Contributors

Sunday, October 03, 2010

More Evidence of "Failure"

Ford and Chrysler have reported huge sales gains in September further demonstrating the "failure" of President Obama and the Democrats' economic policies.

Ford reported sales up 46 percent from one year ago and Chrysler reported a 61 percent rise in sales. In fact, from September 2009 to September 2010, sales of 10 Chrysler models rose 95 percent. GM also saw a modest rise of 10.5 percent (or 22 percent if you don't count the four brands GM sold off or discontinued). Sales also rose for Honda, Toyota, Subaru, and Volkswagen.

I was under the impression that the anti colonial Kenyan was destroying business. Guess he's doing a pretty terrible job of it!

27 comments:

juris imprudent said...

Ford and Chrysler are doing better. Who'd'a thunk it.

Funny how GM is still in the worst shape of the three, isn't it?

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

Funny how Ford didn't receive a bailout, but its a sign of government success.

Funny how Chrysler's increased sales makes it okay that Obama violated bankruptcy laws and the Constitution.

GuardDuck said...

61%

Wow.

That sounds like Chrysler is really doing well. Unless you look at the numbers. You know - lies, damn lies and statistics.

After a 30% decline in sales for 2008 and a 36% decline in 2009 a 61% increase only sounds great if you don't understand the numbers.

I'll follow with the actual numbers in a minute. But first, as a demonstration lets start with easy numbers.

Take a sales figure of 100. Subtract a 30% loss for 2008 and you get sales of 70.

Subtract 2009's loss of 36% and you get 44.8.

Take that 44.8 and add a miraculous 61% increase and what you do end up with? 72.128

Wow, that's just over 72% of what you started with. Put another way, that's still over 27% down than you started with.

So, with actual numbers:

Chrysler's sales
2007: 2,076,650
2008: 1,453,122
2009: 931,402
2010(ytd): 820,220

Notice the parenthesis? Yep, that's truth in advertising there. I'm being upfront and honest about the 2010 numbers not being apples to apples with the 2009 numbers, as the 2010 numbers are only year to date (Sept).

See, the reality is that year to date sales for Chrysler is only up 15% over this time last year.

Your nice little 61% blurb? Yeah - that's September 2010 sales compared to September 2009 sales.

Heck, let's look at September only numbers for 2007-2010.

September sales Chrysler:
9/07: 159,799
9/08: 107,349
9/09: 62,197
9/10: 100,077

Now that shows 9/08 sales down 33% over 9/07, and the 9/09 sales down 42% over the 9/08 sales. I guess you can get excited over the 61% increase for 9/10 over 9/09. But if you take 9/07 as a starting point, then 9/08 is down 33%, 9/09 is down 61% and your vaunted increase for 9/10 is still down 37% of what they were in 2007.

You may want to say "hey, a 61% increase over last years September sales is great". You may also want to say that it validates Obama's economic policies. Oh, wait, you did say that.

Wanna know something the 61% blurb doesn't tell?

Cash for clunkers ended in August 2009. Ya think maybe people who were going to buy cars during the summer and early fall of 2009 did so during the government largess program? You think that may have had a significant impact on sales immediately after said government give away program?

Well, let's look at August numbers compared to September numbers for the last few years.

Aug Sept %ch
2007: 168,203 159,799 -5%
2008: 110,235 107,349 -3%
2009: 93,222 62,197 -33%
2010: 99,611 100,077 +0.5%

Yep, the only year there was a significant change between Aug and Sept sales numbers is 2009, right after the tax give away program ended.

If you want to claim that Obama is responsible for the 61% increase in Sept. sales, you'll also have to admit he was responsible for the 42% drop in sales for the 2009-2008 September comparison.

And remember when you do, that the 61% increase still leaves you at less sales than 2007 or 2008.

So, are you touting Obama's success for increasing sales that he was directly responsible for tanking in the first place?

I think what I'd say is that once Obama stopped messing with the free market (cash for clunkers, 9/09 sales distortion), Chrysler was able to show real, undistorted numbers. Those numbers may be up a little over last year, which may or may not show a slight improvement in the economy over last year. But to use those numbers in comparison with obviously distorted numbers to tout the economic prowess of the very same person who distorted the numbers in the first place is a bit much even for you.





http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS217066+03-Jan-2008+PRN20080103

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-05-2009/0004949198&EDATE=

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/01/05/460570.html

http://www.media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=5BFC5A08B649B566F9C4952FE34EA472?&id=9401

juris imprudent said...

That's gonna leave a mark.

Tess said...

Both of you have completely missed the point. Mark repeated assertions by the right that Obama is killing the economy. Clearly, if people are buying more cars now and all of these companies are making more money, the economy is slowly improving. Thus, the president isn't killing anything. If their claims were true, profits would be down and we'd be where we were when he took over. Or worse, had we listened to conservatives and their "solutions." The simple fact is that the government takeover of GM worked and that's really going to suck for such a large group of people with severe cognitive dissonance. The only mark that has been left is another example of insatiable need to prove any Democrat wrong at any cost.

Hey Mark, did you see the article about SCOTUS and how three women might affect the new session?

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/how-would-elena-kagan-change-the-supreme-court-0770/

Worth a read and very illustrative of why the right act as they do.

juris imprudent said...

Mark repeated assertions by the right that Obama is killing the economy.

Two stupidities make something profound; is that what you're suggesting?

Wait, I get it. The object isn't to actually think about something - just shout counter slogans more loudly than the other side screams their slogans. Woo hoo - GO TEAM.

Sheesh. You deserve the govt you are going to get.

Oh, and speaking of govt versus corporate accounting dishonesty - just for all you toads believing in business as the root of all evil...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20101001/cm_csm/329634

GuardDuck said...

If their claims were true, profits would be down and we'd be where we were when he took over.

Gosh, do you really want to use auto sales figures as a yardstick to measure his performance? Because using Chryslers' sales numbers we are worse than we were when he took over.

Just in case (because) you didn't look at the numbers before spouting the asinine:

Chrysler's sales
2007: 2,076,650
2008: 1,453,122
2009: 931,402
2010(ytd): 820,220

Bush 2.07 million
Bush 1.45 million

Obama 0.93 million
Obama 0.82 million(ytd)*
*A generous estimate for last quarter 2010 sales would be 100,000 sales per month giving a year total of 1.12 million

Can you do some public skool math?

Which is more?
A. Two years of sales under Bush totaling 3.52 million
or
B. Two years of sales under Obama totaling 2.05 million?

Cognitive dissonance? I think the term you want is Cognitive bias. And yes, you have it.

jeff c. said...

Guard Duck, your numbers mean nothing given the severity of the recession. Sales are starting to bounce back from how terrible they were so I think you would be happy. Sadly, it's clear that you just want Obama and the Dems to fail regardless of people's lives improving. It's more important to be right than give someone credit, right?

GuardDuck said...

It's more important to be right than give someone credit, right?

Tell that to Mark who took the time to create this entire post not in celebration of economic growth, but rather to give a big raspberry to those who doubt the economic genius of Obama. This entire post was supposed to be about Obama being right, right?

Then tell that to Tess, who railed about conservatives and how their solutions hold naught to the supremacy of Obama's skill.

But you don't address your 'oh so compassionate' I think you would be happy spiel at either of those worthies who, to turn your phrase, just want Obama and the Dems to appear to suceed(sic) regardless of how much you have to ignore reality to prove it.

We're talking numbers here. Numbers that were used to prove a point. The numbers were brought here to begin with to mean something. You can't tell me they then mean nothing after I've shown that how they were originally used was wrong. To say they mean nothing because the depression is so severe? WTF does that mean? Why don't you give me some numbers that show just how severe the depression is? Oh, nevermind, in a severe depression numbers don't matter.

Look, unlike Marxist philosophy, man made climate change and astrology; numbers have a rather concrete and hard scientific backstop called 'math'.

In math, 1 is less than 2. It doesn't matter how severe the depression is, 1 is still less than 2.

Sadly, it's clear that you just want Obama and the Dems to fail regardless of people's lives improving.

Clear? Yeah. Notice my earlier statement? once Obama stopped messing with the free market (cash for clunkers, 9/09 sales distortion), Chrysler was able to show real, undistorted numbers. Those numbers may be up a little over last year, which may or may not show a slight improvement in the economy over last year.

I think what's clear is that I want Obama to STOP. FAILING. SO. MUCH.

Get that? Stop failing so that people's lives can improve.

Damn Teabaggers said...

Um, jeff c, maybe you didn't get the news...

...the recession "ended" over a year ago.

last in line said...

Haha, this is great. Tess and Jeff (and the rest of you libs for that matter), keep ignoring the numbers put in front of you by Guardduck.

Tess, "Mark repeated assertions by the right that Obama is killing the economy."

Really? I thought he posted sales percentages from one year to the next. Keep trying to tell us Mark posted something he didn't in a weak attempt to change the subject from the numbers to "the right".

What I see also is nobody refuting the numbers Guardduck put in here...only a wimpy "your numbers mean nothing" from someone in the one-line-insult crowd.

GuardDuck said...

your numbers mean nothing given the severity of the recession

Huh?!?

Ah yes, the "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own" defense.

Well played sir, very well played.....

Considering how the point of Mark making this post was not to 'be happy' for the economy rebounding, but rather to point out that conservatives are wrong. And since Tess wasn't bouncing around being 'happy' about economic growth, but was rather harping about how eeeevil and wrong conservatives are. I think your 'oh so sensitive' spiel decrying my lack of compassion while ignoring the fact that I am only responding in kind to the subjects already broached by others, while ignoring those others same lack of whatever it is you are decrying is a bit biased.


it's clear that you just want Obama and the Dems to fail

I did say thus:
I'd say is that once Obama stopped messing with the free market (cash for clunkers, 9/09 sales distortion), Chrysler was able to show real, undistorted numbers. Those numbers may be up a little over last year, which may or may not show a slight improvement in the economy over last year.

Which I think makes clear what I want Obama to do...

STOP. FAILING. SO. MUCH.

Last in line said...

"So, are you touting Obama's success for increasing sales that he was directly responsible for tanking in the first place?"

Keep ignoring this question folks and claims that numbers mean nothing. Very illustrative of why the left act like they do.

Run away now...this thread got assasinated.

rld said...

Being on defense isn't fun and isn't as easy as having someone to blame everything on right dems?

Mark Ward said...

Obama was not responsible for sales tanking in the first place. This was an obvious result of the recession. And, as both Tess and Jeff said, you completely missed my point.

If Obama's economic policies were failing, sales would be getting WORSE not BETTER. This is why I shared these numbers. They are getting better which is a sign that the economy is getting better, albeit slowly.

Until all of you can get over your pathological holy war on the government, there's not much point in a discussion. Your bias is so overwhelming that it seems impossible to have a rational and logical discussion about any successes that President Obama has had during his tenure.

Essentially, whatever information you share is going to drive towards this goal.

Anglea said...

Ever feel like you are talking to children, Mark? Mine are all teenagers now but it wasn't that long ago when they behaved like this ("I'm always right...WAAHHHHH!!!!") Remember how horrible Bill Clinton was according to the Right? Just heaps of shit thrown on him for years by Gingrich, Larry Craig, and Tom DeLay. Where are all those guys now? And how do Clinton's actions measure up to history? Many conservatives will grudgingly admit that he did a good job. I predict the same thing will happen with President Obama 10 years after the fact. The RIght doesn't like being wrong. It's very hard for them to come to grips with this idea. They don't have much left for ideas--as Boehner recently admitted--so they operate in constant I must win the argument mode. That's their default approach to solving problems the end result of which is never any solutions.

cfk said...

I think that GuardDuck misses the point as well. It doesn't matter what the numbers were in 2007 or 2008. President Obama was not president during those years. It's also not very reflective to look at the 2009 numbers as this was when we were coming out of the recession and still feeling the effects of it.

An indicator of where we are heading is to look at 2010 compared to 2009 and see what transpired after Obama was in office for at least a full year. I don't see how you can admit he was responsible from Sept 2008 to Sept 2009 when he wasn't in office until Jan of 2009.

It's also ludicrous to compare the sales under Bush to the sales under Obama because of the recession. Clearly, Mark is talking about progress out from the giant hole we were (or are) in. It would be equally unfair to compare the recession during Bush's first term to the prosperity during Clinton's second term. And, really, it's about how each leader responds as well and then what happens after that.

GuardDuck said...

A summary of the last three posts:

Mark reiterates his original post, with his first sentence showing he didn't bother to read my posts. He says I'm wrong, but brings no numbers to prove it. Apparently relying upon the debunked numbers he showed earlier shows his point if he says it again, only harder.

Anglea whines and cries about the right acting like children because they...uh...whine and cry. Meanwhile she neither addresses actual fact and numbers nor tries to refute those already given. I'm chastised Anglea, next time I really, really, really want to have a grown up type conversation I'll stick to jumping up and down, stomping my feet and proclaiming how right I am, just like you.

Then cfk jumps in with something about the only numbers that matter are Obamas, except his bad numbers which apparently don't matter either. He also shows that he didn't read these posts before commenting by saying that Obama isn't responsible for sales in Sept 2009, when it's been shown that Obama's very own cash for clunkers program had a direct impact upon those sales.


Mark, I did not say Obama was responsible for sales tanking in the first place. Context is a real pain ain't it. I said Obama was responsible for Sept 2009's sales tanking, which makes it ludicrous to hype Sept 2010 sales used in comparison.

This is why I shared these numbers. They are getting better which is a sign that the economy is getting better, albeit slowly.

But it isn't why you shared these numbers. Your headline, your first sentence and your last two sentences are all about 'Obama was right and you were wrong.'

Even if you were sharing in such an altruistic manner you used hyped up stats that DON'T PROVE YOUR POINT.

I explained what those numbers show. I even actually gave the numbers that do prove your point. I even, even gave you the source files for those numbers.

But you have yet to actually show any numbers that show what you say they show.

Tess said...

Give up, Mark. You won't get anywhere with someone so narrow minded and maddening.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

Narrow minded is necessary to understanding truth and valid logic. Reality is exclusive. It doesn't care what you want to believe. It is what it is. There is no "alternative" or "different opinion" versions of reality.

You only find it maddening because you're trying to deny reality, and it's not bending to accommodate you.

sw said...

Let's compare sales of Christmas decorations from July of this year to December of this year. The economy is improving!!!!! you just have to call people illogical and children. Show us the logical numbers then because markadelphias numbers sure werent logical. guardduck proved it.

rld said...

"Then cfk jumps in with something about the only numbers that matter are Obamas, except his bad numbers which apparently don't matter either."

That's funny right there. The numbers mattered to Mark, now cfk declares that they don't matter.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

More on the Obama administration breaking the law with their auto manufacturer takeovers:

Delphi retirees to get trial in pension suit

"…while the PBGC reduced benefits for salaried retirees, the Obama administration auto task force ordered $4.3 billion in taxpayer contributions to fully fund the pensions of UAW retirees at both Delphi and its former parent, General Motors."

Judge refuses to dismiss 3 charges in Delphi retirees' pension suit

"That decision to terminate the pension plan, which also applied to hourly pension plans, will cost some younger retirees up to 70 percent of their pensions and saddles the pension agency with a $6.7 billion in debt. Many of the affected retirees and their dependents are in Michigan.

Retirees also sued the Treasury Department and members of President Barack Obama's auto task force."

juris imprudent said...

President Obama was not president during those years.

Ah, back to the myth of the rightful ruler and belief in the magical Presidency.

Obama's "policies" are no more to credit for the increase in Chrysler sales than Bush's were to blame.

But YOU FUCKING CHILDISH morons insist on believing in an adult version of Santa Claus. At least children have the excuse of youthful ignorance and lack of experience with the world on which to blame their immaturity. You who choose to believe in stupidity but SHOULD know better don't have that.

the iowa kid said...

"But YOU FUCKING CHILDISH"

says the one who obviously can't control his temper.

Speaking Truth to Idiots said...

Temper? Is that your measuring stick?

Who has sworn more than anyone else here? By a wide margin? Hell, who here thinks a long, practically uninterrupted stream of F-bombs is "humor"?

Hint, it's the proprietor of N____ F___ T__ F____

Real geniuses you people are.

juris imprudent said...

says the one who obviously can't control his temper.

Oh silly boy, you haven't seen me angry.

Annoyed, yes. Usually I try my best to just be amused by the ironies of life, but sometimes they do piss me off a bit.