US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...and what did those 100 million tax payers DO with their $400? Most of them were so nervous about losing their jobs at that point they used that money to pay off some bills and saved the rest. That $400 had almost no affect at all on the economy! It was window dressing...nothing more.

Moron.... that's $40,000,000,000.00 dollars. More than a few made it into the economy.

Now you're merely spitting inane con tool denial.

You're the one who came up with the figure of 100 million tax payers, Sparky...then you call me a moron for using YOUR number? You're almost as pathetic as Georgie Costanza!

My point is that the $400 per person pay out had almost no affect on the economy whatsoever because it's such a small amount and people in the Private Sector were rightfully scared to death about losing their jobs. Once again...that was nothing more than window dressing so that Barack Obama could claim he'd given 95% of Americans a tax cut when he ran for reelection. That's true but it's such a laughably small amount that it's like saying you helped a drowning man by throwing him a 5lb weight instead of a 50lb weight.

More con tool idiocy.

No, I don't call you a moron for using the number. I call you a moron for abusing the number. you really are too stupid to discern the distinction. And you're beyond retarded to think handing out $40,000,000,000.00 resulted in people metaphorically stuffing most of that under their mattress.

But again, you're a con tool. So you spit whatever nonsense you can muster you think paints Liberals in a poor light. That's who you are. That's what you do.

The thing is, Faun, there are a few con tools on the board who seem to like to monopolize threads to the point of boring people to tears, causing them to move on. Then the thread dies. And I suspect for trolls like OS, that is victory. Because as with pretty much all cons, he is incapable of conversation. In fact, cons do not appear to want anything at all to do with conversation. Nor debate. By living in the con world of fox and bat shit crazy con web sites and talking points in their email, they have ready made responses to EVERYTHING that they are told to dislike. And to attack.
All of which makes them dishonest, and extremely boring.

Gee, Georgie...you seem to "move on" when you get caught out trying to pass yourself off as an Economics major! Why do you even bother trying to pull that off? You're as bad at it as your namesake from Seinfeld!

 

[Faun]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Rshermr]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.

You know, Faun, the typical Con Tool has the famous Conservative talking points. That is what they rely on. So, they have a single belief set given to them, and they never question it. One of the points is that the stimulus failed, and that Cash for Clunkers failed Period.
Now, for Con Tools, you have to have very simple information. They do not like to have to deal with complex issues. And CFC is complex. There are a couple of issues, not just one. Anything beyond one issue is always reduced to a single issue to allow Cons to wrap their heads around the subject.
So what are the major issues? The rational world understands that they are:
1. The cost or gain from the nearly $80 Billion dollar program. It ended up costing $9.26 Billion. In round numbers, about $71 Billion was paid back.
2. The benefits of the program were in the form of the results, which cons want to ignore. Forget entirely. Those benefits include:
A. Millions of auto industry workers still have their jobs. These are some of the JOBS SAVED numbers that cons all want to say are bogus. Problem is, those workers and their families are REAL, not BOGUS.
B. Revenue that would have been lost had we followed the con nut cases plan and let the companies fail. Savings in revenue to all taxpayers over time is estimated at something like $105 Billion, in the form of saved tax revenue, services not paid for (unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other social services).
So, to rational people, it is not even close. The overall effect a big win And, we have an auto industry when all is said and done, which we would not have if we followed the empty brained idea of con tools.
"The final tally for the program was included in the Treasury's daily TARP update on Monday.

The cost of a disorderly liquidation to the families and businesses across the country that rely on the auto industry would have been far higher," the Treasury Department said of the expense. "The government's actions not only saved GM and Chrysler, but they saved many businesses up and down the supply chain."
Last year, the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care."
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

 

[edthecynic]

it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!

Nothing is heavily slanted to the Left!!!!
The Right just whines that it is every time the truth contradicts the Right, which is all the time.

 

[Oldstyle]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.

At an estimated cost to tax payers of about $22,000 per vehicle? If your "mission" was to waste taxpayer money...then Barry and his band of idiots succeeded beyond their wildest dreams!

 

[Oldstyle]

it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!

Nothing is heavily slanted to the Left!!!!
The Right just whines that it is every time the truth contradicts the Right, which is all the time.

You guys don't want to hear the truth...you want to believe what the Obama Administration TELLS you...and when you've got people like Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney more than willing to lie through their teeth...what they TELL you should be taken with a huge grain of salt!

 

[Faun]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.

At an estimated cost to tax payers of about $22,000 per vehicle? If your "mission" was to waste taxpayer money...then Barry and his band of idiots succeeded beyond their wildest dreams!

No, not at an estimated cost of $22,000 per vehicle. This would be yet another example of a con tool lying.

The program gave a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle.

 

[Faun]

it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!

Nothing is heavily slanted to the Left!!!!
The Right just whines that it is every time the truth contradicts the Right, which is all the time.

You guys don't want to hear the truth...you want to believe what the Obama Administration TELLS you...and when you've got people like Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney more than willing to lie through their teeth...what they TELL you should be taken with a huge grain of salt!

LOLOLOLOL

As if you spew the truth.

Yesterday, you denied the truth that car sales returned to about the same level they were at before the cash for clunkers program. Today, you're claiming that program cost tax payers $22,000 per vehicle when the program gave out no more than $4,500 per vehicle.

And you remain clueless to the truth that the program, along with other stimulus' passed, were successful with flooding money into a drying economy.

 

[Oldstyle]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.

At an estimated cost to tax payers of about $22,000 per vehicle? If your "mission" was to waste taxpayer money...then Barry and his band of idiots succeeded beyond their wildest dreams!

No, not at an estimated cost of $22,000 per vehicle. This would be yet another example of a con tool lying.

The program gave a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle.

Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009

 

[Oldstyle]

Sorry, CNN says I was a bit low on that projection!

 

[Faun]

it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!

Nothing is heavily slanted to the Left!!!!
The Right just whines that it is every time the truth contradicts the Right, which is all the time.

It's quite revealing that a publication like Time, which included both sides of the story, is slanted to the left according to these rightwing nut jobs.

 

[Faun]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.

At an estimated cost to tax payers of about $22,000 per vehicle? If your "mission" was to waste taxpayer money...then Barry and his band of idiots succeeded beyond their wildest dreams!

No, not at an estimated cost of $22,000 per vehicle. This would be yet another example of a con tool lying.

The program gave a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle.

Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009

That's if you exclude 4 out of 5 vehicles sold in the program.



And your claim was that the program cost $22,000 "per vehicle." Even using that articles numbers, it comes out to roughly $4,300 per vehicle.

 

[Oldstyle]

What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running. Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case. They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans. I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!

 

[Oldstyle]

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points. You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!

The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.

At an estimated cost to tax payers of about $22,000 per vehicle? If your "mission" was to waste taxpayer money...then Barry and his band of idiots succeeded beyond their wildest dreams!

No, not at an estimated cost of $22,000 per vehicle. This would be yet another example of a con tool lying.

The program gave a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle.

Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009

That's if you exclude 4 out of 5 vehicles sold in the program.



And your claim was that the program cost $22,000 "per vehicle." Even using that articles numbers, it comes out to roughly $4,300 per vehicle.

You miss the point of the article...which was that a large amount of the cars sold...would have been sold ANYWAYS and that if you count the additional sales as what CFC actually generated...then the programs cost was $24,000 per additional vehicle sold.

 

[Oldstyle]

Have you been following the Ben Rhodes story in the New York Times, Faun? It's illustrative of how this Administration USES gullible members of the Press to lie to the American people because they know that they can do so and not get called on it.

 

[Faun]

What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running. Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case. They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans. I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!

Your own article disagrees with you. It says the projection was based on the period during the program and the weeks which followed. Not over the course of the following year. And of course, given the spike, that projection is ludicrous.

At any rate, you still have to fudge the numbers to come up with $24,000/vehicle by excluded most of the cars sold from the equation. The truth is, it cost tax payers about $4,300 per vehicle and injected several billion dollars into the economy. But yhen, you've proven truth matters not to a con tool.

 

[Oldstyle]

What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running. Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case. They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans. I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!

Your own article disagrees with you. It says the projection was based on the period during the program and the weeks which followed. Not over the course of the following year. And of course, given the spike, that projection is ludicrous.

At any rate, you still have to fudge the numbers to come up with $24,000/vehicle by excluded most of the cars sold from the equation. The truth is, it cost tax payers about $4,300 per vehicle and injected several billion dollars into the economy. But yhen, you've proven truth matters not to a con tool.

I'm sorry, Faun but I'm a business person who figures out things like profits and losses. If my goal is to increase business with some type of promotion I judge the success of that promotion on how many additional sales I make over and above what I would normally have sold. How much did the additional sales generated by CFC cost taxpayers per unit?

 

[Rshermr]

it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!

Nothing is heavily slanted to the Left!!!!
The Right just whines that it is every time the truth contradicts the Right, which is all the time.

Yeah. I noticed that too. Makes you laugh at them. Which is the only true use of cons I have ever found.

 

[Rshermr]

What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running. Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case. They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans. I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!

Your own article disagrees with you. It says the projection was based on the period during the program and the weeks which followed. Not over the course of the following year. And of course, given the spike, that projection is ludicrous.

At any rate, you still have to fudge the numbers to come up with $24,000/vehicle by excluded most of the cars sold from the equation. The truth is, it cost tax payers about $4,300 per vehicle and injected several billion dollars into the economy. But yhen, you've proven truth matters not to a con tool.

And, as always, a con tool would look at the specific cost per car only, add them up, and make a judgement. It does not consider the overall effect on the industry, and what it accomplished in saving the industry, revenue to the government in a time of massive recession, savings in ongoing social programs, and so forth. Nor does it consider the costs of businesses going out of business without such a stimulus. Instead, it takes some specific estimates and looks at only those that agree with conservative talking points.
Coming from a con tool that says that he is a businessman is really funny. Any real, solid business person looks at the overall picture, not simply what he wants to see. That is the purview of the con tool. Do you know of one of those, Faun??