Surprise surprise the government done f’ed up again. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/07/30/2009-07-30_report_government_to_suspend_popular_cash_for_clunkers_program.html
A survey of 2,000 dealers by the National Automobile Dealers Association found about 25,000 deals had not yet been approved by NHTSA, or nearly 13 trades per store. This raised concerns that with about 23,000 dealers taking part in the program, auto dealers may already have surpassed the 250,000 vehicle sales funded by the program ----------- they run out of money! Errr… printing press ran out of ink.
Surpise surpirse. Government stimulus program is wildly successfull and stimuates 250,000 auto sales in less than a week. Cue right wing outrage that government screwed up again. Facts are irrelevant.
bernie_m Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surpise surpirse. Government stimulus program is > wildly successfull and stimuates 250,000 auto > sales in less than a week. > > Cue right wing outrage that government screwed up > again. Facts are irrelevant. I think your missing the point here… wildly successful? “stimuation” is nil The government again lacked any foresight on how to run this operation efficiently in order to achieve their goal. It broke in less than a week. Hooray nincompoops. Hooray red tape.
ValueAddict Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bernie_m Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surpise surpirse. Government stimulus program > is > > wildly successfull and stimuates 250,000 auto > > sales in less than a week. > > > > Cue right wing outrage that government screwed > up > > again. Facts are irrelevant. > > I think your missing the point here… > > wildly successful? “stimuation” is nil > > The government again lacked any foresight on how > to run this operation efficiently in order to > achieve their goal. It broke in less than a week. > Hooray nincompoops. Hooray red tape. +1 despite the spelling errors
ValueAddict Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bernie_m Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surpise surpirse. Government stimulus program > is > > wildly successfull and stimuates 250,000 auto > > sales in less than a week. > > > > Cue right wing outrage that government screwed > up > > again. Facts are irrelevant. > > I think your missing the point here… > > wildly successful? “stimuation” is nil > > The government again lacked any foresight on how > to run this operation efficiently in order to > achieve their goal. It broke in less than a week. > Hooray nincompoops. Hooray red tape. Thanks for bipartisanship, the program was cut from 4b to 1b. And auto industry would disagree with your statement. Of course it is not a tax cut, so it does not work for Rush Limbaugh economists. Why don’t we just make just yachts tax deductible so everybody can afford one?
JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ValueAddict Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bernie_m Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Surpise surpirse. Government stimulus program > > is > > > wildly successfull and stimuates 250,000 auto > > > sales in less than a week. > > > > > > Cue right wing outrage that government > screwed > > up > > > again. Facts are irrelevant. > > > > I think your missing the point here… > > > > wildly successful? “stimuation” is nil > > > > The government again lacked any foresight on > how > > to run this operation efficiently in order to > > achieve their goal. It broke in less than a > week. > > Hooray nincompoops. Hooray red tape. > > > +1 despite the spelling errors The spelling error was on purpose. I was just carrying it over from bernie_m’s post. Look at sentence 2.
Totally off-topic. I was commenting on the bureaucratic and inefficient nature of government programs. Whereas you were declaring it successful - not sure on what measure. To address the opinion of the auto industry…really does their opinion matter. Since they’re clearly shown us the true way to drive a business into the ground maybe we should appoint them to the role of high king or something along those lines. They could be in charge or misallocating capital for the rest of us in case we can’t do that ourselves and doling out economic rents to workers who work for organized labor unions!!! Tax deduction for yachts? huh
ValueAddict Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tax deduction for yachts? huh haha. this is laughable at first but its actually a good idea compared to bailing out both the entire housing/auto industries. at least yachts or mobile. you know what, the better idea is this. force people to sell their homes and subsidize winnebagos. those who can’t afford to live in their house should be given an affordable winnebago. instead of trapping them in their home that they’ll never be able to afford and keeping them in a community with no chance of employment that can come close to paying for that house, give them a winnebago so they never need a house and they can find jobs anywhere in the country. i think i should be president.
Bipartisanship? Why not dictatorship. MattLikesAnalysis is clearly up for the new role.
a Canadian U.S. President… its like Austrian Hitler ruling Germany all over again… minus all the hate.
ValueAddict Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The spelling error was on purpose. I was just > carrying it over from bernie_m’s post. Look at > sentence 2. That’s not the one I was referring to.
Next up; Health Care.
JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ValueAddict Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The spelling error was on purpose. I was just > > carrying it over from bernie_m’s post. Look at > > sentence 2. > > > That’s not the one I was referring to. I think you meant: ‘+1 despite the grammar error’ no?
No, spelling.
JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, spelling. If you’re referring to his use of ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’ then I think that’s a grammar mistake because technically ‘your’ is not misspelled, just used incorrectly.
Let’s settle this right now: Your vs. You’re http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You’re-and-Your ‘Definitely’ not ‘definately’ ‘Ridiculous’ not ‘rediculous’ ‘For all intents and purposes’ not ‘for all intensive purposes’ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_saying_‘all_intents_and_purposes’_or_‘all_intense_purposes’ 'Vice versa" not ‘vicea versa’
LPoulin133 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No, spelling. > > If you’re referring to his use of ‘your’ instead > of ‘you’re’ then I think that’s a grammar mistake > because technically ‘your’ is not misspelled, just > used incorrectly. Correct.
You’re correct. hahaha
Pretty good example of what tax credits/cuts do.