Cash for Clunkers!!!

[Chizzang]

You didn't even read either the article or the paper did you...
(Admit it)

If you'd like I'll begin explaining all of the things wrong with the paper

[OL FU]

You didn't even read either the article or the paper did you...
(Admit it)

If you'd like I'll begin explaining all of the things wrong with the paper

I'd say go ahead but we won't read that either

[houndawg]

I think it was win/win in my case, I'm still driving the Tacoma I got for 11K out the door five years ago, still enjoying a 56% increase in gas mileage - turned over 100k recently on the same amount of gas that would have transported me 64k in my clunker. Hadn't been for C4C I couldn't have sold my old truck for $1500 - instead I got my very own subsidy, no wonder the big boys love our system!

[Ibanez]

Classic Spin.

Here Fox News states the purpose of the program

The government’s "Cash for Clunkers" program – pitched as a plan to jump-start U.S. auto sales and clean up the environment by getting gas-guzzling vehicles off the road

So the point is to get gas guzzlers off the road and more fuel efficient vehicles.

And here are the findings it reports.

While the program’s fuel-efficiency restrictions led to the purchase of more fuel-efficient cars, Americans ended up buying cheaper cars than they otherwise would have, the study found.

tended to purchase less expensive and smaller vehicles such as the Toyota Corolla, which was the most popular new vehicle purchased under the program.

In other words. People didn't overspend on a new car.

During the two months of the program, the frequency of purchasing a new vehicle was around 50 percent higher for those who qualified for the program compared with those who did not. But after the program ended, the researchers found, car-buying habits returned to normal.

Well no shit. That's like saying a Christmas sale was a failure b/c spending increased in November and December but went back to normal in January.



This is expected from a biased, Establishment news source. They don't like Obama or Democrats, so they twist the facts. I mean, they gave us this chart in 2011



How could 8.6% in Nov. be higher than 8.8 in March?

[AZGrizFan]

So, "jump-starting" the economy" results in a net $3 BILLION less in spending, all while costing the 53% of taxpaying AMericans ANOTHER $3 billion in free hand outs to leeches like Houndawg.

Yeah, that's a fucking recipe for success.

[AZGrizFan]

This is expected from a biased, Establishment news source. They don't like Obama or Democrats, so they twist the facts. I mean, they gave us this chart in 2011



How could 8.6% in Nov. be higher than 8.8 in March?

They changed the # but not the mark. Do you have ANY idea how badly journalists (and I use that term loosely) suck at statistics, and numbers in general? They are 's...the lot of 'em.

[Ibanez]

This is expected from a biased, Establishment news source. They don't like Obama or Democrats, so they twist the facts. I mean, they gave us this chart in 2011



How could 8.6% in Nov. be higher than 8.8 in March?

They changed the # but not the mark. Do you have ANY idea how badly journalists (and I use that term loosely) suck at statistics, and numbers in general? They are 's...the lot of 'em.

It's not a matter of numbers or statistics. It's appearance and integrity (which nobody as Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.. seem to have). Anyone that has plotted a graph, using today's technology, knows that when you create a graph, the lines are populated where they should be. It takes someone going into the graph to skew it to make it look like that.

[Ibanez]

So, "jump-starting" the economy" results in a net $3 BILLION less in spending, all while costing the 53% of taxpaying AMericans ANOTHER $3 billion in free hand outs to leeches like Houndawg.

Yeah, that's a fucking recipe for success.

$3 B reduction in industry revenue in comparison to what? And only in a short time frame. Why? Because Americans bought within their means?! OH GOD! THE HORROR! THE ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HORROR!


$3B reduction in auto industry revenue. I wonder if those people spent money elsewhere?

[Ibanez]

You didn't even read either the article or the paper did you...
(Admit it)

If you'd like I'll begin explaining all of the things wrong with the paper

He read it, and just like Fox News expects, he didn't question anything nor did he think to himself, " Well, a $3B reduction in auto industry revenue of 9-11 months isn't ideal for them, but maybe those people saved the money. Or paid off a debt. Or bought something else. "

[AZGrizFan]

So, "jump-starting" the economy" results in a net $3 BILLION less in spending, all while costing the 53% of taxpaying AMericans ANOTHER $3 billion in free hand outs to leeches like Houndawg.

Yeah, that's a fucking recipe for success.

$3 B reduction in industry revenue in comparison to what? And only in a short time frame. Why? Because Americans bought within their means?! OH GOD! THE HORROR! THE ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HORROR!


$3B reduction in auto industry revenue. I wonder if those people spent money elsewhere?

Hey, asswipe: I could give two fucking shits about whether the money was spent or not. In fact, I'd rather see about 3/4 of the auto dealers/dealerships vanish from the face of the earth. But this fucking boondoggle with YOUR money (you ARE a taxpayer, not one of the 47%, no?) was a collossal failure on multiple levels. It was billed as a bailout to JUMP START THE ECONOMY. It didn't "jump-start" the economy"...it actually HURT the economy...and yet, it cost taxpayers $3 billion to HURT the economy. Brilliant fucking economics.

If you don't have a problem with that, then you're dumber than I gave you credit for.

[Ibanez]

$3 B reduction in industry revenue in comparison to what? And only in a short time frame. Why? Because Americans bought within their means?! OH GOD! THE HORROR! THE ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HORROR!


$3B reduction in auto industry revenue. I wonder if those people spent money elsewhere?

Hey, asswipe: I could give two fucking shits about whether the money was spent or not. In fact, I'd rather see about 3/4 of the auto dealers/dealerships vanish from the face of the earth. But this fucking boondoggle with YOUR money (you ARE a taxpayer, not one of the 47%, no?) was a collossal failure on multiple levels. It was billed as a bailout to JUMP START THE ECONOMY. It didn't "jump-start" the economy"...it actually HURT the economy...and yet, it cost taxpayers $3 billion to HURT the economy. Brilliant fucking economics.

If you don't have a problem with that, then you're dumber than I gave you credit for.

Why don't you question it? I was never a fan of the bailouts but something seems missing from the article. $3B spent, a $3B reduction in industry revenue doesn't tell me the whole picture. Did savings rates increase? There seems to be something missing. I never take ANYTHING the MSM tells me, at face value. There's a bias somewhere. Somewhere there's information missing or just not reported. I have no doubt that C4C failed, just like all those other "stimulus" schemes that Bush and Obama implemented. But, in a short article like that, it seems that something is missing.

If you don't want to think outside the box, that's your problem.

[AZGrizFan]

Why don't you question it? I was never a fan of the bailouts but something seems missing from the article. $3B spent, a $3B reduction in industry revenue doesn't tell me the whole picture. Did savings rates increase? There seems to be something missing. I never take ANYTHING the MSM tells me, at face value. There's a bias somewhere. Somewhere there's information missing or just not reported.

If you don't want to think outside the box, that's your problem.

When did you become Douche1Bag?

I can only assume from this that you're part of the 47% and don't give a shit.

[houndawg]

This is expected from a biased, Establishment news source. They don't like Obama or Democrats, so they twist the facts. I mean, they gave us this chart in 2011



How could 8.6% in Nov. be higher than 8.8 in March?

They changed the # but not the mark. Do you have ANY idea how badly journalists (and I use that term loosely) suck at statistics, and numbers in general? They are 's...the lot of 'em.

Wrong, Poindexter. Ask one of your teenagers working the window to show you how to make a graph.

They clearly changed the mark so the graph wouldn't end with a sharp drop. Bad visual for the chicken littles. Any ten year old would have just left the last data point off or expanded the scale so it doesn't look like a sharp drop. Stupid conk fvcks.

[houndawg]

Why don't you question it? I was never a fan of the bailouts but something seems missing from the article. $3B spent, a $3B reduction in industry revenue doesn't tell me the whole picture. Did savings rates increase? There seems to be something missing. I never take ANYTHING the MSM tells me, at face value. There's a bias somewhere. Somewhere there's information missing or just not reported.

If you don't want to think outside the box, that's your problem.

When did you become Douche1Bag?

I can only assume from this that you're part of the 47% and don't give a ****.

I'm surprised you can assume at all. Other than "the position" of course.

[AZGrizFan]

They clearly changed the mark so the graph wouldn't end with a sharp drop. Bad visual for the chicken littles. Any ten year old would have just left the last data point off or expanded the scale so it doesn't look like a sharp drop. Stupid conk fvcks.

Oh yes. Clearly it's a conspiracy.

Gullable donk fuck.

[houndawg]

So, "jump-starting" the economy" results in a net $3 BILLION less in spending, all while costing the 53% of taxpaying AMericans ANOTHER $3 billion in free hand outs to leeches like Houndawg.

Yeah, that's a **** recipe for success.

Yes, but the result is cleaner air so you don't have to take a break from your bloviating as often for hits on the oxygen tank. See, its good for everybody!

[houndawg]

They clearly changed the mark so the graph wouldn't end with a sharp drop. Bad visual for the chicken littles. Any ten year old would have just left the last data point off or expanded the scale so it doesn't look like a sharp drop. Stupid conk fvcks.

Oh yes. Clearly it's a conspiracy.

Gullable donk ****.

Gullible.

[AZGrizFan]

When did you become Douche1Bag?

I can only assume from this that you're part of the 47% and don't give a ****.

I'm surprised you can assume at all. Other than "the position" of course.

Jesus, what are you? 12?

[AZGrizFan]

So, "jump-starting" the economy" results in a net $3 BILLION less in spending, all while costing the 53% of taxpaying AMericans ANOTHER $3 billion in free hand outs to leeches like Houndawg.

Yeah, that's a **** recipe for success.

Yes, but the result is cleaner air so you don't have to take a break from your bloviating as often for hits on the oxygen tank. See, its good for everybody!

Says the oldest poster on this board...at least physically oldest....with the mental capacity of a 12 year old.

[Ibanez]

Why don't you question it? I was never a fan of the bailouts but something seems missing from the article. $3B spent, a $3B reduction in industry revenue doesn't tell me the whole picture. Did savings rates increase? There seems to be something missing. I never take ANYTHING the MSM tells me, at face value. There's a bias somewhere. Somewhere there's information missing or just not reported.

If you don't want to think outside the box, that's your problem.

When did you become Douche1Bag?

I can only assume from this that you're part of the 47% and don't give a shit.

Name calling? Nice. When did you stop thinking for yourself?

And your "assumption" is ludicrous. Use your head; it's that lump three feet above your ass.

[houndawg]

Yes, but the result is cleaner air so you don't have to take a break from your bloviating as often for hits on the oxygen tank. See, its good for everybody!

Says the oldest poster on this board...at least physically oldest....with the mental capacity of a 12 year old.

Col. is older than me. You are too, physically.

[Ibanez]

They clearly changed the mark so the graph wouldn't end with a sharp drop. Bad visual for the chicken littles. Any ten year old would have just left the last data point off or expanded the scale so it doesn't look like a sharp drop. Stupid conk fvcks.

Oh yes. Clearly it's a conspiracy.

Gullable donk fuck.

You have got to kidding me? Do you even know how graphs and charts are created?! It's not done by hand.

[houndawg]

When did you become Douche1Bag?

I can only assume from this that you're part of the 47% and don't give a ****.

Name calling? Nice. When did you stop thinking for yourself?

And your "assumption" is ludicrous. Use your head; it's that lump three feet above your ass.

He usually keeps it inside his ass.

[Ibanez]

Again, the $3B loss, as cited by the paper, is only in the auto industry. There's something missing. So it didn't increase sales overall and 70,000 cars were traded in. It was stupid to begin with, spending your way out of debt or a recession is folly, but what'd we expect? People traded in cars they couldn't afford for ones they could. That's a success.

[Grizalltheway]

Why don't you question it? I was never a fan of the bailouts but something seems missing from the article. $3B spent, a $3B reduction in industry revenue doesn't tell me the whole picture. Did savings rates increase? There seems to be something missing. I never take ANYTHING the MSM tells me, at face value. There's a bias somewhere. Somewhere there's information missing or just not reported.

If you don't want to think outside the box, that's your problem.

When did you become Douche1Bag?

I can only assume from this that you're part of the 47% and don't give a shit.

Yeah. And Donks are the ones trying to wage class warfare.