Texas A&M has a new report on the Cash for Clunkers program, and it’s not good.
From Fox News:
Researchers at Texas A&M, in a recently released report, measured the impact of Cash for Clunkers on sales and found the program actually decreased industry revenue by $3 billion over a nine-to-11-month period. Meanwhile, the “stimulus” also cost taxpayers $3 billion.
The Car Allowance Rebate System, commonly called Cash for Clunkers, was part of a 2009 economic stimulus program that was sold as a lifeline from the federal government to a sinking U.S. auto industry.
The program let people turn in their old cars for up to $4,500 in cash to be used toward the purchase of a more fuel-efficient alternative. Nearly 700,000 vehicles were traded in through the program.
But the Texas A&M University study, for the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows the program may have actually created a drag on the economy.
This is nothing but a little microcosm of Keynesian economics. The “thinking” is that an economy can be stimulated by the government simply paying people. The problem is, it doesn’t work.
- First of all, people were paid, but no actual wealth was created. People are simply the beneficiaries of something without working or creating anything.
- Second, wealth (in the form of cars) was actually destroyed.
- Third, it hurt those who were looking to purchase an inexpensive car because it raised the price of older, used cars. This happened because cars that were only worth a few hundred bucks could be traded in for $4,500. Anyone with a cheap car to sell, would be stupid not to take that deal. This lowered the number of cars in the marketplace and, as supply and demand might dictate, those who needed a cheap car (most likely the poor), could no longer afford one.
- Fourth, it’s redistributive. Those who had no need for a car and didn’t have one to sell, had to fund the program anyway.
- Fifth, the government went into debt to do it. This not only means that we’re now paying interest on it, but we’re saddling people with debt who weren’t even eligible to vote for the candidates who initiated the program.
It should come as no surprise that the program was a huge failure.
Another goose egg from the Obama administration.
I love how conservative political comics portray Obama with monkey-esque features (large ears and nose, simple minded and unintelligent etc). Congratulations, you’re still using styles to dehumanize POC that were used by the Nazi’s in the 1930’s and 40’s.
Yeah! Political cartoonists would never do that to a white guy!
Also, comparing cartoonists to Nazis is literally one of the most common “guilt by association” fallacies. All cartoonists do this. It’s to exaggerate the features of a person to make them undeniably recognizable.
Godwin’s Law in action.
Asked by theillestoftruths
Although that’s great for some people, sadly it’s too little, too late I’m afraid. The drones voted him in twice and the damage is done. The same people that say they’re done with Obama will most likely throw in with Hillary in a couple years.
Obama on gay adoption
yeah totally ruining this country what a horrible guy
Fun fact: Obama has attempted to fix almost everything that he promised to fix, but the republicans have voted almost all of his bills out of congress. He’s not the problem.
JESUS I’VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS AND PEOPLE STILL DON’T FUCKING GET ITmight have something else to say
How in the hell does this thread have over 1 million notes? That quote from Obama wasn’t even referring to gay adoption. It was regarding to fatherhood and I happened to actually agree with the President on that part of his speech.
Secondly, when Republicans block Obama’s policies, that’s called the separation of powers. They have a good reason for blocking any bills with his agenda on it…and no, it has nothing to do with his skin color.
Lastly, his “equal pay for equal work” is based on a complete lie. Yes, the President of the United States has lied to you about the gender pay gap. It’s 100% false. The reason major legislation was never passed as he proposed is because Republicans know it is false and therefore it will never make it through the House.
Now I know why there’s a million notes, the majority of Tumblr is dumb.
Consider the following truths:
- A million seconds passes in about 12 days.
- A billion seconds passes in about 32 YEARS
That’s the difference between a million and a billion. We hear so many astronomical numbers bantered about today that its easy to become numb to it and not really consider the sheer size of the figures we’re dealing with.
So that’s one billion….32 years. Of course if you had that billion nine more times, you’d have ten billion. Do that ten more times again and you’re up to 20 billion. Do ten billion ten more times you’ve made it up to 100 billion. Start again…110 billion,…120 billion…. Then you’d have to get to 100 billion ten more times just to get to ONE trillion. Do that one trillion 16 more times and you’re into the neighborhood of our current 17+ trillion of national indebtedness. And that’s just the cold hard credit card bill, not future unfunded liabilities that must somehow get paid as well.
We may as well face facts. The amount of money we are in the hole cannot be paid off. There is no way possible to retire an approaching 20 trillion dollars worth of debt. Even if our children, grand-children and great-grandchildren pay 50% of their income in federal income taxation (which they well may) it would not be enough.
There are neither doors nor windows in this room - and its filling up fast.
This puzzle is unsolvable. How or where it ends I cannot pretend to know. But I do know how it doesn’t end. It doesn’t end with America getting its fiscal house in order, being responsible adults and paying off our debt. That is no longer possible.
**GOODIE BAG CONTEST! READ BELOW FOR DETAILS**
So today I was having an interesting conversation with my boss on American politics.
When we started discussing the Tea Party movement, he dismissed it as an ‘extremist’ faction of the republican party that was doing more harm than good through fracturing the US conservative movement. He also stated that he believes it lacked vision and clarity, leading it to be defined by whatever radical says it is.
When I calmly attempted to educate him on the Tea Party Movement’s focus, which is on restoring individual liberty and fiscal responsibility, as well as ensuring Government’s branches fully cooperated with the provisions set out in the Constitution, he scoffed and dismissed the notion that any Government official would be capable of bypassing the Supreme Court and violating the Constitution.
In other words, he believed that Government was adequetly held to account by the Supreme Court, who would not simply let a violation slip under their cushy, appointed noses.
I’d like to take it to you, my wonderful followers, to help me out in listing the many instances of Constitutional violations and generally unethical behavior set forth by this administration, and whether or not you believe the Supreme Court has been a reliable defender of the Constitution. Please give examples.
I will print out these reasons, and present them to my boss on Tuesday.
Now comes the fun part! When you respond to answer this question through a reblog, you will be entered in to win a fun Canada-themed prize pack full of souvenirs, crafts, and candies from the Great White North.
You have until Tuesday to get your answers in, and I’d love to hear from you!
Winner will be chosen at random. Like this post for an extra ballot!
- Canadian RCMP Shopping/Book Foldaway Tote
- Lucid Dreams Tea from the Algonquin Tea Company
- Bottle of Maple Syrup
- Limited Edition ‘Northern Dreams’ Beany Baby
- Mini Cuddle Bear
- Canadian Flag Bracelet
- Maple Leaf Pens and Pad Set
- Canadian Sunset Notebook
- Copper Keychain
- Iron-On Canada Patch
- Kerr’s Choco and Butter Toffee Moo Moos
- Ste. Julie Quebecois Butter Fudge
- Chocolate Loonies (Dollars)
- Wooden Souvenir Bottle Opener
Good luck, everyone!
Always willing to help school clueless co-workers. Now your request is quite broad so I am just going to give you just about everything that comes to mind.
To begin lets handle the question of whether or not the Supreme Court has been a reliable defender of the constitution. In theory the court should be made up of 9 nonpartisan constitutional originalists, I mean that is their job, to keep the other branches from stepping outside of the constitution as it is written. However in reality we have 9 very partisan judges and only 3 or 4 of them are constitutional originalists. This alone is a pretty good indicator that the SC is no longer a reliable defender of the constitution if only 33% of them really know how to do their job. Even one of the more right leaning judges came out to say the constitution is flawed and in doing so illuminated his own ignorance not only of history but of his own purpose in government. Ginsberg and the other liberal judges are far more interested in legislating from the bench than doing their job. And then you have Chief Justice John Roberts who in a bizarre last minute decision 2 years decided to allow one of the most egregious violations of the constitution, Obamacare. Leaving many to speculate, and I think rightly so, if the historic nature of the law led Roberts to switch sides in order to gain fame and a page in the history books(side note, not gonna happen).
You could write a book on the topic of progressive extra-constitutional rulings by the SC but the bottom line is that they are 9 normal politicians, that is why checks and balances exist to stop them from being too powerful as well. So assuming that they can or would stop all the evil government can conjure up is a falsity in itself. The greatest power to curtail extra-constitutional activity rests with with electorate who control all 3 branches.
Additionally the SC is limited by the way in which they can even provide a ruling. They must have a legitimate case brought up through the court system to their desks. Often times it is difficult to come up with a case with a valid defendant,etc which can make it through the process whether or not a constitutional violation has occurred and some times the damage has already been done. For example, Obama’s illegal recess appointments which were recently struck down by the SC. Their ruling said that Obama had violated the constitution, but in the 2 year interim who knows what could have already been done.
So in summary, the argument that the Supreme Court could keep in check ALL illegal actions by a rouge executive or legislative branch assumes that the SC can even render a ruling on all potential infringements and not only that, but it assumes a court filled with justices who are dead set on upholding the constitution above all other social and prejudicial pressures. Neither of these assumptions are anywhere close to realistic and while the courts do serve an important purpose as a potential check to the other branches, they are just as fallible and corruptible, and so the duty of safeguarding the nation against corruption can no more so be placed solely in their hands than than it can be the executive or legislative branch. In reality it must be a combination of all 3 further held in check by a informed electorate.
On to Obama Administration Sins.
The biggest one of course is Obamacare. I won’t retype the plethora of information about these violations but I will include a good link. There is an abundance of info on the illegality of Obamacare if your coworker needs more. Primarily these center on religious infringement, illegal delays and exemptions. Interesting in this case it the fact that Chief Roberts rewrote Obamacare as a tax which many say is itself unconstitutional so in that case not only did the SC fail to nullify unconstitutional activity but also acted unconstitutionally in its own right.
The Executive Dream act in which Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce current immigration laws and to provide amnesty through the DHS.
The current immigration disaster, which there is evidence to suggest the administration prepared for in order to facilitate.
Here is a piece, strangely enough, from the Washington times which lists a good number of constitutional infractions. And here is another from CATO
- Fast and Furious stonewalling
- The IRS scandal, the IRS chief visited the white house 118 times compared to once during the final 4 bush years. Again, culture of corruption.
- Illegal recess appointments
- Vast number of executive orders, which many would say are fundamentally illegal(no matter who the president is)
- Release of 5 terrorist generals for one deserter, which many claimed to be aiding and abetting the enemy,(The lighter treason)
- Wire taping and surveillance of new organizations
- Pretty much anything Eric Holder has touched as attorney general
- Massive amounts of unrealistic and damaging EPA regulation aimed at destroying the coal industry
- The Green energy slush fund. ex. Solyndra
- NSA data mining/surveillance etc
- Raising the minimum wage for federal workers
- The whole “if congress won’t act, I will” mentality in itself subverts the principles enshrined in the constitution.
- The suing of Arizona to halt their enforcement of immigration laws
I think just about all of these fit under “generally unethical behavior” at the very least, and none of them have been halted by the Supreme Court.
That is about all I had time to throw together on such short notice but I hope that helps.
This is a pretty damn good explanation. I’m glad you got your piece out before I wrote something broadly similar. The only thing I’d add is the historical context behind the judiciary’s role in striking down laws or more conversely, as proudlyconservative stated, changing the laws as what was done with Obamacare. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Charles Jarvis:
"You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties ; but the Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
Basically, Jefferson was warning of too much power of coercion from the SCOTUS over the legislative and executive branches. He believed that Congress was the most powerful of the three branches because it was more in direct touch with the will of the people that have elected them to office. The President’s roles were simply outlined in the Constitution under Article II and while that office has certain privileges of executive orders, these orders have grown more bold in scale and impact. One thing is for certain, the President is supposed to execute the laws, not change them nor choose not to enforce them. He/she certainly cannot write law, only propose it.
The Supreme Court however, cannot do anything about this. As Jefferson stated, they cannot force him to enforce the laws. It must be written in the laws themselves. This is why I believe it is high time we use the powers of the state legislature to make amendments to the Constitution as Mark Levin as suggested in his book The Liberty Amendments. You see, we are watching big government run amok right before our eyes. Electing Constitutionally-minded and driven conservatives and libertarians to office is important, but as we block efforts by Obama, he grows more and more emboldened on taking matters into his own hands through executive actions…and trust me, they are going to use every loophole to their advantage to continue driving their progressive agenda on the country.
Asked by Anonymous
Wow, you are fucking dumb.
President Obama’s got some advice for Republicans in Congress: Help expand opportunity for more Americans.
The numbers never lie. Currently, 352 bills that passed the House are awaiting action on Harry Reid’s desk. Of these bills:
- 98% passed with bipartisan support
- Nearly 70% passed with 2/3rds support or more
- Over 50% passed with no opposition at all
- And 55 were introduced by Democrats
And still, Harry Reid refuses to bring them up for a vote.
See here. Obama is “mad” because, either, his personal pet legislation hasn’t gotten passed or, he just simply needs an excuse to hurl at the House to get his low-information voting bloc fired up. By all accounts and according to most polls, I’m going to say it is the latter; Obama and the dems have a lot at stake this November and stating that it is our Fundraiser-in-Chief who wants to pass all of the good legislation and the GOP are being obstructionist is not only unconstitutional but, not based in reality.