Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: Chris Bellomy on 20 Dec 2009 22:26 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/20/09 7:35 PM: > On 19-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>> it seems to be his key to utopia, when in reality it kills jobs and >>> opens up >>> more avenues for graft. If we taxed spending instead of creating our >>> economy >>> would be more robust. >> Let me get this straight... to stimulate spending, you want >> to discourage spending. >> >> That's... brilliant. > > Did I say anything about encouraging spending? You said something about the economy being robust. That doesn't happen without spending. > Encourage savings, capital > development and outlays. This creates jobs and creates wealth. Encouraging savings in a top-heavy economy is a surefire ticket to revolution. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 20 Dec 2009 22:27 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/20/09 7:37 PM: > On 20-Dec-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>> These words strike me as ironic coming from someone who's whole >>> political world is financed by Soros >> That's about as meaningful as saying your entire political world is >> financed by Murdoch. > > I don't see Murdoch plow his money into conservative pressure groups whereas > Soros finances every progressive group around at the same time he is > shorting the American economy, coicidence? I can't even think of a single blogger taking Soros money. Not one. Can you name one? Meanwhile, Murdoch gives us Fox Noise, the Wall Street Jurinal, the New York Post... cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 20 Dec 2009 22:31 dsc-ky wrote, On 12/20/09 8:36 PM: > On Dec 19, 11:09 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >> assimil...(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/19/09 8:48 PM: >> >>> On 18-Dec-2009, David Laville <dglavi...(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>> Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater >>>>> percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than >>>>> do the wealthy. Period. >>>> Do you even know what a progressive tax is? >>> it seems to be his key to utopia, when in reality it kills jobs and opens up >>> more avenues for graft. If we taxed spending instead of creating our economy >>> would be more robust. >> Let me get this straight... to stimulate spending, you want >> to discourage spending. >> >> That's... brilliant. > > I don't think that is what he was saying or necessarily what would > happen. If income taxes were dropped and we were allowed to keep that > money and if the sales taxes were increases an appropriate amount... > why would that necessarily discourage spending. Because the only way the government ever gets your money is if you spend it? Eventually nobody will buy anything they don't absolutely need, which will be too expensive for most due to the annihilation of jobs. You just can't even begin to imagine how severe the economic contraction would be. cb
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 21 Dec 2009 03:51 On Dec 20, 8:50 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:37:24 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > On 20-Dec-2009, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > >>> These words strike me as ironic coming from someone who's whole > >>> political world is financed by Soros > > >> That's about as meaningful as saying your entire political world is > >> financed by Murdoch. > > > I don't see Murdoch plow his money into conservative pressure groups > > whereas Soros finances every progressive group around at the same time > > he is shorting the American economy, coicidence? > > Be serious. Murdoch owns a massive media empire that relentlessly hurls > propaganda at the American people day and night. It's mind-bottling that > you think Soros has anything even remotely like that level of influence. Murdoch saw a business opportunity in a news channel with a conservative viewpoint. All the other networks have a liberal viewpoint, and so liberals want fox news off the air...shut the fox up, for example. Amazing how intolerant liberals are...100% intolerant...of course I have known that since I was once a politically active liberal...but I think for myself on just about everything, and that attitude is 100% incompatible with liberalism, especially progressivism...where intellectual giants like Bill Maher and Michael Moore are all knowing, all seeing gurus!
From: dsc-ky on 21 Dec 2009 08:19
On Dec 20, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > dsc-ky wrote, On 12/20/09 8:36 PM: > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 11:09 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> assimil...(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/19/09 8:48 PM: > > >>> On 18-Dec-2009, David Laville <dglavi...(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>>>> Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater > >>>>> percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than > >>>>> do the wealthy. Period. > >>>> Do you even know what a progressive tax is? > >>> it seems to be his key to utopia, when in reality it kills jobs and opens up > >>> more avenues for graft. If we taxed spending instead of creating our economy > >>> would be more robust. > >> Let me get this straight... to stimulate spending, you want > >> to discourage spending. > > >> That's... brilliant. > > > I don't think that is what he was saying or necessarily what would > > happen. If income taxes were dropped and we were allowed to keep that > > money and if the sales taxes were increases an appropriate amount... > > why would that necessarily discourage spending. > > Because the only way the government ever gets your > money is if you spend it? I think it would get spent... once the initial shock passed? > Eventually nobody will buy > anything they don't absolutely need, which will be > too expensive for most due to the annihilation of > jobs. You just can't even begin to imagine how > severe the economic contraction would be. > > cb |