US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[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.

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??

A "real, solid business person" doesn't get sold on a con job, Georgie! A real business person asks if there is a more efficient way to achieve the same or better results. Ever watch one of those "Swimming with the Sharks" type reality shows? When people stand in front of the investors and give their spiel...it's never about an "overall picture"...it's about costs and profit potential. It's about the bottom line. So let's look at the bottom line for Cash For Clunkers...

It was originally sold as a program that would cost about a billion dollars...it ended up costing 2.8 billion! Red flag time!!! Either someone didn't have a clue as to determining cost or someone was bullshitting you when they gave you that estimate!

It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...leading analysts to posit that CFC "pulled forward" sales that would have happened later anyways.

It was set up so that only certain cars could qualify for the program...because of that a large percentage of cars sold were not produced by American car makers but by Japanese car makers. Wonderful for the Japanese auto industry...not so great for the American auto industry!

It prompted many Americans who couldn't really afford to pay the payments for a new car to buy one anyways to take advantage of the subsidy. A large number of those Americans then defaulted on their car payments, lost the vehicle and had their credit rating damaged.

 

[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.

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

You mean like laughing at someone who claims to have a degree in economics but didn't know what The Chicago School referred to? Is that the kind of humor we're talking about, Georgie?

 

[Oldstyle]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

 

[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??

You know, Faun, over my long business career, I have known MANY very very well known and successful business persons. Certain things were true:
1. None ever had the time to spend making hundreds of posts per week to a board like this. They actually were busy people. They were not like con tools, who spend day and night posting.
2. None ever bragged about being great businessmen. They did not have a total lack of back up for their condition.
3. All looked at all sides of an issue. They actually did not line up perfectly with a set of talking points, like con tools always do.
4. None spent their time with personal attacks, over and over and over again. They tend to have a higher degree of class, something that con tools do not possess. And they have enough self confidence that they do not need to try and belittle others. Like con tools.
5. All were able to make actual rational arguments. Because they did not lie or have only talking points and agenda to guide them.
6. Cons, on the other hand, always try to make others look like lesser persons, because that is their way of making themselves look better.

Con tools brag about themselves, which is an easy thing to do when no one can know anything about you, on the internet. Con tools use personal attacks over and over. Con tools are liars. And as such always assume that others are also.
So, over a short period of time, you can easily pick the little man from the rest. The con tool from the successful person. The con tool from the people with rational minds.
Oldstyle from others.

I am sure that OS will have another group of personal insults on the way. More support for his con talking points. More attempts to belittle thinking people. Because, of course, he is a simple minded little con tool. And that is what con tools like him do.

 

[Markle]

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Thanks for the fringe rightwing view.

Claiming FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, which is almost as long as it lasted under FDR, the same as saying he should have been able to end it when he entered office, which with negative 13 percent GDP and 24 percent unemployment, is beyond retarded.

But then you revealed just how retarded you are when you claimed the 1921 depression was just as bad, if not worse, than the Great Depression. Here, in reality, the Great Depression was far worse. GDP bottomed out at -13%, compared to -7% in 1921. Unemployment reached about 24%, compared to about 12% in 1921.

I posted a link to a study done by a FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVE university in the heart of Progressivism.

You...nothing.

The 1921 Depression began just as severe, but due to the management of it by the Republican president, it never grew to the size of the Great Depression.

If you'll notice, I emphasized the points made by the researchers which detail exactly what should NOT be done should we face such a sudden economic downfall in the future. Those itemized points are EXACTLY what the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama has done. It does seem like he intentionally wants to take America down a peg or two, doesn't it?

 

[Markle]

I have to laugh at Rshermr claiming that the Keystone Pipeline is a "right wing talking point" when it was supported by the Teamsters Union, the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers. Gee, did they all turn into "right wing" groups and nobody told me?

I'm new to this forum but it didn't take long for me to learn the worthlessness of Rshermr's verbose posts.

 

[Markle]

So TARP wasn't part of the ARRA...and Cash For Clunkers wasn't part of the ARRA...yet you cited them as examples of how the Obama Stimulus "worked"? You're right, Faun...I don't understand what you're saying...do you?

They all contributed to reviving the economy in that they all contributed in pumping money into an economy that was largely drying up. I don't expect a con tool to understand that nor accept it.

American workers are still waiting for the economy to recover.

First President in HISTORY to not have a single year of GDP ABOVE 3 PERCENT. First quarter, 2016...0.5%

 

[Markle]

And you also seem to have forgotten what we the American people "got" from the Obama tax cuts in his stimulus! It was $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple! Just how did you expect THAT to stimulate the economy? The truth is...that minute amount of a tax refund let Obama claim to have kept his campaign promise to give everyone a tax cut while really giving them next to nothing!

You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Again, being the con tool Rshermr figured out you to be, you don't give credit even when it's due.

In reality, that $400 reached 100 million tax payers. Many of whom, if not most, turned around and put it directly into the economy.

Again, what you can't understand, a huge detriment to the economy in 2008-2009 was the money flow was drying up. Credit markets were either going under or freezing. The crucial element to counter that was to pump money, and lots of it, into a choking economy. That's what Obama accomplished. And get this -- your acceptance isn't even needed; nor would it ever be forthcoming... you are a con tool. That is the perfect description of you.

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.

100% true.

 

[Markle]

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 thing accomplished by Cash for Junkers was to make used cars far more expensive for low and middle-income workers who could not afford new cars. So the "ingenious" plan by Lame Duck President Obama hurt the very people he had "promised" were his prime objective and greatly helped the most wealthy.

The entire terms of President Obama he has decried the wealth differential in America when he, and his policies, have made it even larger.

 

[Markle]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

I don't know you from Adam but you certainly have a solid grasp on business and economics. Unlike the Progressive here who throw something up against the wall and hope for the best.

 

[Rshermr]

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Thanks for the fringe rightwing view.

Claiming FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, which is almost as long as it lasted under FDR, the same as saying he should have been able to end it when he entered office, which with negative 13 percent GDP and 24 percent unemployment, is beyond retarded.

But then you revealed just how retarded you are when you claimed the 1921 depression was just as bad, if not worse, than the Great Depression. Here, in reality, the Great Depression was far worse. GDP bottomed out at -13%, compared to -7% in 1921. Unemployment reached about 24%, compared to about 12% in 1921.

I posted a link to a study done by a FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVE university in the heart of Progressivism.

You...nothing.

The 1921 Depression began just as severe, but due to the management of it by the Republican president, it never grew to the size of the Great Depression.

If you'll notice, I emphasized the points made by the researchers which detail exactly what should NOT be done should we face such a sudden economic downfall in the future. Those itemized points are EXACTLY what the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama has done. It does seem like he intentionally wants to take America down a peg or two, doesn't it?

Which university and where, me boy. I remember that the university your reference came from was UCLA.

 

[Rshermr]

I have to laugh at Rshermr claiming that the Keystone Pipeline is a "right wing talking point" when it was supported by the Teamsters Union, the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers. Gee, did they all turn into "right wing" groups and nobody told me?

I'm new to this forum but it didn't take long for me to learn the worthlessness of Rshermr's verbose posts.

Did you think that anyone in the universe cares about your opinion?? If you want my opinion, please believe that I do so appreciate your opinion. Dipshit.

 

[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 thing accomplished by Cash for Junkers was to make used cars far more expensive for low and middle-income workers who could not afford new cars. So the "ingenious" plan by Lame Duck President Obama hurt the very people he had "promised" were his prime objective and greatly helped the most wealthy.

The entire terms of President Obama he has decried the wealth differential in America when he, and his policies, have made it even larger.

Another opinion. Strangely exactly the same as the opinion that you are supposed to have, as a con tool. Me boy.

 

[Rshermr]

So TARP wasn't part of the ARRA...and Cash For Clunkers wasn't part of the ARRA...yet you cited them as examples of how the Obama Stimulus "worked"? You're right, Faun...I don't understand what you're saying...do you?

They all contributed to reviving the economy in that they all contributed in pumping money into an economy that was largely drying up. I don't expect a con tool to understand that nor accept it.

American workers are still waiting for the economy to recover.

First President in HISTORY to not have a single year of GDP ABOVE 3 PERCENT. First quarter, 2016...0.5%

Is that your comedy routine, me boy? GDP above 3%, you say. Are you just stupid. Or are you trying out a new comedy routine.

 

[Rshermr]

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again. Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again? I didn't think so! Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II? Wonder why that is?

I don't know you from Adam but you certainly have a solid grasp on business and economics. Unlike the Progressive here who throw something up against the wall and hope for the best.

Wow, Markle. You seem to really love oldstyle. Between the two of you, perhaps you can register up to 100 on an IQ test. Combined. Though that is probably a stretch.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world.

Just imagine what he could have done if the damn Repubs had been working FOR the US.

Enjoy it because if the Rs keep congress and Trumpery is elected, jobs and economic recovery will end overnight.

 

[Rshermr]

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing. Not a aggregate demand based recession. It was a simple downturn that cured itself pretty much before anyone noticed it. It was looked at by economists as an adjustment after WWI.
Now here is the thing. What harding did was, as you say, nothing. the Fed helped some, but had to do little.
Now the Great Republican Depression of 1929 was something quite different. It did not come and go in 18 months. It was indeed a aggregate demand depression.
And, the new president in power, Hoover, Tried the Harding methodology. You love it, of course. It is called DO NOTHING. Problem was, while harding was faced with an end of war adjustment, Hoover had a fully created no shit depression. And he sat and watched as the ue rate went from around 3.5% to 25%. LIKE A ROCKET. He watched as people starved, me boy. It was desperation time. Even he, in the end of his term, sent bills to congress to provide stimulus. You know, what economists who are not brain dead suggest. And those stimulus requests were the basis of what happened over the next several years.

Wow...here are your words: "Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing."

So now a DEPRESSION is an odd little thing when handled correctly, BUT the 2008 RECESSION, handled abysmally... is the fault of President Bush, eight years later when we have yet to recover.

Sorry, me boy. At least 3000 economists think it was not a depression. Sorry, you are stupid and no one can help you with that.

 

[sealybobo]

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929. The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing. The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.

Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing. Not a aggregate demand based recession. It was a simple downturn that cured itself pretty much before anyone noticed it. It was looked at by economists as an adjustment after WWI.
Now here is the thing. What harding did was, as you say, nothing. the Fed helped some, but had to do little.
Now the Great Republican Depression of 1929 was something quite different. It did not come and go in 18 months. It was indeed a aggregate demand depression.
And, the new president in power, Hoover, Tried the Harding methodology. You love it, of course. It is called DO NOTHING. Problem was, while harding was faced with an end of war adjustment, Hoover had a fully created no shit depression. And he sat and watched as the ue rate went from around 3.5% to 25%. LIKE A ROCKET. He watched as people starved, me boy. It was desperation time. Even he, in the end of his term, sent bills to congress to provide stimulus. You know, what economists who are not brain dead suggest. And those stimulus requests were the basis of what happened over the next several years.

Wow...here are your words: "Well, me boy, hardly fact. The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing."

So now a DEPRESSION is an odd little thing when handled correctly, BUT the 2008 RECESSION, handled abysmally... is the fault of President Bush, eight years later when we have yet to recover.

Sorry, me boy. At least 3000 economists think it was not a depression. Sorry, you are stupid and no one can help you with that.

Republicans may be right those good paying jobs ain't coming back but don't forget they sent those jobs overseas.

They'll blame unions but that's just code for good paying jobs

 

[Rshermr]

From UCLA at Berkley. EVEN the PROGRESSIVES here have to admit that is one of the most Progressive, Liberal schools in America

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
Uh, I see you seem to be working with things above your pay grade. Come to think of it, that would be ANYTHING. Because everything seems above your pay grade. So, me poor stupid con tool, let me help you some:
"You posted From UCLA at Berkley. EVEN the PROGRESSIVES here have to admit that is one of the most Progressive, Liberal schools in America"
Now, you have a little problem. Or two. Lets start with the first one. The school is UCLA. You may know, though I question it, that UC stands for University of California. Then it goes LA. Now, I know you may think that is Berkley. But that is only because you are stupid. LA is Los Angeles. So, that would be a LOS ANGELES college, me boy. As almost every thinking person understands. And I know, being a con tool, you do not actually have the capability to think.
Here is the contact info for one of the economists you quoted:
Harold L. Cole
Department of Economics

University of California
Los Angeles, CA
Theother economist, me boy, has the same address.
Now for your further education, not all parts of California are liberal. That is another place where you are wrong, me boy. Orange County and Los Angeles counties are quite conservative, me boy.

Look, don't let it concern you. You seem to be a congenital idiot, and tat would make your stupidity NOT YOUR PROBLEM. Just plain bad luck;

This time the effort to educate you is free. Next time, I charge.

 

[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.

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?

Drools a con tool.