Today's Challenge -- Can You Do It?

[flacaltenn]

But -- It appears your graph is correct in that it SEEMS to calculate from election to election. Not from inauguration to inauguration..

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Barry Hussein gave us "cash for clunkers" in his first year.

A policy that purported to help the economy by intentionally and gratuitously destroying billions of dollars in wealth, in the form of serviceable automobiles.

It was in record territory BEFORE Trump, too duh. They were crap cars duh. Good program, like the rest of the stimulus. Thanks for 9/11 thru sheer incompetence , the stupidest wars ever, AND a corrupt world depression, Foxbot dupe. or whatever GOP propaganda outlet.

The eligibility criteria for cars to be scrapped under the Cash for Clunkers scam required the car to be in driveable condition, and to have been registered for at least a year before being turned in. So, by definition, cars that were at least serviceable, and therefore of significant value as usable cars. In the event of a car that is truly deemed to be a “crap car” not worth keeping in operation, the usual free-market disposition is to sell it to a junkyard, which will part it out so that the parts may be used to repair other cars. The Cash for Clunkers scam prescribed a specific procedure for destroying the engine (the most valuable part of a junk car), preventing it from being used to repair another car, and specified that “the engine, cylinder heads or a ‘rolling chassis’” may not be sold in usable form. The hull of every car so turned in was to be crushed within 180 days.

So yes, the effect of the Cash for Clunkers scam, as I said, was to simply gratuitously destroy a large amount of wealth. Only an ignorant LIbEal could believe that it helps an economy to destroy wealth in such a manner. The net effect is to make the economy, as a whole, poorer, by the amount of wealth that was destroyed.

 

[Clementine]

Republican party back then was the same as the Democrat party today. Everyone knows this.

No. It's the left refusing to own their own past. Libs never admit when they are wrong.

 

[rich stacy]

The eligibility criteria for cars to be scrapped under the Cash for Clunkers scam required the car to be in driveable condition, and to have been registered for at least a year before being turned in. So, by definition, cars that were at least serviceable, and therefore of significant value as usable cars.

The Cash for Clunkers scam prescribed a specific procedure for destroying the engine (the most valuable part of a junk car), preventing it from being used to repair another car, and specified that “the engine, cylinder heads or a ‘rolling chassis’” may not be sold in usable form. The hull of every car so turned in was to be crushed within 180 days.

Nobody turned in a Lamborghini Countach for the $2,500 credit, nor a 1972 superbird, or a Ferrari 308 GTB. Only cars with a value below the credit would be turned in, and with that, only the one's probably being driven on a regular basis.

So the point was to take high pollution cars off the street, and replace them with cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles. As for the engines, 426 hemi's, 427 bowties, 428 cobrajets, boss 429's, 440 6 packs, 454's et al, were not turned into anchors.

 

[francoHFW]

Barry Hussein gave us "cash for clunkers" in his first year.

A policy that purported to help the economy by intentionally and gratuitously destroying billions of dollars in wealth, in the form of serviceable automobiles.

It was in record territory BEFORE Trump, too duh. They were crap cars duh. Good program, like the rest of the stimulus. Thanks for 9/11 thru sheer incompetence , the stupidest wars ever, AND a corrupt world depression, Foxbot dupe. or whatever GOP propaganda outlet.

The eligibility criteria for cars to be scrapped under the Cash for Clunkers scam required the car to be in driveable condition, and to have been registered for at least a year before being turned in. So, by definition, cars that were at least serviceable, and therefore of significant value as usable cars. In the event of a car that is truly deemed to be a “crap car” not worth keeping in operation, the usual free-market disposition is to sell it to a junkyard, which will part it out so that the parts may be used to repair other cars. The Cash for Clunkers scam prescribed a specific procedure for destroying the engine (the most valuable part of a junk car), preventing it from being used to repair another car, and specified that “the engine, cylinder heads or a ‘rolling chassis’” may not be sold in usable form. The hull of every car so turned in was to be crushed within 180 days.

So yes, the effect of the Cash for Clunkers scam, as I said, was to simply gratuitously destroy a large amount of wealth. Only an ignorant LIbEal could believe that it helps an economy to destroy wealth in such a manner. The net effect is to make the economy, as a whole, poorer, by the amount of wealth that was destroyed.

And help our auto industry at all levels. Boohoo. And make our cars more fuel efficient. But thanks for the corrupt world depression, dupe.

 

[SYTFE]

So far the DOW is in record territory withinin thirty days of Trump's election and he doesn't even have his entire appointments due to the democrat party dragging their feet to avoid the inevitable. Barry Hussein gave us "cash for clunkers" in his first year.

I hope you haven't forgotten that the Dow climbed from 7,949.09 when Obama took office, after the previous Republican "ideas" obliterated the stock market, and took it to just under 20,000 his last day in office.

Was waiting for that partisan claim to be made by some fully fanatical lying SOB...

MOST of the past 2 year gain in the Dow came AFTER the night of the Trump win.. Obama had nothing to do with the last 1400 points.

Huh?

Figured you wouldnt follow.. It's a systemic issue with leftists and statistics. You wrote

I hope you haven't forgotten that the Dow climbed from 7,949.09 when Obama took office, after the previous Republican "ideas" obliterated the stock market, and took it to just under 20,000 his last day in office.

ANY statistic on the performance of the DOW during Obama's term that calculates "to his last day in office" -- is a misrepresentation of the REALITY that on Election night -- the Dow was about 1500 points CLOSER to 18,500 than it was to 20,000.. And that ALL of that gain was correction for the UNexpected election victory.

Obama had NOTHING to do that last 1500 points.

Honestly dude, what the FUCK are you talking about? Who gives a shit about 1500 points??? What sort of non-point are you trying to make?

It's a FACT that on the day Obama took office, the DOW was at 7,949.09. It's a FACT that throughout his 2 terms, it went up to just under 20,000 under his watch.

Do you dispute that?

 

[francoHFW]

Republican party back then was the same as the Democrat party today. Everyone knows this.

No. It's the left refusing to own their own past. Libs never admit when they are wrong.

I'll admit you're FOS lol...I'm a Northern liberal. You're a dupe of the lying, cheating bigot ugly American GOP. Run by the greedy idiot rich...

 

[rich stacy]

It's a FACT that on the day Obama took office, the DOW was at 7,949.09. It's a FACT that throughout his 2 terms, it went up to just under 20,000 under his watch.

Do you dispute that?

My best estimate was that the DOW was around 8,200 when Obama took office And except for the initial shock of the election, the DOW from Nov 9th to Jan 20th, while under Obama's watch, was actually being driven by Trump, the same as it's driven by Trump to the current record highs.

 

[owebo]

Republican party back then was the same as the Democrat party today. Everyone knows this.

No. It's the left refusing to own their own past. Libs never admit when they are wrong.

I'll admit you're FOS lol...I'm a Northern liberal. You're a dupe of the lying, cheating bigot ugly American GOP. Run by the greedy idiot rich...

Don't be so humble.....you're a fascist Nazi liberal.....celebrate it, it's who you are...

 

[theHawk]

Name ONE positive thing to come from Republican policy.

The protection of freedom of speech. While progressive Dems are disrupting Trump events and rioting to prevent people with an alternative viewpoint from speaking, Republicans are defending people's right to peaceably assemble. Only a fascist or Marxist punk wouldn't see that as a positive thing.

Fighting for second amendment rights. While Dems are constantly attacking the right to own firearms, and progressive judges abuse their power to take away those rights, Republicans are fighting for the rights of citizens to own and carry firearms, and to allow them the ability to use the firearms to defend themselves and their homes. The ability for citizens to protect themselves from criminals is a positive thing.

The rule of law. Dems have looked the other way and even encouraged and in some cases ordered authorities to not enforce laws, allowing criminals to continue victimizing people. Republicans believe in enforcing the laws we have on the books. Republicans favor advocating victims rights, while Dems favor programs to help the criminals. Getting the criminal element off the streets and keeping them locked up is a positive thing for all of society.

Standing up against the spread of Islam. While Dems are busy defending Muslims and barbaric Islamic practices, and making excuses for them by attacking Christians or US policy, Republicans are calling out Islam for what it is: the most dangerous ideology in the world and the biggest threat to humanity world-wide. They are also willing to take steps to stand up against it, such as curbing mass immigration from war torn terrorist countries. Standing up for all of humanity against the most barbaric and bigoted ideology on the planet is a positive thing.

 

[SYTFE]

It's a FACT that on the day Obama took office, the DOW was at 7,949.09. It's a FACT that throughout his 2 terms, it went up to just under 20,000 under his watch.

Do you dispute that?

My best estimate was that the DOW was around 8,200 when Obama took office And except for the initial shock of the election, the DOW from Nov 9th to Jan 20th, while under Obama's watch, was actually being driven by Trump, the same as it's driven by Trump to the current record highs.

Thankfully, we don't have to rely on your "best estimates."

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since its creation."

Where was the Dow Jones when Obama took office?

 

[owebo]

It's a FACT that on the day Obama took office, the DOW was at 7,949.09. It's a FACT that throughout his 2 terms, it went up to just under 20,000 under his watch.

Do you dispute that?

My best estimate was that the DOW was around 8,200 when Obama took office And except for the initial shock of the election, the DOW from Nov 9th to Jan 20th, while under Obama's watch, was actually being driven by Trump, the same as it's driven by Trump to the current record highs.

Thankfully, we don't have to rely on your "best estimates."

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since its creation."

Where was the Dow Jones when Obama took office?

It was pretty impressive what Obama did for the rich by printing money....

 

[Siete]

When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the S&P 500 stock market index stood at $1,342.54. The day he left office, it was $805.22, a drop of 40 percent

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fared a bit better. It dropped only 25 percent. Sadly, the tech-heavy NASDAQ shed 48 percent of its value on President Bush’s watch.

Under President Obama, the Nasdaq increased by 285 percent, the S&P 500 by 181 percent, and the Dow Industrial Average by 148 percent. For the math-impaired, your $50,000 investment would have grown to $135,000 in 8 years.

 

[owebo]

When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the S&P 500 stock market index stood at $1,342.54. The day he left office, it was $805.22, a drop of 40 percent

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fared a bit better. It dropped only 25 percent. Sadly, the tech-heavy NASDAQ shed 48 percent of its value on President Bush’s watch.

Under President Obama, the Nasdaq increased by 285 percent, the S&P 500 by 181 percent, and the Dow Industrial Average by 148 percent. For the math-impaired, your $50,000 investment would have grown to $135,000 in 8 years.

It's amazing what QE^infinity (printing money) can do for anything....

 

[Pogo]

I'm old enough to remember Everett Dirksen. Very distinctive voice, very very theatrical. A voice that could not be ignored, and a good man with a good heart and good values. But he could not, and did not, do it alone.

Calm down, Methuselah.

Really... actually...

Yanno... I'm watching an older adult try to play down a Republican accomplishment, with your only argument being:

"B-but the Democrats helped, damn it!"

Sorry. Dirksen led the charge. Dirksen was a Republican. He broke the Democratic filibuster, with minute amounts of help from some enlightened Democrats.

Everett Dirksen and the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Wrong.

Dirksen and Mansfield broke the filibuster in collaboration, with Humphrey greasing the tracks to get it down the road once that was done. Sorry, the world is just not the cowboys-and-Indians dichotomy TV show you seem to think it is. You have 100 legislators in the Senate. One guy doesn't get things done alone.

And it's telling that while I linked a source on the CRA bill itself to display the big picture you're trying to avoid here, you linked a page specifically on Everett Dirksen --- which is not going to veer off into biographies of Hubert Humphrey and Mike Mansfield, as they are not its focus.

It states, correctly :

>> Ironically, two Democratic presidents relied upon a Republican senator because they could not count on the support of Southern Democratic senators, most of whom supported segregation. Dirksen could deliver enough Republican votes to invoke cloture, thus limiting debate and vastly improving the chances of the bill's passage. In fact, if a senator was willing to vote for cloture he would also, in all probability, vote for the civil rights bill. <<​

-- and this is exactly what I described Mansfield and Humphrey working for -- cloture.

The Southern distinction as mentioned is crucial here, and we'll show why momentarily.

But that passage is preceded by this demonstrably-bullshit self-serving hype sentence:

>> From the beginning, before the bill was even introduced in the House, Kennedy, and then Johnson, realized the success or failure of the bill rested upon the shoulders of one man, Everett McKinley Dirksen. <<​

Bullshit. Not only can no one quote either JFK or LBJ declaring it "rested on one man", we can indeed quote other shoulders involved..... such as here:

>> Johnson and his chief political strategists on the civil rights bill --- Larry O'Brien and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach --- began huddling within days of the assassination. Key to passage, they recognized, would be the civil rights organizations, labor, business, the churches, and the Republican party.

.... On his way to the office on the morning of December 4 [1963]--- the Johnsons were still living at The Elms --- LBJ had his driver swing by and pick up George Meany, who lived nearby. During the ride, Meany promised he would do everything possible to secure support for the civil rights bill from leaders of the AFL-CIO, no small task because the measure covered apprenticeship programs. A day later, LBJ gathered up House Republican Minority Leader Charles Halleck for the trip downtown. Halleck was noncommittal; Johnson made it plain that he was going to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on civil rights: "I'm going to lay it on the line ... now you're either for civil rights or you're not ... you're either the party of Lincoln or you're not --- By God, put up or shut up."15 ---- LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, pp. 470-471 <<
​

Now let's get to those Southerners, and where the divide to which I've already alluded was, as opposed to the message board fantasy dichotomy of "Democrats versus Republicans"....

>>...party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

​

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

​

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography. << --- Harry Enten, The Guardian​

This article sums up the point I've been making for the entire time I've been on this board ---- CRA '64 was about geography and culture ---- not about political parties. That factor is ignored at the peril of repeating it.

You'll find more on that page about Dirksen, Mansfield and Humphrey working together to get it done --- in opposition to the Southern contingent of BOTH parties. In other words ----------- the big picture.

 

[francoHFW]

Republican party back then was the same as the Democrat party today. Everyone knows this.

No. It's the left refusing to own their own past. Libs never admit when they are wrong.

I'll admit you're FOS lol...I'm a Northern liberal. You're a dupe of the lying, cheating bigot ugly American GOP. Run by the greedy idiot rich...

Don't be so humble.....you're a fascist Nazi liberal.....celebrate it, it's who you are...

You're a brainwashed tool lol...Everything you know is crap propaganda. Fascism is RW. We're a couple of decrees away from it with the Big Lie New BS GOP, a disgrace. Change the channel and read something.

 

[francoHFW]

It's a FACT that on the day Obama took office, the DOW was at 7,949.09. It's a FACT that throughout his 2 terms, it went up to just under 20,000 under his watch.

Do you dispute that?

My best estimate was that the DOW was around 8,200 when Obama took office And except for the initial shock of the election, the DOW from Nov 9th to Jan 20th, while under Obama's watch, was actually being driven by Trump, the same as it's driven by Trump to the current record highs.

Thankfully, we don't have to rely on your "best estimates."

"When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since its creation."

Where was the Dow Jones when Obama took office?

It was pretty impressive what Obama did for the rich by printing money....

That was the only thing the New BS GOP allowed, dupe. Because they couldn't stop it. Reaganism rolls on...

 

[Markle]

Cash for Clunkers was a horrendous failure. Fraud was rampant, excellent used cars were junked forcing the price of all used cars up. That forced buyers who could not afford a new car to pay more for a car in worse condition than they could have afforded previously.

????

What part is not clear to you?

 

[Markle]

Cash for Clunkers was a horrendous failure. Fraud was rampant, excellent used cars were junked forcing the price of all used cars up. That forced buyers who could not afford a new car to pay more for a car in worse condition than they could have afforded previously.

Only on Fox, dupe.

As you know, Cash for Clunkers was a failure. It failed in so many ways.

Grow up and show us the specifics. It resulted in not a SINGLE additional car being sold. After the program closed, sales slumped. People who bought cars simply moved the time of the purchase up a couple of months.

Step up and show us specifically where Cash for Clunkers, as you appear to claim, was a success. Or, typically resort to name calling, then run and hide.

 

[francoHFW]

Cash for Clunkers was a horrendous failure. Fraud was rampant, excellent used cars were junked forcing the price of all used cars up. That forced buyers who could not afford a new car to pay more for a car in worse condition than they could have afforded previously.

Only on Fox, dupe.

As you know, Cash for Clunkers was a failure. It failed in so many ways.

Grow up and show us the specifics. It resulted in not a SINGLE additional car being sold. After the program closed, sales slumped. People who bought cars simply moved the time of the purchase up a couple of months.

Step up and show us specifically where Cash for Clunkers, as you appear to claim, was a success. Or, typically resort to name calling, then run and hide.

Wiki it. The fact that the market slumped afterward is proof. ZZZZZZZZZZZ There's political name calling and then there's stupid personal name calling. Your "news" is slanted bs propaganda.