On Sunday President Obama voiced his apparent displeasure with the fact that Scott Brown drives a truck. President Obama let people know that George Bush drove a truck, and “look where that got us”.
I wonder if President Obama is aware that Scott Brown drives a … GM truck?
On 11.20.09, In Acting Stupidly, Cash For Clunkers, Congress, Health Care, It's The Economy, Nancy Pelosi, By markboabaca
The following chain-email seems to be doing the rounds quite a bit today. And I think it sums the situation up perfectly:
A message to the Administration:
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 – you’ve had 234 years to get it right; it’s broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 – you’ve had 74 years to get it right; it’s broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – you’ve had 71 years to get it right; it’s broke.
The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 – you’ve had 45 years to get it right. $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked and our entire country is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – you’ve had 44 years to get it right; they’re both broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – you’ve had 39 years to get it right; it’s broke.
Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the “Stimulus,” the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009…. none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.
And finally, to set a new record: “Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress’s generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.
So, with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that “services” you shove down our throats are failing faster and deeper, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system- 20% of our entire economy???
With all due respect, Are you crazy? Or do you think the American people are?
On 11.06.09, In Cash For Clunkers, It's The Economy, By markboabaca
After an unfavorable review of the Cash for Clunkers program by Edmunds.com, the Obama White House tried to impugn Edumnds.com’s credibility by insinuating that automakers expected additional demand for their vehicles. Business Insider tried to figure out what the White House was thinking:
On the same day that we found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter – the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade – Edmunds.com has released a faulty analysis suggesting that the Cash for Clunkers program had no meaningful impact on our economy or on overall auto sales. This is the latest of several critical “analyses” of the Cash for Clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny.
The Edmunds analysis is based on two implausible assumptions:
1. The Edmunds’ analysis rests on the assumption that the market for cars that didn’t qualify for Cash for Clunkers was completely unaffected by this program.
In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program. This analysis ignores not only the price impacts that a program like Cash for Clunkers has on the rest of the vehicle market, but the reports from across the country that people were drawn into dealerships by the Cash for Clunkers program and ended up buying cars even though their old car was not eligible for the program.
By the way, the title of the White House blog post clearly demonstrates that adults are in charge: ““Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers”
Fortunately, Edmunds.com responded to the White House in a concise rebuttal:
At issue is one point of the analysis showing the taxpayer cost for every incremental vehicle sold was $24,000. To be clear, Edmunds.com is not disputing the government’s statements regarding total voucher applications, vehicles sold or voucher values. The key question is how many of these sales would have occurred anyway.
Apparently, the $24,000 figure caught many by surprise. It shouldn’t have. The truth is that consumer incentive programs are always hugely expensive when calculated by incremental sales — always in the tens of thousands of dollars. Cash for Clunkers was no exception.
The White House claims that our analysis was based on car sales on Mars and that on Earth, the marketplace is connected. We agree the marketplace is connected. In fact, that is exactly the basis of our analysis.
It is also claimed we missed the possibility that Cash for Clunkers generated excitement and consumers bought vehicles even if they didn’t qualify for the program — a claim that has been widely supported by anecdote but by little analysis. It does, after all, seem a bit odd that masses of consumers would elect to buy a vehicle because of a program for which they don’t qualify — doubly so when you add in the fact that prices shot up during Cash for Clunkers, creating a disincentive to buy.
Finally, the White House claims that the increase in fourth-quarter production reported by the car manufacturers can be attributed to Cash for Clunkers. But here is a better reason: the economy is recovering accompanied by improved car sales. No manufacturer increases production — a decision with long-term consequences — based on the 30-day sales blip triggered by an event like Cash for Clunkers.
With all respect to the White House, Edmunds.com thinks that instead of shooting the messenger, government officials should take heart from the core message of the analysis: the fundamentals of the auto marketplace are improving faster than the current sales numbers suggest.
When will the Obama administration shed the diapers and grow up?
Hmmmm?
