And you as usual you demonstrate absolutely nothing but stale hot air. Frankly it's become quite boring.

Okay, I had to see who the new enemy of obamaland is::hmmm:
http://www.edmunds.com/



Looks dangerous to me, all those numbers and shiney pictures:o. Better sic the FBI on 'em.

What on earth? I can tell you from just my part of the world that the program was a success. Cars were flying off lots here. Just because your part of the world you had people still holding onto cars that get Zip MPG. Does not mean we do.

It did its job which was to help the auto industry while giving the people something at the same time. Or would you rather it had been another bailout?


Despite fake "Fical conservative" fantasies. Even W had to see we had to do something about the auto industry. I was against it at the time because they had shown a marked resistance to change. But Ford changed its tune real quick and GM is changing as well.

This program also did its job of jump starting local business. People around here were freer with their funds further helping smaller businesses during the time.

The site is ok it's just they let out a bogus and crap report which was of course at once touted by so called conservatives as some kind of another Obama failure (Don't you think they would have learned after that Limbaugh fake Obama college report thing?)

OK i shall give you a break on the understanding that you have not read the constitution , have no understanding of it at all and do not have the faintest idea of the cycle of events or the ramifications apart from what you learned from a very badly written newspaper article:up:
Well donew August.
So on to this newspaper article..or more accurately the report it is based on .
I take it as a given that you hav't the fainteat idea wat the report says:yep:
I take it as given that you havn't the faintest idea how they got the figures:yep:

So going on the basis that you once again have not the faintest idea what you are talking about lets start it really simple.
Roman has given a basic equation. In simple words tell the world why in that equation "Y" is bollox?
You can go for the simple solution and say that "Y" is bollox or you can go into more detail.
After all even on a quick scan of Edmunds figures 8 major screw ups appear, so I am sur that a man of your calibre could at least spot one major flaw....if of course they bothered to learn anything before they decided to comment on it and tell others they are wrong:rotfl2:

Oh sorr , you failed to heed the earlier advice didn't you.
Is that a case of you simply failing to read or failing to comprehend?:up:

Thanks August, you make things so easy.

Sorry Roman, thanks for the input.
Now taking as read that you have done the report how many flaws can you see in figure"Y"

Please stop wasting our time Tribesman.

Please don't comment when you havn't got the faintest idea what you are talking about August.
It is rather simple, explain how figure "Y" was arrived at....or alternatively as you introduced it take all the articles of the constitution that were broken and list them in numerical order, or simply put up the articles that people who did the coup now say that they broke and explain how they were not broken(though I think you may have to read the document first then try and understand it).....or stop trying to jump in with both feet in ill fitting hob nailed clogs where you shouldn't even dare to tip-toe in ballet pumps.

But honestly, a 5 year old should be able to spot the flaws in the sum Edmunds used. I will refrain from saying you are less intelligent than a five year old when it comes to looking at sums, based on the certainty that you havn't even looked at them.:yeah:

Exactly right Steamwake. In this case there are methods to back the assertions of edmunds. They derive their input from this:

(Total $$ of incentives)/(incremental car sales over those that would have been bought without the incentive)


In other words, people who were going to buy a car without any incentive received an incentive even though they were going to buy a new car anyway. Those dollars did nothing to increase car sales. And did nothing but soak the American taxpayer for a rebate used by car buyers that did nothing to spur any true economic growth. That's what edmunds is getting at.



But the real issue here is that this program proved to be nothing more than government building and shifting an artificial demand in the market. The sales seen in 3rd quarter growth will do nothing to stem losses in the 4th. This program was an absolute waste of time, and makes liberals believe government expanded economic growth where it did nothing like it. It simply used taxpayer money, and shifted sales that will not sustain itself or provide real growth over time.



I wouldn't bother trying to explain this to some types I see here. It's obviously way over their heads, as they simply provide baseless and ambiguous arguments that add up to nothing. In the end, and this is important, it's apparent the government simply gave us a zero sum in economic activity in the private markets here, and cost the taxpayers $3 billion dollars to do it. Again, intrusive government does something that gives us no effect, but costs a bundle. The sooner we get rid of these Democrats in Washington DC...the better.

Exactly wrong
look at the methods
Look at the second figure they derived.

Its clearly way over your head as you cannot see the flaws in the methodology.

Obviously it wasn't a total failure, at least for Ford:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/...J5BHNsawNmb3Jk

Ford did not participate in the bail out money therefore had an edge on those that did.

I'm not going to bother to read that report, as I am frankly not interested in the topic, BUT if you could please enlighten us on the flaws in the methodology, it may give you a real base for your arguments. Because what you're doing at the moment, is making baseless claims (well probably not, but as long as you fail to explain what's wrong with the methodology, they are).

I'm guessing either they don't teach economic principles in Ireland anymore, or you were absent that day. :O: Simply put if you take $3 Billion dollars, and the effect of what you were "stimulating" was virtually zero (or basically no rate of true return due to an artificial demand created out of thin air and shifted) then you have a loss. You aren't deriving anything other than baseless claims. We gained virtually nothing from $3 Billion dollars taken from the US Treasury other than a sprinkling of auto sales that would have been sold in another quarter of economic activity anyways. And you cannot show otherwise.

The only thing I'm learning from you is that Ireland must be real boring for you, as you seem so desperate and passionate about shilling and supporting our failed Democrats in our government over here. The economic reality and waste above is why these current Democrats need to be separated from the reigns of government. They think they can simply say "success" and trumpet "economic growth" even though the reality is $3 Billion dollars of waste to little effect. And absolutely no real economic growth at all.

You make no sense at all. I gotta laugh. If you follow the current Democrat controlled government's outlook on directed investment in your own private life, you'll soon be a homeless panhandler living under a bridge.

Well penniless and under a bridge is right where democrats want you, so they can play savior as big government, so its a match made in heaven for the two....

For the rest of us however, personal responsibility and personal dignity have a place in our lives. Thankfully.

Now, the program did have an impact - in that it sold more cars. However, this is a short term gain that did nothing but, as noted beforehand, created an artificial demand.

Yes, it helped car companies - for the duration. But all those people that MIGHT have bought cars in the next 2 quarters, and instead bought one now, are sales that have only a short term impact, rather than provide longer term stability to the market, and thus its suppliers, the car makers.

After all, if you bought a car within the last 6 months and got a "cash for clunkers" deal, would you be running out to get that other one you were planning on? Highly doubtful.

As for Ford, the reality is they did excellent for 2 major reasons. One, they were financially sound to start with, so this is just a boost for them that they can enjoy and continue to maintain somewhat smart business practices and thus, stay solvent.

Additionally, it was widely known that of all the US car makers, Ford was the only one that DIDN'T need a bailout. Thus, they were seen as the preference by most buyer - because if your going to buy a car or truck, are you going to buy it from a healthy company, or a "we might be bankrupt if we don't get a government bailout" company? Americans simply showed that, bailout or not, we reward companies that are smarter than their competition. And people say the free market doesn't work.....