The GOP's Problem: Obummer has been a resounding success

[Chronic Husker 85]

I can't wait for the next election. You focking crybabies have been great to listen to the past seven years.

 

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

Quite possibly the funniest thing I've read here.

So getting 700,000 thousand gas guzzling unsafe cars off the road and replacing them with new, more efficient safer cars was no good? Keep laughing, but remember that the next time you're not stuck in traffic because somebody's 1986 cavalier isn't broke down clogging the highway. Do you work for an oil company or own a gas station? Then I coukd understand your complaint. Maybe you're a Saudi royal prince?

[phillybear 364]

So getting 700,000 thousand gas guzzling unsafe cars off the road and replacing them with new, more efficient safer cars was no good? Keep laughing, but remember that the next time you're not stuck in traffic because somebody's 1986 cavalier isn't broke down clogging the highway. Do you work for an oil company or own a gas station? Then I coukd understand your complaint. Maybe you're a Saudi royal prince?

There is nothing wrong with older cars. Nothing. They tend to run more effectively and are easier to fix than newer cars. The price tag to remove these cars was astronomical and way, way more expensive than projected. The key is to get older cars off the road because then the government is unable to keep tabs on you as much. The new technology in newer cars makes it very easy for the government to track your activities and trips and constantly ping off your equipment. Older cars, not so much. Then there is the safety issue, as older cars are made of far more stronger material and solid frames than the cracker jack boxes they are pushing off the assembly lines today. But in this country gone bonkers, police are now giving tickets to people who are barbequing in their backyards and the smoke drifts over to a neighbors house. You know, second hand smoke and such. But let's get a few old cars off the roads, sure.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

There is nothing wrong with older cars. Nothing. They tend to run more effectively and are easier to fix than newer cars. The price tag to remove these cars was astronomical and way, way more expensive than projected. The key is to get older cars off the road because then the government is unable to keep tabs on you as much. The new technology in newer cars makes it very easy for the government to track your activities and trips and constantly ping off your equipment. Older cars, not so much. Then there is the safety issue, as older cars are made of far more stronger material and solid frames than the cracker jack boxes they are pushing off the assembly lines today. But in this country gone bonkers, police are now giving tickets to people who are barbequing in their backyards and the smoke drifts over to a neighbors house. You know, second hand smoke and such. But let's get a few old cars off the roads, sure.

False, false, false. Old cars are inefficient. Don't meet the emissions standards of newer cars. Crash safety has been improved extremely in recent years. They test way better than older cars. You still have time to delete your posts and not seem so dumb.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

 

There is nothing wrong with older cars. Nothing. They tend to run more effectively and are easier to fix than newer cars. The price tag to remove these cars was astronomical and way, way more expensive than projected. The key is to get older cars off the road because then the government is unable to keep tabs on you as much. The new technology in newer cars makes it very easy for the government to track your activities and trips and constantly ping off your equipment. Older cars, not so much. Then there is the safety issue, as older cars are made of far more stronger material and solid frames than the cracker jack boxes they are pushing off the assembly lines today. But in this country gone bonkers, police are now giving tickets to people who are barbequing in their backyards and the smoke drifts over to a neighbors house. You know, second hand smoke and such. But let's get a few old cars off the roads, sure.

Is that why you take the bus?

[phillybear 364]

False, false, false. Old cars are inefficient. Don't meet the emissions standards of newer cars. Crash safety has been improved extremely in recent years. They test way better than older cars. You still have time to delete your posts and not seem so dumb.

 

Among the cars that I own, I have one from '85. It's a peach. I average about 50 bucks a year on inspection. The only work that needed to be done in the past 15 years was to replace an alternator. My neighbor just spent $1,200 to get his recent Toyota up to a passable grade for his inspection.

 

I'm sure that's an isolated situation.

[phillybear 364]

Is that why you take the bus?

 

A bus and two trains.

 

Extreme lack of parking near my office, ridiculous traffic on the highway needed to travel by, and the time saved using a car is negligible.

 

Edit: also, I am not going to search high and low for an expensive monthly parking lot when I am in the running for a possible work from home situation.

[MDC 5,890]

Isn't there a regional rail line direct to suburban station from the Northeast?

 

If I were a single guy renting I'd move to a neighborhood like Passyunk Square, LoMo or Fishtown in Philly. I walk a half mile to the L and it takes me 30 minutes door to door to get to work.

 

I hate Northeast Philly. All the BS of living in a city with none if the amenities.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

So getting 700,000 thousand gas guzzling unsafe cars off the road and replacing them with new, more efficient safer cars was no good? Keep laughing, but remember that the next time you're not stuck in traffic because somebody's 1986 cavalier isn't broke down clogging the highway. Do you work for an oil company or own a gas station? Then I coukd understand your complaint. Maybe you're a Saudi royal prince?

This was a disaster financially and ecologically. It did get upper middle class out of the 20 year old Toyotas that they had driven since college. Didn't do anything for those who could not afford a new car anyway.

[cbfalcon 824]

 

Among the cars that I own, I have one from '85. It's a peach. I average about 50 bucks a year on inspection. The only work that needed to be done in the past 15 years was to replace an alternator. My neighbor just spent $1,200 to get his recent Toyota up to a passable grade for his inspection.

 

I'm sure that's an isolated situation.

 

I know a guy with an older car, and it often has problems. I on the other hand have a vehicle that is about 15 months old, and it hasn't had a single problem yet.

 

I've heard of other people with similar stories.

[DankNuggs 305]

False, false, false. Old cars are inefficient. Don't meet the emissions standards of newer cars. Crash safety has been improved extremely in recent years. They test way better than older cars. You still have time to delete your posts and not seem so dumb.

Yes and no... Hondas in the mid 80's were getting 40+ mpg....A honda civic in 85 probably weighed 2200lbs, a honda civic in 2015 probably weighs 2800-2900 lbs... Alot of that weight is safety systems and reinforcement. Most cars these days have 2 or 3 catalytic converters for emissions vs only one back in the 80's... crash safety varies... Those old giant heavy inefficient cars were quite safe.

 

 

efficiency and crash safety are competing goals. Efficiency and emission standards are competing goals...

[NewbieJr 540]

 

Among the cars that I own, I have one from '85. It's a peach. I average about 50 bucks a year on inspection. The only work that needed to be done in the past 15 years was to replace an alternator. My neighbor just spent $1,200 to get his recent Toyota up to a passable grade for his inspection.

 

I'm sure that's an isolated situation.

It's more sad that your vehicle is 30 years old than if you would just say you don't have a car.

[phillybear 364]

Isn't there a regional rail line direct to suburban station from the Northeast?

 

If I were a single guy renting I'd move to a neighborhood like Passyunk Square, LoMo or Fishtown in Philly. I walk a half mile to the L and it takes me 30 minutes door to door to get to work.

 

I hate Northeast Philly. All the BS of living in a city with none if the amenities.

 

I can drive to the regional rail station or walk 30 minutes, it costs twice the price for a regional pass than a regular monthly pass, go to Suburban station, then switch over to the subway(s) to get to work, or walk 35 minutes to the office. Same amount of time to travel, costs twice as much, I still have to drive.

 

I'm not looking to move any time soon.

[phillybear 364]

It's more sad that your vehicle is 30 years old than if you would just say you don't have a car.

 

"Among the cars that I own..."

 

Personally, I don't give a rat fock about how old a car happens to be. If it's a good car, it's a good car.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

"Among the cars that I own..."

 

Personally, I don't give a rat fock about how old a car happens to be. If it's a good car, it's a good car.

Keep your chin up buddy. Better days ahead.

[KSB2424 3,082]

So getting 700,000 thousand gas guzzling unsafe cars off the road and replacing them with new, more efficient safer cars was no good? Keep laughing, but remember that the next time you're not stuck in traffic because somebody's 1986 cavalier isn't broke down clogging the highway. Do you work for an oil company or own a gas station? Then I coukd understand your complaint. Maybe you're a Saudi royal prince?

 

See, this is the exact type of thing that makes me want to pound my head against ta brick wall. AGAIN you are looking at only one side of the ledger. There is a COST associated. Cash for Clunkers cost over 3 Billion (thats with B. ) dollars from the Federal Gov't. That program spent 3 Billion taxpayer dollars (during times of high debts and other programs suffering) to get old cars off the streets a few years faster than what would be their normal life progression anyway.

 

Older, less efficient "Clunkers" are being replaced by more fuel efficient, newer cars over time anyway due to higher market standards/regulations as well as customer demand. We spent 3 Billion Dollars to do something that was going to happen anyway (just a little bit slower).

 

It's the very definition of wasteful spending. It had to be part of some back deal with the motor companies as part of the bailout or some other political posturing mumbo jumbo because it was stupid to do.

 

When grading a program you have to look at the benefit AND the cost. In this case the cost was 3 Billion for something that was going to transpire over time anyway. Dumb.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

 

See, this is the exact type of thing that makes me want to pound my head against ta brick wall. AGAIN you are looking at only one side of the ledger. There is a COST associated. Cash for Clunkers cost over 3 Billion (thats with B. ) dollars from the Federal Gov't. That program spent 3 Billion taxpayer dollars (during times of high debts and other programs suffering) to get old cars off the streets a few years faster than what would be their normal life progression anyway.

 

Older, less efficient "Clunkers" are being replaced by more fuel efficient, newer cars over time anyway due to higher market standards/regulations as well as customer demand. We spent 3 Billion Dollars to do something that was going to happen anyway (just a little bit slower).

 

It's the very definition of wasteful spending. It had to be part of some back deal with the motor companies as part of the bailout or some other political posturing mumbo jumbo because it was stupid to do.

 

When grading a program you have to look at the benefit AND the cost. In this case the cost was 3 Billion for something that was going to transpire over time anyway. Dumb.

So 3 Billion went out. Fine, I acknowledge that. Now do you acknowledge that the better mpg on the new cars saved money? Do you acknowledge that the money that would have gone to the oil cartels was better off in the hands of Americans? Do you admit that it was better for the economy for someone to buy a new car than keep dumping money in to an old one?

[KSB2424 3,082]

So 3 Billion went out. Fine, I acknowledge that. Now do you acknowledge that the better mpg on the new cars saved money? Do you acknowledge that the money that would have gone to the oil cartels was better off in the hands of Americans? Do you admit that it was better for the economy for someone to buy a new car than keep dumping money in to an old one?

 

I am all for energy independence, better mpg's on cars, alternative energy options, all of it. It makes sense from a fiscal point of view, from a foreign policy pov, and from a environmental pov.

 

That doesn't change the fact Cash for Clunkers is the very definition of Wasteful Spending. It wasn't needed, it had to have been part of some deal with the car companies or something. That 3B could've been used to fund something else or :gasp: saved to pay down the debt. You don't spend Billions of dollars to do something that is going to happen anyway.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

So 3 Billion went out. Fine, I acknowledge that. Now do you acknowledge that the better mpg on the new cars saved money? Do you acknowledge that the money that would have gone to the oil cartels was better off in the hands of Americans? Do you admit that it was better for the economy for someone to buy a new car than keep dumping money in to an old one?

Less than 0.3% of the total cars in the US. Do you really think all those cars were daily drivers? Was any worth more than $500? Seriously, fighting this one is a loser.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,913]

So 3 Billion went out. Fine, I acknowledge that. Now do you acknowledge that the better mpg on the new cars saved money? Do you acknowledge that the money that would have gone to the oil cartels was better off in the hands of Americans? Do you admit that it was better for the economy for someone to buy a new car than keep dumping money in to an old one?

 

 

If it was such a resounding success, why aren't we still doing it? There are still hundreds of thousands late model cars on the roads today? I know. I look at them everyday.

[DankNuggs 305]

 

I am all for energy independence, better mpg's on cars, alternative energy options, all of it. It makes sense from a fiscal point of view, from a foreign policy pov, and from a environmental pov.

 

That doesn't change the fact Cash for Clunkers is the very definition of Wasteful Spending. It wasn't needed, it had to have been part of some deal with the car companies or something. That 3B could've been used to fund something else or :gasp: saved to pay down the debt. You don't spend Billions of dollars to do something that is going to happen anyway.

Makes sense it was orchestrated around the bailout to boost US auto numbers, and make the bailout more politically attractive....

[IGotWorms 3,310]

 

See, this is the exact type of thing that makes me want to pound my head against ta brick wall. AGAIN you are looking at only one side of the ledger. There is a COST associated. Cash for Clunkers cost over 3 Billion (thats with B. ) dollars from the Federal Gov't. That program spent 3 Billion taxpayer dollars (during times of high debts and other programs suffering) to get old cars off the streets a few years faster than what would be their normal life progression anyway.

 

Older, less efficient "Clunkers" are being replaced by more fuel efficient, newer cars over time anyway due to higher market standards/regulations as well as customer demand. We spent 3 Billion Dollars to do something that was going to happen anyway (just a little bit slower).

 

It's the very definition of wasteful spending. It had to be part of some back deal with the motor companies as part of the bailout or some other political posturing mumbo jumbo because it was stupid to do.

 

When grading a program you have to look at the benefit AND the cost. In this case the cost was 3 Billion for something that was going to transpire over time anyway. Dumb.

Extremely shortsighted viewpoint.

 

That 3 billion dollars was pumped directly into the economy at a time when it was sorely needed. It saved jobs and maybe kept some companies afloat.

 

Also 3 billion might be worth it for the benefit to the environment alone. It costs a lot of money to clean up environmental disaster. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure type thing.

 

You should really try to think this stuff out a little more in the future

[IGotWorms 3,310]

 

 

If it was such a resounding success, why aren't we still doing it? There are still hundreds of thousands late model cars on the roads today? I know. I look at them everyday.

Because keeping the automakers afloat was a large component of the program and that is not so much of an issue anymore thanks to Obummer's leadership

[NewbieJr 540]

Because keeping the automakers afloat was a large component of the program and that is not so much of an issue anymore thanks to Obummer's leadership

One day, historians will look back and marvel at Obama's plan and use it as the blueprint for how to save an economy headed into a depression.

[KSB2424 3,082]

Extremely shortsighted viewpoint.

 

That 3 billion dollars was pumped directly into the economy at a time when it was sorely needed. It saved jobs and maybe kept some companies afloat.

 

Also 3 billion might be worth it for the benefit to the environment alone. It costs a lot of money to clean up environmental disaster. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure type thing.

 

You should really try to think this stuff out a little more in the future

 

We had a stimulus and a Auto Bailout.

 

Cash for Clunkers was, from a cost / benefit analysis perspective was one of the most wasteful spending endeavors the past decade. Even my liberal friends, who are financial analysts as a career think as much.

 

Obama has done a number of things good. Cash for Clunkers ain't one of them. This is not even debatable, but I do appreciate your attempt.

 

Sort of like Ferguson / Mike Brown. You're choosing the wrong thing to trumpet. Might want to pick a different program or decision than Cash for Clunkers.

[phillybear 364]

Because keeping the automakers afloat was a large component of the program and that is not so much of an issue anymore thanks to Obummer's leadership

 

America lent the automakers a bunch of money, they defaulted on most of the total, America wrote it off as a bad loan.

 

Brilliant!!

 

Meanwhile, we gave away a trillion dollars in stimulus money to fix the infrastructure of this country, and I still haven't heard of one bridge being built or road repaved with that money.

 

Brilliant!!

[Sho Nuff 719]

While I think there was benefit to the program...I don't think it was some huge great success story.

We probably did not get $3bil in value from it.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

 

America lent the automakers a bunch of money, they defaulted on most of the total, America wrote it off as a bad loan.

 

Brilliant!!

 

Meanwhile, we gave away a trillion dollars in stimulus money to fix the infrastructure of this country, and I still haven't heard of one bridge being built or road repaved with that money.

 

Brilliant!!

Where did you read they defaulted?

[KSB2424 3,082]

While I think there was benefit to the program...I don't think it was some huge great success story.

We probably did not get $3bil in value from it.

 

A study published after the program by researchers at the University of Delaware concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion.

 

If the Federal Gov't was a business the line item in the general ledger for year 2009 beside Cash for Clunkers would be:

 

-1,400,000,000.00 USD

 

We paid 3B to get 1.6B in benefit. Folks, that's not good. Decisions like that in the private sector gets people fired.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

 

If the Federal Gov't was a business the line item in the general ledger for year 2009 beside Cash for Clunkers would be:

 

-1,400,000,000.00 USD

 

We paid 3B to get 1.6B in benefit. Folks, that's not good. Decisions like that in the private sector gets people fired.

 

Have not read their report...does it include all potential benefits (such as jobs and other things that were affected by the program)?

Im doubting they went all the way that far (and a lot of that is almost impossible to really quantify as well.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,913]

 

We had a stimulus and a Auto Bailout.

 

Cash for Clunkers was, from a cost / benefit analysis perspective was one of the most wasteful spending endeavors the past decade. Even my liberal friends, who are financial analysts as a career think as much.

 

Obama has done a number of things good. Cash for Clunkers ain't one of them. This is not even debatable, but I do appreciate your attempt.

 

Sort of like Ferguson / Mike Brown. You're choosing the wrong thing to trumpet. Might want to pick a different program or decision than Cash for Clunkers.

 

 

And never mind the fact that the majority of those who buy and drive these vehicles are lower income consumers. The poor cannot afford new cars. These used cars trickle down to them. They are easier to work on, the parts they need after an accident are much cheaper. And they don't require full coverage insurance, just liability insurance. It's more affordable for them. Obama basically fawked the poor. It was the first of many times that I realized he means well, but doesn't think things through and can't see the big picture. When it comes to business, he has shown time and time again he does not know how they run.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

 

 

If the Federal Gov't was a business the line item in the general ledger for year 2009 beside Cash for Clunkers would be:

 

-1,400,000,000.00 USD

 

We paid 3B to get 1.6B in benefit. Folks, that's not good. Decisions like that in the private sector gets people fired.

Didn't we discuss the short-sighted stupidity with which you are analyzing this issue?

 

It isn't nearly that simple. Things very rarely are in this world. HTH

[IGotWorms 3,310]

Where did you read they defaulted?

www.misinformationandlies.com

 

aka Fox News

[IGotWorms 3,310]

One day, historians will look back and marvel at Obama's plan and use it as the blueprint for how to save an economy headed into a depression.

Indeed.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,913]

One day, historians will look back and marvel at Obama's plan and use it as the blueprint for how to save an economy headed into a depression.

 

 

And so will the big corporations that believe they are to big to fail when they start taking unnecessary risks.

[KSB2424 3,082]

Didn't we discuss the short-sighted stupidity with which you are analyzing this issue?

 

It isn't nearly that simple. Things very rarely are in this world. HTH

 

Come on man. I'm not saying everything Obama has done is wrong. But when we tally up the pro's and the con's into a list, Cash for Clunkers is going on the "Con" side. It's not even debatable. And that's okay Worms. No person, let alone President has gotten everything right. They are going to miss on things, and Cash for Clunkers was one of them. Stop trying to save face.

 

Any person can use that excuse. "No, no, your facts are not right because its never that simple!@#!" We can say that in any debate and thread. Good Grief. Thats a cop-out, its throwing the gun.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

 

Come on man. I'm not saying everything Obama has done is wrong. But when we tally up the pro's and the con's into a list, Cash for Clunkers is going on the "Con" side. It's not even debatable. And that's okay Worms. No person, let alone President has gotten everything right. They are going to miss on things, and Cash for Clunkers was one of them. Stop trying to save face.

 

Any person can use that excuse. "No, no, your facts are not right because its never that simple!@#!" We can say that in any debate and thread. Good Grief. Thats a cop-out, its throwing the gun.

You're right, Obummer has messed up some things. I would include among them:

 

- Continuing NSA spying program. I thought this guy was supposed to be some kind of civil rights guru?

 

- Drone strikes on US citizens abroad. I get it, the war on terror is tough. But you ever heard of due process? And imo it's a cowardly way to fight in any event.

 

- I guess we'll put this in the broad category of "race relations", but I do think there were ongoing investigations where Obummer and/or Holder would've been better off not commenting at the time rather than stoking the flames, and on incomplete information no less.

 

There are surely more but no, I wouldn't put Cash for Clunkers in them. Your cost/benefit analysis is short sighted and overly symplistic and while $3 billion is a lot of money it pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars regularly thrown around on ill-conceived wars and other mis-steps, even if you think it was a mis-step.