US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

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.

 

[Markle]

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.

Amusing, even when Progressives us FACTS, they ignore them. I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

Just as OldStyle has said, and as you float down DENIAL River, sales fell instantly, to levels BELOW what they had been prior to the failed Cash for Clunkers program.

You also seem to relish in the FACT that this punished low and middle-income households by driving up the price of used cars and totally wasting millions of cars which could have helped low and middle-income families.

None of this even addresses all the fraud connected with the failed program.

How ANYONE can seriously defend this program which is akin to someone defending the murderous failed gun-running program, is far beyond my comprehension. That anyone would BOAST about supporting these plans...; you just can't make these things up.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Uh, you may want to click on that "click to expand" link, dipshit. And I pick my friends more carefully. My good friends have class.

 

[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.

Uh, you may want to click on that "click to expand" link, dipshit. And I pick my friends more carefully. My good friends have class.

Still nothing to say, no surprise.

 

[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.

Amusing, even when Progressives us FACTS, they ignore them. I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

Just as OldStyle has said, and as you float down DENIAL River, sales fell instantly, to levels BELOW what they had been prior to the failed Cash for Clunkers program.

You also seem to relish in the FACT that this punished low and middle-income households by driving up the price of used cars and totally wasting millions of cars which could have helped low and middle-income families.

None of this even addresses all the fraud connected with the failed program.

How ANYONE can seriously defend this program which is akin to someone defending the murderous failed gun-running program, is far beyond my comprehension. That anyone would BOAST about supporting these plans...; you just can't make these things up.

Markle, your post makes no sense. Read it again, me boy. Then let us know; Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently????????? You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value. You are a con tool. So we understand where you are coming from. Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you. You are indeed funny.

 

[Markle]

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.

Amusing, even when Progressives us FACTS, they ignore them. I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

Just as OldStyle has said, and as you float down DENIAL River, sales fell instantly, to levels BELOW what they had been prior to the failed Cash for Clunkers program.

You also seem to relish in the FACT that this punished low and middle-income households by driving up the price of used cars and totally wasting millions of cars which could have helped low and middle-income families.

None of this even addresses all the fraud connected with the failed program.

How ANYONE can seriously defend this program which is akin to someone defending the murderous failed gun-running program, is far beyond my comprehension. That anyone would BOAST about supporting these plans...; you just can't make these things up.

Markle, your post makes no sense. Read it again, me boy. Then let us know; Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently????????? You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value. You are a con tool. So we understand where you are coming from. Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you. You are indeed funny.

As my good friend Rshermr said: "Markle, your post makes no sense. Read it again, me boy. Then let us know; Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently????????? You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value. You are a con tool. So we understand where you are coming from. Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you. You are indeed funny."

This, as almost everyone here knows, is all that need be said about his "posts".

 

[Rshermr]

As my good friend Rshermr said: "Markle, your post makes no sense. Read it again, me boy. Then let us know; Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently????????? You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value. You are a con tool. So we understand where you are coming from. Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you. You are indeed funny."

This, as almost everyone here knows, is all that need be said about his "posts".

[/QUOTE]

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

 

[Markle]

As my good friend Rshermr said: "Markle, your post makes no sense. Read it again, me boy. Then let us know; Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently????????? You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value. You are a con tool. So we understand where you are coming from. Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you. You are indeed funny."

This, as almost everyone here knows, is all that need be said about his "posts".

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.[/QUOTE]

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

 

[Rshermr]

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it![/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??

 

[Oldstyle]

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...

 

[Markle]

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

[/QUOTE]

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Markle]

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...

So I see, although Rshermr is vividly demonstrating that Progressives fervently wish to deal in a static economy rather than the real world dynamic economy. They are proven wrong so many times one would think, that after a while, they would catch on....

 

[Faun]

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.

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]

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.

Amusing, even when Progressives us FACTS, they ignore them. I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

Just as OldStyle has said, and as you float down DENIAL River, sales fell instantly, to levels BELOW what they had been prior to the failed Cash for Clunkers program.

You also seem to relish in the FACT that this punished low and middle-income households by driving up the price of used cars and totally wasting millions of cars which could have helped low and middle-income families.

None of this even addresses all the fraud connected with the failed program.

How ANYONE can seriously defend this program which is akin to someone defending the murderous failed gun-running program, is far beyond my comprehension. That anyone would BOAST about supporting these plans...; you just can't make these things up.

Great, another one who can't read a chart.

1/2009: 9.4
2/2009: 9.0
3/2009: 9.5
4/2009: 9.1
5/2009: 10.0
6/2009: 10.0
7/2009: 11.4
8/2009: 14.6
9:2009: 9.3

Now which part of that is not reflected by what I said....?

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

 

[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?

 

[Rshermr]

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rshermr]

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??

See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well, nice try, me boy. What you apparently do not know, even today, is that to get to the point of auctioning, a purchaser must agree to provide operating capital. At that point., you can try to find a buyer, or, you could choose to auction the assets.
In the case of airlines, the companies were enerally sold AFT

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

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING. You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not. I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy. The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us. That is all that really matters. So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does. That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals. You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!

No one knows, me boy. But they would not have been cars made by american companies. They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy??? Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again. I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air. Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy. Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere? No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off. Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive. Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist. The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management. New, better management would have taken over. Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]
wow. You ARE ignorant.
No sale could have occurred. No companies could have continued to exist. None of your happy fairy rail would or could have existed.
So, let me explain the basics about bankruptcy, me boy. The problem is, in a normal private bankruptcy, you have a suitor who takes over a company, provides working capital to keep the company function long enough to sell or liquidate it, and administers the bankruptcy process. Without a suitor, there is NO WAY TO HAVE A BANKRUPTCY. And, during the recession, there were no suitors for gm or Chrysler. HENSE, NO BANKRUPTCY. So, in your simplistic little Airline bankruptcy, there were suitors capable of financing the bankruptcy. But not in the auto case.
So, no, me boy. You loose. There would have been no American auto companies selling any cars, unless ford survived. And they did not expect to.
So, nice try. But simple con talking points just won't help you here.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

 

[Oldstyle]

OMG...we've found something that Rshermr knows less about than economics! That would be bankruptcy! That might very well be the most ignorant explanation of how bankruptcy works that I have EVER heard!

 

[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.