Why Haven't Obama's Policies Helped The Economy?

[Brutus]

exactly how can it be bigger than the Republican Party when the Republican Party believes in Capitalism?????

[
The engine that runs America is Capitalism. The ideology is a Republic founded on Democratic principles.

actually America was founded as a capitalist county too; with a capitalist economic ideology. They had read Adam Smith and they then wrote the Commerce Clause

[
Capitalism is bigger than both of the parties.

IF the Republican Party is for capitalism, it is gibberish to say capitalism is bigger than the Republican party. You said nothing except perhaps to indicate confusion

Think of it. The parties are four year terms with a maximal two term limit. How could one run the finances so haphazardly? Military, etc. etc.

no idea what you mean. Do you know what you mean??

Long term financial and military/ideological policies are created independently of the parties. Presidents and their parties are limited.

so far as I know Republicans were for freedom and capitalism when Jefferson founded the party in 1792 and they are still for it, while liberals have always opposed it. This is uber simple stuff!!

By the very definition of those limits it is clear that the road of the engine is primary and the process (small turns) secondary.

gibberish goofy meaningless!!! Sorry

 

[Ropey]

gibberish goofy meaningless!!! Sorry

^ If you say so.

 

[Cuyo]

So...you're not going to answer my question. Why is that?

You haven't exactly addressed mine, but sure government policy can impact the market... But we're not talking about a market that's down compared to early 2009, we're talking about one that's up.

Now me. Outside influences (which I think we agree exist) aside, is higher gas axiomatic to a better economy? Or a worse economy?

*looks at bank account, looks at UE numbers*

Yeah. The economy's just roaring along, ain't it?

That's not the question, Dave. Do try to stay focused.

 

[Cuyo]

G-d only knows what that man thinks. I am still in the dark as to any rationale why you would release gasoline from strategic reserves in the face of declining prices.

Yes, the man is crazy. I think its like cash for clunkers. He eased the pain for a day with a stupid liberal program and somehow thats a victory despite making the longer term worse.

Cash for Clunkers was among the worst programs ever. It didn't do anything it was sold as doing and created a lot of unintended harms. Or maybe they were intended after all.

What a ridiculous and completely unfounded statement.

What 'didn't it do' that it was 'sold as doing?'

 

[Brutus]

if you disagree please try to put your disagreement into words. How will you learn if you don't try? That is typical of liberalism.

 

[Ropey]

^ If you say so.

if you disagree please try to put your disagreement into words. How will you learn if you don't try? That is typical of liberalism.

You are far too stuck into us/them thinking. I leave you to your opinions. But I do leave you with this. Just like the politicians are not listening to the people, neither are you.

Reps and Libs are Capitalists.

I am neither. I am a Canadian and believe in a social Democracy. I voted for Stephen Harper who is the Conservative party here and I would have voted for Obama had I been American.

I would not vote for him again if I was American. He's not listening either. Neither are you, but for different reasons.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, the man is crazy. I think its like cash for clunkers. He eased the pain for a day with a stupid liberal program and somehow thats a victory despite making the longer term worse.

Cash for Clunkers was among the worst programs ever. It didn't do anything it was sold as doing and created a lot of unintended harms. Or maybe they were intended after all.

What a ridiculous and completely unfounded statement.

What 'didn't it do' that it was 'sold as doing?'

Our charts tell us that if the intent of Congress was to use U.S. taxpayer funds to get clunkers off the road, the stimulus package was a huge success. If, on the other hand, the stimulus package was intended to create sustained growth in the automotive sector of the economy, the results have been far less successful. And if the growth, albeit temporary, was to help unemployed U.S. autoworkers, the stimulus might even have been counterproductive.
Read more: Cash For Clunkers Postmortem: Epic Fail - Page 2 - Business Insider

Final conclusion: The taxpayer, yet again, did not get his/her money's worth out of the stimulus dollar expended.

The program is capped at a total cost of $1 billion, down from $4 billion in earlier versions. Even $4,500 per clunker may not be enough to help many owners trade up: Clunker "owners are either not looking for an increased car payment or cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle, which averages nearly $30,000," a report by analysts at Edmunds.com concluded. And the plan offers nothing for owners of cars with a trade-in value equal to or greater than $4,500. Edmunds.com believes the program will "struggle" to produce sales of 250,000 vehicles -- or half of Congress's goal.

Those paltry results will merely represent the shifting of future demand for cars to the present; they will also come at the expense of sales of other goods that people might have chosen to buy this summer or fall. This is why Germany's program, though it dramatically boosted new-car sales, was also met with criticism from other retail businesses, as well as used-car dealers, spare-parts suppliers and repair shops.
‘Cash for Clunkers': Shell Games With the New-Car Market

Lesson to be learned: Those who would have bought cars later anyway at full price took advantage of the free government money early and thus depressed future auto sales. And those who deciced to trade when they otherwise had no intention of doing so used money they would have spent for other goods and services to do it.

Henry Hazlitt's classic book "Economics in One Lesson" should be required reading. Politicians, especially those too busy to read the legislation they are voting on, could take Hazlitt's thesis to heart. He writes, "The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

To evaluate the long-term effects of the cash for clunkers program, consider the real-world example of Jerry and Janny. They have two children and are expecting a third. The couple owns a Ford Expedition with 144,000 miles that gets 14 miles to the gallon (mpg). They've been interested in getting a replacement and are taking advantage of the cash for clunkers program to subsidize it.

Thus the government handout is merely accelerating Jerry and Janny's plans to purchase a new car. But this small acceleration in new car spending won't last. Compare it to the energy levels of a college student who drinks caffeinated beverages all night cramming for an exam. The immediate stimulus is followed by the inevitable slump.

Neither is the cash for clunkers initiative truly green. The Ford Expedition still has value as a used vehicle. It may not be shiny new, but it could continue to serve Jerry and Janny or another family for several more years. Instead, the regulations require it to be completely stripped and destroyed within 180 days. To measure the true carbon offset from this program, you would need to compare the increased gas efficiency of a new vehicle against the energy it takes to scrap old cars and build new ones.

Jerry and Janny's car is usually full of kids. So the small hybrid vehicles that Obama touts when praising this program are too small for them. They are deciding between the GMC Acadia and the Saturn Outlook, which both average 19 mpg. They could probably help the environment more by just inflating their tires.

As a result of this misguided program, the price for used cars will increase both unnecessarily and artificially. Many cars worth less than the offered bailout will be traded in to be scrapped. Charities will receive fewer automobiles as donations. And people who are struggling financially won't be able to find a clunker that costs less than $4,500. The program seems to encourage new car ownership at the expense of the used car market. The rationale behind it is neither economically nor environmentally sound.
Free Money Finance: Cash for Clunkers: A Bad Idea

The long term fallout:
1) Little or no environmental 'help' came out of Cash for Clunkers.

2) The new car market has been seriously depressed since the Cash forClunkers program--(The sister program to pay people to buy houses has had the same effect on the housing market once the money ran out.)

3) Because the government required the perfectly good 'clunkers' to be destroyed when they were traded in, the used car industry has few low end vehicles to offer to people who don't have much money to buy a car. The program actually hurt the 'poor'.

4) The taxpayer is significantly poorer because again he didn't get his money's worth out of the dollars expended.

BOTTOM LINE: You cannot spend yourself rich. Governments cannot spend us rich.

 

[daveman]

You haven't exactly addressed mine, but sure government policy can impact the market... But we're not talking about a market that's down compared to early 2009, we're talking about one that's up.

Now me. Outside influences (which I think we agree exist) aside, is higher gas axiomatic to a better economy? Or a worse economy?

*looks at bank account, looks at UE numbers*

Yeah. The economy's just roaring along, ain't it?

That's not the question, Dave. Do try to stay focused.

Not dancing to your worn-out refrain. "Obama Can Do No Wrong" is a crappy tune.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't exactly addressed mine, but sure government policy can impact the market... But we're not talking about a market that's down compared to early 2009, we're talking about one that's up.

Now me. Outside influences (which I think we agree exist) aside, is higher gas axiomatic to a better economy? Or a worse economy?

*looks at bank account, looks at UE numbers*

Yeah. The economy's just roaring along, ain't it?

That's not the question, Dave. Do try to stay focused.

The question is, where are the JOBS?

The answer is, Obama is a one term President.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, the man is crazy. I think its like cash for clunkers. He eased the pain for a day with a stupid liberal program and somehow thats a victory despite making the longer term worse.

Cash for Clunkers was among the worst programs ever. It didn't do anything it was sold as doing and created a lot of unintended harms. Or maybe they were intended after all.

What a ridiculous and completely unfounded statement.

What 'didn't it do' that it was 'sold as doing?'

As posted up above. It failed to achieve any objective. All new car purchases were pushed into a narrow time frame. It virtually destroyed the used car market, as supply dried up. It did not save any gas since new cars get driven more than old ones. All it did was cost taxpayers lots of money.

 

[daveman]

Cash for Clunkers was among the worst programs ever. It didn't do anything it was sold as doing and created a lot of unintended harms. Or maybe they were intended after all.

What a ridiculous and completely unfounded statement.

What 'didn't it do' that it was 'sold as doing?'

As posted up above. It failed to achieve any objective. All new car purchases were pushed into a narrow time frame. It virtually destroyed the used car market, as supply dried up. It did not save any gas since new cars get driven more than old ones. All it did was cost taxpayers lots of money.

That was probably the objective.

 

[The Rabbi]

What a ridiculous and completely unfounded statement.

What 'didn't it do' that it was 'sold as doing?'

As posted up above. It failed to achieve any objective. All new car purchases were pushed into a narrow time frame. It virtually destroyed the used car market, as supply dried up. It did not save any gas since new cars get driven more than old ones. All it did was cost taxpayers lots of money.

That was probably the objective.

I would think there would be some payback to unions or something.

 

[daveman]

As posted up above. It failed to achieve any objective. All new car purchases were pushed into a narrow time frame. It virtually destroyed the used car market, as supply dried up. It did not save any gas since new cars get driven more than old ones. All it did was cost taxpayers lots of money.

That was probably the objective.

I would think there would be some payback to unions or something.

The UAW was a prime target, but the whole thing was so incompetently designed it didn't have a chance to funnel any cash their way.

 

[Cuyo]

*looks at bank account, looks at UE numbers*

Yeah. The economy's just roaring along, ain't it?

That's not the question, Dave. Do try to stay focused.

Not dancing to your worn-out refrain. "Obama Can Do No Wrong" is a crappy tune.

So shall I gather that you've no intention of answering?

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not the question, Dave. Do try to stay focused.

Not dancing to your worn-out refrain. "Obama Can Do No Wrong" is a crappy tune.

So shall I gather that you've no intention of answering?

I answered your question re "Cash for Clunkers". Rebut the answer if you can.

 

[daveman]

That's not the question, Dave. Do try to stay focused.

Not dancing to your worn-out refrain. "Obama Can Do No Wrong" is a crappy tune.

So shall I gather that you've no intention of answering?

You've already decided what I'd answer, I expect And the only answer you'd accept is one that agrees with you.

Right?

 

[Cuyo]

Not dancing to your worn-out refrain. "Obama Can Do No Wrong" is a crappy tune.

So shall I gather that you've no intention of answering?

I answered your question re "Cash for Clunkers". Rebut the answer if you can.

I'm getting to you damnit!

 

[Cuyo]

Not dancing to your worn-out refrain. "Obama Can Do No Wrong" is a crappy tune.

So shall I gather that you've no intention of answering?

You've already decided what I'd answer, I expect And the only answer you'd accept is one that agrees with you.

Right?

I want to hear your answer.

The only answer is, yes, it was a stupid post and you shouldn't have thanked it.

If not, address post 195 with something other than churlish snarkiness.

 

[daveman]

So shall I gather that you've no intention of answering?

You've already decided what I'd answer, I expect And the only answer you'd accept is one that agrees with you.

Right?

I want to hear your answer.

The only answer is, yes, it was a stupid post and you shouldn't have thanked it.

If not, address post 195 with something other than churlish snarkiness.

Yep, I called it: "And the only answer you'd accept is one that agrees with you."

I've explained why his post isn't stupid. Your childish petulance doesn't change that simple fact.

 

[Cuyo]

You've already decided what I'd answer, I expect And the only answer you'd accept is one that agrees with you.

Right?

I want to hear your answer.

The only answer is, yes, it was a stupid post and you shouldn't have thanked it.

If not, address post 195 with something other than churlish snarkiness.

Yep, I called it: "And the only answer you'd accept is one that agrees with you."

I've explained why his post isn't stupid. Your childish petulance doesn't change that simple fact.

Not to my satisfaction. Your contemporary 'Firehose' insinuated that high gas prices are an indication of a failing economy. Actually, the opposite is true. Your backpedaling reply was that there are other influences besides the economy that affect gas prices.

That's like seeing a guy tweaking out and me saying "That's proof that he's NOT been using cocaine." You of course then say "Actually, it's an indication that he HAS been doing cocaine." And me then replying, "Yeah, well maybe he just drank too much coffee."

Of course it's possible that he drank too much coffee- That doesn't make his tweaking evidence of abstinence from cocaine use.