Recent Posts

Who gives a flying fuck? We get it he is a man whore.

I was pointing out what I saw on CSPAN, the Patriot Act and SSi were passed using "common Defense" as one of many arguements.  I support most of the patriot act.  I assume you support the act too so common defense is used to garner support for either party as is general welfare, its the nature of the beast.

Like it or not SSi was a good idea till borrowing for medicare/medicade came along.  I think banks could have provided tax free savings programs back in the 1930's with gov laws and guidance. Problem is the democrats don't think the people can think for themselves.   

  The General Welfare clause has been used to pave a road to hell.  It is never a good idea to pass law that is outside of government's constitutional mandate.  That is the problem and that is what you seem to be unable to grasp.

There is no "general welfare clause"- that part of Article 1 section 8 is not a stand alone clause.  It is modified by the enumerated powers that appear below it. 

  That is true, I mispoke.  Still, clearly the paremeters of General Welfare are well put forth and nowhere is there a mandate for a taxpayer funded retirement. 

The government's own figures showed that non-car consumer spending was down during the period of the scheme.

Here is an article about the economic growth during the clunker's scheme.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/12/22/economists-react-gdp-revision-surprisingly-large/

And most of the growth (~60%) in this flaccid period was from the clunkers scheme.   So most of the growth was from people buying stuff that they really didn't need.  That is classic  mis-allocation of resources.  

If your argument is that the CARS program focused consumer energy on the automobile industry at the expense of other areas of the economy, I agree.  Heck, at the end of the day that's what it was meant to do.  The industry was in a terrible state and the government was attempting to jumpstart it (with some success, it seems).

However, just how much of a negative impact did this really have on those other sectors?  That still seems like guesswork.  Surely, there were plenty of people who simply would've held onto their money and done nothing with it had they not been lured into spending by the CARS incentive.  I look at it this way.  At the time of the piece you cited, growth was slow, with much of that growth coming from the automobile industry.  However, today, with CARS six months dead, growth remains slow.  Either CARS was so incredibly massive that it's continued to hamper growth in these other areas OR growth was going to be slow going anyway, CARS program or no, and CARS simply provided a quick jolt/means for our auto industry to start getting back on its feet at a time when it really needed it.

That doesn't address the sales during the period of the subsidy and the economic waste of destroying the cars that were turned in.  That is the economic waste.  

And don't forget the down-trend of other consumer items during the clunkers program.  

What exactly are you using to judge the negative impact on other consumer items as a result of CARS vs. say...the recession as a whole?  Because, it seems to me, this is (and pretty much has to be) pure guesswork.  Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind this argument, but how would one come up with decent enough figures so that we can compare, contrast, and come to some conclusion as to whether or not what was lost was worth salvaging one of our major industries in the immediate?  Because, so far, I don't see anyone doing that.  All I see is people arguing their various ideological positions.

The government's own figures showed that non-car consumer spending was down during the period of the scheme.

Here is an article about the economic growth during the clunker's scheme.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/12/22/economists-react-gdp-revision-surprisingly-large/

And most of the growth (~60%) in this flaccid period was from the clunkers scheme.   So most of the growth was from people buying stuff that they really didn't need.  That is classic  mis-allocation of resources.  

I seem to remember sales screeching (pun intended) to a halt when the CfC program ended.

Sales dipped slightly in Sept. but were up in October, November, and December of last year (I believe I posted a link to this earlier in the thread).  They were also up in Jan. 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/auto_sales/).  Feb. sales roughly held steady (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62135E20100302).

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/03/10/jamie-jungers-wins-the-tiger-woods-beauty-pageant/



Jamie Jungers – the blonde in the four photos on the right – edged out Jaimee Grubbs in the Tiger Woods beauty pageant on the Howard Stern show today. Jungers’ pocketed $75,000. Loredana Jolie Ferriolo, the only one of the trio who Tiger wore a condom with, finished third.

Reader/blogger Todd Dery from Waiting for Next Year chipped in with these highlights:

- Tiger didn’t use condoms with Jungers for 18 months. Jolie said he did and she was sleeping with him for two years. Tiger’s nickname for Jamie Jungers: “Jamie Juicers.” Think about it.

- Tiger flew Jamie Jungers COACH on Southwest to see him! Dude is a zillionaire.

- Tiger asked her about a three-some, but she said, ‘if your wife is involved’ and Tiger never brought it up again.

- Jungers was with Tiger in bed the night that his father passed away. She said he went to the hospital earlier in the day to visit his dad, and then later that night, he and Jungers had sex. She claims Tiger got the call about his dad’s passing around 2 am.

- Jolie said Tiger was “very into role playing” he would put a suit on, then go into a room with “several” naked chicks and he’d order these chicks to do stuff in front of them.

- Jolie said she “dated” Michael Jordan and Bruce Willis and that Tiger’s penis was larger than Jordan’s.

- Jaimie Grubbs was up third. First thing right off the bat – she banged Tiger two days after the birth of his kid!

- Grubbs did not know Tiger was married when they met, and he was not wearing a ring. It took him three days to kiss her. “A lot of 8th grade flirting, he was definitely shy.”

- Grubbs said Tiger called her “skinny fat” because she ate like a “fat person” but was skinny.

- Grubbs thought that he would leave Elin for her. After she found out he was married, she didn’t see him for a year and he continued to text her and begged to see her. Meanwhile she was 21 when all of this was going down.

I was pointing out what I saw on CSPAN, the Patriot Act and SSi were passed using "common Defense" as one of many arguements.  I support most of the patriot act.  I assume you support the act too so common defense is used to garner support for either party as is general welfare, its the nature of the beast.

Like it or not SSi was a good idea till borrowing for medicare/medicade came along.  I think banks could have provided tax free savings programs back in the 1930's with gov laws and guidance. Problem is the democrats don't think the people can think for themselves.   

  The General Welfare clause has been used to pave a road to hell.  It is never a good idea to pass law that is outside of government's constitutional mandate.  That is the problem and that is what you seem to be unable to grasp.

There is no "general welfare clause"- that part of Article 1 section 8 is not a stand alone clause.  It is modified by the enumerated powers that appear below it. 

That doesn't address the sales during the period of the subsidy and the economic waste of destroying the cars that were turned in.  That is the economic waste.  

And don't forget the down-trend of other consumer items during the clunkers program.  

What exactly are you using to judge the negative impact on other consumer items as a result of CARS vs. say...the recession as a whole?  Because, it seems to me, this is (and pretty much has to be) pure guesswork.  Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind this argument, but how would one come up with decent enough figures so that we can compare, contrast, and come to some conclusion as to whether or not what was lost was worth salvaging one of our major industries in the immediate?  Because, so far, I don't see anyone doing that.  All I see is people arguing their various ideological positions.

Lil e and King hid from legitimate questions while we answered your questions.  That is a fact.

I answered your questions...you ran and hid like a crybaby from mine...that is documented facts.

I seem to remember sales screeching (pun intended) to a halt when the CfC program ended.