timmyfitz 0 #51 October 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAlright, I done hating him, Too much work. You keep telling people to hate him if you want to but I done. I will go back to trying to help stop his agenda Yes, I want him to fail Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? If Obama's plan fails, it doesn't necessarily follow that the US would fail. It's not like he has some power where he's the only one with THE answer. Zach I see your point, but his plans are for lowering unemployment, continuing market growth, continuing GDP, bringing jobs here, etc. I see how your argument could work in relation to HC, but not to the larger overall economic issues. Maybe they are not against the goals set, but how they intend to try to get there. The end result may be different depending on the route you take to get there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pontiacgtp00 0 #52 November 1, 2009 Anyone think the same thing will ever happen to the japanese automakers? With their vehicles lasting nearly forever...pretty soon we'll see an overabundance of honda's and toyota's. Unless of course they start building less reliable cars that don't last quite as long. That seems to be the deal for American cars. And yes I am sure some of you have had japanese cars that die at 20 miles, and american cars that last 300,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #53 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAlright, I done hating him, Too much work. You keep telling people to hate him if you want to but I done. I will go back to trying to help stop his agenda Yes, I want him to fail Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? If Obama's plan fails, it doesn't necessarily follow that the US would fail. It's not like he has some power where he's the only one with THE answer. Zach I see your point, but his plans are for lowering unemployment, continuing market growth, continuing GDP, bringing jobs here, etc. I see how your argument could work in relation to HC, but not to the larger overall economic issues. Maybe they are not against the goals set, but how they intend to try to get there. The end result may be different depending on the route you take to get there. Right, if it doesn't involve tax cuts it can't be viable, that's my point; neo-conservative's goals are to lower taxes and call it the great elixer....whatever happens after that is what it is, but lowering taxes is all that matters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #54 November 1, 2009 Quote And yes I am sure some of you have had japanese cars that die at 20 miles, and american cars that last 300,000. Nope, but I had a Toyota that died at 100k and a Mercury that was going strong at 215k until rear-ended by a DUI illegal alien.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #55 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteClunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm Yay for people jumping to unfounded conclusions and exaggerating math. Bravo. I wanna know what nit-wit at Edmunds made this amazing analysis. That number is so far off the mark it's laughable. Compared to the math being used in Washington, I'll take Edmunds.com any day of the week.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #56 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteClunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm Yay for people jumping to unfounded conclusions and exaggerating math. Bravo. I wanna know what nit-wit at Edmunds made this amazing analysis. That number is so far off the mark it's laughable. Compared to the math being used in Washington, I'll take Edmunds.com any day of the week. I'll take reliable data from whomever. But settling for less just cause doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #57 November 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteClunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm Yay for people jumping to unfounded conclusions and exaggerating math. Bravo. I wanna know what nit-wit at Edmunds made this amazing analysis. That number is so far off the mark it's laughable. Compared to the math being used in Washington, I'll take Edmunds.com any day of the week. I'll take reliable data from whomever. But settling for less just cause doesn't work. When I sold my Toyota in August just before moving back to California, I asked them who was buying cars under "cash-for-clunkers". The folks with sh*tty credit weren't. The folks with an older truck and had money were. None of the clientele (and this is western Kentucky mind you), were "poor" folks in a 1986 Pontiac Trans Am or 1988 Chevy 2500 Truck. They were the well off farmer who suddenly found his 1999 Suburban with a 7.4L V8 was worth $4500 more than it was earlier in the year. Indeed, cash for clunkers removed a valuable parts pool for those that couldn't replace their "clunkers". It was a waste of money and time. Not to mention it did absolutely nothing for the economy, the debt, the auto makers or those that can't afford a "new" car. While GDP grew for the the third quarter, we need to see the lagging indicators first. We also need to see if the banks start unloading all that cash the fed has infused them with in various forms of credit. Watch the interest rates, inflation and money supply. The government has not ever, while I've been alive anyway, been correct in estimating costs of their programs - whether civil, military, or social. With the exception of prescription drug coverage, I can't think of a single program that has ever run at, or less than, the projected cost. While I'd prefer a net-zero approach with modest debt, there is no way to justify this rate of spending (yes, I'm talking to the 8 years of President Bush too).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #58 November 2, 2009 QuoteThey were the well off farmer who suddenly found his 1999 Suburban with a 7.4L V8 was worth $4500 more than it was earlier in the year. Again, that, I'm sure is true, but is it representative? QuoteIndeed, cash for clunkers removed a valuable parts pool for those that couldn't replace their "clunkers". Engine wise anyway, the other parst can be picked. QuoteNot to mention it did absolutely nothing for the economy... A compounded absolute; I need laughs too, thx. Quote...the auto makers or those that can't afford a "new" car. It probably pursuaded a few buyuers who were not going to buy otherwise. QuoteWhile GDP grew for the the third quarter, we need to see the lagging indicators first. The GDP grew tremendously for the 2nd and 3rd Q's. The economy was a mess when Obama inheroted it. Really, the worst we've seen in our lifetime, so what is your answer: Tax cuts my friends? We know doing nothing is mass murder, as in the GD 12 mill dead in < 3 years, so what is your solution? QuoteWe also need to see if the banks start unloading all that cash the fed has infused them with in various forms of credit. Yep, a better idea would have been to let the banks fail that, of those that would fail and take that 700B that Bush signed for and gave away 317B of use it as a pool to rescue home mortgages and other loans, have the gov as teh lender and the party that gets paid back for it. But a certain party wanted to call that socialism, so we had one choice and giving AIG billions so they could continue multi-million $ bonuses and million $ weekend fuck-fests was it. My solution would be to let the bansk fail that couldn't make it and immediately have the gov become the lender and collector. QuoteWatch the interest rates, inflation and money supply. We controil the interest rates and money supply, so that will be easy, and with money scarrce, inflation won't be a problem for years other than maybe oil. QuoteThe government has not ever, while I've been alive anyway, been correct in estimating costs of their programs - whether civil, military, or social. I doubt you can name every single gov program, nor can I, so I assume you're posturing. But since we have the choice of having the gov do it, roads, military, social, etc., or not having it at all, then we re relegated to having it since we cannot exist w/o it, so your point is moot. QuoteWith the exception of prescription drug coverage, I can't think of a single program that has ever run at, or less than, the projected cost. Talking about Bush's prescription drug mess where he outlawed seniors going to Canada to get meds? Yea, that worked well for pharmaceutical co's, but Obama has already curtailed some of that. QuoteWhile I'd prefer a net-zero approach with modest debt, there is no way to justify this rate of spending (yes, I'm talking to the 8 years of President Bush too). Too? You mean virtually wholly. Obama has allocated 787B on the stimulus which most of is still unspent. Bush racked the debt 5T. largely due to undertaxing the rich, but his spending spree was a mess as well as his undertaxing. List all that Obama has spent money on that was/is wasteful and what you would do in place of it. Saying, "I dunno, but that spendign is fucked" is ridiculous; that kind of exit strategy is not substantive, show me what you would do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
