On 10/11/2012 9:05 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 10/11/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 10/10/2012 9:35 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy

Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44

"Returned to the middle class." What does that mean comrade?


And until the corps trust the Govt to let them make a few bucks, that
money will stay just the hell where it is...

Insane Scotty strikes again!!!

It's only going to get worse unless we change something. Scotty's right.

Well of course I am. All you have to do is turn on something besides
MSNBC and listen to the business leaders.

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy
Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44
WTF? Returned to the middle class = what? Monthly checks? Lump sum
(re)distribution?

iBoaterer wrote:
I didn't say the cash buyer wasn't paying those fees, on the contrary, I
said the fees were built into the buyer's cost of the product.
So credit cost no more than cash unless you eliminate credit entirely -
which will never happen - and then the prices my drop a tiny bit? Got it.

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy

Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44


----------------------------

I said the credit money. Want to start a business. Yup? Well see if
you
can get a loan. Those trillion dollar deficits are financed with the
available credit money. Very little to go to the lower echelon.
History is
sort of repeating in this country. 1912, 15% had 65% of the money.
65% of
the people lived in poverty. The Great Depression was caused by big
government and lack of controls. WW2 was both caused a lot by the
depression, but it was what got the USA out of the depression. WW2
also
made us the economic powerhouse for a lot of years, as most of the
rest of
the industrial world was in devastation. But with the elites in
power,
helping themselves to stay in power, and controlling government, just
like
now, the allowed companies to merge and build use powerful
conglomerates,
instead of spending their money on modernizing factories, they spent
it
buying competitors. Steel left the US as we both ran lower on iron
ore, and
had old inefficient Bessemer Process foundries. While those
devastated
countries rebuilt with US help with modern, more efficient factories.
And
while we controlled 85% of the manufacturing, the management kept
overpaying
the help, as their was not competition. Now we are paying the price.
60
million functional illiterates' in this country. How are we going to
compete? With a dumb, lazy workforce and old factories, and a huge
bloated
Federal and state government, with the inefficiencies of large
bureaucracies. We are screwed in this country. As we have an
electorate
who is voting for whomever promises the most gimmies. As to cash.
There is
a finite amount, and the richest probably do not have that much. They
have
assets. Gold, land, factories, banks.

---------------------------------------------------------

Add to the mix:

Many don't like to hear the "E" word, but unfortunately, it's a major
part of the equation.

Since 1960 Federal Government entitlement programs have grown by 727
percent. That's not a typo. 727 percent. The cost of benefits and
direct payments for federal entitlement programs continues to grow at
a rate of 4 percent per year. 50 percent of Americans now receive
some form of federal entitlement benefit or direct payment. Both of
the dominate political parties have had a hand in the growth of these
programs.

Note: This is in *addition* to things like Social Security payouts
which are not really an "entitlement" although some like to call it
that.

The Federal Government doesn't earn money to pay for these programs.
They distribute tax revenues ... or borrow money ... to pay for them.

If banks are reluctant to lend and big corporations are reluctant to
invest in expansion, you really can't expect people to voluntarily
give up earned wealth or pay additional taxes so that the politicians
in Washington can spend it on their favorite programs. It might be
nice to think they should but it's an unrealistic expectation.

We are at the point where a decision has to be made. Is this country
going to continue it's march towards socialism? Or, is it going to
strive to be the land of "equal opportunity"? My bet is on the
former.

To the liberals in the group: Don't waste your time beating me up
with the "got mine, screw you" routine. That's not what I am
talking about.
I am talking about a much more potent and powerful trend that this
country has been on and I think it's probably now too late to reverse
course.

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:48:39 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy

Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44


----------------------------

I said the credit money. Want to start a business. Yup? Well see if you
can get a loan. Those trillion dollar deficits are financed with the
available credit money. Very little to go to the lower echelon. History
is
sort of repeating in this country. 1912, 15% had 65% of the money. 65% of
the people lived in poverty. The Great Depression was caused by big
government and lack of controls. WW2 was both caused a lot by the
depression, but it was what got the USA out of the depression. WW2 also
made us the economic powerhouse for a lot of years, as most of the rest of
the industrial world was in devastation. But with the elites in power,
helping themselves to stay in power, and controlling government, just like
now, the allowed companies to merge and build use powerful conglomerates,
instead of spending their money on modernizing factories, they spent it
buying competitors. Steel left the US as we both ran lower on iron ore,
and
had old inefficient Bessemer Process foundries. While those devastated
countries rebuilt with US help with modern, more efficient factories. And
while we controlled 85% of the manufacturing, the management kept
overpaying
the help, as their was not competition. Now we are paying the price. 60
million functional illiterates' in this country. How are we going to
compete? With a dumb, lazy workforce and old factories, and a huge bloated
Federal and state government, with the inefficiencies of large
bureaucracies. We are screwed in this country. As we have an electorate
who is voting for whomever promises the most gimmies. As to cash. There
is
a finite amount, and the richest probably do not have that much. They have
assets. Gold, land, factories, banks.

Really?

At the end of WWII, what was the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans?
Or, better yet, what was the approximate tax rate from 1936 until
1964?

Hint: it was more than twice what it is claimed to be, now, but Romney
(as a typical example) paid one third of that amount!

Nice FAUX news position, unfortunately, it ignores the facts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213


-----------------------------------------
That 70% tax rate was a fallacy really. I do not know how old you are, but
in those days there was lots more deductions. LOTS! For the middle class
and lower, you got a deduction for Sales Tax. Plus if you made a major
purchase, that was added to the tax table interest deduction. You got
Credit Card interest, and any consumer loan interest. You got a standard
deduction that adjusted for inflation was probably higher than now. Medical
was a better deduction then. How many actually paid anything at 70%? And
even if you did not deduct anything now, you will never pay 35% on your
income. That is the top tier. Any money you made less than the top tier is
taxed at a lower amount. 14% is actually pretty high percentage these days.
Most of us in the middle class are probably in the less than 10% range. And
lots of Romney's money was at the qualified dividend rate of 15% which means
the money was already taxed at a high rate before it was distributed.

In article ,
says...

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:48:39 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy

Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44


----------------------------

I said the credit money. Want to start a business. Yup? Well see if you
can get a loan. Those trillion dollar deficits are financed with the
available credit money. Very little to go to the lower echelon. History
is
sort of repeating in this country. 1912, 15% had 65% of the money. 65% of
the people lived in poverty. The Great Depression was caused by big
government and lack of controls. WW2 was both caused a lot by the
depression, but it was what got the USA out of the depression. WW2 also
made us the economic powerhouse for a lot of years, as most of the rest of
the industrial world was in devastation. But with the elites in power,
helping themselves to stay in power, and controlling government, just like
now, the allowed companies to merge and build use powerful conglomerates,
instead of spending their money on modernizing factories, they spent it
buying competitors. Steel left the US as we both ran lower on iron ore,
and
had old inefficient Bessemer Process foundries. While those devastated
countries rebuilt with US help with modern, more efficient factories. And
while we controlled 85% of the manufacturing, the management kept
overpaying
the help, as their was not competition. Now we are paying the price. 60
million functional illiterates' in this country. How are we going to
compete? With a dumb, lazy workforce and old factories, and a huge bloated
Federal and state government, with the inefficiencies of large
bureaucracies. We are screwed in this country. As we have an electorate
who is voting for whomever promises the most gimmies. As to cash. There
is
a finite amount, and the richest probably do not have that much. They have
assets. Gold, land, factories, banks.

Really?

At the end of WWII, what was the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans?
Or, better yet, what was the approximate tax rate from 1936 until
1964?

Hint: it was more than twice what it is claimed to be, now, but Romney
(as a typical example) paid one third of that amount!

Nice FAUX news position, unfortunately, it ignores the facts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213


-----------------------------------------
That 70% tax rate was a fallacy really. I do not know how old you are, but
in those days there was lots more deductions. LOTS! For the middle class
and lower, you got a deduction for Sales Tax. Plus if you made a major
purchase, that was added to the tax table interest deduction. You got
Credit Card interest, and any consumer loan interest. You got a standard
deduction that adjusted for inflation was probably higher than now. Medical
was a better deduction then. How many actually paid anything at 70%? And
even if you did not deduct anything now, you will never pay 35% on your
income. That is the top tier. Any money you made less than the top tier is
taxed at a lower amount. 14% is actually pretty high percentage these days.
Most of us in the middle class are probably in the less than 10% range. And
lots of Romney's money was at the qualified dividend rate of 15% which means
the money was already taxed at a high rate before it was distributed.

If it didn't affect anyone or only a few, why did it exist?

wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:47:22 -0400, Earl
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy
Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44
WTF? Returned to the middle class = what? Monthly checks? Lump sum
(re)distribution?

It doesn't matter. If you had ever owned a business this would be
abundantly clear. You can't borrow money, you can't hire more
employees, you can't do ANYTHING unless money is available. With all
of the available money hoarded by just a few people, the economy has
simply ground to a halt and will stay there until there is money in
the hands of the people that actually spend it and keep it
circulating.

Call it whatever distasteful name you wish. Make it happen however you
can image, but the reality is that it MUST happen to fix the economy.
Your first paragraph is loaded with errors in basic economics.

At lease we agree that the redistribution of wealth is distasteful. It
is also wrong in a democracy.

In article , earl82985
@hotmail.com says...

wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:47:22 -0400, Earl
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy
Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44
WTF? Returned to the middle class = what? Monthly checks? Lump sum
(re)distribution?

It doesn't matter. If you had ever owned a business this would be
abundantly clear. You can't borrow money, you can't hire more
employees, you can't do ANYTHING unless money is available. With all
of the available money hoarded by just a few people, the economy has
simply ground to a halt and will stay there until there is money in
the hands of the people that actually spend it and keep it
circulating.

Call it whatever distasteful name you wish. Make it happen however you
can image, but the reality is that it MUST happen to fix the economy.
Your first paragraph is loaded with errors in basic economics.

At lease we agree that the redistribution of wealth is distasteful. It
is also wrong in a democracy.

Forced redistribution of wealth is immoral.

BAR wrote:
In article , earl82985
@hotmail.com says...
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:47:22 -0400, Earl
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

as the
government has taken all available credit money from the economy
Right idea, wrong bad guy.

Facts say that the money is held by the richest people, who are
sitting on the money and keeping it out of circulation.

The government has foolishly printed more money in an attempt to put
more money in the hands of those that will allow it to trickle up.
That won't work.

Until a sizable portion of that 85% of cash held by the richest is
returned to the middle class, the economy CAN NOT get any better.

It is just a mathematical fact.

http://wealthfacts.org/?page_id=44
WTF? Returned to the middle class = what? Monthly checks? Lump sum
(re)distribution?

It doesn't matter. If you had ever owned a business this would be
abundantly clear. You can't borrow money, you can't hire more
employees, you can't do ANYTHING unless money is available. With all
of the available money hoarded by just a few people, the economy has
simply ground to a halt and will stay there until there is money in
the hands of the people that actually spend it and keep it
circulating.

Call it whatever distasteful name you wish. Make it happen however you
can image, but the reality is that it MUST happen to fix the economy.
Your first paragraph is loaded with errors in basic economics.

At lease we agree that the redistribution of wealth is distasteful. It
is also wrong in a democracy.
Forced redistribution of wealth is immoral.
That, too.

On 10/11/2012 7:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:


I didn't say the cash buyer wasn't paying those fees, on the contrary, I
said the fees were built into the buyer's cost of the product.

That right there is the crux of all the bull**** argument you have
perpetrated.

You knew from the beginning when we said using our credit card
didn't cost us, we were saying it was the same as paying cash.
You have been playing a game of semantics for a week when you knew
what our side was saying. Troll!

Mikek