The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican'sPerspective!!

"John A." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:33:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

mikey4 wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110
mile per gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government
takes my tax dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers
all those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling
around in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an
industry that makes the US self sufficient and they go from
spending money on
oil to selling the technology so they can spend someone else's
money.

No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people
to purchase a new automobile. The program gave them a discount on
the purchase, but the buyers had to spend their money on the balance
of the cost of the automobile.



I think the problem with the program Tony is that it helped a very
narrow segment of the economy with no long lasting effects except to
the lenders. A better stimulus would have been to put a 60 or 90 day
moratorium on payroll taxes and yes ray you could cap the pay.
Image all the extra cash in the consumers pocket.

How would such a moratorium work? Would the withholding simply not be
withheld so the taxpayer instead gets socked with a bigger payment in
April
or are you saying to reduce their tax liability accordingly?

Sounds like those $300 checks they send out during the first Bush
recession. If you cashed it, that was $300 more you owed in taxes that
year, or $300 less you'd get in your refund. IIRC, we just tore ours
up.
There would be no tax liability at all, free money if you will. Cap the
program at say an income of $80,000.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110 mile per
gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government takes my tax
dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers all
those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling around
in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an industry that
makes the US self sufficient and they go from spending money on
oil to selling the technology so they can spend someone else's money.

No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people to
purchase a new automobile.

In most cases, "a new automobile" made by Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, or
some other foreign manufacturer.

The program gave them a discount on the
purchase, but the buyers had to spend their money on the balance of
the cost of the automobile.

Most of the additional money they "spent" was money they borrowed. So we
have Americans borrowing money to buy products from foreign companies and
we're calling that "stimulus." It undoubtedly is stimulus at that -- for
other countries, at American taxpayers' expense.

We already have so many U.S. dollars in foreign hands now it's making the
Chinese nervous. As our biggest creditors, they have plenty of reason to be
worried about the weakening dollar. Do you think their possible solutions to
this problem are likely to do us any good?

On 2009-09-25 22:42:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110 mile per
gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government takes my tax
dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers all
those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling around
in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an industry that
makes the US self sufficient and they go from spending money on
oil to selling the technology so they can spend someone else's money.

No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people to
purchase a new automobile.

In most cases, "a new automobile" made by Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, or
some other foreign manufacturer.

For the most part built by US, Non-UAW workers in Tennessee, Alabama,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and California (though California is out
of this mix when Toyota closes NUMMI.)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-09-25 22:42:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110
mile per gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government
takes my tax dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers
all those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling
around in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an
industry that makes the US self sufficient and they go from
spending money on oil to selling the technology so they can spend
someone else's
money.
No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people
to purchase a new automobile.

In most cases, "a new automobile" made by Toyota, Honda, Subaru,
Nissan, or some other foreign manufacturer.

For the most part built by US, Non-UAW workers in Tennessee, Alabama,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and California (though California is
out of this mix when Toyota closes NUMMI.)

That's good, of course. But really, "for the most part"? I don't have any
figures at hand, but I'd be surprised if most of the dollars Americans spend
on foreign-brand cars stay in this country. For example, is a typical
American-made Honda really made here -- lock, stock and barrel (so to
speak)? Or is it mainly assembled here from Japanese-made parts? And what
about the less popular brands? How about BMW, which I understand also has
cars made (or assembled) here?

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:39:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-09-25 22:42:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110
mile per gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government
takes my tax dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers
all those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling
around in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an
industry that makes the US self sufficient and they go from
spending money on oil to selling the technology so they can spend
someone else's
money.
No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people
to purchase a new automobile.

In most cases, "a new automobile" made by Toyota, Honda, Subaru,
Nissan, or some other foreign manufacturer.

For the most part built by US, Non-UAW workers in Tennessee, Alabama,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and California (though California is
out of this mix when Toyota closes NUMMI.)

That's good, of course. But really, "for the most part"? I don't have any
figures at hand, but I'd be surprised if most of the dollars Americans spend
on foreign-brand cars stay in this country. For example, is a typical
American-made Honda really made here -- lock, stock and barrel (so to
speak)? Or is it mainly assembled here from Japanese-made parts? And what
about the less popular brands? How about BMW, which I understand also has
cars made (or assembled) here?


You have to break down the figures to understand the impact.
Naturally, the part of the automobile's cost that is in parts that
were made in a foreign country do not benefit the US economy.

However, the US economy benefits from foreign-brand automobiles
assembled in the US from the wages paid to the US division's
employees. These employees earn income, pay taxes, and spend their
income at US businesses. The US economy also benefits from the income
of the employees of the automobile dealers who sell and service car,
the employees of the companies that transport the car to the dealers,
and the employees of companies that sell accessories and replacement
parts for the car.

The US economy benefits from the sales tax and fees charged for the
purchase of an automobile, the rent or property taxes of the dealers
who sell the cars, and the companies who build their facilities.

It's not like buying a Chevrolet contributes to the US economy but
buying a Toyota does not.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110 mile
per
gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government takes my tax
dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers all
those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling around
in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an industry that
makes the US self sufficient and they go from spending money on
oil to selling the technology so they can spend someone else's money.

No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people to
purchase a new automobile.

In most cases, "a new automobile" made by Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan,
or some other foreign manufacturer.

The program gave them a discount on the
purchase, but the buyers had to spend their money on the balance of
the cost of the automobile.

Most of the additional money they "spent" was money they borrowed. So we
have Americans borrowing money to buy products from foreign companies and
we're calling that "stimulus." It undoubtedly is stimulus at that -- for
other countries, at American taxpayers' expense.

We already have so many U.S. dollars in foreign hands now it's making the
Chinese nervous. As our biggest creditors, they have plenty of reason to
be worried about the weakening dollar. Do you think their possible
solutions to this problem are likely to do us any good?

Yeah.....This idiot thinks it's all right to steal money from me and give it
to someone else, if the other person spends some of his own money too. I
wonder what he would say if the government took his money and gave it to me,
provided I spent some of my money along with? Is the whole world crazy, or
am I living inside a nightmare?

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009092523104675249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-09-25 22:42:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110 mile
per
gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government takes my tax
dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers all
those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling around
in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an industry that
makes the US self sufficient and they go from spending money on
oil to selling the technology so they can spend someone else's money.

No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people to
purchase a new automobile.

In most cases, "a new automobile" made by Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan,
or
some other foreign manufacturer.

For the most part built by US, Non-UAW workers in Tennessee, Alabama,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and California (though California is out of
this mix when Toyota closes NUMMI.)

I am perfectly capable of buying myself a new automobile, thanks. Why should
the taxpayers partly finance someone else's new automobile? And why isn't
this blatant redistribution of wealth?

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...


I am perfectly capable of buying myself a new automobile, thanks. Why
should the taxpayers partly finance someone else's new automobile? And why
isn't this blatant redistribution of wealth?
In December I bought an 09 ford F150, dang I wish I would have had some
taxpayer money

On 2009-09-26 15:57:38 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009092523104675249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-09-25 22:42:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:52:17 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Walter Banks wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

The "cash for clunkers" program is my prime
example.....Please explain to me why this isn't socialism.

Compare Jan and Sept 401K statements.

My case rests

To be clearer it was a good business investment.


It was blatant wealth redistribution, at my expense. I have saved
gasoline
all of my working life, by bicycling to work, and riding a 110 mile per
gallon cycle to work. Is it fair that the government takes my tax
dollars
and gives them away to the idiots who were driving gas guzzlers all
those
years? You guys are insane! And you call that a, "sound business
investment"? Tell me, how do you define stealing?

Why has your investment portfolio increased in value by 30% since
the beginning of the year? It wasn't because you kept you money in
a sock.

Someone was being encouraged to spend money on fuel efficient
cars one of many steps needed to keep money that is leaving the US
to pay for oil in places like Alberta. The same money rattling around
in the would get spent 3 or 4 times a year. Build an industry that
makes the US self sufficient and they go from spending money on
oil to selling the technology so they can spend someone else's money.

No one was being encouraged to spend money on anything.

Are you completely out of your mind? The program encouraged people to
purchase a new automobile.

In most cases, "a new automobile" made by Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, or
some other foreign manufacturer.

For the most part built by US, Non-UAW workers in Tennessee, Alabama,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and California (though California is out
of this mix when Toyota closes NUMMI.)

I am perfectly capable of buying myself a new automobile, thanks. Why
should the taxpayers partly finance someone else's new automobile? And
why isn't this blatant redistribution of wealth?

You rant on Bill.

OK, you are probably perfectly capable of buying yourself any new
automobile of your choice at any time.
Agreed there is no logical reason why taxpayers should partly finance
anyone's new automobile. However in the case of cash for clunkers, the
individual buyers were not subsidized, they were given trade-in values,
in some cases far lower than the true value of the vehicles they were
trading.
Those who benefited were the dealerships and manufacturers, not the
buyers. The buyers still have the burden of funding their purchase, and
making those monthly payments, in some cases higher than if they had
made an ordinary trade to buy the new vehicle. The dealerships gained
the benefit of having buyers who were driven to buy, when for most it
would not have been in their best interests to do so. A wonderful
marketing ploy.

As far as redistribution of wealth goes, it is as it always has been
the potential wealth of the middle class masses has been redistributed
to the dealerships and manufactures, and through them to the stock
holders in those corporations.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Bill Graham wrote:
Yeah.....This idiot thinks it's all right to steal money from me and give it
to someone else, if the other person spends some of his own money too.

Everybody should note that grahamn feels it fine to steal from others
and give to himself.

I
wonder what he would say if the government took his money and gave it to me,
provided I spent some of my money along with?

Like Medicare, for example? Or using roads that you don't pay for?

--
Ray Fischer