Cash for Clunkers didn't work

[Jarhead]

Do you have any evidence?

Nothing but old warehouses and abandoned buildings existed in these photographs a few years ago. What you don't see is a new light rail and subway system which exists from the San Mateo County Line to downtown SF, and soon to be completed to China Town, North Beach and end at Fisherman's Warf.

Mission Bay | San Francisco Aerial Photography - Images | Aerial Archives | San Francisco

The Construction you see includes is high tech, and an expansion of the U. of California at San Francisco (Medical, Dental and research); see:

Mission Bay News - San Francisco Business Times

Much of this construction, the new Eastern Span of the Bay Bridge, the light rail/subway and infrastructure received funding from the act the right regularly considers a boondoggle.

Maybe Rocko has some evidence to support his opinion - likely not.

Showing us infrastructure projects as proof of the stimulus working is a farce.

Of course infrastructure projects at the cost of the deficit and debt will create jobs....but the problem is, they are temporary jobs for once the project is done, the job is done.

And what do people do when they know their job is temporary?

They save as much of their income as possible.

Not fucking rocket science.

Show me how private industry is thriving with the hiring of PERMANENT employees at 35 and 40 hours a week due to expansion, and THEN you can claim the stimulus worked.

Whatever....you will show me some article with spin and rhetoric.....so don't waste your time.

Bottom line....there are less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted....and household incomes are down as well.

That's all we need to know to determine if the stimulus worked.

Enough said.

Never mind that/ The stupidity of saying, Here's a city block beofre and after the stimulus. See how much better it looks? The stimulus must have worked" is beyond bounds. You look at the results. The results are fewer people working for less money with lower economic growth.

at the cost of 3/4 of a trillion borrowed dollars.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Bush and Paulson

Many stupid assed Republicans opposed the Bush stimulus. Of those Republicans who supported the Bush stimulus, NONE would support the same thing from Obama

Paulson supported the Bank Bailout not the Stimulus. In fact, he came up with the number (700 Billion) How did he come up with 700 Billion? He pulled that number out of his ass. He then funneled 7.7 TRILLION to Banks after that but I'm sure you think I'm lying. Google that. "7.7 Trillion"and see what comes up.

 

[rightwinger]

Showing us infrastructure projects as proof of the stimulus working is a farce.

Of course infrastructure projects at the cost of the deficit and debt will create jobs....but the problem is, they are temporary jobs for once the project is done, the job is done.

And what do people do when they know their job is temporary?

They save as much of their income as possible.

Not fucking rocket science.

Show me how private industry is thriving with the hiring of PERMANENT employees at 35 and 40 hours a week due to expansion, and THEN you can claim the stimulus worked.

Whatever....you will show me some article with spin and rhetoric.....so don't waste your time.

Bottom line....there are less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted....and household incomes are down as well.

That's all we need to know to determine if the stimulus worked.

Enough said.

Never mind that/ The stupidity of saying, Here's a city block beofre and after the stimulus. See how much better it looks? The stimulus must have worked" is beyond bounds. You look at the results. The results are fewer people working for less money with lower economic growth.

at the cost of 3/4 of a trillion borrowed dollars.

Money well spent

Much better than the money we spent in Iraq

 

[Wry Catcher]

We have spent the most on short circuiting the recession of any government. We have gotten the weakest recovery on record. Those two things are causal. The more gov't interferes with recession, the worse the subsequent recovery. Spending $7T to get growth under 2% is a fool's bargain. Unfortunately most Democrats are fools.
Not only did the stimulus not work, they were warned by over 100 economists, inclduing 2 Nobel Prize winners, that it wouldn't work.

Please excuse Rabbi, he's a dimwit (striving to become a half-wit), dishonest and an Obama hater (one can only guess why). Claiming the stimulus act did not work is a lie, his most common source of communication; when not attacking others who actually hold opinions easily verified (see my post above) he's expressing hate for those whose lifestyle doesn't meet his self righteous standard (no doubt he's a hypocrite too).

He's against the PPACA, the Stimulus Act, the bailout of the auto industry and everything the Democrats put forth to rescue our economy and aid our citizens. He is one of the "ain't it awful" crowd, unable to offer any idea other than to parrot the usual bullshit - the RED SCARE, Gov't is too big and taxes are too high. Not only is Rabbi a dimwit, he's a class A jerk.

 

[Mad Scientist]

7.7 Trillion Dollar Bank Bailout.

The Federal Reserve's 'breathtaking' $7.7 trillion bank bailout - The Week

 

[Misty]

Of course the economy will improve if you throw taxpayer money at it. But it's a bandaid not a cure. Typical government bullshit.

 

[Jarhead]

We have spent the most on short circuiting the recession of any government. We have gotten the weakest recovery on record. Those two things are causal. The more gov't interferes with recession, the worse the subsequent recovery. Spending $7T to get growth under 2% is a fool's bargain. Unfortunately most Democrats are fools.
Not only did the stimulus not work, they were warned by over 100 economists, inclduing 2 Nobel Prize winners, that it wouldn't work.

Please excuse Rabbi, he's a dimwit (striving to become a half-wit), dishonest and an Obama hater (one can only guess why). Claiming the stimulus act did not work is a lie, his most common source of communication; when not attacking others who actually hold opinions easily verified (see my post above) he's expressing hate for those whose lifestyle doesn't meet his self righteous standard (no doubt he's a hypocrite too).

He's against the PPACA, the Stimulus Act, the bailout of the auto industry and everything the Democrats put forth to rescue our economy and aid our citizens. He is one of the "ain't it awful" crowd, unable to offer any idea other than to parrot the usual bullshit - the RED SCARE, Gov't is too big and taxes are too high. Not only is Rabbi a dimwit, he's a class A jerk.

The stimulus did not work. It created temporary jobs, and when one knows their job is temporary, they tend to save their income while it is coming in.

Two items will define the success or failure of a government stimulus...

1) How many more (or less) people are working since the stimulus was enacted
2) How much has household income increased or decreased

All of the rest of the crap? Useless to everyday Americans....and designed to fool them.

Especially the old fallback..."Imagine how bad it would be WITHOUT the stimulus"

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course the economy will improve if you throw taxpayer money at it. But it's a bandaid not a cure. Typical government bullshit.

Okay, so what is your solution? Is it let's shrink government (what might that do to unemployment, how might that effect small business, how might that impact health and safety? How might that impact revenue to local, state and the federal government?).

I really wonder, seriously, if comments like Misty and Jarhead make have any thought behind them? It seems those who hold such opinions never consider all the parts and elements intertwined in an economy as large as ours.

Now, consider for example, cutting government means cutting jobs. When you cut a lot of jobs, finding a new job is at best difficult and because competition will be robust the salary will be less. Thus, many gov't employees will lose their home, driving down home values (deflation is bad, Misty) and may become homeless and dependent on aid from an already a deeply financially troubled state or local government. This newly displaced former gov't employee will no longer have disposable income, so Pizza for dinner is out, the dry cleaner will lose business, the local deli by the gov't building too. And of course as these businesses (and others of course) lose business, some will fail.

Then rents will fall, landlords will soon abandoned their property and on and on and on. So, let's be real. There is one way to solve this potential problem, cutting taxes is not one of them.

1. Raise taxes, cut expenses.

This can't be done. The Republicans will not raise taxes. The Democrats will not throw the poor, the aged, the infirm and our future generations under the bus.

My solution requires two Constitutional Amendments and one caveat:

1a. Give the POTUS the line-item veto;
2a. Give the POTUS one six-year term of office.

B. A little bit of rational thought by the American people.

 

[Jarhead]

Of course the economy will improve if you throw taxpayer money at it. But it's a bandaid not a cure. Typical government bullshit.

Okay, so what is your solution? Is it let's shrink government (what might that do to unemployment, how might that effect small business, how might that impact health and safety? How might that impact revenue to local, state and the federal government?).

I really wonder, seriously, if comments like Misty and Jarhead make have any thought behind them? It seems those who hold such opinions never consider all the parts and elements intertwined in an economy as large as ours.

Now, consider for example, cutting government means cutting jobs. When you cut a lot of jobs, finding a new job is at best difficult and because competition will be robust the salary will be less. Thus, many gov't employees will lose their home, driving down home values (deflation is bad, Misty) and may become homeless and dependent on aid from an already a deeply financially troubled state or local government. This newly displaced former gov't employee will no longer have disposable income, so Pizza for dinner is out, the dry cleaner will lose business, the local deli by the gov't building too. And of course as these businesses (and others of course) lose business, some will fail.

Then rents will fall, landlords will soon abandoned their property and on and on and on. So, let's be real. There is one way to solve this potential problem, cutting taxes is not one of them.

1. Raise taxes, cut expenses.

This can't be done. The Republicans will not raise taxes. The Democrats will not throw the poor, the aged, the infirm and our future generations under the bus.

My solution requires two Constitutional Amendments and one caveat:

1a. Give the POTUS the line-item veto;
2a. Give the POTUS one six-year term of office.

B. A little bit of rational thought by the American people.

You don't need to ramble.

You asked....I will answer.

Let it alone. It corrects itself.

But I notice your response is "what alternative" as opposed to addressing the stats of failure....

1) Less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted.
2) Lower average household income than when the stimulus was enacted

Now, you can say "Jarheads idea wont work"...

And maybe it wont. And maybe it will.

But at least we didn't borrow 3/4 trillion dollars for it not to work.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have spent the most on short circuiting the recession of any government. We have gotten the weakest recovery on record. Those two things are causal. The more gov't interferes with recession, the worse the subsequent recovery. Spending $7T to get growth under 2% is a fool's bargain. Unfortunately most Democrats are fools.
Not only did the stimulus not work, they were warned by over 100 economists, inclduing 2 Nobel Prize winners, that it wouldn't work.

Please excuse Rabbi, he's a dimwit (striving to become a half-wit), dishonest and an Obama hater (one can only guess why). Claiming the stimulus act did not work is a lie, his most common source of communication; when not attacking others who actually hold opinions easily verified (see my post above) he's expressing hate for those whose lifestyle doesn't meet his self righteous standard (no doubt he's a hypocrite too).

He's against the PPACA, the Stimulus Act, the bailout of the auto industry and everything the Democrats put forth to rescue our economy and aid our citizens. He is one of the "ain't it awful" crowd, unable to offer any idea other than to parrot the usual bullshit - the RED SCARE, Gov't is too big and taxes are too high. Not only is Rabbi a dimwit, he's a class A jerk.

I am surprised you could get off your knees and get the cock out of your mouth long enough to write that much. It would be even better if you could put something like a fact or figure or link to make yourslef half way believable. As it is you revert to form and just call people liars without any basis.
The truth is by any measure the stimulus failed. The adminstration made claims for how it would affect unemployment at the outset. The stimulus failed to meet those claims. The administration claimed it would affect GDP growth. It didnt, except negatively.
You weigh what would have happened had we done nothing,or something less, and what would happen if we spent $1T. The answer is not only did the stimulus not produce extra growth, it actually impeded growth. The proof is the worst recovery post recession on record. Growth never really got above 3%, despite last quarter's 4% showing.
Had we done nothing the recession would have been over faster and subsequent growth would have been stronger. And of course the deficit would have been smaller.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course the economy will improve if you throw taxpayer money at it. But it's a bandaid not a cure. Typical government bullshit.

Okay, so what is your solution? Is it let's shrink government (what might that do to unemployment, how might that effect small business, how might that impact health and safety? How might that impact revenue to local, state and the federal government?).

I really wonder, seriously, if comments like Misty and Jarhead make have any thought behind them? It seems those who hold such opinions never consider all the parts and elements intertwined in an economy as large as ours.

Now, consider for example, cutting government means cutting jobs. When you cut a lot of jobs, finding a new job is at best difficult and because competition will be robust the salary will be less. Thus, many gov't employees will lose their home, driving down home values (deflation is bad, Misty) and may become homeless and dependent on aid from an already a deeply financially troubled state or local government. This newly displaced former gov't employee will no longer have disposable income, so Pizza for dinner is out, the dry cleaner will lose business, the local deli by the gov't building too. And of course as these businesses (and others of course) lose business, some will fail.

Then rents will fall, landlords will soon abandoned their property and on and on and on. So, let's be real. There is one way to solve this potential problem, cutting taxes is not one of them.

1. Raise taxes, cut expenses.

This can't be done. The Republicans will not raise taxes. The Democrats will not throw the poor, the aged, the infirm and our future generations under the bus.

My solution requires two Constitutional Amendments and one caveat:

1a. Give the POTUS the line-item veto;
2a. Give the POTUS one six-year term of office.

B. A little bit of rational thought by the American people.

You don't need to ramble.

You asked....I will answer.

Let it alone. It corrects itself.

But I notice your response is "what alternative" as opposed to addressing the stats of failure....

1) Less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted.
2) Lower average household income than when the stimulus was enacted

Now, you can say "Jarheads idea wont work"...

And maybe it wont. And maybe it will.

But at least we didn't borrow 3/4 trillion dollars for it not to work.

If you take Cumcatcher's idea to its limit then government can solve the problem simply by hiring everyone who applies and paying them a high salary. Even make it a no-show job.
I'll let him explain why that won't work. I want to see this.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Okay, so what is your solution? Is it let's shrink government (what might that do to unemployment, how might that effect small business, how might that impact health and safety? How might that impact revenue to local, state and the federal government?).

I really wonder, seriously, if comments like Misty and Jarhead make have any thought behind them? It seems those who hold such opinions never consider all the parts and elements intertwined in an economy as large as ours.

Now, consider for example, cutting government means cutting jobs. When you cut a lot of jobs, finding a new job is at best difficult and because competition will be robust the salary will be less. Thus, many gov't employees will lose their home, driving down home values (deflation is bad, Misty) and may become homeless and dependent on aid from an already a deeply financially troubled state or local government. This newly displaced former gov't employee will no longer have disposable income, so Pizza for dinner is out, the dry cleaner will lose business, the local deli by the gov't building too. And of course as these businesses (and others of course) lose business, some will fail.

Then rents will fall, landlords will soon abandoned their property and on and on and on. So, let's be real. There is one way to solve this potential problem, cutting taxes is not one of them.

1. Raise taxes, cut expenses.

This can't be done. The Republicans will not raise taxes. The Democrats will not throw the poor, the aged, the infirm and our future generations under the bus.

My solution requires two Constitutional Amendments and one caveat:

1a. Give the POTUS the line-item veto;
2a. Give the POTUS one six-year term of office.

B. A little bit of rational thought by the American people.

You don't need to ramble.

You asked....I will answer.

Let it alone. It corrects itself.

But I notice your response is "what alternative" as opposed to addressing the stats of failure....

1) Less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted.
2) Lower average household income than when the stimulus was enacted

Now, you can say "Jarheads idea wont work"...

And maybe it wont. And maybe it will.

But at least we didn't borrow 3/4 trillion dollars for it not to work.

 

[Mad Scientist]

My solution requires two Constitutional Amendments and one caveat:

1a. Give the POTUS the line-item veto;
2a. Give the POTUS one six-year term of office.

B. A little bit of rational thought by the American people.

The POTUS is the Executive Branch. Line Item Veto is Legislative.

Aint gonna' happen and it SHOULDN'T happen. Little rational thought there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course the economy will improve if you throw taxpayer money at it. But it's a bandaid not a cure. Typical government bullshit.

Okay, so what is your solution? Is it let's shrink government (what might that do to unemployment, how might that effect small business, how might that impact health and safety? How might that impact revenue to local, state and the federal government?).

I really wonder, seriously, if comments like Misty and Jarhead make have any thought behind them? It seems those who hold such opinions never consider all the parts and elements intertwined in an economy as large as ours.

Now, consider for example, cutting government means cutting jobs. When you cut a lot of jobs, finding a new job is at best difficult and because competition will be robust the salary will be less. Thus, many gov't employees will lose their home, driving down home values (deflation is bad, Misty) and may become homeless and dependent on aid from an already a deeply financially troubled state or local government. This newly displaced former gov't employee will no longer have disposable income, so Pizza for dinner is out, the dry cleaner will lose business, the local deli by the gov't building too. And of course as these businesses (and others of course) lose business, some will fail.

Then rents will fall, landlords will soon abandoned their property and on and on and on. So, let's be real. There is one way to solve this potential problem, cutting taxes is not one of them.

1. Raise taxes, cut expenses.

This can't be done. The Republicans will not raise taxes. The Democrats will not throw the poor, the aged, the infirm and our future generations under the bus.

My solution requires two Constitutional Amendments and one caveat:

1a. Give the POTUS the line-item veto;
2a. Give the POTUS one six-year term of office.

B. A little bit of rational thought by the American people.

You don't need to ramble.

You asked....I will answer.

Let it alone. It corrects itself.

But I notice your response is "what alternative" as opposed to addressing the stats of failure....

1) Less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted.
2) Lower average household income than when the stimulus was enacted

Now, you can say "Jarheads idea wont work"...

And maybe it wont. And maybe it will.

But at least we didn't borrow 3/4 trillion dollars for it not to work.

Let it alone. It corrects itself. That's ridiculous.

As for you numbers one and two: “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” In English, “after this, therefore because of this.” A classic logical fallacy and a solution which defies reason.

3/4 of a trillion dollars? Maybe, but in the San Francisco Bay Area we got a new East Bay Span of the Bay Bridge, A fourth bore in the Caldecott tunnel, funding for infrastructure in Mission Bay + a new light rail line and dozens of other projects which will move commerce and people aiding the economy. And this in one small region of our country,.

What did the invasion and occupation of Iraq get us? And how much in blood and treasure was its cost?

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay, so what is your solution? Is it let's shrink government (what might that do to unemployment, how might that effect small business, how might that impact health and safety? How might that impact revenue to local, state and the federal government?).

I really wonder, seriously, if comments like Misty and Jarhead make have any thought behind them? It seems those who hold such opinions never consider all the parts and elements intertwined in an economy as large as ours.

Now, consider for example, cutting government means cutting jobs. When you cut a lot of jobs, finding a new job is at best difficult and because competition will be robust the salary will be less. Thus, many gov't employees will lose their home, driving down home values (deflation is bad, Misty) and may become homeless and dependent on aid from an already a deeply financially troubled state or local government. This newly displaced former gov't employee will no longer have disposable income, so Pizza for dinner is out, the dry cleaner will lose business, the local deli by the gov't building too. And of course as these businesses (and others of course) lose business, some will fail.

Then rents will fall, landlords will soon abandoned their property and on and on and on. So, let's be real. There is one way to solve this potential problem, cutting taxes is not one of them.

1. Raise taxes, cut expenses.

This can't be done. The Republicans will not raise taxes. The Democrats will not throw the poor, the aged, the infirm and our future generations under the bus.

My solution requires two Constitutional Amendments and one caveat:

1a. Give the POTUS the line-item veto;
2a. Give the POTUS one six-year term of office.

B. A little bit of rational thought by the American people.

You don't need to ramble.

You asked....I will answer.

Let it alone. It corrects itself.

But I notice your response is "what alternative" as opposed to addressing the stats of failure....

1) Less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted.
2) Lower average household income than when the stimulus was enacted

Now, you can say "Jarheads idea wont work"...

And maybe it wont. And maybe it will.

But at least we didn't borrow 3/4 trillion dollars for it not to work.

Let it alone. It corrects itself. That's ridiculous.

As for you numbers one and two: “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” In English, “after this, therefore because of this.” A classic logical fallacy and a solution which defies reason.

3/4 of a trillion dollars? Maybe, but in the San Francisco Bay Area we got a new East Bay Span of the Bay Bridge, A fourth bore in the Caldecott tunnel, funding for infrastructure in Mission Bay + a new light rail line and dozens of other projects which will move commerce and people aiding the economy. And this in one small region of our country,.

What did the invasion and occupation of Iraq get us? And how much in blood and treasure was its cost?

Did you ever see an economy that stayed permanently in recession? No. We've had recessions here for as long as there has been an economy. They always righted themselves as whatever caused the recession worked itself out.
This would be no different. Your ignorancec of economics and your desire to suck BigDaddyGov't Dick makes you think nothing happens without government.
As for your infrastructure, you go a bunch of shiny toys. What are those going to do for the economy in SF?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You don't need to ramble.

You asked....I will answer.

Let it alone. It corrects itself.

But I notice your response is "what alternative" as opposed to addressing the stats of failure....

1) Less people working now than when the stimulus was enacted.
2) Lower average household income than when the stimulus was enacted

Now, you can say "Jarheads idea wont work"...

And maybe it wont. And maybe it will.

But at least we didn't borrow 3/4 trillion dollars for it not to work.

Let it alone. It corrects itself. That's ridiculous.

As for you numbers one and two: “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” In English, “after this, therefore because of this.” A classic logical fallacy and a solution which defies reason.

3/4 of a trillion dollars? Maybe, but in the San Francisco Bay Area we got a new East Bay Span of the Bay Bridge, A fourth bore in the Caldecott tunnel, funding for infrastructure in Mission Bay + a new light rail line and dozens of other projects which will move commerce and people aiding the economy. And this in one small region of our country,.

What did the invasion and occupation of Iraq get us? And how much in blood and treasure was its cost?

Did you ever see an economy that stayed permanently in recession? No. We've had recessions here for as long as there has been an economy. They always righted themselves as whatever caused the recession worked itself out.
This would be no different. Your ignorancec of economics and your desire to suck BigDaddyGov't Dick makes you think nothing happens without government.
As for your infrastructure, you go a bunch of shiny toys. What are those going to do for the economy in SF?

You need to take a course in the "Economic History of the United States", sadly, that's usually an upper division history course in a University, thus you will need to graduate from high school first.

You will learn of the regularity of panics, Stagflation, civil unrest in our history,and that the root cause of most of these and recessions/depressions is (drum roll, please) human nature. The last sentence of your paragraph is clear indication of how truly stupid you are. Commerce suffers from gridlock!

BTW, Without regulations, laws and rules an economy will always be at the whim and whimsy of the power elite, thus "leave it alone" is ridiculous.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to send the right wing running.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rabbi, Misty and Jarhead must have each had an emergency (LOL), i.e. a need to turn on Hannity to ground themselves or something. Pitiful, aren't they?

 

[The Rabbi]

Let it alone. It corrects itself. That's ridiculous.

As for you numbers one and two: “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” In English, “after this, therefore because of this.” A classic logical fallacy and a solution which defies reason.

3/4 of a trillion dollars? Maybe, but in the San Francisco Bay Area we got a new East Bay Span of the Bay Bridge, A fourth bore in the Caldecott tunnel, funding for infrastructure in Mission Bay + a new light rail line and dozens of other projects which will move commerce and people aiding the economy. And this in one small region of our country,.

What did the invasion and occupation of Iraq get us? And how much in blood and treasure was its cost?

Did you ever see an economy that stayed permanently in recession? No. We've had recessions here for as long as there has been an economy. They always righted themselves as whatever caused the recession worked itself out.
This would be no different. Your ignorancec of economics and your desire to suck BigDaddyGov't Dick makes you think nothing happens without government.
As for your infrastructure, you go a bunch of shiny toys. What are those going to do for the economy in SF?

You need to take a course in the "Economic History of the United States", sadly, that's usually an upper division history course in a University, thus you will need to graduate from high school first.

You will learn of the regularity of panics, Stagflation, civil unrest in our history,and that the root cause of most of these and recessions/depressions is (drum roll, please) human nature. The last sentence of your paragraph is clear indication of how truly stupid you are. Commerce suffers from gridlock!

BTW, Without regulations, laws and rules an economy will always be at the whim and whimsy of the power elite, thus "leave it alone" is ridiculous.

You're funny. You tell me I need to take a course in economic history and yet you cannot show me where an economy went into recession and never came out.
In fact you prove my point: We have had many recessions, panics, downturns, etc and government never intervened until the 20th century. And we came out of all of them.
We have had extensive regulations and laws since the 1930s. Have we stopped having recession, depressions, and downturns? No, I dont think so.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to send the right wing running.

You're far from a rocket scientiest, Cumcatcher. You're actually among the stupidest posters on this board. And that's an achievement.