Gavin McInnis on Baby Boomers

[Warren Dew]

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's always amusing when a leftist uses the word "fact".  The word doesn't mean what they think it means.

In fact, inflation adjusted income, after being moribund in the 1970s, grew strongly under Reagan, retrenched for a few years under Bush's anti-Reagan economic policies, as I mentioned, and grew again under Clinton/Gingrich when Reagan style economic policies were continued.

Only for the rich. You obviously did not watch the videos I posted.

If you actually looked at the graph, it was about the median income - income of the people at the middle of the income scale.  Oh, but I forgot, the left considers everyone who isn't in poverty to be "the rich".

As for videos, videos are for people who can't read.

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:(Warren)
The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back.  Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.

(me)
"We’ll note that losses from automaker loans were expected to be higher, and the action taken by the Obama administration resulted in GM and Chrysler paying back the bulk of their loans." This site concludes that the car companies paid back at least most of the Obama loans, but not those made earlier under Bush.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...loans-it-/

Quote:(Warren)
You may not be aware of it, but equity and loans are not the same thing.  The loans got paid back; the equity - that is, the shares the government bought - plummeted in value and were sold for a 10 billion dollar overall loss.

You provided no source for this, and there was nothing about this in the article I linked.

Sorry, here's a source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-...WL20131029

"U.S. reports $9.7 billion loss on General Motors bailout"

No surprise that The New York Times distorts the numbers by omitting the losses from loans that were converted to equity.

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wonder why they call it the "Detroit rescue" though. I don't think there's much if any of the auto industry left in Detroit.

You got that right.

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:As for "green", the Obama administration changed EPA mileage rules to encourage the production and purchase of large passenger vehicles by allowing them to guzzle more fuel than smaller vehicles, a perverse incentive that not even the Bush administration managed to put into effect, perhaps because Obama thought, incorrectly, that that would save his investment in Government Motors.

I don't think large trucks are such a major part of production. All the other vehicles are regulated according to their carbon footprint.
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regula...f10014.pdf

You consider the Jeep Cherokee to be a "large truck"?  It's everyday SUVs like that that are, under the Obama rules, permitted to guzzle twice as much gas as small sedans.  Or maybe you missed the part where "regulated according to their carbon footprint" meant vehicles with a larger carbon footprint are allowed to guzzle more gas - specifically, proportional to length and width with an extra factor of 1.5 for SUVs.