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

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009092617193550073-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
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


Be careful you don't throw your shoulders or elbows out of joint......

Look. I am a simple man. I don't pretend to understand the worlds economy,
or the intricacies of our national finance system. That's what people like
Alan Greenspan et al are for. All I know is this. When my government gives
my neighbor some money, and he hasn't done anything useful for that money,
then it cheapens the money I have worked for and saved.....IOW, my money is
worth less, if the government prints more of it and circulates it without
giving me my share. Money, like apples, is worth less if there is too much
of it. So there are two ways I can have money stolen from me. One, is the
normal way, where a thief sticks a gun in my ribs, and says, "Your money or
your life" and takes it. The other, is for my government to print too much
of it and without giving any to me, they give it away to everyone else, or
someone else. It makes my money worth less, and I don't get any benefit.

Now, when the government gives money to others with strings attached, this
may ameliorate the situation somewhat, but it is still giving money away,
and I still don't benefit from it as much as the ones who are getting it. If
I would like a new trumpet, and the government gives me $200 to buy a $2000
horn with, that's an incentive for me to spend the other $1800 and get a new
horn. The horn manufacturer is happy, and I am happy. But you have no reason
to be happy. The $200 is blatant redistribution of wealth. Why should you,
as a taxpayer, want your government to give me $200 of your hard earned tax
money? Does the economy gain? A lot of people on this forum would say so,
but not me. I say that only me and the horn manufacturer gains anything. The
rest of the taxpayers don't benefit at all. Wealth is being stolen from
them, and given to a small selected segment of the society. Namely the horn
manufacturer and me. If there is any "general gain" it is way too small to
justify the blatant act of stealing from one person to benefit someone else.
If it did, then the government should just steal everyone's money and
redistribute it back to everyone equally. So everyone who had more of it
would be equal to everyone else who didn't have as much as the average.
Stealing is stealing. You can do it a little bit, or you can do it a lot.
But however much of it you do, it is disheartening to those who worked hard
to attain the wealth and status they have in life. Especially someone like
me, who is retired, and can't go back to work to regain what has been stolen
from me. Here I sit. I have a 12 year old automobile that has over 150
thousand miles on the odometer. but it gets almost 30 miles per gallon, so
it does not qualify for the cash for clunkers program. So, I get screwed,
while that guy down the block that has clunkers all over his front lawn,
plus another half dozen of them in his back yard, and get one of them
running, and take it down to the dealer and trade it in for a new car, and
get $3000 or $4500 from Obama for it toward his payments. Sure, he will have
to make payments on the balance, but what has that got to do with the fact
that I, (as a taxpayer) gave him $4500? This cuts into my savings. It means
that I will have less money to spend for the rest of my life, and/or be able
to leave my children less money when I die. And it is not because I did less
work during my life, or that I was a less valuable employee, or cheated in
some other way, but only because I happened to be in the wrong place at the
right time. I was caught with an efficient car, and not a clunker that
"qualified". All I am doing is claiming that this is wrong. It is unfair,
and entirely unnecessary. Far from stimulating the economy, it is
disheartening to those of us who have worked and saved all of our lives, in
order to attain the things we needed and wanted during our retirement. My
government has stolen some money from me, and that makes me unhappy. They
had no cause to do such a thing. So now they owe me. And I will not forget
that. I will lie awake at night thinking and scheming to figure out some way
to get it back. This is what I did many years ago, when the state of
California stole from me. I thought and thought and figured out several ways
that I could steal it back, and I did so. I am sure that I will come up with
something equally as good this time, too. But even if I don't there are
others who will. I am not the only one who knows when he is being stolen
from. There are other younger and brighter people who are going to be lying
awake at night thinking and scheming too. I wish them Godspeed. Even if I
can't help them, my heart and good wishes will spur them on.

Bill Graham wrote:

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?

How about when they buy a new car your stocks go up in value?

w..

Bill Graham wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message

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.

Be careful you don't throw your shoulders or elbows out of joint......

Over the past decade worker productivity has gone way up in the US,
but salaries have remained flat. Who's getting all the additional
wealth?

Look. I am a simple man. I don't pretend to understand the worlds economy,
or the intricacies of our national finance system. That's what people like
Alan Greenspan et al are for. All I know is this. When my government gives
my neighbor some money, and he hasn't done anything useful for that money,
then it cheapens the money I have worked for and saved.....

And you have no problem with corporate execs giving themselves tens of
millions of dollars in pay each year while the workers get squat.

IOW, my money is
worth less,

If you demand spending that you're not willing to pay for, then the
only option is to devalue the dollar.

--
Ray Fischer

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

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?

How about when they buy a new car your stocks go up in value?

That hasn't happened with GM stock, and I assume Chrysler stock is in the
same boat.

I actually bought a couple hundred shares of GM when it went under $5, just
on speculation, wanted to see if the Great Gummint Bailout would make it
bounce. It did very briefly but then resumed its decline; I sold out at a
small loss and eventually with bankruptcy GM just disappeared from the Big
Board.

So there isn't any GM stock anymore, but apparently those still holding it
at the end are now the proud owners of something called MTLQQ (Motors
Liquidation Co.), last selling on the NASDAQ at 75 cents a share. I think
that's just about where GM was the last time I looked at it before it
vanished.

In message 2009092523104675249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
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"
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.)

Yes, but the IP is foreign as are the profits. They just get them built
what it is cost effective.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2009-09-27 09:15:55 -0700, Chris H said:

In message 2009092523104675249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
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"
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.)

Yes, but the IP is foreign as are the profits. They just get them built
what it is cost effective.

Agreed, however my point was, sales of those foreign vehicles benefit
the US economy as well as providing profits to their parent companies
in Japan, Germany and Korea. US citizens employed in those assembly
works, truck drivers delivering to distributors, dealerships and
salesmen all have their part to play. Any boycott of those vehicles in
favor of only buying american would harm those US workers and
businesses, and ultimately the US economy. That is, as opposed to the
xenophobia of Bill and others like him.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:15:55 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message 2009092523104675249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
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"
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.)

Yes, but the IP is foreign as are the profits. They just get them built
what it is cost effective.

You have listed me as one of the posters above, but nothing above is
anything that I have written. Be more careful in your attributions.

If "IP" means "initial product", then the profits go to the foreign
company. However, many of the expenses are benefits to the US
economy.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In message 2009092710581727544-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-09-27 09:15:55 -0700, Chris H said:

In message 2009092523104675249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
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"
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.)
Yes, but the IP is foreign as are the profits. They just get them
built
what it is cost effective.

Agreed, however my point was, sales of those foreign vehicles benefit
the US economy as well as providing profits to their parent companies
in Japan, Germany and Korea.

Agreed.

US citizens employed in those assembly works, truck drivers delivering
to distributors, dealerships and salesmen all have their part to play.

Yes. So it puts money into the economy and keeps the population
working. An unemployed population is dangerous.

Any boycott of those vehicles in favor of only buying american would
harm those US workers and businesses, and ultimately the US economy.

Yes. It would have several effects.
1 putting people out of work who were producing the foreign cars.
2 It has the knock on effect on all those earning a living supporting
the workers... many of them loose their jobs and *American* firms would
go bust. Ie the stores in main street.

3 the rest of the world will stop buying US cars in protest.....
Actually this might happen anyway due to new regulations in many parts
of the world.

4 if the US appears hostile to foreign trade most countries will ask
what the hell they are doing supporting the US in Iraq and
Afghanistan.... and the US will be flying solo in both. Rather than a
25% increase in troops in Afghanistan there will be a 25% reduction


That is, as opposed to the xenophobia of Bill and others like him.
Well boycotting foreign worked well for the Soviets... look where are
they now :-)

the minute you start putting trade sanctions on you loose. Especially in
the current climate. The far east and Europe are coming out of
recession. Most have already done so. The US has a way to go. If it
started boycotting foreign goods the rest of the world would boycott US
goods.

Thanks to Bush over the last 8 years the US is screwed as an industrial
powerhouse.





--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H" wrote in message
news
[...]

the minute you start putting trade sanctions on you loose. Especially
in the current climate. The far east and Europe are coming out of
recession. Most have already done so. The US has a way to go. If it
started boycotting foreign goods the rest of the world would boycott
US goods.

Smoot-Hawley, anyone?

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009092710581727544-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-09-27 09:15:55 -0700, Chris H said:

In message 2009092523104675249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
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"
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.)

Yes, but the IP is foreign as are the profits. They just get them built
what it is cost effective.

Agreed, however my point was, sales of those foreign vehicles benefit the
US economy as well as providing profits to their parent companies in
Japan, Germany and Korea. US citizens employed in those assembly works,
truck drivers delivering to distributors, dealerships and salesmen all
have their part to play.

Sure. That is all understood, but the Cash-for-Clunkers scheme was supposed
to be "stimulus" for our economy, not that of the whole world.

Remember, all this largesse that Obama is shoveling out so enthusiastically
is running up OUR national debt, not the Japanese, German or Korean national
debt.

Any boycott of those vehicles in favor of only buying american would harm
those US workers and

But who's proposing "a boycott of those vehicles"?

All the criticism I've heard of the Cash-for-Clunkers program is that while
it will benefit a few, mainly automobile dealerships (provided they actually
get the cash, which reportedly the gummint is rather delinquent in paying
out, which itself has created various problems), it isn't likely to do much
for the economy as a whole or create any new jobs -- which was supposed to
be the point of the "stimulus."

I haven't heard anyone say they want to boycott anything.