever spike in sales took place during the two months CFC was in place was almost completely nullified by the sales downturn after it was over. Those who studied the numbers on CFC found that many of the sales that took place during those two months were sales that were "pulled forward" by people who had intended to buy at a later time but bought early to take advantage of the subsidy.

You're welcome as well!

No, you have not been consistent. When I pointed out earlier what you are saying now ... that being how vehicle sales spiked sharply during the cash for clunkers program; and then dropped sharply back to roughly where they were prior to the program -- you denied that, though you finally admit that now...

Faun: The decline in auto sales was merely returning back to about where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program.

Oldstyle: No, sales did not return to where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program...they fell off sharply.​

As everyone here can see for themselves, the only consistency found in you is your consistent lying.

How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposite viewpoints you've presented unless you were lying??

No, sales did not return to where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program...

It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...

<smh>

 

[Faun]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world.

Just imagine what he could have done if the damn Repubs had been working FOR the US.

Enjoy it because if the Rs keep congress and Trumpery is elected, jobs and economic recovery will end overnight.

Dude, the American economy was the strongest in the world before Barry even took a seat behind that desk in the Oval Office! He's led the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression and it would be FAR worse if the GOP hadn't taken control of Congress in 2010 and stopped him from getting the Cap & Trade legislation he was pushing for! That's not even talking about how the fracking that he opposed helped stimulate the economy by dropping energy costs dramatically! The US economy has slowly started to rebound DESPITE Barack Obama...not BECAUSE of him!

You can keep calling it the worst recovery since the Great Depression all you want. All that lying does is further expose you as the con tool you have become known as.

Which line is worse... the green line or the red line?

Your chart would be wonderfully illustrative if you were only judging your recoveries by employment levels, Faun! The main measure of an economic recovery however is economic growth. Obama's average GDP growth per quarter is 1.78% which is the worst of any President going back to Ike. When I call the Obama Economy the worst I'm referring to economic growth on his watch. As bad as his numbers are...keep in mind that it's only the GOP blocking things like Cap & Trade that kept them from getting even worse!

 

[Oldstyle]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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!

 

[Faun]

President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world.

Just imagine what he could have done if the damn Repubs had been working FOR the US.

Enjoy it because if the Rs keep congress and Trumpery is elected, jobs and economic recovery will end overnight.

Dude, the American economy was the strongest in the world before Barry even took a seat behind that desk in the Oval Office! He's led the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression and it would be FAR worse if the GOP hadn't taken control of Congress in 2010 and stopped him from getting the Cap & Trade legislation he was pushing for! That's not even talking about how the fracking that he opposed helped stimulate the economy by dropping energy costs dramatically! The US economy has slowly started to rebound DESPITE Barack Obama...not BECAUSE of him!

You can keep calling it the worst recovery since the Great Depression all you want. All that lying does is further expose you as the con tool you have become known as.

Which line is worse... the green line or the red line?

Your chart would be wonderfully illustrative if you were only judging your recoveries by employment levels, Faun! The main measure of an economic recovery however is economic growth. Obama's average GDP growth per quarter is 1.78% which is the worst of any President going back to Ike. When I call the Obama Economy the worst I'm referring to economic growth on his watch. As bad as his numbers are...keep in mind that it's only the GOP blocking things like Cap & Trade that kept them from getting even worse!

More lies. Figures.

Average quarterly increase since the recession ended is 2.1%

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

And I take it by your non-answer, the green line is worse.

 

[Faun]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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!

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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.

 

[Rshermr]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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!

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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.

Besides, it is not an actual issue. What was an issue was that the American Auto Industry was in big trouble. It appeared that there was no way for it to make it except for some action by the US Government. So, we got an initial input of help from W and congress. Short term loan only. If it was to be saved, it would have to be by Democrats, and Executive Branch. The entire Republican congress wanted no bailout. None at all. Every expert then said that GM, Chrysler, and probably Ford along with the Supply Chain would fail. Republicans and con tools all lined up for allowing it to fail. All, not a few, but all.
Republican Governors and Congressmen were all against the bailout, as they had foreign auto makers set to come to their states. So, they saw financial gain and could care less about the good of the country.

All the cons, congressmen and small potatoes were predicting sure disaster if the Auto Bailout occurred. Problem is, of course, they were WRONG. Net is, we ended up with a successful auto industry, millions of jobs created and saved, and profits staying in the US, not going to foreign nations. And still the dipshits complain. Because they are con tools.

Here are a couple of Oldstyle posts from earlier, showing how prescient he was, and how he tried to convince others that Bankruptcy was a viable option:
I'm curious, Winger...would bankruptcy not have allowed corporate restructuring? (Pretty sure that's a yes!) Would it allow for a new labor contract? (Pretty sure it would have voided the existing labor contract) Would it have allowed them to close dealerships and lines (Pretty sure it would allow that to happen also) Now you're right that it wouldn't have provided an influx of much needed cash but when you examine what GM has done...paying off it's Obama bail out with billions that it got from the TARP bailout...wouldn't it have been easier just to NOT do the Obama bail out and let them keep the TARP money? Oh, but that would have meant that the UAW would have lost their contract completely instead of being able to bargain for only small reductions in their benefits! That's what the Obama bail out of GM and Chrysler was all about. All you have to do is look and it's as plain as the nose on your face. But you don't want to talk about GM paying back what they owe us with money that WE gave them...do you? That kind of blows the whole GM "success" story right out to the water...doesn't it? You don't want to talk about how we now own a whole bunch of stock that needs to almost double in value before we break even...now do you? Gee, Winger...how do you think GM is going to fare THIS year, now that Japan's car industry is recovered from the tidal wave that devastated companies like Toyota? Care to wager on GM retaining it's #1 spot in sales? I say they drop all the way down to number three by the end of the year. Now what do you think that will do to the price of their stock?"
Post 228, April of 2012, thread GM Profits Highest Yet.
All cons, like OS have been posting the standard conservative talking points for years. That bankruptcy would have solved things, though every impartial site says it would have led to disaster. That GM and Chrysler would fail, though they are HIGHLY successful today. The auto bailout saved millions of jobs, but the con tools say it did not. It is them or the experts. So, the obvious thing is that cons post con talking points and LIE CONTINUOUSLY.

 

[Rshermr]

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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!

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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.

Besides, it is not an actual issue. What was an issue was that the American Auto Industry was in big trouble. It appeared that there was no way for it to make it except for some action by the US Government. So, we got an initial input of help from W and congress. Short term loan only. If it was to be saved, it would have to be by Democrats, and Executive Branch. The entire Republican congress wanted no bailout. None at all. Every expert then said that GM, Chrysler, and probably Ford along with the Supply Chain would fail. Republicans and con tools all lined up for allowing it to fail. All, not a few, but all.
Republican Governors and Congressmen were all against the bailout, as they had foreign auto makers set to come to their states. So, they saw financial gain and could care less about the good of the country.

All the cons, congressmen and small potatoes were predicting sure disaster if the Auto Bailout occurred. Problem is, of course, they were WRONG. Net is, we ended up with a successful auto industry, millions of jobs created and saved, and profits staying in the US, not going to foreign nations. And still the dipshits complain. Because they are con tools.

Here are a couple of Oldstyle posts from earlier, showing how prescient he was, and how he tried to convince others that Bankruptcy was a viable option:
I'm curious, Winger...would bankruptcy not have allowed corporate restructuring? (Pretty sure that's a yes!) Would it allow for a new labor contract? (Pretty sure it would have voided the existing labor contract) Would it have allowed them to close dealerships and lines (Pretty sure it would allow that to happen also) Now you're right that it wouldn't have provided an influx of much needed cash but when you examine what GM has done...paying off it's Obama bail out with billions that it got from the TARP bailout...wouldn't it have been easier just to NOT do the Obama bail out and let them keep the TARP money? Oh, but that would have meant that the UAW would have lost their contract completely instead of being able to bargain for only small reductions in their benefits! That's what the Obama bail out of GM and Chrysler was all about. All you have to do is look and it's as plain as the nose on your face. But you don't want to talk about GM paying back what they owe us with money that WE gave them...do you? That kind of blows the whole GM "success" story right out to the water...doesn't it? You don't want to talk about how we now own a whole bunch of stock that needs to almost double in value before we break even...now do you? Gee, Winger...how do you think GM is going to fare THIS year, now that Japan's car industry is recovered from the tidal wave that devastated companies like Toyota? Care to wager on GM retaining it's #1 spot in sales? I say they drop all the way down to number three by the end of the year. Now what do you think that will do to the price of their stock?"
Post 228, April of 2012, thread GM Profits Highest Yet.
All cons, like OS have been posting the standard conservative talking points for years. That bankruptcy would have solved things, though every impartial site says it would have led to disaster. That GM and Chrysler would fail, though they are HIGHLY successful today. The auto bailout saved millions of jobs, but the con tools say it did not. It is them or the experts. So, the obvious thing is that cons post con talking points and LIE CONTINUOUSLY.
Here are a couple quotes from W, me boy. One of your heroes.
“I said, ‘No depression.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lout-was-mine/2012/02/13/gIQA6oDPBR_blog.html
www.dailytech.com/Bush...Auto+Bailout+Amid.../article23952.htm
Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again' - Bottom Line

 

[Oldstyle]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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!

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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...

 

[Oldstyle]

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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!

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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.

Besides, it is not an actual issue. What was an issue was that the American Auto Industry was in big trouble. It appeared that there was no way for it to make it except for some action by the US Government. So, we got an initial input of help from W and congress. Short term loan only. If it was to be saved, it would have to be by Democrats, and Executive Branch. The entire Republican congress wanted no bailout. None at all. Every expert then said that GM, Chrysler, and probably Ford along with the Supply Chain would fail. Republicans and con tools all lined up for allowing it to fail. All, not a few, but all.
Republican Governors and Congressmen were all against the bailout, as they had foreign auto makers set to come to their states. So, they saw financial gain and could care less about the good of the country.

All the cons, congressmen and small potatoes were predicting sure disaster if the Auto Bailout occurred. Problem is, of course, they were WRONG. Net is, we ended up with a successful auto industry, millions of jobs created and saved, and profits staying in the US, not going to foreign nations. And still the dipshits complain. Because they are con tools.

Here are a couple of Oldstyle posts from earlier, showing how prescient he was, and how he tried to convince others that Bankruptcy was a viable option:
I'm curious, Winger...would bankruptcy not have allowed corporate restructuring? (Pretty sure that's a yes!) Would it allow for a new labor contract? (Pretty sure it would have voided the existing labor contract) Would it have allowed them to close dealerships and lines (Pretty sure it would allow that to happen also) Now you're right that it wouldn't have provided an influx of much needed cash but when you examine what GM has done...paying off it's Obama bail out with billions that it got from the TARP bailout...wouldn't it have been easier just to NOT do the Obama bail out and let them keep the TARP money? Oh, but that would have meant that the UAW would have lost their contract completely instead of being able to bargain for only small reductions in their benefits! That's what the Obama bail out of GM and Chrysler was all about. All you have to do is look and it's as plain as the nose on your face. But you don't want to talk about GM paying back what they owe us with money that WE gave them...do you? That kind of blows the whole GM "success" story right out to the water...doesn't it? You don't want to talk about how we now own a whole bunch of stock that needs to almost double in value before we break even...now do you? Gee, Winger...how do you think GM is going to fare THIS year, now that Japan's car industry is recovered from the tidal wave that devastated companies like Toyota? Care to wager on GM retaining it's #1 spot in sales? I say they drop all the way down to number three by the end of the year. Now what do you think that will do to the price of their stock?"
Post 228, April of 2012, thread GM Profits Highest Yet.
All cons, like OS have been posting the standard conservative talking points for years. That bankruptcy would have solved things, though every impartial site says it would have led to disaster. That GM and Chrysler would fail, though they are HIGHLY successful today. The auto bailout saved millions of jobs, but the con tools say it did not. It is them or the experts. So, the obvious thing is that cons post con talking points and LIE CONTINUOUSLY.

"After losing the title of “world’s largest automaker” in 2011, Japan’s Toyota Motor (including its Lexus and Scion brands in Canada), took the number one spot for the second year in a row in 2013, with sales of 9.98 million new cars and trucks, a gain of almost 3% over 2012. Although it lost out to the Ford Focus for the title of “world’s best-selling car”, the Toyota Corolla was the Japanese automaker’s best-selling model worldwide last year."

The top 10 largest automakers in the world

 

[Rshermr]

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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!

And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.

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.

Besides, it is not an actual issue. What was an issue was that the American Auto Industry was in big trouble. It appeared that there was no way for it to make it except for some action by the US Government. So, we got an initial input of help from W and congress. Short term loan only. If it was to be saved, it would have to be by Democrats, and Executive Branch. The entire Republican congress wanted no bailout. None at all. Every expert then said that GM, Chrysler, and probably Ford along with the Supply Chain would fail. Republicans and con tools all lined up for allowing it to fail. All, not a few, but all.
Republican Governors and Congressmen were all against the bailout, as they had foreign auto makers set to come to their states. So, they saw financial gain and could care less about the good of the country.

All the cons, congressmen and small potatoes were predicting sure disaster if the Auto Bailout occurred. Problem is, of course, they were WRONG. Net is, we ended up with a successful auto industry, millions of jobs created and saved, and profits staying in the US, not going to foreign nations. And still the dipshits complain. Because they are con tools.

Here are a couple of Oldstyle posts from earlier, showing how prescient he was, and how he tried to convince others that Bankruptcy was a viable option:
I'm curious, Winger...would bankruptcy not have allowed corporate restructuring? (Pretty sure that's a yes!) Would it allow for a new labor contract? (Pretty sure it would have voided the existing labor contract) Would it have allowed them to close dealerships and lines (Pretty sure it would allow that to happen also) Now you're right that it wouldn't have provided an influx of much needed cash but when you examine what GM has done...paying off it's Obama bail out with billions that it got from the TARP bailout...wouldn't it have been easier just to NOT do the Obama bail out and let them keep the TARP money? Oh, but that would have meant that the UAW would have lost their contract completely instead of being able to bargain for only small reductions in their benefits! That's what the Obama bail out of GM and Chrysler was all about. All you have to do is look and it's as plain as the nose on your face. But you don't want to talk about GM paying back what they owe us with money that WE gave them...do you? That kind of blows the whole GM "success" story right out to the water...doesn't it? You don't want to talk about how we now own a whole bunch of stock that needs to almost double in value before we break even...now do you? Gee, Winger...how do you think GM is going to fare THIS year, now that Japan's car industry is recovered from the tidal wave that devastated companies like Toyota? Care to wager on GM retaining it's #1 spot in sales? I say they drop all the way down to number three by the end of the year. Now what do you think that will do to the price of their stock?"
Post 228, April of 2012, thread GM Profits Highest Yet.

And, of course, it makes no real difference how GM fares against Toyota. At all, Being in the top 5 would be way better than what oldstyle wanted. Which was GM to fail.
All cons, like OS, have been posting the standard conservative talking points for years. That bankruptcy would have solved things, though every impartial site says it would have led to disaster. That GM and Chrysler would fail, though they are HIGHLY successful today. The auto bailout saved millions of jobs, but the con tools say it did not. It is them or the experts. So, the obvious thing is that cons post con talking points and LIE CONTINUOUSLY.

What is also funny is that con tools, like os, believe that the end of the Great Republican Recession of 2008 would have occurred when, and only when, the growth in gnp was over 3% per year. Or some other arbitrary number. Fact is, recession indicators are more complex than that. While the current growth rate is moderate, the current inflation rate is low. Together, that makes for a satisfactory economy based on GDP. But more importantly, the unemployment rate is great. And, if you are looking for a strong economy, that is the single most important indicator. And one which con tools are ignoring, because unemployment numbers are very good.
Another is debt. While not overall a big deal, if you want to see national debt decrease, a low unemployment rate is key. If you want to have fast Growing National Debt, have a recession. Works every time.

 

[Markle]

From UCLA at Berkley. EVEN the PROGRESSIVES here have to admit that is one of the most Progressive, Liberal schools in America

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
Uh, I see you seem to be working with things above your pay grade. Come to think of it, that would be ANYTHING. Because everything seems above your pay grade. So, me poor stupid con tool, let me help you some:
"You posted From UCLA at Berkley. EVEN the PROGRESSIVES here have to admit that is one of the most Progressive, Liberal schools in America"
Now, you have a little problem. Or two. Lets start with the first one. The school is UCLA. You may know, though I question it, that UC stands for University of California. Then it goes LA. Now, I know you may think that is Berkley. But that is only because you are stupid. LA is Los Angeles. So, that would be a LOS ANGELES college, me boy. As almost every thinking person understands. And I know, being a con tool, you do not actually have the capability to think.
Here is the contact info for one of the economists you quoted:
Harold L. Cole
Department of Economics

​

University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Theother economist, me boy, has the same address.
Now for your further education, not all parts of California are liberal. That is another place where you are wrong, me boy. Orange County and Los Angeles counties are quite conservative, me boy.

Look, don't let it concern you. You seem to be a congenital idiot, and tat would make your stupidity NOT YOUR PROBLEM. Just plain bad luck;

This time the effort to educate you is free. Next time, I charge.

No surprise, when faced with FACTS, total SILENCE, SPEECHLESS is my good friend Rshermr.