From: Carbon on 21 Dec 2009 17:56 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 21 Dec 2009 22:52 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 21 Dec 2009 22:55 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 21 Dec 2009 22:57 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 21 Dec 2009 22:57
On 21-Dec-2009, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > Hoarding of ammo and Pro-Vs is still ok right? Damn straight! -- bill-o |