Why So Bourgeois?

[Ruzzian Roulette]

Thats a cool looking poster, but people really need to calm down with the whole "Obamas a communist!!!" thing.

Agreed, people need to stop being such tight-asses.

 

[Low Key]

yay

Well aside form the mismanagement of money, which is not handed out by hand to dealerships by obama. It has been reported that the majority of dealers have really enjoyed and profited from this plan. The only thing slowling it down now is the confusion on the senate for more money. Say what you want about the plan, the people and industry that it was made to help are all for it, its hard to argue against that.

What about the reconstituted vehicles being placed back on the road that are actaully supposed to be going to the junkyard?

How is that political? Its left as the responsibility of each dealer ship to do the right thing with the trade in cars. If some greedy dealership wants to make a dollar out of those cars its hardly something to blame the government for.

Of course it's political. In theory "Cash for Clunkers" was a great idea, but the evil that men do always seems to fuck up a good thing. I don't get paid to have great ideas about how it should be handled, but the program obviously was whisked out the door with a seal of approval before anyone put any real thought into it. Give me $50K a year and I'll tell everyone how to fix it.

Edit: And another thing...why is it that all it took was $4,500 to get people to go into a dealership and buy a brand new, more fuel effecient car, that will require a loan anyways? People see free money and pounce, whether they need it or not.

 

[Low Key]

snip

No, its a simple issue of responsibility. Greedy people thrive on opportunity no matter who is dishing out legislature. The dealerships dont have a political agenda other maximising profits in a time where their industry is hanging on by a thread.

EDIT: your edit made it seem like you really know very little about the program.

for [http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/]
further [http://www.cars.gov/]
reading [http://www.reuters.com/article/earth2Tech/idUS216228605420090619]

I know plenty about the program. Thanks anyway.

Back to the matter, the program was created by the government, therefore what the car dealerships do directly relate to what was passed by the legislation.

 

[cobra_ky]

EDIT: i forgot to be OT. can anyone explain this to me? if the caption actually was "why so bourgeois?" that would at least make some sense; otherwise obama as the joker just seems like a non sequitur.

yay

Well aside form the mismanagement of money, which is not handed out by hand to dealerships by obama. It has been reported that the majority of dealers have really enjoyed and profited from this plan. The only thing slowling it down now is the confusion on the senate for more money. Say what you want about the plan, the people and industry that it was made to help are all for it, its hard to argue against that.

What about the reconstituted vehicles being placed back on the road that are actaully supposed to be going to the junkyard?

How is that political? Its left as the responsibility of each dealer ship to do the right thing with the trade in cars. If some greedy dealership wants to make a dollar out of those cars its hardly something to blame the government for.

Of course it's political. In theory "Cash for Clunkers" was a great idea, but the evil that men do always seems to fuck up a good thing. I don't get paid to have great ideas about how it should be handled, but the program obviously was whisked out the door with a seal of approval before anyone put any real thought into it. Give me $50K a year and I'll tell everyone how to fix it.

Edit: And another thing...why is it that all it took was $4,500 to get people to go into a dealership and buy a brand new, more fuel effecient car, that will require a loan anyways? People see free money and pounce, whether they need it or not.

because people still need to buy cars sometimes, and they might as well save $4.5K doing it.

honestly i have no idea why the scrapping requirement is even in there in the first place. what we should be doing is exporting the clunkers and defraying the costs of the program.

 

[Maggotworm]

i think we need to worry about other things rather than "is obama a socialist?"

granted, it IS a projected outcome...

 

[Berethond]

Could someone explain to me why the natural reaction from conservatives is fear and paranoia? I just really can not comprehend that. Instead of objective thinking or even bothering to actually look at the issue they just fear for their safety. Are we still afraid of rolling out the carpet for the reds? Its so illogical to me.

Politics aside, this statement can be applied to all of mankind;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could someone explain to me why the natural reaction from people is fear and paranoia, or ridicule towards things they don't understand? I just really can not comprehend that. Instead of objective thinking or even bothering to actually look at the issue they just fear for their safety. Are we still, with all of our technology and cultural achievement, afraid of entertaining new ideas? Its so illogical to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the secret: people suck. They are afraid of what they don't understand. Hence war, hate, racism, greed, all of the worlds problems can be attributed to it.

And you're exactly like they are
That's why everyone needs to shut up. (Myself included.)

 

[Rigs83]

America died long ago. It died in a heap of naked Muslim men in Abu Ghraib [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse].It died in the constant bickering over what constitutes torture [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834]. It died in a massacre at a place called My Lai [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_My_Lai_massacre].

It is called the American Dream because it ends the moment you wake up and we can't sleep anymore as fools on Wall Streets pay smooth talkers to convince fools in Washington to give them more money and not ask questions, as men and women too poor or too patriotic or both suffer and die while more people vote for American Idol, it dies while a elderly black woman is left to die in a New York Emergency room [http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/waiting.room.death/index.html].

Every time America dies it get's reborn into something closer to what it is suppose to be. Time will tell if that will happen once again under Obama's administration.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[geldonyetich]

It's not so complicated: The neocons have been ruling by fear for quite some time. It's something they've been doing so for so long that they're largely one-trick ponies in this respect: terrify, rob, repeat. Turning Obama into a picture of popular horror (Joker from Batman) is just one in many ways they can achieve this aim.

 

[geldonyetich]

i think we need to worry about other things rather than "is obama a socialist?"

granted, it IS a projected outcome...

Ah, looks like they're predicting a Republican in the white house on 2012.

Note it took Clinton 8 years to turn around the damage done by Bush I. Barrack's doing pretty good for a fellow barely in office half a year.

Reganomics is pretty simple: screw the country, me and my friends would like to make some money, so we're cutting our taxes and deregulating shady business practices. They haven't called it Reganomics for awhile, but that's what it's been every time the Republicans have been in charge since then. They really liked how Reganomics turned out, so much that they'd happily terrify half the country to keep that gravy train rolling.

 

[Mozared]

If this poster truely means to say "Obama's a socialist/communist" then the people who made it are stupid beyond my imagination. Really, I mean, that means they go as far as to learn a presidents plans, disagree with them and making huge posters to critizise him - all the while not realizing that they have no idea what the thing they're insulting him about even means; it's technically even a good thing.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

And this is why republicans are stupid.

 

[Daedalus1942]

I think i've found my new avatar

 

[A big red rooster]

Note it took Clinton 8 years to turn around the damage done by Bush I. Barrack's doing pretty good for a fellow barely in office half a year.

Reganomics is pretty simple: screw the country, me and my friends would like to make some money, so we're cutting our taxes and deregulating shady business practices. They haven't called it Reganomics for awhile, but that's what it's been every time the Republicans have been in charge since then. They really liked how Reganomics turned out, so much that they'd happily terrify half the country to keep that gravy train rolling.

Dude... your chart with the defeicit is taking things so far out of context it is sick. It convineintly forgets to metnion FDR's New Deal which started deficit spending in the first place, and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is costing more than twice what the New Deal cost. (Source: Time magazine) Second, granted that Clinton reduced the national debt, he is partly responsible for the housing market crash:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

 

[Low Key]

I know plenty about the program. Thanks anyway.

Back to the matter, the program was created by the government, therefore what the car dealerships do directly relate to what was passed by the legislation.

That doesnt make sense, the government isnt there to babysit individuals. Its there to run a nation. There is a reason for the stratification of power, either way how do people acting out of their own free will or lack of morals equate to shitty government actions? By your logic breaking the law by anyone even down to petty theft equates to a complete failure of government to enforce its own laws.

No, that's not it at all.

When someone breaks a law, such as petty theft, and gets arrested, that is the law working. Breaking laws isn't the issue, it's upholding it that I'm talking about. That is why politicians and judges, and to an extent, police, get paid better than the average American.

All in all, the plan to trust the laurels of an industry going bankrupt was a bad idea. Saying it isn't just goes to show when it comes down to it, people will defend an idea simply because they support the man who created it. I am not a republican, but I am conservative, and when Bush created the first bailout, I was pissed. Just because I supported him for other things doesn't mean will kneel and kiss his feet. Having a doctorate (yes, I know Bush doesn't have a doctorate) doesn't make someone smarter when it comes to dealing with people. There is an anesthesiologist I know. He obviously studied hard to get it, but everytime I talk to him, he seems like he is dumb as rocks.

 

[geldonyetich]

Dude... your chart with the defeicit is taking things so far out of context it is sick. It convineintly forgets to metnion FDR's New Deal which started deficit spending in the first place, and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is costing more than twice what the New Deal cost. (Source: Time magazine) Second, granted that Clinton reduced the national debt, he is partly responsible for the housing market crash:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

I'd say the key difference is that FDR's New Deal dragged us out of a great depression, while the Republican's spending dragged us most of the way into one.

As for your other point, say what you will about Clinton signing the bill that allowed housing to go the way it did, Bush Jr. had more than enough time to change the course if that was his intent.

 

[A big red rooster]

Dude... your chart with the defeicit is taking things so far out of context it is sick. It convineintly forgets to metnion FDR's New Deal which started deficit spending in the first place, and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is costing more than twice what the New Deal cost. (Source: Time magazine) Second, granted that Clinton reduced the national debt, he is partly responsible for the housing market crash:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

I'd say the key difference is that FDR's New Deal dragged us out of a great depression, while the Republican's spending dragged us most of the way into one.

If that is true, would you mind explaining a few of the things that the Republican presidents have spent so much on?

 

[Srkkl]

Honestly, it just sounds like a bunch of /b/tards got bored.

I agree with this. I highly doubt it was anything like those "Hope" posters, just a bunch of idiots got bored.

Off topic question to the person I'm quoting, Why does everyone use "/b/tards"? Will you get banned if you put "re" infront of the tard part?

 

[Low Key]

Spoiler: A Chart

i think we need to worry about other things rather than "is obama a socialist?"

granted, it IS a projected outcome...

Ah, looks like they're predicting a Republican in the white house on 2012.

Spoiler: Yet Another Chart

Note it took Clinton 8 years to turn around the damage done by Bush I. Barrack's doing pretty good for a fellow barely in office half a year.

Reganomics is pretty simple: screw the country, me and my friends would like to make some money, so we're cutting our taxes and deregulating shady business practices. They haven't called it Reganomics for awhile, but that's what it's been every time the Republicans have been in charge since then. They really liked how Reganomics turned out, so much that they'd happily terrify half the country to keep that gravy train rolling.

Do you know what happened when Jimmy Carter was president? He was charging the top money earners in this country 75%. So, guess what they did. They stopped spending, which almost ruined this country. He may not have spent as much as some, but it's hard to spend money when no taxes are coming in. It's also the reason why the inflation rate by the last year of his presidency was 13%. Ronald Reagan was able to reduce it to single digit numbers in only a year, and after two years, it was hovering around 2-3%.

Barack is actually doing better than I imagined, but he is still a politician. Don't act like he's the good guy.

 

[geldonyetich]

I'd say the key difference is that FDR's New Deal dragged us out of a great depression, while the Republican's spending dragged us most of the way into one.

If that is true, would you mind explaining a few of the things that the Republican presidents have spent so much on?

Good question. If the Republicans have been so good at avoiding spending, why did out national debt start skyrocketing - right away, before 9/11, before the housing crash?

Hmmm... where did all that money go?

Oh, there it is [http://dangerousintersection.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/bush%20class%20warfare%20chart-small.JPG].

But hey, he did give us all $300 to look the other way as he picked our pocket.