• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dealers Still Waiting For 'Clunker' Cash...

Redress said:
So what you are saying is that it is somehow wrong that GM decided to stop making an unprofitable car line? Damn them for trying to be profitable!
Click to expand...

You are aware that Obama told GM to stop making it's other profitable car lines, right? Reason: the were deemed to be environmentally unfriendly by his global warming radical constituents.

Redress said:
Further, your mother is one person, and has nothing to do with the point I was arguing, which is that CARS is providing a boost in jobs.
Click to expand...

Yes, my mother is one person, but as she is not the ONLY person loosing her job when NUMMI fires EVERYONE, she is in fact a representative sample of the greater population in question.

CARS is not providing a boost in jobs.

Stop lying.
 
Jerry said:
You are aware that Obama told GM to stop making it's other profitable car lines, right? Reason: the were deemed to be environmentally unfriendly by his global warming radical constituents.
Click to expand...

I linked in my next post to the story about discontinuing Pontiac. No where does it say the government made the decision. Can you prove this assertion?



Yes, my mother is one person, but as she is not the ONLY person loosing her job when NUMMI fires EVERYONE, she is in fact a representative sample of the greater population in question.
Click to expand...

NUMMI's problem is that GM and Toyota decided not to continue using it. Just GM has already called back more workers than is employed by the whole of NUMMI. Further, NUMMI and it's closing has zero to do with the CARS program, and this is just another of your usual attempts to hide what you don't want to admit, which is that CARS has resulted in people getting called back to work in decent numbers.
 
apdst said:
That would be like me cutting one employee's salary so I can give another employee a raise, so the second employee won't quit.

It's called, "robbing Peter to pay Paul".
Click to expand...

I know you get it Apdst, I am trying to help Joe to "get it." :2wave:
 
apdst said:
That would be like me cutting one employee's salary so I can give another employee a raise, so the second employee won't quit.

It's called, "robbing Peter to pay Paul".
Click to expand...

Terrible analogy...Corporate exec's have been "robbing peter to pay paul" for years...The only problem is paul is themselves and peter is already broke. Corporate greed is out of control.

As to the discussion at hand, there is no way to know whether the program will work in the long haul, like most every program. You can say that you agree or disagree with it, but to expect immediate effects, either for good or for bad is just disingenuous. I do however, think this is a step in the right direction, and I hope for our workers and our country that this will help get what is a crucial part of our economy and livelyhood back on track.
 
Redress said:
Hey TD, can you tell me when the program started? If you can, and think about it, you will understand why the August jobs report shows what it does.
Click to expand...

Redress, not one single job has been created since the beginning of the Obama Presidency; rather 6,000,000 plus have been lost.

Now using simple math, please explain to me how this idiotic program called "cash for clunkers" added ONE single job to the economy.

Let me give you a pertinent example of what this is: You have a lake which is the pool of money confiscated from the American tax payers. The democrats are dipping the bucket into one side of the lake, then pouring the water into the other side and claiming they created economic activity; yet the lake is still at the same level.

Good lord, the notion that the Government can SPEND us into economic activity is beyond the pale in that the ONLY way Government can SPEND anything is by TAKING it out of the economy in the first place. You don't need to be an economic genius to figure this out.

FACT: Cars for clunkers created ZERO jobs in the economy; the economy LOST an additional 250,000 jobs in August.

The efforts to claim that programs like these create jobs is about as asinine as Obama claiming the Stimulus program created 150,000 new jobs while at the same time the unemployment increased that month by 650,000.
 
Truth Detector said:
Redress, not one single job has been created since the beginning of the Obama Presidency; rather 6,000,000 plus have been lost.

Now using simple math, please explain to me how this idiotic program called "cash for clunkers" added ONE single job to the economy.

Let me give you a pertinent example of what this is: You have a lake which is the pool of money confiscated from the American tax payers. The democrats are dipping the bucket into one side of the lake, then pouring the water into the other side and claiming they created economic activity; yet the lake is still at the same level.

Good lord, the notion that the Government can SPEND us into economic activity is beyond the pale in that the ONLY way Government can SPEND anything is by TAKING it out of the economy in the first place. You don't need to be an economic genius to figure this out.

FACT: Cars for clunkers created ZERO jobs in the economy; the economy LOST an additional 250,000 jobs in August.

The efforts to claim that programs like these create jobs is about as asinine as Obama claiming the Stimulus program created 150,000 new jobs while at the same time the unemployment increased that month by 650,000.
Click to expand...

So truth, with all due respect...How do you fix the problem? How do you you increase employment IMMEDIATELY? It's easy to say that this has created zero jobs, which may be true on a balance sheet, but who is to say that if this program wasn't created that MORE than 250,000 jobs wouldn't have been lost. I don't think any one action by any administration can make such a vast improvement that employment figures would jump by over a quarter of a million jobs in one month.
 
Joe1991 said:
Bush inherited a 4% unemployment rate and more than DOUBLED it when he left office to 8.1%.

Obama's been in office 7 months, and you expect the numbers to automatically drop?

If you can't even begin your arguments based on facts, why should anyone take you seriously?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, what facts am I missing; I clearly stated that Obama hasn't created ONE new job since being in office. What am I missing here?

Obama falsely CLAIMED that his stimulus plan would keep unemployment from going over 8%. Obama falsely claimed that his plans would create 5,000,000 new highly paid jobs; to date he has watched the economy decline at accelerated rates, spent us into a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit and we have lost over 6,000,000 jobs. What part of the FACTS am I missing here?

You made the following false claim:
Joe1991 said:
Yes. the program was so successful that they have to triple the number of people working on the claims. It cleared out dealers inventories and put people back to work.
Click to expand...

Facts apparently are not your forte' as you attempted to suggest the above when last month in August we lost ANOTHER 250,000 jobs. How is that job creation I wonder unless you are using some new Librul math here.

Fact: the unemployment rate at the end of Bush’s Presidency was actually 7.2% and is now headed for double digits under Obamanomics.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
Truth Detector said:
Redress, not one single job has been created since the beginning of the Obama Presidency; rather 6,000,000 plus have been lost.

Now using simple math, please explain to me how this idiotic program called "cash for clunkers" added ONE single job to the economy.

Let me give you a pertinent example of what this is: You have a lake which is the pool of money confiscated from the American tax payers. The democrats are dipping the bucket into one side of the lake, then pouring the water into the other side and claiming they created economic activity; yet the lake is still at the same level.

Good lord, the notion that the Government can SPEND us into economic activity is beyond the pale in that the ONLY way Government can SPEND anything is by TAKING it out of the economy in the first place. You don't need to be an economic genius to figure this out.

FACT: Cars for clunkers created ZERO jobs in the economy; the economy LOST an additional 250,000 jobs in August.

The efforts to claim that programs like these create jobs is about as asinine as Obama claiming the Stimulus program created 150,000 new jobs while at the same time the unemployment increased that month by 650,000.
Click to expand...

You don't follow the difference between net job, and gross job creation and loss. To illustrate: a Chinese restaurant has opened in my home town about 3 months ago. That was a few jobs created. However, overall unemployment is up in the town. That is because more jobs are lost than gained. This is the problem with your statement that no new jobs have been created. Jobs have been created, just more jobs have been lost. This is inevitable due to the economic recession.

Further, I can prove that CARS has put people back to work, since it is the reason I personally am back to work, and a large number of others in the automotive and associated industries(ie, the steel industry). ?Cash for Clunkers? Drives GM Union Callback; Economy Boosts Ford Production | Car Czar Consulting
 
Redress said:
Hey Jerry, want to guess how many people got called back to their career work due to this program? I will give you a hint, GM alone called back over 1000 workers, and this drives work for GM suppliers, both part suppliers and raw material suppliers(ie, steelworkers are getting called back to work too).
Click to expand...

How many workers have been laid off? In July alone over 47,322 transportation manufacturing jobs were lost, and you want to brag that GM brought back 1,000 and claim that as a success and job increase? You’re kidding right?

Over the last three months excluding August, transportation manufacturing jobs have declined by 119,003. So if we do some simple math, the returned jobs for GM amount to about .84%. What a wild success this program has been dude! :rofl

Here are some facts; it would do you some good reading them.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/mmls.pdf
 
Redress said:
You don't follow the difference between net job, and gross job creation and loss. To illustrate: a Chinese restaurant has opened in my home town about 3 months ago. That was a few jobs created. However, overall unemployment is up in the town. That is because more jobs are lost than gained. This is the problem with your statement that no new jobs have been created. Jobs have been created, just more jobs have been lost. This is inevitable due to the economic recession.

Further, I can prove that CARS has put people back to work, since it is the reason I personally am back to work, and a large number of others in the automotive and associated industries(ie, the steel industry). ?Cash for Clunkers? Drives GM Union Callback; Economy Boosts Ford Production | Car Czar Consulting
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, thank you redress! Net jobs is exactly what it's about. It's easy to say that the program is crap just because unemployment is still down. But without the jobs that HAVE been added, unemployment may just be down a greater amount.
 
Truth Detector said:
How many workers have been laid off? In July alone over 47,322 transportation manufacturing jobs were lost, and you want to brag that GM brought back 1,000 and claim that as a success and job increase? You’re kidding right?

Over the last three months excluding August, transportation manufacturing jobs have declined by 119,003. So if we do some simple math, the returned jobs for GM amount to about .84%. What a wild success this program has been dude! :rofl

Here are some facts; it would do you some good reading them.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/mmls.pdf
Click to expand...

What do you expect to happen in a recession truth? Jobs WILL be lost,under ANY administration. You are being ridiculously partisan (as per usual)
The fact that ANY jobs have returned is a sign of improvement in a job market that is still (and you just posted numbers to prove this) in decline. I would say that any job retention is a sign of improvement. Now, this is not to say that I view this program as a success, because as of now there is NO way to tell. You just want to say "Bad Obama!" just because it is the easiest thing to do. To believe that you can immediately know the results and effects of a very recent bill is disingenuous and downright arrogant.
 
Truth Detector said:
Redress, not one single job has been created since the beginning of the Obama Presidency; rather 6,000,000 plus have been lost.

Now using simple math, please explain to me how this idiotic program called "cash for clunkers" added ONE single job to the economy.

Let me give you a pertinent example of what this is: You have a lake which is the pool of money confiscated from the American tax payers. The democrats are dipping the bucket into one side of the lake, then pouring the water into the other side and claiming they created economic activity; yet the lake is still at the same level.

Good lord, the notion that the Government can SPEND us into economic activity is beyond the pale in that the ONLY way Government can SPEND anything is by TAKING it out of the economy in the first place. You don't need to be an economic genius to figure this out.

FACT: Cars for clunkers created ZERO jobs in the economy; the economy LOST an additional 250,000 jobs in August.

The efforts to claim that programs like these create jobs is about as asinine as Obama claiming the Stimulus program created 150,000 new jobs while at the same time the unemployment increased that month by 650,000.
Click to expand...

Okay, simple math...here we go.
I have 1000 dollars in my pocket and i get robbed. I now have zero dollars and to boot my debit card just overdrafted as I was on the way to deposit that money in the bank. Now with fees I have negative 100 dollars to my name, but on the way home, lucky me, I find a 20 dollar bill lying in the street. Now, I have negative 80 dollars...I have still had a pretty bad day, but would you not agree that you would rather have -80 than -100?


Now, to use this math in your example...Unemployment dropped that month by 650,000 but 150,000 jobs were created. Now had those jobs not been created, unemployment would be at 800,000. Which situation is better?
 
Last edited:
Midwest Lib said:
So truth, with all due respect...How do you fix the problem? How do you you increase employment IMMEDIATELY? It's easy to say that this has created zero jobs, which may be true on a balance sheet, but who is to say that if this program wasn't created that MORE than 250,000 jobs wouldn't have been lost. I don't think any one action by any administration can make such a vast improvement that employment figures would jump by over a quarter of a million jobs in one month.
Click to expand...

Once again one has to engage in highly speculative guessing and suggest that had we not spent the nation into a $1.6 trillion deficit, things COULD have been worse.

Well, based on historical facts, there is NOTHING out there that supports the idea that the Government spending vast sums of money it does not have will do anything to improve economic conditions. Rather, the historical facts suggest that what it does is EXTEND the economic problems and perhaps make them even worse.

When I studied economics in the University, it was fairly common acceptance that Keynesian theories were not sound and we only learned them in order to better understand theories that made more sense.

Now suddenly, there is this new found rush to take Keynesian theories and put them on steroids.

Let me ask you a very OBVIOUS question; what happens to our economics when the Government finally starts to force the American taxpayers to pay for the trillions in deficits we have run up?

What do you think will happen in the next six months, with continued job losses, to the housing market when many who have lost jobs for more than 6 months and own homes can no longer make their payments?

What do you think will happen to job growth if Obama spends another Trillion he doesn't have on healthcare?

What do you think will happen economically if the ONLY jobs that are being created in the economy are Government jobs and they pass the cap and trade boondoggle bill?

The FACTS are so apparent that only those seriously wallowing in willful denial can continue to pretend that.....the recession is OVER! Yes, like all good Liberal Democrats, they think they can just say things and that makes them so!

But alas, this is the REAL world and the ONLY thing that creates jobs are the entrepreneurs and corporations who given the capital and profit opportunity to risk capital, expand businesses and opportunities through their own ingenuity. Therefore, the ONLY solution to an economic recession is the opposite of what Obamanomics prescribe; and that would be to reign in Government spending, provide tax incentives to business and individuals and stop the demagogue of Wall Street and Big Corporations as being evil and greedy.

This notion that MORE Government as being better and keeping us from doing stupid things that lead to bankruptcy through good Government oversight would by hysterically laughable if not so damaging to our economic wellbeing.

Want to see the oversight people in action before this fiasco blew up? Here you go, watch and learn what oversight REALLY is:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA"]YouTube - Democrats Fighting Regulation of Freddie & Fannie[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgSubmiGt8"]YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?[/ame]
 
Redress said:
Hey Jerry, want to guess how many people got called back to their career work due to this program? I will give you a hint, GM alone called back over 1000 workers, and this drives work for GM suppliers, both part suppliers and raw material suppliers(ie, steelworkers are getting called back to work too).
Click to expand...

Dealers and analysts are projecting awful auto sales for the forseeable future. The feeling is that anyone that needed a car has now bought one under the clunkers program.

So, how long do you think those jobs will continue?
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again one has to engage in highly speculative guessing and suggest that had we not spent the nation into a $1.6 trillion deficit, things COULD have been worse.

Well, based on historical facts, there is NOTHING out there that supports the idea that the Government spending vast sums of money it does not have will do anything to improve economic conditions. Rather, the historical facts suggest that what it does is EXTEND the economic problems and perhaps make them even worse.

When I studied economics in the University, it was fairly common acceptance that Keynesian theories were not sound and we only learned them in order to better understand theories that made more sense.

Now suddenly, there is this new found rush to take Keynesian theories and put them on steroids.

Let me ask you a very OBVIOUS question; what happens to our economics when the Government finally starts to force the American taxpayers to pay for the trillions in deficits we have run up?

What do you think will happen in the next six months, with continued job losses, to the housing market when many who have lost jobs for more than 6 months and own homes can no longer make their payments?

What do you think will happen to job growth if Obama spends another Trillion he doesn't have on healthcare?

What do you think will happen economically if the ONLY jobs that are being created in the economy are Government jobs and they pass the cap and trade boondoggle bill?

The FACTS are so apparent that only those seriously wallowing in willful denial can continue to pretend that.....the recession is OVER! Yes, like all good Liberal Democrats, they think they can just say things and that makes them so!

But alas, this is the REAL world and the ONLY thing that creates jobs are the entrepreneurs and corporations who given the capital and profit opportunity to risk capital, expand businesses and opportunities through their own ingenuity. Therefore, the ONLY solution to an economic recession is the opposite of what Obamanomics prescribe; and that would be to reign in Government spending, provide tax incentives to business and individuals and stop the demagogue of Wall Street and Big Corporations as being evil and greedy.

This notion that MORE Government as being better and keeping us from doing stupid things that lead to bankruptcy through good Government oversight would by hysterically laughable if not so damaging to our economic wellbeing.

Want to see the oversight people in action before this fiasco blew up? Here you go, watch and learn what oversight REALLY is:

YouTube - Democrats Fighting Regulation of Freddie & Fannie

YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
Click to expand...


The implication that I believe that big government is better is just false. In fact I have about as much trust in the federal government as I do in the corporations that they are in bed with. I don't even say that Keynesian economics is sound. The only point I am trying to make is that things COULD be worse, and while this program COULD be a bad idea, there is no way to know that for sure, so while I support your right to disagree with it, I don't agree with your blatantly saying it won't work with no way of knowing.

To be honest with you, I agree that trickle down economics SHOULD work, but too much power is given to corporations. It's a problem when American companies generating BILLIONS in revenue move to off shore operations in the Caymans to get around paying taxes, while foolishly spending both shareholder and now taxpayer money on executive perks. The problem that I have is the very obvious class warfare that is happening, where the rich get richer, and the poor continuously get poorer. Corporations are given too much power and as you know "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

I agree that a sound economic foundation depends on corporations to create jobs, advance technology and better society, but as it stands right now, corporate greed DOES stand in the way of all those goals and instead perpetually just benefits the people at the top, because it's too easy for them not too.

For example. From 2002 Halliburton paid 0 dollars in federal taxes for four of five years?

Dennis Kozlowski, disgraced CEO of Tyco International, paid himself 300 million a year (which by the way, he'd incorporated in Bermuda to avoid paying pesky U.S. taxes), while his company tanked losing shareholders 80 BILLION in just his last year in control. His shareholders were also billed for a 30 million dollar, fifteen thousand square foot estate in Boca Raton, an almost 17 million dollar home on fifth avenue (plus approximately 15 million in renovations) and even a home in New York for his EX, i repeat EX wife.

This is just one of MANY examples of how executive power has become just too great, and how greedy and huge corporations have become. This was the reason anti-trust legislation was created in the first place, although now, altogether ignored, for all intents and purposes
 
buck said:
Dealers and analysts are projecting awful auto sales for the forseeable future. The feeling is that anyone that needed a car has now bought one under the clunkers program.

So, how long do you think those jobs will continue?
Click to expand...

Source please...
 
Joe1991 said:
Yes I read it, did you?

"Billion thinks he'll get all his money eventually, it just may take longer than what the government first said."

The dealers are getting the money, it's just taking more time because no one foresaw how successful the program would be.
Click to expand...
Now Joesph, imagine a government supervised and funded health care system in which you'd get your cancer treatment "eventually."
 
Truth Detector said:
How many workers have been laid off? In July alone over 47,322 transportation manufacturing jobs were lost, and you want to brag that GM brought back 1,000 and claim that as a success and job increase? You’re kidding right?

Over the last three months excluding August, transportation manufacturing jobs have declined by 119,003. So if we do some simple math, the returned jobs for GM amount to about .84%. What a wild success this program has been dude! :rofl

Here are some facts; it would do you some good reading them.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/mmls.pdf
Click to expand...

You want to tell me what data from July has to do with a program that started not until the end of July? By the way, GM brought back 1300ish in one callback, and most of GM's suppliers called people back, and alot of the suppliers to those suppliers are calling people back now. This is going to have a net positive effect. Whether it is enough to offset total losses is in question, but it is almost without question that employment levels will be better for August/September at least do to CARS.
 
Midwest Lib said:
Source please...
Click to expand...

I really hate when people ask for sources on things that should just be common sense if they only took the time to think, but sure:

washingtonpost.com

Many auto industry analysts and dealers expect sales volumes to fall now that the program is over. They worry that many people who took advantage of the program were merely accelerating purchases they would have made later in the year.

If that's true, the premature sales could hurt automakers, which increased production in the third quarter to replenish clunker-depleted inventories that had already grown low because of factory shutdowns over the summer.

Because there's a lag time between production and getting a vehicle to a dealership, the new vehicles "will hit when there's a lower demand," said Jeff Schuster, executive director of forecasting at the auto industry research firm J.D. Power and associates.

"There might not be as many people to buy because they bought during the clunker program," he said. "And if at the same time there's less of an incentive program from carmakers, you could have fewer people buying. That could stall the recovery we're in."

Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmunds.com, another automotive research group, agreed.

" 'Cash for Clunkers' created a nice little blip," he said. "We'll look back and say, 'Nice party, but the hangover is awful.' "
Click to expand...

Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports - Nation and World - Cash for Clunkers a boost for car sales, not a fix  

While Cash for Clunkers may have proved there are still car buyers out there, it is unlikely the heavy demand will last. In fact, the big rush to car lots this month may have had the unintended effect of stealing sales from this fall and next year.

"I am really worried about this winter," said J.P. Bishop, president of a dealership chain in central Maryland. "If you didn't buy now, the only reason you are going to buy over the next three or four months is because your car died."
Click to expand...
 
buck said:
Dealers and analysts are projecting awful auto sales for the forseeable future. The feeling is that anyone that needed a car has now bought one under the clunkers program.

So, how long do you think those jobs will continue?
Click to expand...

This is mostly accurate, and the answer is that this is putting off a problem, but could, hopefully, result in a net benefit. More people working than would otherwise should help drive other industries to an extent, and will hopefully smooth things out as we head towards a recovery. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but I am hopeful.
 
Midwest Lib said:
Okay, simple math...here we go.
I have 1000 dollars in my pocket and i get robbed. I now have zero dollars and to boot my debit card just overdrafted as I was on the way to deposit that money in the bank. Now with fees I have negative 100 dollars to my name, but on the way home, lucky me, I find a 20 dollar bill lying in the street. Now, I have negative 80 dollars...I have still had a pretty bad day, but would you not agree that you would rather have -80 than -100?


Now, to use this math in your example...Unemployment dropped that month by 650,000 but 150,000 jobs were created. Now had those jobs not been created, unemployment would be at 800,000. Which situation is better?
Click to expand...

The fallacy with this argument is that it assumes that these programs actually created the 150,000 jobs and that this would not have occurred if you had done nothing.

Let me give you an example of this false logic; had Obama NOT spent us into a $1.6 trillion deficit on the false presumption that without it, more jobs would be lost; we may have created 250,000 jobs and thus only have a net loss of 400,000 jobs instead of a net loss of 500,000 jobs.

See how easy it is to make things up? FACT: this economy has shed over 6,000,000 jobs since the beginning of the year with no end in sight. Those are the plain facts and no amount of FALSE logic can change those FACTS.

FACT: Obama claimed that with his policies unemployment would be held to 8% and that they would create 5,000,000 NEW high paying jobs and we would be better off than we would with McCain being Bush light. Using logical arithmetic, that means that he must now create 11,000,000 jobs to make up for the 6,000,000 already lost to gain the 5,000,000 new jobs he was to create.

The irony in this debate is that the same Liberals who railed about Bush's low unemployment figures and attempted to divine bad things from it are now the same ones telling us that things MAY have been even worse if Obama had not spent us into a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit.

The same Liberals who in 2004 oversight committees told us there were no looming mortgage crises are the same ones who now claim more oversight is needed.
 
Redress said:
You don't follow the difference between net job, and gross job creation and loss. To illustrate: a Chinese restaurant has opened in my home town about 3 months ago. That was a few jobs created. However, overall unemployment is up in the town. That is because more jobs are lost than gained. This is the problem with your statement that no new jobs have been created. Jobs have been created, just more jobs have been lost. This is inevitable due to the economic recession.

Further, I can prove that CARS has put people back to work, since it is the reason I personally am back to work, and a large number of others in the automotive and associated industries(ie, the steel industry). ?Cash for Clunkers? Drives GM Union Callback; Economy Boosts Ford Production | Car Czar Consulting
Click to expand...

Once again you and Midwest are missing the fallacy of your arguments; the fallacy is your claim that it was Obama's programs that created the few jobs resulting in a lower NET loss of jobs; however, I can just as easily argue that had Obama done nothing, MORE jobs could have been created and more permanently resulting in even fewer jobs lost.

The same fallacy can be illustrated by your example that FOUR restaurants closed as a result of Obama's programs while only one new restaurant opened. Bottom line; more jobs were lost.

But with all the illogical desperation being argued here, the FACT remains, many more jobs are being lost than are being created and the notion that Cars for Clunkers has been a huge success when a mere 1,000 jobs out of the hundreds of thousands that were ended had been merely reinstated and nothing new created to sustain it is farcical at best.

At least I am using FACTS to support my argument while you and Midwest continue to use absurd analogies trying to support mere speculation.
 
Midwest Lib said:
The implication that I believe that big government is better is just false. In fact I have about as much trust in the federal government as I do in the corporations that they are in bed with. I don't even say that Keynesian economics is sound. The only point I am trying to make is that things COULD be worse, and while this program COULD be a bad idea, there is no way to know that for sure, so while I support your right to disagree with it, I don't agree with your blatantly saying it won't work with no way of knowing.

To be honest with you, I agree that trickle down economics SHOULD work, but too much power is given to corporations. It's a problem when American companies generating BILLIONS in revenue move to off shore operations in the Caymans to get around paying taxes, while foolishly spending both shareholder and now taxpayer money on executive perks. The problem that I have is the very obvious class warfare that is happening, where the rich get richer, and the poor continuously get poorer. Corporations are given too much power and as you know "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

I agree that a sound economic foundation depends on corporations to create jobs, advance technology and better society, but as it stands right now, corporate greed DOES stand in the way of all those goals and instead perpetually just benefits the people at the top, because it's too easy for them not too.

For example. From 2002 Halliburton paid 0 dollars in federal taxes for four of five years?

Dennis Kozlowski, disgraced CEO of Tyco International, paid himself 300 million a year (which by the way, he'd incorporated in Bermuda to avoid paying pesky U.S. taxes), while his company tanked losing shareholders 80 BILLION in just his last year in control. His shareholders were also billed for a 30 million dollar, fifteen thousand square foot estate in Boca Raton, an almost 17 million dollar home on fifth avenue (plus approximately 15 million in renovations) and even a home in New York for his EX, i repeat EX wife.

This is just one of MANY examples of how executive power has become just too great, and how greedy and huge corporations have become. This was the reason anti-trust legislation was created in the first place, although now, altogether ignored, for all intents and purposes
Click to expand...

Once again, what we see from you is a lot of OPINION and wishful thinking and little in the way of facts to support your conclusions.

You type the following: "so while I support your right to disagree with it, I don't agree with your blatantly saying it won't work with no way of knowing."

I am not blatantly saying it won’t work; I am presenting the FACTS that it ISNT working and my prediction of why it will only get even worse based on data that can be supported by facts.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom