If Obama's critics would offer something coherent, I would listen to them.

[Alceste]

Just for the record, I never did see any rebuttals to my coherent and well researched concerns about Cap and Trade, and the Cash for Clunkers fiasco.

I note your criticisms did not include your preferred solution to the problem of reducing emissions. If Cap and Trade and Cash for Clunkers are bad, what is good?

I make it a policy never to complain unless I have a better idea at the ready.

 

[shortfade2]

Hey, Alceste.

Just wondering, but did anybody ever produce Obamas birth certificate?

 

[Alceste]

Hey, Alceste.

Just wondering, but did anybody ever produce Obamas birth certificate?

Yes, Hawaii produced a certificate of live birth during the election. Haven't seen Palin or McCain's birth certificate yet though...

 

[Alceste]

Now - Cash for Clunkers:
The first rollout of this bill – the Cash For Clunkers Program – was so ridiculous and such a fiasco that it hardly seems necessary to go into much detail.

• So you have a clunker that’s paid for. But it’s better for you to go into debt to the tune of about $20,000 or more than get a few more years of use out of that clunker? Who is really the winner here – the consumer – or the auto dealerships and banks? Oh, wait – we already knew they were government favorites, right?
• This is short term gain and long term loss. What happens to the used car market over the next few years? This is the market that has been necessary for people who cannot afford to buy a new car. Now these vehicles, all of which were required to be DRIVEABLE in order to be eligible for the program, are intentionally destroyed. Talk about government waste! THANKS, GUYS.
• This is a deal with the devil. Upon contract date, the consumer had to turn over possession of the vehicle to the dealership, even before the dealership knew whether or not the vehicle would truly qualify under the extremely complicated application process required by the government. If the applicant lies about anything on the application, and the app is denied, it is up to the dealership to recoup the money. Now – do you really think they intend to be left holding this bag – or do you think they were able to build in that wiggle room to cover their, err, assets? Who do you think paid for that cushion?
• As of Sept 2, 2009, only 5.7 percent of the Cash for Clunkers dealer claims had been paid by the government. In fact, more claims have been rejected than have been paid. (NADA, Sept 2009)

Stupid, stupid idea, based on some very flawed economic principles. Let's encourage debt, rape the next five years of the used car market, and eat wedding cake for breakfast now and go hungry tomorrow by creating a false and unsustainable buying frenzy.

Then let's use the typical skills, or lack thereof, of government workers to actually develop the website and the processing system, burdening the dealerships and consumers with a myriad of incomprehensible forms and regulations, creating a bottleneck of backlogged claims (ie, kicking the car market in the kahunas - with love like this, who needs enemies?), and hey - while we're at it, let's destroy thousands and thousands of vehicles by pouring corrosives into their engines!

WHAT A GREAT IDEA!

National Auto Dealers Association (your source, I assume?), Sept 16:

NADA commends Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for his hands-on approach overseeing the cash-for-clunkers program and helping to spark a revival in the economy's automotive sector. The clunkers program proved wildly popular among consumers. Its initial $1 billion appropriation was spent in a few days, leading to a further $2 billion appropriation before Congress left for its August recess. Because of the extraordinary consumer response to the government's incentive, cash for clunkers has been called the most effective piece of the government's economic stimulus. Dealers across the country are reporting that they experienced one of the busiest summers in recent memory thanks to the boost in sales prompted by the clunkers program.

"There's no question that this program was a boon to consumers, to automobile dealers and to the workers who build cars and trucks," said NADA Chairman John McEleney. "The clunkers program also clearly accomplished its goal of jump-starting new car and truck sales and removed nearly 700,000 older vehicles from the roads." McEleney thanked Secretary LaHood for speaking at NADA's Washington Conference today and noted that the Secretary's efforts helped speed up rebate payments to car dealers.

Despite the success of the program in attaining all the goals it was designed for, I am of two minds about destroying drivable cars. I agree with you to some extent. I just thought long and hard on this when I was looking for a car. I've been driving my mother's 20 year old SUV while looking, and could just buy that for next to nothing, but I wanted better fuel efficiency. However, when I turn it on, it goes. That's nothing to sneeze at in a 20 year old car with 350,000 km on it. I think destroying it would be wasteful and since I hardly ever drive anywhere it's probably better off with me than someone who's going to drive it every day.

Anyway, that is a good point, but as the program reduced emissions, boosted auto sales and restored some big-ticket consumer confidence to the lagging economy (which is what it was for) I'm going to have to call it a success.

 

[ericoh2]

I've noticed a lot of debate over which candidate/party would do a better job in the White House and I always internally laugh when I hear the argument about Sara Palin being too incompetent to run the White House. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that statement I do however believe that it is really not so much a matter of competency as it is honesty as to who should be governing the country. The presidents have countless "experts" at their disposal to give them the information concerning various decisions they make. Looking at the whole picture presidents probably hardly make any decisions themselves, as it appears to me, they are constantly swayed by lobbyists, bankers and who knows who else. With that being said I think most will agree with me that we probably have not seen an even remotely honest "high ranking" politician in years. Without this quaility, competence could actually be more harmful than incompetence due to the fact that the more "competent" individual are often more crafty and able to cover their tracks and mislead the public easier. Just thought I would throw that out there and get your opinions.

On a side note, based on my reasearches, I feel the last, at least semi-sincere Predsident was John F. Kennedy and we all know how that turned out.

 

[rojse]

I've noticed a lot of debate over which candidate/party would do a better job in the White House and I always internally laugh when I hear the argument about Sara Palin being too incompetent to run the White House. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that statement I do however believe that it is really not so much a matter of competency as it is honesty as to who should be governing the country. The presidents have countless "experts" at their disposal to give them the information concerning various decisions they make. Looking at the whole picture presidents probably hardly make any decisions themselves, as it appears to me, they are constantly swayed by lobbyists, bankers and who knows who else. With that being said I think most will agree with me that we probably have not seen an even remotely honest "high ranking" politician in years. Without this quaility, competence could actually be more harmful than incompetence due to the fact that the more "competent" individual are often more crafty and able to cover their tracks and mislead the public easier. Just thought I would throw that out there and get your opinions.

On a side note, based on my reasearches, I feel the last, at least semi-sincere Predsident was John F. Kennedy and we all know how that turned out.

If your argument is true, then America (and by extension, all democratic countries) need to vote for people who are intelligent enough to select intelligent, rational, unbiased advisors and cabinet holders free of any conflicts of interest, in order for them to make the best decisions on the President's behalf, and to capably advise the President of options.

That said, we would also need to vote for a President that was capable of taking, and acting upon, advice from others.

Do you think that John McCain or Sarah Palin were in a beter position to do this than what Obama is? Why or why not?

 

[ericoh2]

If your argument is true, then America (and by extension, all democratic countries) need to vote for people who are intelligent enough to select intelligent, rational, unbiased advisors and cabinet holders free of any conflicts of interest, in order for them to make the best decisions on the President's behalf, and to capably advise the President of options.

That said, we would also need to vote for a President that was capable of taking, and acting upon, advice from others.

Do you think that John McCain or Sarah Palin were in a beter position to do this than what Obama is? Why or why not?

No because I don't think the president is much more than a front man with others pulling the strings for the most part. I've posted before that I feel we pretty much have a one party system, I was just stating that a honest individual who may not be the most intelligent individual, would be far more beneficial to any nation than a corrupt genius.

 

[rojse]

No because I don't think the president is much more than a front man with others pulling the strings for the most part. I've posted before that I feel we pretty much have a one party system, I was just stating that a honest individual who may not be the most intelligent individual, would be far more beneficial to any nation than a corrupt genius.

The problem with a one-party system is, essentially, that it is a dictatorship. There are no checks and balances, there's no way of ousting a President under your proposal.

Sure, you might, if you are lucky, end up with someone that wants to do good things. But you might not. You might end up with a scheming and conniving person. Or you might end up with someone who is incompetent. Or corrupt. Or all three.

 

[ericoh2]

The problem with a one-party system is, essentially, that it is a dictatorship. There are no checks and balances, there's no way of ousting a President under your proposal.

Sure, you might, if you are lucky, end up with someone that wants to do good things. But you might not. You might end up with a scheming and conniving person. Or you might end up with someone who is incompetent. Or corrupt. Or all three.

I wasn't proposing a dictatorship, I was stating that I think we have a one party system that I do not agree with. I was pointing out the the uselessness of picking one or the other party because I don't see a difference. Virtually every political system has corrupted throughout history, so unless the individuals within the system change we will probably always end up with a corrupt government.

 

[Kathryn]

I wasn't proposing a dictatorship, I was stating that I think we have a one party system that I do not agree with. I was pointing out the the uselessness of picking one or the other party because I don't see a difference. Virtually every political system has corrupted throughout history, so unless the individuals within the system change we will probably always end up with a corrupt government.

Amen!

What we have now is basically a one party system. It's hard for me to believe that people can't see that.

US politicians could get rid of their designated affiliations and just call themselves the Big *** Government Party and it would be a more accurate description.

 

[shortfade2]

Amen!

What we have now is basically a one party system. It's hard for me to believe that people can't see that.

US politicians could get rid of their designated affiliations and just call themselves the Big *** Government Party and it would be a more accurate description.

WHOO!! YEAH! we're finally getting around to corrupt politicians, not honest leaders. FRUBS TO U GUYS!!

 

[Engyo]

WHOO!! YEAH! we're finally getting around to corrupt politicians, not honest leaders. FRUBS TO U GUYS!!

I don't believe that our current electoral system (state or federal) allows honest leaders to make it onto the ballots. That would be way too dangerous..................

 

[shortfade2]

I don't believe that our current electoral system (state or federal) allows honest leaders to make it onto the ballots. That would be way too dangerous..................

Mhm. Gotta hate the retard politicians.