'bamanomics Strikes Again!

[clibinarius]

Don't want to reply once again, but if you're wondering why I can say Nixon was arguably the worst US president in one statement and "to say terrible is wrong" is because I don't know what to think about Nixon. He did some horrible things, but he also did some very good things that only Nixon could do (go to China). Nixon's extremely difficult to evaluate, unless you just want to ignore the presidency itself and focus on his personal life (which seems no better than JFK's).

At least Nixon wasn't sleeping with East German spies while he was president.

Good grief, where are you getting your misinformation? Really, I want you to quote your sources - chapter and verse because you are laboring under beliefs I have heard from no one else. You state JFK wax in the pockets of the Mafia, and yet they have been consistently accused of being involved in his asssination because of his determination to dismantle the organization. So was he their best buddy as you claim or bitter enemy? So show me your sources and your evidence to support your assertions. I'll warn you in advance, don't quote popular literature. As an artist and writer, nothing I will ever produce will be untained by my personal beliefs and neither will anything produced by anyone else. All that we are permeates our work. So show me the evidence - not the opinion.

'Rani

The spy thing might have been a little too far, and that might be a lot of problems finding out.

The missile thing, you can read in various books, is featured on the history channel, can be found out about asking any professor who's studied JFK (though they might not actually link it to the election). Professors and teachers kind to JFK point out the fact they were obsolete. But even though I'm not a fan of wikipedia, let's quote wiki on some things, since they're in plain sight:

"Many military officials and cabinet members pressed for an air assault on the missile sites, but Kennedy ordered a naval quarantine in which the U.S. Navy inspected all ships arriving in Cuba. He began negotiations with the Soviets and ordered the Soviets to remove all defensive material that was being built on Cuba. Without doing so, the Soviet and Cuban peoples would face naval quarantine. A week later, he and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev reached a basically cordial, lasting agreement. Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles subject to U.N. inspections if the U.S. publicly promised never to invade Cuba and quietly removed US missiles stationed in Turkey." [Emphasis mine]

If that's not good for you, when its undisputed, high trafficked, cite promoting a crackpot conspiracy theory (Linking it to the election the week after the incident, you're right, is unprovable, except the incident was kept secret), then I don't know what to say.

Oh right, that's right, JFK was obviously assassinated by a conspiracy. The Gerald Ford quote, which I've also seen on TV, "I would have loved to prove a conspiracy" means nothing of course, because the government can't be trusted on the Warren Commission. Only people who weren't there could be, and the mafia must be blamed. There is no evidence that the mafia was behind the JFK assassination. Not ONE shred. You've read crackpot theories if you accept it as fact, but unfortunately they're in the mainstream. If the mafia DID do it, why hasn't any credible evidence surfaced of a second shooter, or any direct link, or anything? It also is against the MO of Cosa Nostra to assassinate the president of the United States. For one thing, such an action potentially drawing the ire of law enforcement would be incredibly bad for business, and why some mobsters might have wanted revenge for what JFK/RFK did to them, there's NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that they did except that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald.

But does that prove a conspiracy? NO. After 9/11 a lot of people wanted to kill Bin Laden. If someone got down to Afghanistan and did, that doesn't mean they were involved in a conspiracy to commit any act, does it? If someone killed Hitler in WWII, that doesn't mean its a conspiracy to cover up for the invasion of (insert country name here), does it?

You're right, its a crackpot conspiracy to believe the Warren Commission.

So let's see, there's two sources here that are tangible-the Warren Commission and wikipedia. Let's since I can't actually produce a lot of sources on this information right now, as I don't have the list of any history channel programs (Sigh...citing the history channel is a step above citing historyhouse...), or wikipedia, or hell, the government, nevermind.

The fact I have yet to say JFK ordered the execution of Diem I think is evidence of my being kind to JFK. First, there's no order. Second, the CIA authorized that coup, and can be found once again in many history books and even on wikipedia. JFK would have to sign off on that thing. That's sort of what presidents do.

Want to beat the missile crisis you're going to send people to jail for for the same thing you're going to do? OK:

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Ar...22,1319,00.html

I guess a reporter's word isn't as good as...anyone else's.

"Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of two-tenths of one percent. ^[15] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties, and Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million^[20]—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.^[15]"

...Right. This isn't proven. So I guess we'll skip over that Joseph Kennedy made a lot of money with the mafia and established ties, and personalities often linked to the mob like Frank Sinatra didn't campaign with him. OK, that's a weak link, but frankly, I don't want to rehash every source behind my claims when getting books is a pain in the ass. The reality is Cook County has always had a large role in Mafia politics, be it Capone 40 years before this, or today with the Shanatigans that came in the aftermath of Barrack Obama's empty senate seat. Blagojevich's predocessor, George Ryan, didn't go to jail, either. Neither did ex-governor Daniel Walker...

Hey hey, the democratic governor who came to power at the same time as JFK, Otto Kerner, also was known to accept bribes AND WAS CONVICTED. Hey hey, what do you know...it seems we have a state on our hands with massive corruption. The notion that, surely a well organized political machine for a guy that was a do-nothing senator working for a politically ambitious father that had extensive mafia ties is...absurd, right? Nevermind that if JFK was not heavily involved in the Mafia, it would detract from the conspiracy theory that the mafia killed him; after all, isn't that a big part of that theory? That they helped him get elected? You're right, evidence for JFK's involvement with the mafia is scant from sources I trust on the internet. The history channel might show a special or two on this one on occasion if you ever watch it. Of course, the idea that the election of 1960 was stolen was also supported by Nixon and at least initially by Eisenhower. And you know how Eisenhower loved those crackpot conspiracy theories.

You commented you met Rose, too. So did my dad. He has nothing bad to say about her. She was married to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy

Once again, wikipedia can't be trusted, but you'd figure there'd be enough partisans defending Kennedy that anything that looked negative without being true would be disputed. But in this day and age, no one likes Joseph P. Kennedy, so there's nothing really positive to say except he gave birth to kids with substance abuse problems (JFK, Ted Kennedy), incredible powerhunger (RFK), and ones he himself sponsored braindamage for (Its unfair to bring up Rosemary...but she was largely a victim of her dad). I don't have any books off hand, but the threesome-mafia sponsored claim can be backed up by the history channel on anything of Kennedy's personal life and I've never seen anyone dispute that. That Kennedy was looped up on d-methamphetamine is the sort of things you can find easily in discussions about. But I wasn't aware that saying JFK was on drugs, a womanizer, I didn't realize that's all crackpot conspiracy theory. I did think thinking JFK was assassinated by the mafia without any evidence except Lee Harvey Oswald travelled to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City somehow being a link and that he was a "patsy" assassinated by Jack Ruby, "King mobster"-give me one shred of government evidence? The Warren Commission, like it or not, is by and large the official document of the time. What's the motive to cover it up?

Of course, aside from the Warren Comission, everything regarding JFK is pop culture and the assassination, let alone the freakish ideas that Jimmy Hoffa was behind it. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131460&page=1

I'm sick of doing this. Nothing will ever convince anyone to actually LOOK at the man they love. It sort of sickens me that I have to side with the socialist worker on their account of Kennedy, since very few people who remember Kennedy are willing to be honest about him to themselves. So you can't name the specific policies, eh? No matter. And you think theories about him stealing the election are conspiracy-admittingly they aren't proven. No matter (that they were believed by the GOP then, and still to this day should say something. There's no evidence Bush "stealing" the election in 2000 that I know of, yet Democrats accept that to be true, also-and I agree that it was probably stolen from Gore), we'll ignore that little controversy and hope no one forgets about Florida because, in our eyes, it surely couldn't have happened! That three of the last few Illinois governors have gone to jail-and Blagojevich might be the fourth, to say Illinois has been run by bribery, crime and conspiracy is a crackpot conspiracy theory, right...nothing will ever make you read any American account of Berlin or let alone often-unreliable Soviet Accounts ("Ich bin ein berliner!" is about as embarrassing as "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), think to yourself why Kennedy was horrible on Cuba in both peaceful and warlike directions, the missiles being pulled from Turkey...I'm not providing the textbooks. Find it yourself. Its actually easily found information, and I'm sure you can do a Freedom of Information on it. If government officials providing eyewitness accounts, newsreels, speeches, a lack of legislation, government reports aren't good enough for you, I honestly don't know what will be. Maybe the people who made Loose Change can tell you how JFK's assassin(s) were behind 9/11, I guess.

Topics to look up, I'll even spell this out for you:

Kennedy in Cuba in the 1950s
Kennedy in Berlin
Bay of Pigs
Cuban Missile Crisis
Election of 1960
Kennedy and tax cuts
Gerald Ford and the Warren Commission
The Mafia in Chicago
Links between Joseph Kennedy and the Mafia
Kennedy and women
Kennedy and drugs
Kennedy and cigars

And, I reiterate, tell me one positive thing JFK did as president. Just one thing. One thing at all. Except I disqualify the peace corps, since it was mentioned. Don't tell me hope, either. Hope is never more important than substance.

[clibinarius]

http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Life-John...4063&sr=8-1 contains the East German spy claim, and other books do too, but that's one I know of on the top of my head.

[clibinarius]

http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Life-John...4063&sr=8-1 contains the East German spy claim, and other books do too, but that's one I know of on the top of my head.

Actually, that one doesn't, Seymour Hersh's Dark Side of Camelot does...my mistake. I'm quoting Lew Rockwell, of course, who I hold as deplorable as the commies, but at the same time, at least he isn't enamored with the ridiculous myths of JFK a few generations of Americans are. Lew's a conspiracy theorist, but its very very difficult to find anyone in the mainstream actually talking about JFK's accomplishments. Mostly cause there are none.

[Rani]

I think you misunderstand my reason for asking for your references. I have zero desire to place the man on a pedestal. He was a politician which in my opinion almost automatically means his hands have to be at least a little dirty. You don't reach that level of power by being a saint. However, you seem determined to vilefy the man without what I consider to be valid argument for doing so. You are basing your opinion entirely on the opinion of others. And their opinions are tainted by their personal beliefs. As a writer, even if I'm dealing with a new subject, I'm going to go into it with certain preconceived beliefs. Any evidence I review is going to be viewed through the opinions I've already got. Therefore I would say it's nearly impossible for any writer to present completely unbiased material. And you are basing your argument on those biased opinions.

However, there is something about the Kennedy family that you may not be aware of. The entire family was greatly hated because of their Irish roots as well as Catholicism. They were outcasts in the policitcal climate of the time. Not to mention our general view of the wealthy. My own grandmother referred to him as a "Papist" . A great many people were determined to undermine any legacy he might potentially leave. Look at the books that came out after the death of Princess Diana of the people who "knew" the details of her life. Almost all the reference materials on JFK are cut from the same cloth.

I don't delve into the conspiracy theories much because honestly I don't believe we have a chance in hell of knowing the truth and if more than one person is involved you automatically have a conspiracy. I also believe his assassination circumvents any real view of his presidency. Too many people are always going to see him as the martyred hero. And I have no reason to believe he deserves that designation any more than he deserves to be vilefied without any real evidence.

'Rani

[clibinarius]

I think you misunderstand my reason for asking for your references. I have zero desire to place the man on a pedestal. He was a politician which in my opinion almost automatically means his hands have to be at least a little dirty. You don't reach that level of power by being a saint. However, you seem determined to vilefy the man without what I consider to be valid argument for doing so. You are basing your opinion entirely on the opinion of others. And their opinions are tainted by their personal beliefs. As a writer, even if I'm dealing with a new subject, I'm going to go into it with certain preconceived beliefs. Any evidence I review is going to be viewed through the opinions I've already got. Therefore I would say it's nearly impossible for any writer to present completely unbiased material. And you are basing your argument on those biased opinions.

However, there is something about the Kennedy family that you may not be aware of. The entire family was greatly hated because of their Irish roots as well as Catholicism. They were outcasts in the policitcal climate of the time. Not to mention our general view of the wealthy. My own grandmother referred to him as a "Papist" . A great many people were determined to undermine any legacy he might potentially leave. Look at the books that came out after the death of Princess Diana of the people who "knew" the details of her life. Almost all the reference materials on JFK are cut from the same cloth.

I don't delve into the conspiracy theories much because honestly I don't believe we have a chance in hell of knowing the truth and if more than one person is involved you automatically have a conspiracy. I also believe his assassination circumvents any real view of his presidency. Too many people are always going to see him as the martyred hero. And I have no reason to believe he deserves that designation any more than he deserves to be vilefied without any real evidence.

'Rani

Fair enough; I vilify him because I view him as vile, and I do not hide that bias. I still ask what he did for his country and not what he did for himself. Can you supply me with that?

Mind you delving into the Cuban Missile Crisis, the agreement with the USSR over it, I think is reasonably real evidence, and not a conspiracy theory. Nor is the coup of 1963. I don't know how to prove to you he pulled missiles out of Turkey, that it was a secret agreement, and that it happened to be before an election when it was made. I don't know how to prove to you that there was an anti-Diem coup in 1963. I don't know how to prove those things to you, let alone that they're not conspiracy theories. Fine, the mafia thing is a conspiracy theory. Given Joseph P. Kennedy, I think its credible, but that's me. But that still doesn't explain the secret agreement with the USSR over Cuba, or the coup in Vietnam. Maybe it is a coincidence that the Cuba agreement happened to happen before the election, and maybe JFK wasn't even informed of the coup in Vietnam (mind you the latter point indicates that he'd be utterly incompetent as a consequence). I think that, even if not trying to vilify him, his record is less than competent, and the fact he made good speeches doesn't justify that he made bad decisions. Bush did inspire people, yet most people who really seem to like JFK vilify Bush. I don't see why its fair to vilify Bush and not JFK. Mind you, you didn't vilify Bush-or even Nixon-but others did. I don't see why its fair to vilify Bush under that circumstance, since he never resigned to escape a conviction (unlike Nixon). Mind you, I think Bush was a really really bad president. I'm extremely pessimistic and critical of Obama at the present time (And I don't want another president like Kennedy who inspires, but has no real substance...I'd like for tax reform and financials reform, which is in my opinion the two things that brought us to the point we are at today in terms of needing change in the first place). I think, however, I'm relatively bipartisan about it. You don't see me vilifying one set of presidents from one particular party alone. This historical double standard bugs the hell out of me, because JFK I think is let off the hook for the going-ons during his presidency, and if I can't use other people's investigations and accounts, I have to use by your standard his record, which is pretty unimpressive at best. Thus, we let JFK off the hook, yet we vilify George W. Bush, and the ideology of compassionate conservatism. Its apparently not fair to compare JFK to George W. Bush-and I don't understand why not. Maybe you think its a valid comparison and maybe you don't, but a lot of George W. Bush bashers not just on this board but across America think its OK to go through conspiracy theories, such as Bush intentionally lying about the Iraq War (For the record, I think administration officials lied about the war, but I can't prove it). The notion that Bush gave tax cuts to "the rich" and kept interest rates low "for the rich"-its all valid, in my opinion, but if you support the notion that George W. Bush conspired to sell the store to his "cronies"-not only do you believe in a conspiracy theory, but to ignore the JFK presidency's similarities because someone feels good about him (but doesn't know why) and thinks he was an effective president (but doesn't know what he actually did that was good) and not involved in cronyism (um, he was: See RFK, which I think is insane to think was an uninterested party as far as JFK's successes and personal life)...to not be able to compare him to Bush on his record is grossly hypocritical and is one of my main motivators for vilifying JFK.

If you examine the speeches of George W. Bush, often he was optimistic, and while not the best speaker, rather positive and forceful in his beliefs. Fine, you can question the sincerity of Bush, and I think that would be fair, as well as his motives. Why can't you examine the record of JFK?

I'm also of the point of view that Nixon was investigated, and a conspiracy theory led to real evidence; if Nixon successfully squashed the questions, or people thought that leads on Nixon were conspiracy theories, then Nixon wouldn't have had the political trouble he had and any talk about the Nixon presidency, by your standards, would be a "conspiracy theory". However, we got the tapes, they're pretty public, and everything's really a public record here. Nixon crosses the realm of "conspiracy theory" to "Essentially convicted" (for the record, he never was before the law and was never allowed to face trial, so in theory, what Nixon did is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, but its relatively supported by any available fact, tape, document on the subject. That Nixon was actively involved in a conspiracy, also, means that thoughts on Nixon are by definition a conspiracy theory). I think its fairly unlikely to believe Nixon was the only politician to ever be paranoid and committed illegal acts during an election. Some cases may be well known (Nixon himself, for example), but all others are unproven (George W. Bush in 2000, JFK in 1960, etc.). It suggests to me, if you do something unethical and illegal, if no one ever catches you, its OK. Since Nixon was caught, he was bad. Since Nixon was the only one caught, he is the only "bad" one. Any others that anyone says are "bad" is a "conspiracy theory."

Again, I don't see why its fair to say George W. Bush was a criminal and not JFK. Now you're not saying it is fair to say that. But most people do say that today. Based on circumstance, I think JFK has many more weird things around him-his dad being the main liability. Time has allowed us to shed more light, and develop more opinions on JFK than George W. Bush. I think by the time of JFK's death, his approval rating was about the same as George W. Bush at the same point in Bush's presidency. I think to say Bush had September 11th unfairly making his high, but JFK gets his approval rating by "Genuinely doing a good job" is ridiculous. In the aftermath of the collapse of Eisenhower's thawing of cold war relations, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin wall going up and meetings, the nation was as fearful and confused during JFK's presidency than Bush's if not more so (Americans didn't fear a Taliban invasion of the states or getting nuked back to the stone age during the Bush administration, although you had statements by Rice that suggested they might be nuked-no one seriously though a large scale nuclear exchange and total war was possible). To say "Compassionate Conservatism" was a horrible thing while saying that JFK was great and didn't lead to the social unrest of the 1960s is...sort of a double standard in my opinion, since there was no compassionate conservatism in the 1960s, and there were still people going nuts, and being at least as angry as people are portrayed at as now, and I cite riots, The Weatherman, mass protests, and a much more deadly war involving America as evidence that the country was socially in much worse shape by the end of the eight years of JFK/LBJ than eight years of George W. Bush. It is true, however, that this can change, especially if President Obama doesn't make things better-not making things worse isn't an option anymore to prevent unrest it appears.

Again, let me be clear. The fact so many vilify George W. without actually asking what JFK did for his country is what brings up this opinion. I believe all public servants should be held to the same standard, regardless of party. A criminal in my opinion should not be able to use the defense of "My crime wasn't as bad as this other person's"-why should the standard be any different for politics? If both parties were willing to hold their politicians accountable, we might not be in the current social mess of tons of DWI members of congress, conflict of interest, and corruption seeming to be the norm. I'll close with this: One should always be partisan on the issues (but willing to compromise for the best outcomes), but one should never be partisan on the vilification of politicians.

[tinyj316]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

[Scalliwag]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

Don't even waste your time with this guy. He's pissed that people hate GW and not JFK. He's making this a fulltime thread attacking JFK and making excuses for GWB.
It was just our imagination GWB was an evil draft-dodging, election stealing bitch that almost single handedly brought down the GOP. The guy is a clone of Scotsman if not actually Scotsman with a different user name. The pattern of not really being a republican but seeming to have a lot more passion vilifying democrats. Notice a pattern?

[clibinarius]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

Don't even waste your time with this guy. He's pissed that people hate GW and not JFK. He's making this a fulltime thread attacking JFK and making excuses for GWB.
It was just our imagination GWB was an evil draft-dodging, election stealing bitch that almost single handedly brought down the GOP. The guy is a clone of Scotsman if not actually Scotsman with a different user name. The pattern of not really being a republican but seeming to have a lot more passion vilifying democrats. Notice a pattern?

And it was our imagination that JFK was an election stealing bitch who DID bring down the Democratic Party in 1968.

Oh wait.

No, I'm not the Scotsman at all. I think I've vilified Democrats AND Republicans. However, you don't like when people vilify Democrats, only Republicans. I've called GWB a failure. Notice I'm attacking JFK from THE LEFT. Wait, that doesn't matter to you.

You're right: GWB was a draft dodger. So was Clinton. Seemed rather fashionable for the modern presidents. By the way, GHWB wasn't a draft dodger. Just because he served in the war does not make him a good president. Just because JFK did serve heroically has NOTHING to do with the fact he was a SHITTY PRESIDENT.

Last I checked, Conservatives don't think LBJ was a great president. And a lot of Republicans DO claim to like JFK's legacy. But you're right. I'm a Rush Limbaugh supporter, even though I believe in Universal Healthcare, single payer via the medicare option, I'm not completely anti-war but I'm certainly not pro-war (and I believe a disaster is a disaster), I think that the taxes on the top 1% of the country are way too low since 1964, and that the GOP is a party that's consistently screwed up the country.

Exactly where do you think I'm a right wing clone? Cause I think JFK was a shitty president, and Clinton was overrated? I've outright outlined to you that I think Bush's cowardice caused a bunch of the current malaise. Mind you, attacking Clinton for NAFTA, Walmart and deregulation is NOT a right wing position but one that's (unfortunately) similar to the commie line. I think anyone who knows what a P/E ratio is (or at least, what it once was) could tell you why the 1990s was a mirage too, especially when this economy DOES correct. That's another story.

I don't like Obama at the moment because he's not changing anything in my view, nor does it appear he intends to. He talks big. Offers to negotiate. Then forgets. Sounds a lot like Bush to me. But...that's a right wing argument? The right wingers are saying "George W. Bush was bad because he's like JFK, and Obama's not doing well because he's being George W. Bush?"

I'll say this about Obama; the P/E ratios on the S&P 500 are, according to Standard and Poor, 143. Why the hell isn't he demanding the SEC get involved? Why isn't he clamping down on the regulators?

You're right; this is a RIGHT WING position. I'm a RIGHT WINGER because I DARE criticize St. Kennedy (although very virulently). That comparing Obama to JFK troubles me since no one can actually SAY anything JFK actually did (he inspired; inspiration's all that's necessary. We don't need change, we need to talk about change!). I did jack this thread cause a lot about politics pisses me off, and a lot of the problems stem to Kennedy. In fact, I think the only praise I give of Reagan is he allowed interest rates to spike in the early 80s. That's what we needed then, and that's what we need now. JFK responded to things by lowering interest rates-despite no major recession. But you don't want to be confronted with policy. You want to be...in denial?

GWB was a draft dodger, and that's perfectly acceptable as far as an attack on his character for me. JFK was diseased and earned medals, and I won't deny that.

And let's see, Scalli, since you're more liberal than me. When have the Democrats ever pushed for single-payer healthcare? Gays in the military? A plan to end war? Torture? Wiretaps? Negotiate real cuts in military spending? Shift the tax burden more fairly, particularly on Social Security? Figure out a way to put funds into Social Security or Medicare to pay for them? How about this: How have the Democrats kept their word on ANYTHING in the last twenty years?

We don't need to talk about the Republicans, and how they sold out to the rich and invaded countries on bad premises. That that's happened is well known and only the most partisan looks at the Bush administration and the Republican congress in the 1990s and this decade as a good thing. That's not the point at all.

The point is WHAT HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE TO DESERVE NOT GETTING ATTACKED AS A PARTY? And JFK is the absolute embodiment to me of that do-nothing spirit of talking big, promising reform, and delivering absolute garbage. How is NAFTA liberal? How is supporting Wal-Mart? How is bombing Serbia? Pakistan? JFK brought us supply side economics and Vietnam, and LBJ brought the reforms. LBJ gets no credit from the Democratic Party. To say I'm a Republican or a conservative for bringing that inconvenient viewpoint to your worldview...I don't understand it, unless any ideological attack on the accomplishments of the Democratic Party is some paranoid GOP plot. Does the GOP benefit that I dislike what some Democrats have done? NO. Because I'm not saying "VOTE FOR PALIN!" No one really benefits, except the Democrats MIGHT benefit if they actually see people are upset at the fact they have not done anything in the last 20 years and actually TRY to pass some reform that isn't half assed.

Hey, maybe Tom Tomorrow of This Modern World is a conservative too. After all, he attacked Clinton and is now attacking Obama.

And if I were a right winger, why on earth would I defend the 91% upper tax rate during the 1950s, the building of the Eisenhower interstate system, the expansion of the healthcare system and government involvement, the expansion of education...hell, the expansion of a lot of liberal departments. Why on earth would I do that? Because I'm a fanatic bent on vilifying JFK and therefore a Republican?

Clinton talked about healthcare reform and integrating the military too. Does that mean he did it? Oh wait, that's the Republicans fault he didn't really try to do either of these things, even when he had a Democratic Congress. Right?

If I'd want the Republicans to win, its only to punish the Democrats for consistently never doing what they consistently promise they'll do when elected, and that the push for change will eventually drive republicans out. And if a Republican changes things, then I'll support him if its good (but, given the last 15 years, I'm extremely skeptical). I want a president who is a democrat when he is in charge, not when he gives a speech. And that's what the rants about JFK are about. And if you can't understand that, then go on drinking the kool-aid and bash all disgruntled liberals that they're either closet-Republicans (or communists). Edited August 25, 2009 by clibinarius

[clibinarius]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

I agree with this statement, but that, to me, doesn't say how he was a better president...

Not only did JFK serve his country, but he did it despite the tremendous impact it had on his health. George Bush was drunk and AWOL from the Air National Guard.

But that does not make him a good president. That just means he didn't have one character flaw GWB had-granted, a pretty profound flaw. And that doesn't mean JFK didn't have character flaws (he did).

[Rani]

I think the partisan argument from everyone is spurious. Looking back at what was wrong with this president versus that president and which was the greater evil is ridiculous. Water. Bridge.

No one in their right minds would aspire to political office in my opinion. When told by her husband that he wanted to be governor of California, Maria Shriver (who obviously knows one hell of a lot about such things) responded with an "Are you freakin' nuts?" And yes, that is a quote. I was in the audience when she repeated it. She of all people knows from whence she speaks.

My ultimate judge of whether or not a presidency is successful is the comparison of the state of the country when he entered the oval office as opposed to it's state when he leaves it. No one can adequately judge a sitting president who's been in office less than a year. When was the last time you entered a new job in a fairly large company? Did you settle right in, make the alliances you needed to make, win the office supporters you need to produce change you personally believe in? Did you manage to do all that in less than a year? No? Then why on earth would you expect a monsterously massive and out of control business like the US Government to be any different just because of the hiring of a new employee? Even one who's the latest CEO and "fair haired boy"? Change does not happen overnight especially in the favor and popularity driven business that is our government.

No one can reasonably argue that the state of the country wasn't more prosperous at the end of the Clinton administration than it was at it's beginning. Just as no one can reasonably argue that the state of the country didn't decline enormously during GWB's time at the helm. Reagan was a disaster overall despite his being quite popular because his redesign of the economy and tax structure shifted even more burden to the middle class. Nixon is vilified with good reason yet if you examine the state of the country and it's economy between his election and his resignation, his presidency was successful.

So you can hate JFK, and I can despise Bush and Scalli can hate Nixon and we're all back to the same place. Water. Bridge. Arguing for the same of hearing ourselves yell. President Obamas success or lack thereof will be written over the next 3-1/2 years. Or 7-1/2 years since he's at least smart enough to tackle the hottest issue, health care reform, early enough in his presidency for people to get over their fears and likely groundless prophecies of disaster before the next election. None of us are automatically right just because we think we are. Leave it to history to prove. Where it will become........ Water. Bridge.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

Don't even waste your time with this guy. He's pissed that people hate GW and not JFK. He's making this a fulltime thread attacking JFK and making excuses for GWB.
It was just our imagination GWB was an evil draft-dodging, election stealing bitch that almost single handedly brought down the GOP. The guy is a clone of Scotsman if not actually Scotsman with a different user name. The pattern of not really being a republican but seeming to have a lot more passion vilifying democrats. Notice a pattern?

Isn't me, he likes typing far more than I do.

But I do find a bunch to agree about.

No excuses for GW here, but look at the choices that were on the table, that lunatic gore, or the lunatic bush, Not a one in that election was worth voting for, and would it really matter anyway?

[clibinarius]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

Don't even waste your time with this guy. He's pissed that people hate GW and not JFK. He's making this a fulltime thread attacking JFK and making excuses for GWB.
It was just our imagination GWB was an evil draft-dodging, election stealing bitch that almost single handedly brought down the GOP. The guy is a clone of Scotsman if not actually Scotsman with a different user name. The pattern of not really being a republican but seeming to have a lot more passion vilifying democrats. Notice a pattern?

Isn't me, he likes typing far more than I do.

But I do find a bunch to agree about.

No excuses for GW here, but look at the choices that were on the table, that lunatic gore, or the lunatic bush, Not a one in that election was worth voting for, and would it really matter anyway?

Sigh. True. That's the problem when you type 100 words a minute, they kind of just fly on the screen and you don't really care what's there. If you can stay coherent at that pace...you can type a hell of a lot.

Rani, to me it isn't water under the bridge because problems are still not being solved. For instance, I'll compare this to Stalin: Stalin is in a lot of ways water under the bridge because that period of history is done. The Roman Empire to many people too is water under the bridge. To me, its a lesson learned. For instance: Since when has debasing a currency ever lead to long term prosperity? By that standard, its not water under the bridge until both parties learn they need to consistently fire their politicians. The problem with government I insist is not the liberal or conservative policies as much as its the constant sellouts, not to the rich exclusively but to anyone who is willing buy them. We have had a policy of easy money to those who are connected for too long. This behavior predates JFK, certainly, and goes back thousands of years. But its not water under the bridge to me until someone's willing to stop it, and politicians you generally hate are the ones who symbolize the problems. While you can say its water under the bridge, I say: Same stuff, different day. Water under the bridge is the same stuff, different day, sure, but if its flooding, you can still dam the problem.

I mean, we're lucky to be in a stable country, but we can do so much better. And that's my complaint about partisanship. Punishing people who fail you through your rights is your obligation to your country; if one has a good legacy, its because people should emulate their leadership whenever possible, I would add. The unwillingness to hold your leaders accountable is, at its core, anti-American. This country was founded on firing our government for being abusive, or the perception of abuse. A partisan struggle for legislation in my view is a good one if its legitimate; let the best idea-or the most ambitious, anyway-win. A partisan struggle for dominance leads to complacency and bad fiscal policies. Not water under the bridge, not until the Democrats and Republicans throw out the deadwood and actually try doing something to fix our problems. To me, the spirit of JFK lives on and haunts the Democratic Party which does nothing in my view to correct at all their style for running the country; JFK proves, to me, you can be a shitty president, but as long as you claim you were liberal, the liberals will like you. Until George W. Bush left office, conservatives liked him too as he claimed he was conservative. Until the GOP is willing to throw Bush under the bus and admit fault, they'll always have to deal with his legacy. The GOP will consistently lose until people forget about Bush or someone more recent is just as bad that isn't a Republican. In my view, THEY DESERVE TO LOSE (and, I think most conservatives would agree with me that the Republicans deserve to lose until they start being...well...something that isn't Bush). The problem is, whenever Republicans or Democrats screw up, no one's willing to admit that: The other party is always worse. And that's where partisanship really hurts us. It also prevents people from voting in our bodies with their hearts. Partisanship should be a loosely tied intellectual alliance of ideas, not "Us v. them" that so many have it out to be.

To me, its not water under the bridge until we get a genuinely good president who can successfully lower taxes or expendatures on the lower/middle classes, make things fairer for the rich-in particular, those who pay their taxes honestly and have to subsidize those who game the system, and balance the budget to get our economy on good footing without resorting to one-time measures such as prosperity brought by unsustainable regulations and deregulations. JFK didn't do it. Neither did Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon or even Johnson. The last president in fact to do it was Ike. Its not a Republican only thing; Truman did it too, and Wilson did it before the war. Why can't we have that today? Why don't we demand it? Partisanship be damned in the ballot box; in the last election, I voted for two republicans, three democrats and one conservative (the Democrat and the Republican were the same person and had the Working Family's line, too); all of them were opposed to the incumbent party. If more people fired politicians as they would bad laborers, we might not be in this mess, and people would only reelect those who deserve it.

For the record, I'm planning on voting Republican in 2010. I know that the Democrats will win my district and probably the country, but they don't deserve to in my view thus far. I'm voting for a Republican president in all likelihood in 2012. Its not that I like Republicans, I just think if someone fails at a job, they should be held accountable, and not sainted. Right now, there's no one in power where I am except the Democrats. Why should I like them, exactly?

If I lived in a red county with a red congressman, you bet your ass I'd be voting Democrat. I voted for Obama to punish the GOP for Bush. And if the Republicans win in 2012, I'll vote Democrat probably to punish them in 2016. If you're not going to bother voting people out of office when they screw up, then you shouldn't bother having an election at all.

[TheScotsman]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

not informed, uneducated, or just following the lib media?

The Thornburgh/Boccardi report into the scandal did reveal on page 130 that Mary Mapes had documented information in her possession before the controversial broadcast that George W. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, "did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots."

repeat... he volunteered for Vietnam, Dan rather-not had documented proof, but, typical of the libtard media, made up some fraudulent BS, and the sheep ate it up.

[gaia.plateau]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

not informed, uneducated, or just following the lib media?

The Thornburgh/Boccardi report into the scandal did reveal on page 130 that Mary Mapes had documented information in her possession before the controversial broadcast that George W. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, "did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots."

repeat... he volunteered for Vietnam, Dan rather-not had documented proof, but, typical of the libtard media, made up some fraudulent BS, and the sheep ate it up.

I actually watched this tonight, because Faux/Fuck's News is comedy gold. And you're completely misrepresenting what the report found.

What actually happened, according to this Faux News covered report, is this:

* Duba did in fact run away from serving in the infantry in Vietnam
* Duba did in fact volunteer for serving in the air force in Vietnam
* Duba did in fact not have the requisite flight hours for serving in any air force. It had nothing to do with other pilots being chosen over him, he lacked the experience to even get in the plane.

So how is that in any way not running from service like a little bitch? Saying that Dubya was willing to serve would be akin to saying that he was willing to travel to an alternate dimension. If you're disallowed from doing something and you volunteer to do it anyway, it's not fucking volunteering, it's running away sneakily.

Repeat... for all intents and purposes, Rather's report was entirely accurate, it just misunderstood/misinterpreted/misrepresented one completely irrelevant detail.

If even Fuck's News can't spin this in a positive direction for Dubya on their show, that's really saying something.

[tinyj316]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

not informed, uneducated, or just following the lib media?

The Thornburgh/Boccardi report into the scandal did reveal on page 130 that Mary Mapes had documented information in her possession before the controversial broadcast that George W. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, "did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots."

repeat... he volunteered for Vietnam, Dan rather-not had documented proof, but, typical of the libtard media, made up some fraudulent BS, and the sheep ate it up.

I actually watched this tonight, because Faux/Fuck's News is comedy gold. And you're completely misrepresenting what the report found.

What actually happened, according to this Faux News covered report, is this:

* Duba did in fact run away from serving in the infantry in Vietnam
* Duba did in fact volunteer for serving in the air force in Vietnam
* Duba did in fact not have the requisite flight hours for serving in any air force. It had nothing to do with other pilots being chosen over him, he lacked the experience to even get in the plane.

So how is that in any way not running from service like a little bitch? Saying that Dubya was willing to serve would be akin to saying that he was willing to travel to an alternate dimension. If you're disallowed from doing something and you volunteer to do it anyway, it's not fucking volunteering, it's running away sneakily.

Repeat... for all intents and purposes, Rather's report was entirely accurate, it just misunderstood/misinterpreted/misrepresented one completely irrelevant detail.

If even Fuck's News can't spin this in a positive direction for Dubya on their show, that's really saying something.

QFT....Thanks Gaia!

[tinyj316]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

not informed, uneducated, or just following the lib media?

The Thornburgh/Boccardi report into the scandal did reveal on page 130 that Mary Mapes had documented information in her possession before the controversial broadcast that George W. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, "did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots."

repeat... he volunteered for Vietnam, Dan rather-not had documented proof, but, typical of the libtard media, made up some fraudulent BS, and the sheep ate it up.

I find your initial statement to be highly offensive. I am very informed, I am very well educated (and pursuing an advanced degree), and got that information from faux news, your "fair and balanced" right wing news outlet.

I would like an apology. Just because you don't agree with my ideological background does not mean, or give you the right, to insult my intelligence and/or call me an idiot. A liberal, perhaps...but not an idiot (despite your belief that all liberals are idiots, the same can be said about conservatives)

Moving along, If you read the post that gaia made, that pretty much sums up what was I was referring to.

[Rani]

JFK while serving his country... GWB ran from the service like a little bitch...

Don't even waste your time with this guy. He's pissed that people hate GW and not JFK. He's making this a fulltime thread attacking JFK and making excuses for GWB.
It was just our imagination GWB was an evil draft-dodging, election stealing bitch that almost single handedly brought down the GOP. The guy is a clone of Scotsman if not actually Scotsman with a different user name. The pattern of not really being a republican but seeming to have a lot more passion vilifying democrats. Notice a pattern?

Isn't me, he likes typing far more than I do.

But I do find a bunch to agree about.

No excuses for GW here, but look at the choices that were on the table, that lunatic gore, or the lunatic bush, Not a one in that election was worth voting for, and would it really matter anyway?

Sigh. True. That's the problem when you type 100 words a minute, they kind of just fly on the screen and you don't really care what's there. If you can stay coherent at that pace...you can type a hell of a lot.

Rani, to me it isn't water under the bridge because problems are still not being solved. For instance, I'll compare this to Stalin: Stalin is in a lot of ways water under the bridge because that period of history is done. The Roman Empire to many people too is water under the bridge. To me, its a lesson learned. For instance: Since when has debasing a currency ever lead to long term prosperity? By that standard, its not water under the bridge until both parties learn they need to consistently fire their politicians. The problem with government I insist is not the liberal or conservative policies as much as its the constant sellouts, not to the rich exclusively but to anyone who is willing buy them. We have had a policy of easy money to those who are connected for too long. This behavior predates JFK, certainly, and goes back thousands of years. But its not water under the bridge to me until someone's willing to stop it, and politicians you generally hate are the ones who symbolize the problems. While you can say its water under the bridge, I say: Same stuff, different day. Water under the bridge is the same stuff, different day, sure, but if its flooding, you can still dam the problem.

I mean, we're lucky to be in a stable country, but we can do so much better. And that's my complaint about partisanship. Punishing people who fail you through your rights is your obligation to your country; if one has a good legacy, its because people should emulate their leadership whenever possible, I would add. The unwillingness to hold your leaders accountable is, at its core, anti-American. This country was founded on firing our government for being abusive, or the perception of abuse. A partisan struggle for legislation in my view is a good one if its legitimate; let the best idea-or the most ambitious, anyway-win. A partisan struggle for dominance leads to complacency and bad fiscal policies. Not water under the bridge, not until the Democrats and Republicans throw out the deadwood and actually try doing something to fix our problems. To me, the spirit of JFK lives on and haunts the Democratic Party which does nothing in my view to correct at all their style for running the country; JFK proves, to me, you can be a shitty president, but as long as you claim you were liberal, the liberals will like you. Until George W. Bush left office, conservatives liked him too as he claimed he was conservative. Until the GOP is willing to throw Bush under the bus and admit fault, they'll always have to deal with his legacy. The GOP will consistently lose until people forget about Bush or someone more recent is just as bad that isn't a Republican. In my view, THEY DESERVE TO LOSE (and, I think most conservatives would agree with me that the Republicans deserve to lose until they start being...well...something that isn't Bush). The problem is, whenever Republicans or Democrats screw up, no one's willing to admit that: The other party is always worse. And that's where partisanship really hurts us. It also prevents people from voting in our bodies with their hearts. Partisanship should be a loosely tied intellectual alliance of ideas, not "Us v. them" that so many have it out to be.

To me, its not water under the bridge until we get a genuinely good president who can successfully lower taxes or expendatures on the lower/middle classes, make things fairer for the rich-in particular, those who pay their taxes honestly and have to subsidize those who game the system, and balance the budget to get our economy on good footing without resorting to one-time measures such as prosperity brought by unsustainable regulations and deregulations. JFK didn't do it. Neither did Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon or even Johnson. The last president in fact to do it was Ike. Its not a Republican only thing; Truman did it too, and Wilson did it before the war. Why can't we have that today? Why don't we demand it? Partisanship be damned in the ballot box; in the last election, I voted for two republicans, three democrats and one conservative (the Democrat and the Republican were the same person and had the Working Family's line, too); all of them were opposed to the incumbent party. If more people fired politicians as they would bad laborers, we might not be in this mess, and people would only reelect those who deserve it.

For the record, I'm planning on voting Republican in 2010. I know that the Democrats will win my district and probably the country, but they don't deserve to in my view thus far. I'm voting for a Republican president in all likelihood in 2012. Its not that I like Republicans, I just think if someone fails at a job, they should be held accountable, and not sainted. Right now, there's no one in power where I am except the Democrats. Why should I like them, exactly?

If I lived in a red county with a red congressman, you bet your ass I'd be voting Democrat. I voted for Obama to punish the GOP for Bush. And if the Republicans win in 2012, I'll vote Democrat probably to punish them in 2016. If you're not going to bother voting people out of office when they screw up, then you shouldn't bother having an election at all.

You and I are much closer to the same page as might at first be assumed. I still say it's water under the bridge because this is the situation we have to deal with in the right here, right now. Linking it back to this or that presidency or party or even world events resolves nothing. It's not much different from getting rid of emotional baggage before entering into a new relationship. If you waste time and energy on a past you cannot change, you risk losing the ability to change the here and now. In the end, do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? Focusing on past blurs the future.

One president will lower taxes and improve the economy and another will screw it all up, and then another will fix it. Such is the cyclic events of not just democracy but of life. We've had some good administrations, we've had some bad ones and in the future we'll have more of both. As far as the parties firing their own personnel, it's that our job? For instance, when the stimulus bill was before the senate, I emailed my senator and expressed my feeling and beliefs on the subject. The letter I got back was a miracle of patronizing "look what I've done for you in my tenure" crap I've ever read in my life. Without ever addressing any issue I wrote her about. If you're goiing to respond to a letter, actually respond. Otherwise send a simple acknowledgement or even nothing at all. Don't babble about yourself thinking you're pacifying a constituent! So guess what I'm doing next election? I'm going to be actively compainging for the other guy. Because obviously my currently democratic female senator has her head up her backside. I have decided I don't approve of my current senator therefore it is my job to work to do my best to get her fired at the next election.

'Rani

[clibinarius]

You and I are much closer to the same page as might at first be assumed. I still say it's water under the bridge because this is the situation we have to deal with in the right here, right now. Linking it back to this or that presidency or party or even world events resolves nothing. It's not much different from getting rid of emotional baggage before entering into a new relationship. If you waste time and energy on a past you cannot change, you risk losing the ability to change the here and now. In the end, do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? Focusing on past blurs the future.

One president will lower taxes and improve the economy and another will screw it all up, and then another will fix it. Such is the cyclic events of not just democracy but of life. We've had some good administrations, we've had some bad ones and in the future we'll have more of both. As far as the parties firing their own personnel, it's that our job? For instance, when the stimulus bill was before the senate, I emailed my senator and expressed my feeling and beliefs on the subject. The letter I got back was a miracle of patronizing "look what I've done for you in my tenure" crap I've ever read in my life. Without ever addressing any issue I wrote her about. If you're goiing to respond to a letter, actually respond. Otherwise send a simple acknowledgement or even nothing at all. Don't babble about yourself thinking you're pacifying a constituent! So guess what I'm doing next election? I'm going to be actively compainging for the other guy. Because obviously my currently democratic female senator has her head up her backside. I have decided I don't approve of my current senator therefore it is my job to work to do my best to get her fired at the next election.

'Rani

Its our job to tell the parties to fire their personnels, yes. If they don't, we can fire the party. Imagine the profound impact it would have on conventional wisdom if the north was red and the south was blue, even for a day...on top of it, we don't have to go to extreme ideologies to spark change: All we have to do is fire people who keep failing. I have no problem hiring any politician of any ideology as long as he knows his mandate comes from me and he works for me. In today's age, we let the politicians work for themselves. This might be OK in the private sector, but the government is supposed to be non-profit, public service. If the government's a for profit organization for the people involved, or a way to give all their friends jobs, why have a government in the first place? Our laws are there in place to say we don't have to accept this state of affairs, also.

In your case, you are a constituent. There's no excuse for ignoring you. You are their employer. The staff should at least report if the senator is genuinely too busy. It doesn't matter if you donate to them or not; we have an indirect democracy or Republican form of government; if the politicians ignore you as do their staffs, then that's outright tyranny and fascism. I'm not an anarchist-I just take the words "We the people" somewhat literally. We have no kings, we have no royal titles. The fact we let our elites act like lords and establish political dynasties-we always have, going back to the Adams family-is un-American. Whether it being the Bush family being related to the Pierce family on one side and the other side being the Bushes themselves, which gets their members elected to offices in different states, or the fact the Kennedy family has been flung all over Northeast, or the fact Clinton really had no qualifications for her office when she assumed the senate seat (I'm still steamed that Nita Lowey didn't get a chance to be Senator because the arrogance of Clinton, and by the way: I still can't name one thing she did for NY as senator...) aside from having the name Clinton, or the Udall family in the west, the Rockafellers, the Chafees, the Caseys, the Bayhs, the Tafts, the Roosevelts, and the list goes on and on (I'm sure there's many prominent GOP families I'm missing, but I simply can't think of them off hand, but I'm sure they're there...). Are high incumbency odds and politically connected families going into the family business really what we want in this country?

Two things making me angry also is what Ted Kennedy's doing with his senate seat: The Massachusetts government changed the law so Mitt Romney could not appoint a Republican senator in case of a John Kerry victory; how is it not fair that they want to change the law to allow a Democrat to go to the senate immediately upon his death, as is being called for? Is healthcare more important before the government than justice (and if the healthcare system goes more in the hands of the government, will it be subject to this type of abuse)?

The other thing annoying me is Bloomberg; Mr. Financial Guru has essentially bankrupted NYC in the medium term, and hasn't done anything to improve it in the recent past-OK, so he's done a shitty job. He bought his seat, I can stomach that to a small extent. Now, Mayor Mike has decided to get the term limits laws amended so he could run again; now how is this good for NYC or America? He's the odds-on favorite to win, and people are stupid enough to vote for him. Even Guliani after September 11th didn't DREAM of pulling this, though he thought he should push the election forward to get more organization and stay in office a few weeks longer. Bloomberg is exploiting a crisis more than Guliani? Seems hard to believe...but...

And we the people have the right to bend over, take it, and pay our taxes, apparently, and ignore all the laws designed to protect us.

[clibinarius]

I have just heard Ted Kennedy passed away; thus I will avoid mentioning him in any way, shape or form for the moment-though I stand by what I've said.

[tinyj316]

Scotsman, I'm still waiting for an appology. If you don't want to post it in a thread, you can at least PM me and appologize.

[TheScotsman]

Edmunds has their report on the cash for clunkers program done.

'bamanamics didn't do well at all.

$2,800,000,000. spent
125,000 cars sold that would not have sold without the program

and your final cost is $24,000. per vehicle sold.
That sure was an economic masterpiece. Only the Federal gov't could come up with a program that spends $24,000 to give a person $4,500.

That was a great program. I just can't wait to see what they do with your medical care!

[Rani]

Edmunds has their report on the cash for clunkers program done.

'bamanamics didn't do well at all.

$2,800,000,000. spent
125,000 cars sold that would not have sold without the program

and your final cost is $24,000. per vehicle sold.
That sure was an economic masterpiece. Only the Federal gov't could come up with a program that spends $24,000 to give a person $4,500.

That was a great program. I just can't wait to see what they do with your medical care!

A reminder none of us automaticsally gets to be right just because we think we are.


The White House Blog
<H2 property="dc:title">Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers</H2>Posted by Macon Phillips on October 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM EDT 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.

This faulty assumption leads Edmunds to a conclusion that is at odds with many independent analyses: Edmunds assumption that more than 80% of the payback from Cash for Clunkers would occur in 2009 isn't how many mainstream analyses, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight approach the problem (see pages 5 and 15 of this CEA report [PDF]). In fact, Deutsche Bank recently concluded that “The important takeaway from recent sales trends is that it suggests that there has been minimal 'payback' for the U.S. government’s 'cash for clunkers' program.”

2. Edmunds also ignores the beneficial impact that the program will have on 4th Quarter GDP because automakers have ramped up their production to rebuild their depleted inventories.

Major automakers including GM, Ford, Honda and Chrysler all increased their production through the end of the year as a result of this program, which will help boost growth beyond the third quarter. The actions of private market participants, who would not increase production if they didn’t think demand for their product would be there through the end of the year, is a far better indicator of market dynamics – and one that Edmunds.com conveniently ignores.

Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the Cash for Clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009. The strength of recent auto sales data suggest that, if anything, this projection underestimates the actual impact of the program. CEA’s analysis is transparent and comprehensive, laying out all of its assumptions for the public to understand. Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis.

So put on your space suit and compare the two approaches yourself:


In this world of international/internet media, you can find supporting "documentation" for almost any side you want to take. Only the people actually personally and independently looking through the figures know what's real. Anything else is just a matter of "oh look, I can stir shit up".

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

ya, the whitehouse blog would be a good unbiased, and reliable source. We all know we can count on them for accuracy in analyzing their own stupidity.

Good grief Rani! is that the best you can do?

[FiveSpeedF150]

I wonder what the effect of "Cash for Clunkers" will be now that the program has ended. Considering that after such a rush of car sales, a slowdown is to be expected...

How many jobs will be lost, and cancel out the gains?

[Rani]

ya, the whitehouse blog would be a good unbiased, and reliable source. We all know we can count on them for accuracy in analyzing their own stupidity.

Good grief Rani! is that the best you can do?

Scotsman, you missed the point entirely again. Anyone can say anything. Edmunds, the White House...... Each one is looking for supporting "evidence and documentation" to support their claims and the truth is they're probably all lying. It's what politicians do best. Coming in a close second is bending the truth around a tree and back.

'Rani