Cash for clunkers, hmmmmm
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:48:37 -0400, D K
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:58:41 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:34:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The old 1988 Dodge Ramcharger with some undetermined number of miles
on it gets roughly 12 mpg in town. It has not been running for a
couple of months but it has a new tag and is currently insured. Cash
for clunkers program says I can get $4500 for it. If the Obama wants
to throw money in the air, I wanna catch some cuz it'll make em go
bankrupt faster.
There's a patriot for you...
Hard to believe that some want the United States of America bankrupt.
That would leave us almost defenseless against the terrorists.
Just small arms and maybe some artillery from the Nat Guard armories.
But Froggys's plan won't work anyway.
Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is taxed away.
We ain't even close to that.
Wife just asked if I wanted a sandwich.
French bread, Krakus ham, cheddar cheese, tomato, lettuce, mayo, fresh
oregano from the garden.
Got plenty of food in the house, and a full tank of gas in the car.
Besides that, got a 1/2 tank of gas in the other car, and at least
1/2 tank of gas in the other car.
So I can make a food run when I need it.
Life is good. While it lasts.
I'm a glass half-full guy.

--Vic
The Obamanation administration will continue to print the money. You
don't think it's sitting in some account do you?

What are you, an accountant?
I was talking about a good sandwich and gas in the cars.
Not about accounting.
Maybe there's some accountants here that will talk about that.
Don, are you an accountant? Reggie, how about you?
Duck? Tim?

--Vic

An accountant won't help. An economist will. This was a response to
your statement: "Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is
taxed away. We ain't even close to that."

Cash for clunkers, hmmmmm
 

"DK" wrote in message
...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:48:37 -0400, D K
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:58:41 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:34:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The old 1988 Dodge Ramcharger with some undetermined number of miles
on it gets roughly 12 mpg in town. It has not been running for a
couple of months but it has a new tag and is currently insured.
Cash
for clunkers program says I can get $4500 for it. If the Obama
wants
to throw money in the air, I wanna catch some cuz it'll make em go
bankrupt faster.
There's a patriot for you...
Hard to believe that some want the United States of America bankrupt.
That would leave us almost defenseless against the terrorists.
Just small arms and maybe some artillery from the Nat Guard armories.
But Froggys's plan won't work anyway.
Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is taxed away.
We ain't even close to that.
Wife just asked if I wanted a sandwich.
French bread, Krakus ham, cheddar cheese, tomato, lettuce, mayo, fresh
oregano from the garden.
Got plenty of food in the house, and a full tank of gas in the car.
Besides that, got a 1/2 tank of gas in the other car, and at least
1/2 tank of gas in the other car.
So I can make a food run when I need it.
Life is good. While it lasts.
I'm a glass half-full guy.
--Vic
The Obamanation administration will continue to print the money. You
don't think it's sitting in some account do you?

What are you, an accountant?
I was talking about a good sandwich and gas in the cars.
Not about accounting. Maybe there's some accountants here that will talk
about that.
Don, are you an accountant? Reggie, how about you?
Duck? Tim? --Vic

An accountant won't help. An economist will. This was a response to your
statement: "Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is taxed away.
We ain't even close to that."

Plus, would you go to work for a 60% tax rate? Don't think I would.

Cash for clunkers, hmmmmm
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:48:37 -0400, D K
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:58:41 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:34:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The old 1988 Dodge Ramcharger with some undetermined number of miles
on it gets roughly 12 mpg in town. It has not been running for a
couple of months but it has a new tag and is currently insured.
Cash
for clunkers program says I can get $4500 for it. If the Obama
wants
to throw money in the air, I wanna catch some cuz it'll make em go
bankrupt faster.
There's a patriot for you...
Hard to believe that some want the United States of America bankrupt.
That would leave us almost defenseless against the terrorists.
Just small arms and maybe some artillery from the Nat Guard armories.
But Froggys's plan won't work anyway.
Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is taxed away.
We ain't even close to that.
Wife just asked if I wanted a sandwich.
French bread, Krakus ham, cheddar cheese, tomato, lettuce, mayo, fresh
oregano from the garden.
Got plenty of food in the house, and a full tank of gas in the car.
Besides that, got a 1/2 tank of gas in the other car, and at least
1/2 tank of gas in the other car.
So I can make a food run when I need it.
Life is good. While it lasts.
I'm a glass half-full guy.
--Vic
The Obamanation administration will continue to print the money. You
don't think it's sitting in some account do you?
What are you, an accountant?
I was talking about a good sandwich and gas in the cars.
Not about accounting. Maybe there's some accountants here that will talk
about that.
Don, are you an accountant? Reggie, how about you?
Duck? Tim? --Vic
An accountant won't help. An economist will. This was a response to your
statement: "Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is taxed away.
We ain't even close to that."

Plus, would you go to work for a 60% tax rate? Don't think I would.




--


We had a tax rate higher than that during the Eusenhower years, when
this country enjoyed some of its greatest *real* economic growth. Of
course, in those days there was more interest in building a country with
a strong middle class, *not* a country where the rich sucked off
virtually all of the bounty.

Cash for clunkers, hmmmmm
 

"Katie Ohara" wrote in message
...
On Jun 20, 3:30 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:21:29 -0400, "mmc" wrote:
It is clear this is budgeted as part of the auto bailout so it really
doesn't matter how you cash it in as long as a clunker is off the road
and you buy a new car. The real question is whether this will be a
"buy American" bill by the time it finally gets out of the House.
It doesn't help Detroit much if everyone buys an import.

If this does survive in it's present form I think old "Brownie" (1985
F150) may go down the road.
A new F150 would qualify for the $4500 (greater than a 5MPG delta).
That is about $3500 more than I could get for it in any reasonable
deal.

I agree 100% with what you're saying about "buy American". Since it's DC
(both parties) that have let the rest of the world slide when it comes to
fair trade what're the odds that they'll do what's right for America this
time?

This was passed by the house and senate, sent to the White House.
There is no "buy American" clause.

I believe it is a foolish program that is nothing more than a way of
bribing the UAW. However, if I can figure out a way to take advantage
of it ethically or not, I will because it is unethical in itself and
IT IS MY MONEY.
I did not publicly advocate anything about the Iraq war because I was
never a military man so I believe this disqualifies me from advocating
military action beforehand. Afterward, I will back it and did so. I
do not expect other people to abide by my reasoning on this as far as
advocating military action.

_________

I guess the part about the Iraq war is because of old arguments?
Since you want to open that can, I (as a former military man) didn't
question our leaders when they convinced America that Saddam was a threat.
I, as a long term contractor for the USG, went where I was told to and
performed my job. I came back on a stretcher.
My injuries changed my life and those of my family. I am in pain everyday
and will never be able to do field work again. I really enjoyed what I did.
See, unlike all of those whose idea of "heeding the call" is to past a cheap
chinese ribbon sticker on the back of moms van, my family and I have
actually made sacrifices.
The only benefits of not being able to walk for 6 months, is you have a lot
of time on your hands to watch the news, read books and newspapers- in fact
all you've got is time.All that reading and news can cause a person to
question the reasons for all those kids killed or maimed in that war, as
well as the reason you're on your back. Another thing it causes a person to
question is why stick with a group that is only interested in using the
individual for thier own gain?
Glad I don't "have" to abide by your reasoning. The only ones I'll count
who'll stand and yell "fight, fight, fight" are those that are willing to do
so themselves. If those were the votes that counted, a lot more thinking
would go into commiting our troops. I'm not talking about a photo op with
the troops. Those a hugely self promoting bull****.
Wars are ugly. It's nothing like the movies. If we can't trust our leaders
to exercise every other possible option prior to commiting troops, then we
can't trust them at all. This is the most important decision any
administration makes. Anyone who thinks differently, just hasn't got a
****ing clue.

Cash for clunkers, hmmmmm
 

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:14:30 -0400, DK wrote:


An accountant won't help. An economist will.

Whose economist? Obama's or somebody else's?
I don't think they'll listen to the Freidmans or Greenspans any more.
That "trickle down" bull****, and selling off America's jobs to
foreigners for Wall Street profits got us where we are.
In deep debt to foreigners.
An accountant knows better than that.

This was a response to
your statement: "Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is
taxed away. We ain't even close to that."

An accountant will balance the books, and if you're spending more than
you have coming in, tell you to either cut spending or raise revenues
or go bankrupt.
An accountant won't talk politics. He'll talk numbers.
The gov won't cut spending.
The folks want their social security.
The folks want their medicare.
The folks want cheaper health care.
The folks want unemployment comp when they can't find a job.
The folks determine if a pol stays in office.
"Let them eat cake" doesn't go over well with the folks.
So that leaves raising revenue, which is taxes.
This ain't politics, and it ain't rocket science.
It's simple numbers. It's always the simple numbers in the end.
And we're close to the end.
Might be all wrong about that, though.
I'm often wrong.

--Vic

Cash for clunkers, hmmmmm
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:14:30 -0400, DK wrote:

An accountant won't help. An economist will.

Whose economist? Obama's or somebody else's?
I don't think they'll listen to the Freidmans or Greenspans any more.
That "trickle down" bull****, and selling off America's jobs to
foreigners for Wall Street profits got us where we are.
In deep debt to foreigners.
An accountant knows better than that.

This was a response to
your statement: "Gov can't go bankrupt until all the folks money is
taxed away. We ain't even close to that."

An accountant will balance the books, and if you're spending more than
you have coming in, tell you to either cut spending or raise revenues
or go bankrupt.
An accountant won't talk politics. He'll talk numbers.
The gov won't cut spending.
The folks want their social security.
The folks want their medicare.
The folks want cheaper health care.
The folks want unemployment comp when they can't find a job.
The folks determine if a pol stays in office.
"Let them eat cake" doesn't go over well with the folks.
So that leaves raising revenue, which is taxes.
This ain't politics, and it ain't rocket science.
It's simple numbers. It's always the simple numbers in the end.
And we're close to the end.
Might be all wrong about that, though.
I'm often wrong.

--Vic



If we want to balance the people's books, we need to raise taxes on the
wealthy substantially. Perhaps not to the levels of the Eisenhower years
(anyone remember those rates and the prosperity of our country during
that time period?), but substantially.

*All* income should be taxed as income.

We have to eliminate the cap on the Social Security taxes on the
employee side. And we have to make it far more difficult for
corporations to "offshore" their headquarters to post office boxes in
the Cayman Islands in order to avoid taxes.