From: Carbon on
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:39:52 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4b2da4b7$0$5078$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:01:09 +0000, assimilate wrote:
>>> On 18-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> These are the ultra-elite I'm talking about here. We're talking
>>>>>> wealth that no one in this group can imagine *seeing*, much less
>>>>>> making in one year. In case you haven't been paying attention,
>>>>>> they run the country, and have been running it for awhile now.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're talking about the politics of envy.
>>>>
>>>> No envy. I'm just saying that a permanent oligarchy is bad for the
>>>> country. I sure as hell don't want to *be* part of the ruling
>>>> elite.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

"The Shadow Party." Mike, please tell me you're not serious.
From: assimilate on

On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:

> 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.

Top-heavy economy is one where the savings rate is below 5%, right? Where
did you study ECON, K. Marx U?

--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:

> > 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.

Are you so daft to think that the only reason people buy things they don't
need is because of a lack of taxation? You have a bassackwards view of what
is important to economic development. Are you sure you live in Tex & not DC,
perhaps you have specially bottled Potomac River water for personal
consumption?

--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 20-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:

> 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.

What is important here, which you ignore, is that the incentive structure be
reversed to promote production. This creates wealth.

--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 21-Dec-2009, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:

> Hoarding of ammo and Pro-Vs is still ok right?

Damn straight!

--
bill-o