Cash for clunkers... the bottom line.

I wouldent be so presumtious as to say I understood the details of the report

How about reading it?

I just know that this is what Edmund does, keep track of this sort of thing.

Really?

They have been doing it for decades.

Wow, so leaving aside that the branch that did this study is only 3 years old can you find any comparable economic cycle affecting the auto industry and or a comparable funding program to establish a firm basis(or any basis) from which to extrapolate their projections from?
Once you have found the non existant basis for their flawed methodology and dealt with that then you can go on and explain their contradictory findings too.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steamwake, don't waste your breath. Some people know everything, have no need to back up their statements, and simply can always find a reason where something is "full of holes" because it doesn't agree with their own preconcieved ideas.

Thankfully, once you figured out a stop sign will always be a stop sign no matter how many facts you show it, you can just look both ways and make sure traffic is clear, then just drive on thru and leave it in the dust.

[August]

Personally I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate his expertise of the Honduran constitution.

Steamwake, don't waste your breath.

Good advice , read the report first and see for yourself why their figures make no sense.
Perhaps if you had looked at the figures first when I posted.....
"That is a very strange way of doing sums.
So how on earth does Edmund.com take their figues of a rebate of $1667 on a $26915 sale and magicly turn it into a $24000 rebate?".... and thought about the actual report you wouldn't have gone off on your nonsensical rants.

Personally I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate his expertise of the Honduran constitution.

Oh look someone else who goes of on one without even knowing what they are discussing.
Simple lesson for ya August , has any group apart from those who staged the coup claimed it was constitutional?
How many of those who staged the coup have now said that it was unconstitutional?
You really should learn to drop things when you clearly and repeatedly show you havn't the fainteast idea what you are on about.
Then again August maybe you want to demonstrate your ignorance on building codes and property leases again for good measure while you are at it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Simple lesson for ya August

Nope. you can't demonstrate your claims of Honduran constitutional expertise by asking silly questions.

Its very simple and relatively accurate. Its simply X amount of money was spent on the program as a whole divided by Y amount of cars that would not have otherwise been sold as part of the program.

Therein lies the problem.
Leave aside X (which was wrong anyway) and examine Y
How many ways at first glance can you see why Y is wrong?
At second glance how many more ways can you see that Y is wrong?
Explore further the Y and see how many more ways Y is wrong
?
Then take X which was wrong and take Y which was wrong(even from the start point) and Y which was wrong and Y which was wrong again and Y which wasn't right and Y which was a ballsup and Y which ain't right.......then come back with your X/Y equation.


When the sum went wrong at the first step all subsequent steps are meaningless.
It really is a situation where Donald Rumsfelt could have made an accurate statement

Nope. you can't demonstrate your claims of Honduran constitutional expertise by asking silly questions.

Actually it is the best possible way to demonstrate.
If you knew the subject you would be quiet.
However.....
If you really thought you knew the subject you would attempt to argue the articles that supported your position.
If you knew what the subject was you might have the faintest idea what the subject was and the implications of the action which just about everyone (including those who did the action) say is unconstitutional.

August. I am sure you could possibly make an arguement of some semblance of merit on the topic....if you had the faintest idea what you was talking about in the first place.
But as you don't you are just a waste of time as far as rational discussion is concerned.

Perhaps though I am wrong , perhaps you can name the articles which the coups lawyers say they broke which they somehow didn't break