Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Excon,

So your solution is to bail out EVERYONE

---

Hello Elliot:

It's getting more and more difficult to argue with you, because you distort written words. This is just another example of it.. You apparently DISTORT my support for the Cash for Clunkers program as support for the bailout of, how did you put it, EVERYONE??

The discussion then, instead of being about the issues, devolves into accusations of who said what... The crazy thing about that, is that our writings are left to posterity, and the truth in them becomes evident to anyone who cares to read them...

So, I'm going depart from your "through the looking glass" world you've created for yourself, where up is down, and one thing means another... If you wish to resume discussing real life stuff, let me know, but I'm not going to dignify your hysteria with further responses.

excon

PS> I'm going to copy this post, and paste it where ever necessary in the future. I have a feeling that it's going to be VERY necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Elliot:

It's getting more and more difficult to argue with you, because you distort written words. This is just another example of it.. You apparently DISTORT my support for the Cash for Clunkers program as support for the bailout of, how did you put it, EVERYONE???

---

Oh... did you just mean all the car dealers?

Because what you said was that cash for clunkers saved the car dealerships. You didn't diffrentiate between them.

You said that if a car dealership is up and running (and you specifically mentioned the large number of them still up and running in Texas as opposed to Seattle) it is because cash for clunkers saved them. And you said that if cash for clunkers had failed, those dealerships would have been closed down, boarded up, and the neighborhoods would have become blighted.

Did you not say that?

Yeah, you did.

As you say... the words are right there for everyone to read.

You said that cash for clunkers saved the car dealerships... WHETHER THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED OR NOT.

And my response, which you have ignored, is that those dealerships SHOULD have been allowed to fail rather than being propped up, because the result would have been newer, stronger, better-capitalized car dealerships.

But you, as usual, ignore substance and instead attack people for answering what you actually posted. Not what you THINK you posted. Not what you MEANT to post. But what you actually posted.

And we both know that the only reason you do it is because you don't have a response for the SUBSTANTIVE parts of my posts. The facts of economic reality keep getting in the way of your Keyensian fantasies, and you have no response to those facts. And so instead you attack.

Post your attack wherever you wish. I'll follow it up with this response.

Elliot

Obviously you were not one of those who got the rebate check... if you were than your computer is now the property of the US Government and all file and pictures contained therein. Oh, and not to mention all foreign governments also.
Good Luck!

Hello sweetpea:

I see you got the right wing emai. Cool. Just checking.

excon

PS> So, it didn't bother you when George W. Bush had the National Security Agency READ your emails and listen to your phone calls, ALL without a warrant?? No, huh?

PPS> The stuff I mentioned REALLY did happen. The stuff you mentioned DIDN'T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello sweetpea:

I see you got the right wing emai. Cool. Just checking.

excon

PS> So, it didn't bother you when George W. Bush had the National Security Agency READ your emails and listen to your phone calls, ALL without a warrant???? No, huh?

PPS> The stuff I mentioned REALLY did happen. The stuff you mentioned DIDN'T.

---

And does it bother you that those little Obama helpers may also read your emails?

Maybe Obama will just shut you off from the internet if he doesn't like what you post. (Internet neutrality)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Maybe Obama will just shut you off from the internet if he doesn't like what you post. (Internet neutrality)

---

Psst... that's not what Internet Neutrality means. Research it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Psst...that's not what Internet Neutrality means. Research it.

---

You think?

We now live in tha age of Newspeak.

What doe the concept of 'net neutrality have to do with Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What doe the concept of 'net neutrality have to do with Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

I made the newspeak comment because I don't trust anything this administration says.

When the govt says it wants to control anything, just what do you expect? Greater freedom, or less freedom?

The concept of freedom demands that the government keep its hands off the internet. It is just about the last avenue for the free expression of ideas still available to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello in:

I don't think those are the right questions to ask. I could, of course, in reply, ask you should the tax payer continue to support the home buying public with a subsidy that allows them to deduct the interest???? Renters don't get squat! And, THAT subsidy, by the way, has been going on a lot longer than our present crisis.

The question is, in my view, as long as it's agreed that government should BE the spender of last resort, and I agree that it should, then shouldn't the money be spent in the most POSITIVE way possible??? I think it should, and I think this is a VERY positive way.

excon

---

You know, ex, this whole question of tax and cross subsidy can be easily fixed. You abolish all the deductions and lower the tax rate. But in order to do this you have to have a focus on advantaging the poor, not making it easier for the rich. That is too revolutionary a thought for the capitalists who have forgotten that it is the poor who spend every dollar they get. So you make the population the spender of the last resort and you get prosperity, you make government the spender of the last resort and you get stagnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You know, ex, this whole question of tax and cross subsidy can be easily fixed. You abolish all the deductions and lower the tax rate. But in order to do this you have to have a focus on advantaging the poor, not making it easier for the rich. That is too revolutionary a thought for the capitalists who have forgotten that it is the poor who spend every dollar they get. So you make the population the spender of the last resort and you get prosperity, you make government the spender of the last resort and you get stagnation.

---

Actually, Clete, Conservatives have long been fighting for lower tax rates (real tax custs), as opposed to tax rebates. We criticized Bush's tax rebates in 2008 for just that reason... but agreed that it was better than nothing. We also opposed the $13 a week tax rebates in the Obama Stimulus Bill... which he called a "middle class tax cut" but was actually a rebate, not a cut. And because at $13 per week, it really was "nothing".

Where have you been? We've been all for tax cuts from day one.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Actually, Clete, Conservatives have long been fighting for lower tax rates (real tax custs), as opposed to tax rebates. We criticized Bush's tax rebates in 2008 for just that reason... but agreed that it was better than nothing. We also opposed the $13 a week tax rebates in the Obama Stimulus Bill... which he called a "middle class tax cut" but was actually a rebate, not a cut. And because at $13 per week, it really was "nothing".

Where have you been? We've been all for tax cuts from day one.

Elliot

---

Elliot, I said nothing about lower taxes or reductions in government revenue, what I said was do away with (exchange) deductions for a lower tax rate to get rid of cross subsidies because the cross subsidies disadvantage the poor. $13 a week might be significant to the poor even though it is meaningless to you or I. I seen a lot of crackpot tax ideas originating in the US tried here and they all have detrimental results so they must be equally bad for you, but fortunately, we had the good sense to implement a Goods and Services Tax which has resulted in significantly lower rates of Income Tax because the cheats couldn't get out of paying tax when they spent their money, and incidentally you might wonder which economy faired better in the GFC.
We didn't have mortgage securitisation, cash for clunkers, bank bailouts. Insurance bailouts, panic stations to name a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Elliot, I said nothing about lower taxes or reductions in government revenue, what I said was do away with (exchange) deductions for a lower tax rate to get rid of cross subsidies because the cross subsidies disadvantage the poor. $13 a week might be significant to the poor even though it is meaningless to you or I. I seen a lot of crackpot tax ideas originating in the US tried here and they all have detrimental results so they must be equally bad for you, but fortunately, we had the good sense to implement a Goods and Services Tax which has resulted in significantly lower rates of Income Tax because the cheats couldn't get out of paying tax when they spent their money, and incidently you might wonder which economy faired better in the GFC.
we didn't have mortgage securitisation, cash for clunkers, bank bailouts. Insurance bailouts, panic stations to name a few.

---

I'm actually in favor of a Goods & Services tax or a consumption tax instead of an income tax. That is the basis for the Fair Tax that I support. We happen to be in agreement on this point.

Elliot

I think we have to be cautious about any tax other than the income tax, UNLESS THE INCOME TAX IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Otherwise, the Left would later bring back the income tax on top of any other tax that might be implemented.

That's right . The so called progressive income tax has to be repealed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I think we have to be cautious about any tax other than the income tax, UNLESS THE INCOME TAX IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Otherwise, the Left would later bring back the income tax on top of any other tax that might be implemented.

---

You have to have a social compact in these things, taxation isn't an end in its self, it is the means by which government funds the programs your democratically elected representatives have approved, therefore if the revenue is sufficient there is no need to increase income tax when a consumption tax is in place. The consumption tax is a growth tax far more so than income tax because capital transactions are involved. Increases in income tax would bring retribution at the polls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that's right . the so called progressive income tax has to be repealed.

---

Very progressive thinking

Quote:

---

you have to have a social compact in these things, taxation isn't an end in its self, it is the means by which government funds the programs your democratically elected representatives have approved

---

Our social compact says that the Federal Government has enumerated powers to tax and anything beyond that is a usurpation of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Our social compact says that the Federal Government has enumerated powers to tax and anything beyond that is a usurpation of power.

---

Yes I could understand how you are focused on usurpation of power rather than sensible provisions to solve a problem. Your founding fathers had a little thing about taxation and such issues. Maybe it's time for another tea party, you can have a consumption tax without taxing tea, you know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Maybe it's time for another tea party, you can have a consumption tax without taxing tea, you know

---

Watch the news, they're already happening. Nowadays, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. Lots of elitists try dismissing them with scorn and ridicule, but the people are still gathering.