Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   In the never-ending quest by the government to encourage everyone to buy new stuff, comes "Cash for Appliances". Finally, subby can trade up for a new beer fridge   (cbsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, cash for clunkers, state governments, federal government, Council of Economic Advisers, trade, gadgets, stimulus programs, federal programs  
•       •       •

7469 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2009 at 2:44 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-11-28 10:18:46 AM  
17% unemployment and we're going to spend money so that everyone can get a new toaster oven.

yeah. great move.
 
2009-11-28 10:29:06 AM  
Is a Fleshlight categorized as an appliance?
 
2009-11-28 10:42:29 AM  

Weaver95: 17% unemployment and we're going to spend money so that everyone can get a new toaster oven.

yeah. great move.


Last I heard unemployment was 10.2%. (still shiatty but not 17%) Did something happen?
 
2009-11-28 11:00:41 AM  

DeCypher44: Is a Fleshlight categorized as an appliance?


As long as the new one is Energy Star rated.
 
2009-11-28 11:18:22 AM  

Gwendolyn: Last I heard unemployment was 10.2%. (still shiatty but not 17%) Did something happen?


The 17.5% of the more comprehensive U-6 that counts discouraged and underemployed workers is the real unemployment number. The 10.2% U-3 rate only counts people actively searching for work. In the past and during the Great Depression we used the U-6 number. Thus how we got 25% unemployment during the Great Depression.

Nowadays the gov likes using the U-3 because it makes things seem better than they really are. They also change how the statistics are calculated every decade or so to make direct comparisons difficult.
 
2009-11-28 11:24:23 AM  
hmmmm, beer fridge. Makes me think of THIS for some odd reason. (pops)
 
2009-11-28 11:52:44 AM  

Crosshair: Gwendolyn: Last I heard unemployment was 10.2%. (still shiatty but not 17%) Did something happen?

The 17.5% of the more comprehensive U-6 that counts discouraged and underemployed workers is the real unemployment number. The 10.2% U-3 rate only counts people actively searching for work. In the past and during the Great Depression we used the U-6 number. Thus how we got 25% unemployment during the Great Depression.

Nowadays the gov likes using the U-3 because it makes things seem better than they really are. They also change how the statistics are calculated every decade or so to make direct comparisons difficult.


ah. thanks. I knew there were different numbers; I just didn't know the 10.2% was the low one.
 
2009-11-28 11:54:42 AM  
A survey of some of the largest states shows that California is planning to begin its program in March, New York in February, Pennsylvania in the spring, Illinois in January and April.

So, Illinois gets to begin its program TWICE?

Meanwhile, the price signaling is going to kill off appliance sales for 1Q10. Heckuva job there, Lou.
 
2009-11-28 11:58:22 AM  

Crosshair: Gwendolyn: Last I heard unemployment was 10.2%. (still shiatty but not 17%) Did something happen?

The 17.5% of the more comprehensive U-6 that counts discouraged and underemployed workers is the real unemployment number. The 10.2% U-3 rate only counts people actively searching for work. In the past and during the Great Depression we used the U-6 number. Thus how we got 25% unemployment during the Great Depression.

Nowadays the gov likes using the U-3 because it makes things seem better than they really are. They also change how the statistics are calculated every decade or so to make direct comparisons difficult.


Yeah... nowadays. Like this is some new development, Obama's sneaky little accounting sleight of hand to make himself look better. Yeah... nowadays.

So, because there's a high unemployment rate, we should instead use this money to give people jobs?
 
2009-11-28 12:40:16 PM  
Because the last one totally didn't blow up in our faces and was totally prompt and reasonable with their payment to car dealers.
 
2009-11-28 12:45:21 PM  

Barakku: Because the last one totally didn't blow up in our faces and was totally prompt and reasonable with their payment to car dealers.


Those complaints were never very proved to be anything except occasional problems, not widespread. And the complaints stopped very quickly.
 
2009-11-28 12:46:01 PM  
Oh yeah, and this one appears to be on the states to allocate funds, not the federal government itself.
 
2009-11-28 12:51:15 PM  

Gwendolyn: ah. thanks. I knew there were different numbers; I just didn't know the 10.2% was the low one.


A lot of people don't want to recognize the 17% number. Even as desperate as the Republicans are, they don't like to talk about how deep in the hole we've gotten.

Here's another thing - we've also had a lot of people lose their bigger paying jobs and take one or two lower paying jobs in order to make ends meet. Someone goes from making 75k a year to 30k a year, that is a LOT of lost payroll taxes. If that wasn't a common occurance, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's happening far too often these days, and payroll taxes are how the government gets a lot of it's operating budget.

the worst part? I don't see corporations bringing those lost jobs back to this country any time soon. I think we're stuck with a lot less of a tax base for the near future. Oh - and forget about 'taxing the rich'. they just move their money out of the country and adjust a few things to dodge the bulk of whatever feel good taxes get sent their way.
 
2009-11-28 12:52:57 PM  

Weaver95: A lot of people don't want to recognize the 17% number. Even as desperate as the Republicans are, they don't like to talk about how deep in the hole we've gotten.


It only means anything if you compare the good times with that number to bad times now with it. It was probably around what, 10%, when unemployment was low? It's just another number, and numbers don't exist in a vacuum. Give them a comparison.
 
2009-11-28 01:04:47 PM  

Weaver95: the worst part? I don't see corporations bringing those lost jobs back to this country any time soon. I think we're stuck with a lot less of a tax base for the near future. Oh - and forget about 'taxing the rich'. they just move their money out of the country and adjust a few things to dodge the bulk of whatever feel good taxes get sent their way


I see corporations moving away from having any staff except bare-bones administration and officers, converting the rest of the workforce to contract positions.

If there are going to be healthcare mandates for employers with over X number on payroll, the object will be to reduce charges. The easiest way to do this would be paying for contract positions and letting the workers be on someone else's payroll.

Benefits to the corporation are enormous: not only do they exempt themselves from health insurance benefit payments, they can also reduce their payroll department, HR, and 401-k plan administrators. Plus, the contractors would carry their own workers' comp and liability insurance, so that's another bill that wouldn't be paid by the corporations. Yes, it'll be rolled up into the contractors' invoicing, but it's then just an operating expense instead of overhead.
 
2009-11-28 01:23:59 PM  

Weaver95: the worst part? I don't see corporations bringing those lost jobs back to this country any time soon. I think we're stuck with a lot less of a tax base for the near future. Oh - and forget about 'taxing the rich'. they just move their money out of the country and adjust a few things to dodge the bulk of whatever feel good taxes get sent their way.


There are ways to fix that, but no one in congress has the balls to propose them.
 
2009-11-28 01:25:59 PM  

Eyebleach: There are ways to fix that, but no one in congress has the balls to propose them.


No, they're too busy getting ready to spend money we don't have to get people new kitchen appliances. Oh, and on health care too. Can't forget that one either.
 
2009-11-28 01:27:30 PM  

Weaver95: No, they're too busy getting ready to spend money we don't have to get people new kitchen appliances. Oh, and on health care too. Can't forget that one either.


GLOOM! DOOM! Your anger at spending is directly proportional to how much of it is spent to help the American people. The more spent at home, the more gloom you predict.
 
2009-11-28 01:28:32 PM  
Oh, and I'd still like to see that unemployment data from the lowest levels of unemployment Weaver. I don't care where you find the comparison from, Bush or Clinton years.
 
2009-11-28 01:29:38 PM  

GAT_00: GLOOM! DOOM! Your anger at spending is directly proportional to how much of it is spent to help the American people. The more spent at home, the more gloom you predict.


No, i'm saying that we really need to stop spending money we don't have. That's what got us into this mess in the first place, remember?
 
2009-11-28 02:09:03 PM  

Weaver95: No, i'm saying that we really need to stop spending money we don't have. That's what got us into this mess in the first place, remember?


So I'm guessing you don't have any comparison unemployment data, by your failure to provide it.
 
2009-11-28 02:14:58 PM  

GAT_00: Weaver95: No, i'm saying that we really need to stop spending money we don't have. That's what got us into this mess in the first place, remember?

So I'm guessing you don't have any comparison unemployment data, by your failure to provide it.


There is this absolutely wonderful thing on the internet called 'google'. you should learn to use it.
 
2009-11-28 02:35:14 PM  

Weaver95: There is this absolutely wonderful thing on the internet called 'google'. you should learn to use it.


Hey, it's your data. You call on people not citing things, but you don't cite your own data. And you're citing the seasonally adjusted for the highest number possible, but that number doesn't make sense because it has suddenly disconnected from the falling normal U-6 unemployment rate, which you conveniently don't mention. Odd that, you skewing numbers to what you want them to mean, and then not mentioning your source. Clearly, not dishonest at all.
 
2009-11-28 02:38:10 PM  

GAT_00: [wharblegarble]


You want to find some flaw in the unemployment data pointing out the fact that our economy is in the crapper, but you can't be bothered to do your own research.

Meh.
 
2009-11-28 02:47:40 PM  
Are you farking kidding me? fark this shiat.
 
2009-11-28 02:48:21 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: [wharblegarble]

You want to find some flaw in the unemployment data pointing out the fact that our economy is in the crapper, but you can't be bothered to do your own research.

Meh.


One, spell wharrgarbl right. Two, I clearly did do some research because how would I have known which U-6 data you were citing? Or known that the U-6 number is dropping?
 
2009-11-28 02:49:00 PM  
Supported by $300 million from the economic stimuluspocket of everyone who pays taxes, the program will offer rebates to consumers who buy energy-efficient refrigerators, dishwashers, air conditioners and other appliances to replace their older models.

FTFY (where Y=TFA)
 
2009-11-28 02:49:58 PM  
This plan is just one massive payout to China.
 
2009-11-28 02:50:11 PM  
I buy my appliances, when possible, at goodwill.

I got a great deal on a Belgian Waffle maker.
 
2009-11-28 02:51:40 PM  
Yeah, just great.

Steal money from those of us who are still working, redistribute it to others via subsidized appliances. It is still theft, it is still socialism and it still sucks.

I'll by my OWN appliances, thanks.
 
2009-11-28 02:53:04 PM  
It's disgusting that they try to play the 'environmentalist' card with these plans.
 
2009-11-28 02:53:07 PM  
The budget is limitless, limitless I tells ya !
 
2009-11-28 02:53:31 PM  

Crosshair: Gwendolyn: Last I heard unemployment was 10.2%. (still shiatty but not 17%) Did something happen?

The 17.5% of the more comprehensive U-6 that counts discouraged and underemployed workers is the real unemployment number. The 10.2% U-3 rate only counts people actively searching for work. In the past and during the Great Depression we used the U-6 number. Thus how we got 25% unemployment during the Great Depression.


I don't think I ever heard, EVER, this higher U-6 number used by anyone during the Bush administration. Media or government.

Now I hear it all the time. From all sorts of sources.

Why is that?
 
2009-11-28 02:53:55 PM  
Speaking as someone who recently took taxpayer money via the housing credit, I look forward to taking more of it to upgrade the old appliances in my new place. Thanks everyone!
 
2009-11-28 02:54:47 PM  

Ishkur: I don't think I ever heard, EVER, this higher U-6 number used by anyone during the Bush administration. Media or government.

Now I hear it all the time. From all sorts of sources.

Why is that?


Because it's based in reality, whereas bushco kind of avoided it.
 
2009-11-28 02:58:30 PM  

Ishkur: Why is that?


It's higher.
 
2009-11-28 03:00:39 PM  
Just remember, we owe something like $800 billion to China, and no, they won't let us make payments in clunkers and appliances.
 
2009-11-28 03:00:40 PM  

clueyee: hmmmm, beer fridge. Makes me think of THIS for some odd reason. (pops)


What, doesn't everyone have their own beer fridge??

hphotos-snc1.fbcdn.net
 
2009-11-28 03:03:03 PM  
Many states have been subsidizing the removal of old appliances and their replacement with more efficient ones. For example, they used to give a person $50 and free removal of a freon-based refrigerator. Of course the Montreal Protocols were just a commie plot to drain western wealth into third world nations governed by a coalition headed by DuPont, but who's counting?
 
mgf
2009-11-28 03:03:23 PM  

Eyebleach: Weaver95: the worst part? I don't see corporations bringing those lost jobs back to this country any time soon. I think we're stuck with a lot less of a tax base for the near future. Oh - and forget about 'taxing the rich'. they just move their money out of the country and adjust a few things to dodge the bulk of whatever feel good taxes get sent their way.

There are ways to fix that, but no one in congress has the balls to propose them.


Educate us, please.
 
2009-11-28 03:04:41 PM  

Ishkur: I don't think I ever heard, EVER, this higher U-6 number used by anyone during the Bush administration. Media or government.

Now I hear it all the time. From all sorts of sources.

Why is that?


The Republicans want to somehow blame all our problems on Obama, but they can't actually come out and SAY that our massive unemployment is all Obama's fault - if they tried, every economist in the country would slam them for it. But if they just put that information out there, and kinda/sorta imply that it's Obama's fault, then they hope everyone will just blame the guy in the white house for the problem.

Fact is, our large unemployment problem is due to a combination of factors - some of which are long term, some recent. You can't even pick one group or ideology out as the main cause either - a lot of players had a hand in making our economy into the craptastic dysfunctional wonder it's become these days. Everyone agrees we've got a problem and that it needs fixing, but the folks who can start us on the road to recovery are too busy trying to blame someone for the mess, or trying to make sure they don't get blamed for it. And while everyone plays the blame game, nothing gets done...which only makes the problem worse.
 
2009-11-28 03:04:46 PM  
Someone say something about a beer fridge?

/need to restock.
 
2009-11-28 03:04:50 PM  
Once again, those of us who already get converted to energy efficient screwed. Yay for subsidizing the dumb.
 
2009-11-28 03:05:39 PM  
you could always make money on it.

Link
 
2009-11-28 03:07:34 PM  
If all this crap the administration is trying to shove down our throats were actually good for the economy and the populace as a whole, they'd have been doing it for, well, ever.

It's not good, it doesn't work, it's utterly unsustainable, and it's making me very, very stabby.
 
2009-11-28 03:11:12 PM  

006andahalf: Many states have been subsidizing the removal of old appliances and their replacement with more efficient ones. For example, they used to give a person $50 and free removal of a freon-based refrigerator. Of course the Montreal Protocols were just a commie plot to drain western wealth into third world nations governed by a coalition headed by DuPont, but who's counting?


The problem is that we need to do much better with appliance material recycling and new materials that are more easily recycled. The vast majority of these old appliances will go to a landfill and the accumulation of junk will continue. These plans are just the government saying, "You're not spending enough so we're going to make you" while screwing people trying to save. Energy efficiency is good but it needs to be paired with much more than this band aid over a severed limb approach.
 
2009-11-28 03:12:38 PM  

GAT_00: Weaver95: GAT_00: [wharblegarble]

You want to find some flaw in the unemployment data pointing out the fact that our economy is in the crapper, but you can't be bothered to do your own research.

Meh.

One, spell wharrgarbl right. Two, I clearly did do some research because how would I have known which U-6 data you were citing? Or known that the U-6 number is dropping?


In case it hasn't been noted, the non-adjusted U-6 is not dropping. It is climbing. The October figure was 16.3% up from 16.1. And the seasonally adjusted number is, in fact, considered the norm when discussing unemployment.

Neither party likes to talk U-6 though because, even during "good" times unemployment is higher than what they want to recognize.
 
2009-11-28 03:13:22 PM  
Gotta love how "Cash for ____" is a convenient way to get around bailouts.

Just give the financiers more Monopoly money and stop trying to insult people with a handout to buy "energy efficient" products when all you're trying to do is legitimize pushing lenders into handing out more money. The country is already drowning in debt; a little more isn't going to bankrupt us more.

Yes, people will gripe about another bailout, but since when does citizen griping affect criminals politicians in Washington?
 
2009-11-28 03:13:58 PM  
I could use a new fridge, but I don't think $100 is going to be enough incentive to get me to spend $1200 bux.
 
2009-11-28 03:17:18 PM  
im just confused why we dont use this money to create new jobs like fixing bad roads, legalizing and making a good system for prositution and other federally funded projects instead of pissing it away.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report