The #1 selling car in the 'Cash for Clunkers' program is.......
POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Friday, August 28, 2009 00:13
VIEWED: 8024
PAGE 3 of 6
Clinton boom 3 things:
1. Selling off america in parts, a bad idea
2. reckless lending in volume, terrible idea
3. the internet, good idea, but not his. or gore's.
Bush's economy did okay, remember, the president runs the next years budget, so bushonomics started in 2010. Still, it had problems:
1. Selling off america in parts, a bad idea
2. reckless lending in volume, terrible idea
3. a huge war debt.
Obama is different. He signed a lot of bailouts, and then used only about 500 billion in actual bailouts, and has kept a trillion something to run the got, so Obama is running the 09 budget because Bush left him with a useless "responsible" budget.
Of course, we don't live in a dictatorship, congress does most of everything, and they suck at it all the time.
Anyway, I'd vote for a fiscally terrible peacenik, over a responsible warmonger, because then I could move to somewhere not being bombed. A minimalist non-interventionist govt. would be better.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A fiscally responsible war monger, who brings frugal spending and economic prosperity while at the same time raining death and destruction on his foes overseas...
It's that part that makes it a false dichotomy. You speak as though a fiscal conservative CAN bring economic prosperity while raining death and destruction. You may not have noticed, but death and destruction are pricey items these days, and tend to be custom-tailored, not off-the-shelf ready-made items.
I'll take the peacenik. As Wall Street and George Bush have taught us, you can always just walk away from massive financial failure, and be thought a "leader" for it.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
death and destruction are pricey items these days
Good point, I missed that logical falacy
Edit: looks like we're all voting for *gasp* Reagan in this scenario.
You could argue that Clinton was a fiscally responsible warmonger if you count selling off american assets, ports, bases, liquidating our reserves of cash, gold, as fiscally responsible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've got my doubts about CARS. Yeah, it's stimulated a lot of good stuff, but the environmental thing isn't something I appreciate, and is it just stimulating buying new cars in exchange for less buying of new cars down the line? When it runs out, do all the cutbacks and layoffs just start again? Or is it worth the aforementioned just to get some economic stimulus going?
To many contradictory things for me to jump off the fence one way or another. I guess we'll find out when the stimulus it's create wears off, eh?
I'll take the peacenik, too, by the way. I don't buy that Bush left us with a "good" economy, no matter what the argument. The fact is he put us tons in debt with a war only HE and his pal Cheney wanted which killed and imprisoned many innocents and left Afghanistan to Al Qaeda. And went into Iraq totally incompetently.
War stimulates economy, but it also costs more than it stimulates NOWadays, I'm thinkin'. And it does so at the cost of lives.
I do agree, however, that the Repubs have lost the right to the "fiscally responsible" title for some time to come, as have they lost the right ot the "family-values" title of late, which I admit has been fun to watch.
"My infidelity wasn't as bad as Obamas because I didn't break any laws"? Oh, c'MON...and that has yet to be proven, anyway. I'm sick of the superiority complex about "morality" the Repubs love to snuggle up to; would be neat if they got the concept that claiming superiority to that one wasn't really productive when proven false time after time...
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
death and destruction are pricey items these days
Good point, I missed that logical falacy
Edit: looks like we're all voting for *gasp* Reagan in this scenario.
You could argue that Clinton was a fiscally responsible warmonger if you count selling off american assets, ports, bases, liquidating our reserves of cash, gold, as fiscally responsible.
In what possible universe can Reagan be considered fiscally responsible?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"My infidelity wasn't as bad as Obamas because I didn't break any laws"
I think you meant Clinton, but what the hell...
And yeah, his was so totally not as bad, because he didn't break any laws.
Oh, wait - Did John Ensign just throw Senator David Vitter under the bus? After all, Vitter WAS breaking the law - he was paying prostitutes for sex outside his marriage.
So does Vitter have to resign now?
What about Mark Sanford, of "Sanford and Sin" fame? If he was using taxpayer funds to pay for his affair (as it certainly seems he was, given his travel schedule and who was paying for his trysts), does he have to resign as well?
It remains to be seen whether paying $96,000 for sex with the wife of one of your employees constitutes illegality in Ensign's case, or whether giving that staffer's 19-year-old son a position as a "policy expert" in your party's national office qualifies as a quid pro quo for "services rendered", but it definitely seems like there's been more than just a hint of impropriety at the least, if not downright illegality.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
Additionially, cash4clunkers encourages people to plow further into debt.
War was never good for the economy. WWII gave us 2 trillion in debt that has never been paid off a penny on principle, and we are all still paying the interest on it by way of federal taxes.
All tax receipts go to interest on the debt, almost all of the debt comes from wars.
The only thing in war that was ever profitable was selling weapons to other countries fighting wars, which we've done since WWI. But that only benefits the govt., and the defense contractors, but the next result seems to be that we end up paying more interest on more debt.
The Republican Party is a disaster, but that doesn't make the Democrats good. We're still at war in the middle east, still sending more troops, bombing more weddings in more countries, borrowing and spending more money, raising taxes, expanding executive power, cracking down on the little guy, granting more powers to the banks of the federal reserve and I fear we're about to hand a blank check to the medical industry. I suspect the solution is for the united or disunited states to collectively succeed from the capitol, and let them pay it off, and if they want to go to war with someone, they should do it themselves. Sorry about the rant.
Mike,
Quote:
In what possible universe can Reagan be considered fiscally responsible?
None. It was the fiscally wreckless peacenik. Now sure, you may say "on what planet was Reagan a peacenik" I just meant "he didn't fight a war" but if you prefer, we can have carter instead (giving reagan, or at least vp bush credit for iran/iraq war)
and mike, you're getting into a partisan bickering debate. I need to send you some links to cure you of this democrat thing at some point. First, check out wikipedia, start on the two issues that the democratic party was founded on, then you can go through president by president, and we can discuss them.
No, it's not a defense of the GOP, it's just that there's this rosy view some people seem to have of the democrats that makes them take part in partisan arguments. Christ, I'd rather have to defend the Saudis...
:)
But seriously, look into why there is a democratic party. what was the split about? c. early 1820s, and we'll go forward from there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just a quick thought on CARS . . .
I've been hearing that dealers have taken all these trade-ins, made the deals, sold the cars . . . and many have not seen a dime of the government funds. Some stopped the program voluntarily because they couldn't afford to accept the trade-ins and not get refunded. I saw one Toyota dealer this morning saying that not only does the government owe him somewhere in the vicinity of $500,000.00, but he also said that the government started it abruptly, giving dealers no chance to build up their inventory and therefore many dealers are running out of stock, which will cost them money.
Add to all of this, the government now has to spend even more money on the program in order to hire more staff to process the CARS claims faster.
*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
.... and this is what they want to do with healthcare...
wonder-fucking-full.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME