Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

Sorry if this has been posted, but I have another opportunity to crow about being a Washingtonian:

Apparently 1 of only 5 states where white males went for Obama. Which is a good thing, because boy, are we white. Not as white as Oregon though.

Not as white as Vermont.

 

[cooljeanius]

The narrative that cops shouldn't be outgunned by citizens is a good move though.

Except a lot of people

Spoiler

*cough cough* Redditors *cough cough*

think that they actually should be though. Look at all the support that Dorner got.

 

[Black Mamba]

(1) I don't think that's true. If it is, it puts the lie to the states' alleged sovereignty, which means the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution is already defeated.

Confused by this. Didnt you just argue my point after the 1st sentence?

(2) I would love to defeat the purpose of having states and federalism in the constitution.

Completely different topic.

What does any of this have to do with the constitutionality of it though? I don't think the constitution mandates federal to state transfers of money. I understand the practical argument but not the constitutional one. It seems to create a limit out of nowhere

It violates the 10th. If the state has no realistic choice to turn down the funds and th Feds use this to enforce policy it can't do on its own, then it violates the 10th.

I suggest reading South Dakota v dole for the while argument, I don't disagree with it.

 

[jamesinclair]

This should just be common sense. If more places are paying a living wage, there's a chance of attracting more people. Someone might pass up a job flipping burgers at McDonald's for 7.25, but when that's bumped up to a livable wage it becomes more appealing.

But no, anything to keep short-term profits high for CEOs.

Exactly. People forget that minimum wage competes with welfare.

Also for many, the current minimum is below their asking wage.

If I'm unemployed, and you offered me 1 an hour to scrape poo off a wall, I'll say no, even if 1 is higher than zero

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Sorry if this has been posted, but I have another opportunity to crow about being a Washingtonian:


Apparently 1 of only 5 states where white males went for Obama. Which is a good thing, because boy, are we white. Not as white as Oregon though.

Now that's pretty interesting, I would not have guessed that. I'd be curious as to how close the margin was, considering the data on Steve Gonzalez's recent 're-election' of sorts to the State Supreme Court (he was previously appointed to replace a retiring justice). His opponent, Bruce Danielson, did zero campaigning or fundraising, was essentially unknown and assuredly unqualified, but still managed to capture 42% of the vote simply by getting his name on the ballot and nothing more. Obviously that effect was disproportionately weighted in Eastern Washington but it's still disappointing.

All indications are that federalism retards progress and needlessly complicates what would otherwise be simple solutions to obvious problems. There is something to be said for marginally inefficient and unresponsive government. There is little to be said in favor of dreadfully inefficient and unresponsive government. Federalism (at least our version of it) accomplishes the latter. It may have had a place in an 18th century world. It doesn't have much of one in the 21st century.

I feel like the founding fathers would have been pretty proud of themselves if they were alive to witness our political gridlock. They pretty much designed the whole system to be broken due to their political fears about centralized power and authority. A dysfunctional national government that was forced to concede to the states would have been ideal. But I feel even they understood that conception of government was necessarily limited to a certain time and place. They would be equally disappointed that their system has remained so static for hundreds of years.

Exactly. People forget that minimum wage competes with welfare.

Also for many, the current minimum is below their asking wage.

If I'm unemployed, and you offered me 1 an hour to scrape poo off a wall, I'll say no, even if 1 is higher than zero

I find it interesting that most of the conservative arguments against raising the minimum wage are actually arguments against having a minimum wage at all. They're not arguing that the minimum wage is most effective at X level (an analysis made difficult by variations among states), but instead it's this general language about free market principles and how the government forcing businesses to do this will destroy economic production as a general matter. But if that's starting point, shouldn't we lower the minimum wage or abolish it to increase economic production and employment?

 

[Gotchaye]

I find it interesting that most of the conservative arguments against raising the minimum wage are actually arguments against having a minimum wage in the first place. They're not arguing that the minimum wage is most effective at X level (an analysis made difficult by variations among states), but instead it's this general language about free market principles and how the government forcing businesses to do this will destroy economic production as a general matter. But if that's starting point, shouldn't we lower the minimum wage or abolish it to increase economic production and employment?

Of course they think that. I'm surprised you haven't heard them arguing for this. That said, they don't object too strongly to a very low minimum wage because it probably would be difficult to find people willing to work for $3/hr, at least given the rest of the welfare state. So cutting food stamps and the like takes priority.

 

[Thai]

MARCO RUBIO’S WATER-BOTTLE MOMENT - The New Yorker

I'm in tears.

man, even just reading descriptions of it is funny. Every time I read a new way of wording what happened, I bust out laughing.

 

[Chichikov]

So The Soup (yeah, I watch The Soup, what of it? want to fight? I'll take you all!) was one giant Rubio joke today.
The Soup.
Yeah, this is definitely getting outside the beltway traction.

 

[B-Dubs]

So The Soup (yeah, I watch The Soup, what of it? want to fight? I'll take you all!) was one giant Rubio joke today.
The Soup.
Yeah, this is definitely getting outside the beltway traction.

They had a whole segment on Nightly News of Brian Williams feeling sorry for Rubio.

 

[Tim-E]

The stress from the media response to his speech today through the Sunday talk shows will result in Rubio being bald by Monday.

 

[Black Mamba]

Rubio - we are not the party of the rich.

Boehner - don't raise minimum wage.

Clown shoes!


I do agree with boehner. Get rid of it and increase the EITC.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Of course they think that. I'm surprised you haven't heard them arguing for this. That said, they don't object too strongly to a very low minimum wage because it probably would be difficult to find people willing to work for $3/hr, at least given the rest of the welfare state. So cutting food stamps and the like takes priority.

I guess I meant more in terms of mainstream Republican policy messaging on the minimum wage. I can't imagine people like Rubio or Boehner coming out and saying they think the minimum wage should be abolished, but I can see them saying that raising it hurts economic growth and causes unemployment. Even though the obvious corollary of such a statement is that lowering or abolishing it would cause economic growth and employment, they can avoid explicitly endorsing that approach. They get the benefit of opposing a raise without the harm of supporting an abolishment.

 

[Black Mamba]

Thinking about it rubio's emotional appeal was silly.

Rubio - I'm not for the rich. Why some of my neighbors are middle class and take welfare.

Sounds like:

Hey guys I'm not racist. I have a black friend I swear!

 

[Zee-Row]

Did anybody see how much Rubio's "Middle class" house he gre up in is worth?

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...nt/tour-marco-rubio-675000-working-class-home


$675,000

 

[B-Dubs]

Did anybody see how much Rubio's "Middle class" house he gre up in is worth?

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...nt/tour-marco-rubio-675000-working-class-home


$675,000

Geeze, even at the height of the Housing Bubble my folk's place wasn't work this much...

 

[Fenderputty]

Did anybody see how much Rubio's "Middle class" house he gre up in is worth?

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...nt/tour-marco-rubio-675000-working-class-home


$675,000

My father has worked as a union electrician his whole life. I grew up in a very similar house and value. Maybe it's upper middle class, but the price of their home isn't out of the question for a working class family. Granted my father built the house and made smart property investments, but it entirely possible. My uncle has done the same as a union electrician.

 

[Piecake]

Rubio - we are not the party of the rich.

Boehner - don't raise minimum wage.

Clown shoes!


I do agree with boehner. Get rid of it and increase the EITC.

increasing the EITC seems much more effective. I would personally like to see the single with no kids EITC get increased.

As for the federalism argument, I generally support it, but would love to see if the federal govt banned states from charging corporate taxes and offering incentives to businesses. States shouldnt be competing with other states for jobs and businesses when no job on a national level is being created, its just moving from one state to another. The taxpayer loses and business wins. It just seems incredibly stupid when that money can be better put towards education or health care or something.

My father has worked as a union electrician his whole life. I grew up in a very similar house and value. Maybe it's upper middle class, but the price of their home isn't out of the question for a working class family. Granted my father built the house and made smart property investments, but it entirely possible. My uncle has done the same as a union electrician.

I think most people associate 'working class' with blue collar and generally lower middle class. That is definitely upper middle

 

[adamsappel]

States can't compete.

Congress takes in 20% of GDP historically via taxes (lower now though). Since states cannot print their own money, states have to tax to spend (they can borrow short term but eventually would default).

But states cannot raise enough revenues to cover what the feds pay for. I mean, they could, but everyone would be out of a job quickly The fact that the federal gov't controls most taxes the way it does, makes it not realistically feasible in today's world for the States to say "thank but no thanks" if the US gov't imposed regulations on anything it wanted conditional to all spending.

The states really have no choice. It's either accept the money or get rid of transportation, education, etc or a massive scaling back.

This is why I don't understand scale-back-the-feds types. Isn't that just asking for your state taxes to massively increase?

 

[empty vessel]

Confused by this. Didnt you just argue my point after the 1st sentence?

I don't think so, although I agree my post wasn't clear. My point was that your first sentence presumes that states are incapable of resisting bribes, which is inconsistent with and effectively a negation of sovereignty. But if states already are not sovereign, then why should we be cared about preserving having states and federalism in the constitution?

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't think so, although I agree my post wasn't clear. My point was that your first sentence presumes that states are incapable of resisting bribes, which is inconsistent with and effectively a negation of sovereignty. But if states already are not sovereign, then why should we be cared about preserving having states and federalism in the constitution?

But that is my point. If the Feds are allowed to bribe then then it violates the states' ability to be sovereign.

I guess I get your argument being made but this type of sovereignty isn't full autonomy. Instead it's a right granted by the constitution that states will be so design in these realms. It's intentionally not self-sustained.

Why we should care that states are sovereign in these areas is another discussion. What matters is that our govt was set up to make it so and this violates it.

Edit: to be more clear states are not sovereign. However, there are realms of law to which they have sovereignty.

 

[Fenderputty]

I think most people associate 'working class' with blue collar and generally lower middle class. That is definitely upper middle

What part of union electrician doesn't sound blue collar?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Geeze, even at the height of the Housing Bubble my folk's place wasn't work this much...

I live in Los Angeles and that seems like a normal price to me. I wouldn't call it "working class" though. Definitely middle.
Average price in my neighborhood is like $375,000.

 

[Oblivion]

Universal pre-school. Marx has to be burning with jealousy.

And yes, that's not a typo, it's David Limbaugh, brother of the other, more famous Limbaugh.

 

[Black Mamba]

I live in Los Angeles and that seems like a normal price to me. I wouldn't call it "working class" though. Definitely middle.
Average price in my neighborhood is like $375,000.

Median in la is around $300k. Miami is $200k.

Rubio at $600k is most certainly not in an regular middle class home.

 

[Piecake]

What part of union electrician doesn't sound blue collar?

a 700k house

 

[bomma_man]

And yes, that's not a typo, it's David Limbaugh, brother of the other, more famous Limbaugh.

What does that even mean. Sounds like something from a conservative talking point generator.

Edit: on the subject of federalism, ours here in Australia is nothing more than an illusion at this point. The fiscal imbalance is so large (states are unable to collect income or sales taxes) that even John Howard, basically our Reagan, supported the dismantling of the states, or at least some kind of reform. Problem being, of course, that our constitution is even harder to change than yours.

Interestingly, the situation was predicted with unnerving accuracy by one of our founding fathers.

 

[Fenderputty]

a 700k house

Live better ... Work union.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't understand the point of this. We have non-whites, they vote. Why are we talking about hypothetical that haven't been valid for 150 years. I understand highlighting the fact that white men went for Romney but this hypothetical "if only white men voted" seems silly.

That is not what it is about. It is just about seeing how a particular demographic voted.

And it pisses me off to see so many white men voting against Obama. I'd like to know what it is . . . is it racism? Is it religion? It just pisses me off to see them all vote AGAINST SCIENCE.

 

[Aaron Strife]

That is not what it is about. It is just about seeing how a particular demographic voted.

And it pisses me off to see so many white men voting against Obama. I'd like to know what it is . . . is it racism? Is it religion? It just pisses me off to see them all vote AGAINST SCIENCE.

Identity politics. It's not necessarily that Obama's black, although he plays into that, but also Democrats typically support women's rights, gay rights, affirmative action, etc. All of which goes against "White man rules the world."

 

[soul creator]

Obama should pass a law to divert funding from PBS to a new White Entertainment Television channel. Maybe he can finally bring an end to this anti-white tyranny.

They say only Nixon could go to China...maybe only Obama could go to Idaho

 

[speculawyer]

Clown.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Clown.

Republicans sure has mastered the art of wasting campaign donations

 

[Gotchaye]

That is not what it is about. It is just about seeing how a particular demographic voted.

And it pisses me off to see so many white men voting against Obama. I'd like to know what it is . . . is it racism? Is it religion? It just pisses me off to see them all vote AGAINST SCIENCE.

Cyan's graph is important. It's not that white men voted for the Republican in 2012. It's that white people, and white men in particular, have been becoming more and more Republican relative to the rest of the population since the 60s and specifically the '64 Civil Rights Act.

It's about lots of things, but, yes, mostly race. The modern Republican party organized around Nixon as, essentially, the party of racism. They made a conscious effort to snatch the racist vote from the Democrats. The Religious Right had its start opposing civil rights. When outright opposition to civil rights became embarrassing, Reagan's "welfare queens" became the party's new punching bag. Business interests took advantage of racism to forge a constituency for shrinking government. Arguments for states' rights and against government spending began as explicitly racist, but once people were committed to those ideas they stuck with them even after abandoning self-consciously racism. "Small government" became an end in itself, and that gave rise to "starve the beast", linking lowering taxes to getting rid of the hated spending.

And that's been playing out ever since. Obvious racism gives way to less and less obvious racism which gives way to purely economic issues, and eventually you have deep racial divisions on issues that on face don't look like racial issues at all. White people are all for tax cuts and small government because they were for states' rights and against welfare, and they were for states' rights and against welfare because they were against integration.

Or, from the famous Atwater interview:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

 

[speculawyer]

a 700k house

There is a big difference between the baby-boomer generation and later generations. Many baby-boomers got middle-class jobs and bought houses for $30K which later ended up being worth $500K or $600K if you were in the right place. But home prices are just not doing that any more because the economy isn't growing like it did back then. You need lots of good economic & job growth for the prices of homes to rise. Flat economy = flat home prices

 

[zero shift]

My professor today stated in class that the reason used car prices are so ridiculously high is due to the Cash for Clunkers program the government enforced in which made used car part incredibly rare. How true is this? I always thought that it was solely due to the recession.

Sorry if this has been posted, but I have another opportunity to crow about being a Washingtonian:

Apparently 1 of only 5 states where white males went for Obama. Which is a good thing, because boy, are we white. Not as white as Oregon though.

I'd be interested in seeing a chart with white people in general. The parties truly are divided by race.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

There is a big difference between the baby-boomer generation and later generations. Many baby-boomers got middle-class jobs and bought houses for $30K which later ended up being worth $500K or $600K if you were in the right place. But home prices are just not doing that any more because the economy isn't growing like it did back then. You need lots of good economic & job growth for the prices of homes to rise. Flat economy = flat home prices

Yup which is the case for a lot of my friend's parents. They bought houses on the cheap in the '80's and now are worth that amount. Also, I hate that home ownership is still being stressed as a financial goal. Seems like a few of the lessons we should have learned from the Great Recession are being ignored. It also seems that predatory refinance agencies are ramping up their advertising again.

 

[jamesinclair]

My professor today stated in class that the reason used car prices are so ridiculously high is due to the Cash for Clunkers program the government enforced in which made used car part incredibly rare. How true is this? I always thought that it was solely due to the recession.
.

Its true, yeah.

Program was a massive transfer of wealth away from the poor, like many washington programs.

The $1,500 beater that your average poor buys? Destroyed and turned into a Rav4 for Miss upper-middle class.

So Mr poor now needs to buy a $6,000 car or is shit out of luck.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Also, the natural disasters didn't help. You can't sell a car that has been flooded.

 

[zero shift]

Yup which is the case for a lot of my friend's parents. They bought houses on the cheap in the '80's and now are worth that amount.

This is how so many American citizens moved up to the middle class. Once the economic boom was over their was scraps left for the south east asians, blacks, latinos.

Also, I hate that home ownership is still being stressed as a financial goal. Seems like a few of the lessons we should have learned from the Great Recession are being ignored. It also seems that predatory refinance agencies are ramping up their advertising again.

Home ownership and (4 year degree) college are going to be painful lessons for the Millennial Generation.

Its true, yeah.

Program was a massive transfer of wealth away from the poor, like many washington programs.

The $1,500 beater that your average poor buys? Destroyed and turned into a Rav4 for Miss upper-middle class.

So Mr poor now needs to buy a $6,000 car or is shit out of luck.

...who the FUCK proposed this idea?

 

[Black Mamba]

Cyan's graph is important. It's not that white men voted for the Republican in 2012. It's that white people, and white men in particular, have been becoming more and more Republican relative to the rest of the population since the 60s and specifically the '64 Civil Rights Act.

It's about lots of things, but, yes, mostly race. The modern Republican party organized around Nixon as, essentially, the party of racism. They made a conscious effort to snatch the racist vote from the Democrats. The Religious Right had its start opposing civil rights. When outright opposition to civil rights became embarrassing, Reagan's "welfare queens" became the party's new punching bag. Business interests took advantage of racism to forge a constituency for shrinking government. Arguments for states' rights and against government spending began as explicitly racist, but once people were committed to those ideas they stuck with them even after abandoning self-consciously racism. "Small government" became an end in itself, and that gave rise to "starve the beast", linking lowering taxes to getting rid of the hated spending.

And that's been playing out ever since. Obvious racism gives way to less and less obvious racism which gives way to purely economic issues, and eventually you have deep racial divisions on issues that on face don't look like racial issues at all. White people are all for tax cuts and small government because they were for states' rights and against welfare, and they were for states' rights and against welfare because they were against integration.

Or, from the famous Atwater interview:

I think what's important to note is not that white men are becoming more conservative but rather that elderly over 70 white men are becoming more conservative, almost entirely on the backs of social issues. There isn't much movement anywhere else (or in fact may be more liberal).

The vast majority of Americans who are 65 and older are members of the Silent generation (ages 66 to 83). They came of age in the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy years. Silents favored the Democrats at times during the 1990s, but in recent elections have strongly supported the Republicans. While they aligned more with the Democrats in the 1990s, they have become much more Republican in recent years. The Silent generation “replaced” the Greatest generation, who were more reliable Democratic voters when they constituted the bulk of the senior vote.

Silents increasingly call themselves conservative and they hold the most consistently conservative views about government, social issues and America’s place in the world. Unlike other generations that in recent years have become more supportive of smaller government, they have held conservative views about government for years.

Today, an overwhelming majority of Silents are either angry or frustrated with government. They are the generation that is most strongly disapproving of Barack Obama, for whom a majority did not vote. Silents also are the most politically energized generation, as they demonstrated in the 2010 midterms.

More often than the younger generations, Silents take the American exceptionalist view that the United States is the greatest nation in the world. But fewer older people than young people think that “America’s best days are ahead of us.”

The political discontent of the Silent generation is not economically based. A greater proportion of Silents than younger people say they are financially satisfied, and Silents are less likely to say they often do not have enough money to make ends meet.

Race is a factor in their political attitudes. Silents are the whitest of the generations and are the least accepting of the new face of America. Compared with younger generations, relatively few Silents see racial intermarriage and the growing population of immigrants as changes for the better.

Which is bad news for the GOP because they're dying and liberal youth replace them. Plus, people don't tend to become more conservative as they get older (as some believe). So keep on moving to the right GOP!

There is a big difference between the baby-boomer generation and later generations. Many baby-boomers got middle-class jobs and bought houses for $30K which later ended up being worth $500K or $600K if you were in the right place. But home prices are just not doing that any more because the economy isn't growing like it did back then. You need lots of good economic & job growth for the prices of homes to rise. Flat economy = flat home prices

Did you miss the 2000s?

 

[SouthernDragon]

Uh, harder to find parts would make the car cheaper, not more expensive.

 

[Link]

I think what's important to note is not that white men are becoming more conservative but rather that elderly over 70 white men are becoming more conservative, almost entirely on the backs of social issues. There isn't much movement anywhere else (or in fact may be more liberal).

Which is bad news for the GOP because they're dying and liberal youth replace them. Plus, people don't tend to become more conservative as they get older (as some believe). So keep on moving to the right GOP!




Did you miss the 2000s?

Silence shall fall.

Spoiler

http://reprog.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/doctor-who-spoilers-silence-431x300.jpg

 

[Diablos]

Clown.

hahahahaha

 

[jamesinclair]

...who the FUCK proposed this idea?

I honestly dont remember. Probably the same people who proposed a gas tax holiday?

Uh, harder to find parts would make the car cheaper, not more expensive.

Would it?

A car is built of parts....so if parts go up (rare), value of car goes up as well?

 

[jamesinclair]

Sometimes you wonder how big the US banana crop is.

Florida’s Department of Transportation Secretary Ananth Prasad was ticketed on a Tallahassee for doing 44 in a 35. A short time later, DOT commenced a study of road conditions and decided to raise the speed limit to 45.

For more than two decades, the speed limit on Thomasville Road in Tallahassee, which connects the state capitol with the city’s affluent neighborhoods and Interstate Ten was posted at 35 miles per hour.

The city complained, saying the higher limit went against their efforts to create a walkable environment. Prasad prevailed the road is now posted at 45.

http://www.flanews.com/?p=17312

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Uh, harder to find parts would make the car cheaper, not more expensive.

Yes, but I think js is saying that since the program effectively euthanized all the older, cheaper cars on the market, the average price of used cars had to go up.

And if you own an old car that had a lot of it's siblings destroyed under this program, well then you better drive it like Morgan Freeman since breaking a crucial part may require you to replace the whole car.

It makes more sense to put tighter efficiency standards immediately on new cars and let the rest of the market eventually catch up. Because of the huge amount of deflation of new cars, this is one market that actually follows trickle down economics.

 

[speculawyer]

My professor today stated in class that the reason used car prices are so ridiculously high is due to the Cash for Clunkers program the government enforced in which made used car part incredibly rare. How true is this? I always thought that it was solely due to the recession.

You are completely correct. Your professor sounds like a partisan ideologue. The economics profession barely ranks above theology. Want to know the answer to an economic issue? Ask 3 different economists and you'll get 5 different answers.

The cash for clunkers program was not large enough to have any noticeable affect on the used car market. I suspect the guy just hates Obama and will shit on anything Obama did even if it was something he would have agreed with if some other person did it.

There were 690,114 cars turned in for cash-for-clunkers. There are like 40 million used cars sold each year. So that's like 1.7% of the used car market.

Its true, yeah.
Program was a massive transfer of wealth away from the poor, like many washington programs.
The $1,500 beater that your average poor buys? Destroyed and turned into a Rav4 for Miss upper-middle class.
So Mr poor now needs to buy a $6,000 car or is shit out of luck.

Bullshit.

Used cars are more expensive because with a bad economy, families can't afford new ones. People are holding on their old cars and not buying new cars. Supply & demand takes over.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...rices-will-stay-high-for-years/1#.URyeUaXOF8E

And that is one of the reasons why they had a cash for clunkers program. To get people to buy new cars. Yes, they destroyed the old cars. They destroyed them by destroying the engine block but the rest of the car could be used for spare parts. Your professor is retarded or a liar.

 

[Gotchaye]

Which is bad news for the GOP because they're dying and liberal youth replace them. Plus, people don't tend to become more conservative as they get older (as some believe). So keep on moving to the right GOP!

Even here it's less that they're being replaced by young people and more that they're being replaced by non-white (or Hispanic) people. Romney polled more or less even with Obama among white millenials, and I'm seeing one claim that white millenials went for Romney 52-44. That's better than Obama did among old white people, but not by a whole lot, and I have to wonder what looking at just white male millenials would show. One would expect the white gender gap to be largest among young people most likely to be bothered by the Akins out there.

Edit: I see Pew claiming young white men went for Romney 54-41, whereas young white women basically split evenly (49-48).

 

[Black Mamba]

You are completely correct. Your professor sounds like a partisan ideologue. The economics profession barely ranks above theology. Want to know the answer to an economic issue? Ask 3 different economists and you'll get 5 different answers.

The cash for clunkers program was not large enough to have any noticeable affect on the used car market. I suspect the guy just hates Obama and will shit on anything Obama did even if it was something he would have agreed with if some other person did it.

There were 690,114 cars turned in for cash-for-clunkers. There are like 40 million used cars sold each year. So that's like 1.7% of the used car market.

Your professor is retarded.


Bullshit.

You assume it's an economic professor and not something else!

Got a source for the 40 million used cars sold each year? In a country of 310 million (with a lot incapable of driving) that figure seems pretty high. I know it's like 6 million new cars sold per year.

Even here it's less that they're being replaced by young people and more that they're being replaced by non-white (or Hispanic) people. Romney polled more or less even with Obama among white millenials, and I'm seeing one claim that white millenials went for Romney 52-44. That's better than Obama did among old white people, but not by a whole lot, and I have to wonder what looking at just white male millenials would show. One would expect the white gender gap to be largest among young people.

You have to understand that Romney basically got the same vote as McCain (adjusted for population growth) with a slight bump. Obama, however, lost votes. a bunch of white voters stayed home, especially male, who voted for him last time. Not because of race or social issues but because they are upset with the economy and gov't. But these people are still democrat leaners when push come to shove and will be in the future.

If Obama won white millenials 53-47 last time, but 12 out of every 100 are upset this time and stayed home, then Romney wins 53-47 even if he didn't pick up a single vote.

This matters for elections of course but not the demographics going forward.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

It's about 8 million new cars per year in the US.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

Certified used is like 2 million.