Cash for clunkers?

On 2009-08-12, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:50:15 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-08-11, dwight > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2009-08-11, dwight > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting bit:
>>>>>
>>>>> brent: So a bunch of people get new cars.
>>>>> Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was
>>>>> diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that
>>>>> people would have spent on something else had there not been this
>>>>> program to encourage them to buy a new car instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> dwight: What about all of those other businesses that are suffering
>>>>> because
>>>>> consumers are not spending? I'm doing MY part, that's for damn sure. Are
>>>>> you
>>>>> doing yours?
>>>>>
>>>>> brent: Oh, yes, here's where I'm a bad person for being a responsible
>>>>> saver.
>>>>>
>>>>> heh...
>>>>>
>>>>>)
>>>>
>>>> I guees you've not read krugman and the other Keynesians. The Keynesians
>>>> call it "The Paradox of Thrift". It's nonsense, but it basically says
>>>> that people who aren't spending every penny they have and borrowing more
>>>> are bad for the economy. This is one of the reasons they like inflation
>>>> so much, it's to get people to spend more and more by destroying the
>>>> value of savings.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north672.html
>>>>
>>>> I think covers where you were taking this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, I was just pointing out that we can talk in circles, loops, and go off
>>> in a thousand different directions when talking about fiscal policies. You
>>> and I are not going to solve the problems here in ramfm.
>>
>>No. But every person who learns there is something beyond (and better)
>>than the new-deal keyensian economics that government school teaches the
>>better.
>>
>
> You won't find any brand of economics that can't pull data to "prove"
> that it works.

You sound perfect to learn the austrian school, which isn't such math
based idiotcy.

On 2009-08-12, Ashton Crusher > wrote:

> The fact is that higher taxes have produced a better economy and lower
> taxes have produced a worse economy.

Since when? Government consumes it does not produce.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:00:16 +0000 (UTC), david >
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:52:49 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some
>electrons to say:
>
>
>>
>> The fact is that higher taxes have produced a better economy and lower
>> taxes have produced a worse economy.
>
>Please back your opinion with a citation of fact.

There have been many news articles written about this in the past
decade. I don't catalog everything I read. Not that it would matter,
no one changes their mind based on facts.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:12:57 -0500, "Nelson J. Starbranch"
> wrote:

>
>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:10:20 -0700 (PDT), 180 Out
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 11, 6:00 am, Brent > wrote:
>>>> On 2009-08-11, dwight > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >> On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Interesting bit:
>>>>
>>>> > brent: So a bunch of people get new cars.
>>>> > Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was
>>>> > diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that
>>>> > people would have spent on something else had there not been this
>>>> > program to encourage them to buy a new car instead?
>>>>
>>>> > dwight: What about all of those other businesses that are suffering
>>>> > because
>>>> > consumers are not spending? I'm doing MY part, that's for damn sure.
>>>> > Are you
>>>> > doing yours?
>>>>
>>>> > brent: Oh, yes, here's where I'm a bad person for being a responsible
>>>> > saver.
>>>>
>>>> > heh...
>>>>
>>>> >)
>>>>
>>>> I guees you've not read krugman and the other Keynesians. The Keynesians
>>>> call it "The Paradox of Thrift". It's nonsense, but it basically says
>>>> that people who aren't spending every penny they have and borrowing more
>>>> are bad for the economy. This is one of the reasons they like inflation
>>>> so much, it's to get people to spend more and more by destroying the
>>>> value of savings.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north672.html
>>>>
>>>> I think covers where you were taking this.
>>>
>>>This country once considered taxation without representation a
>>>sufficiently grave offense that we overthrew our government for doing
>>>it. There is no more pervasive form of taxation without
>>>representation on this planet today than the Obama administration's
>>>obscene deficit spending. We are literally burning down the future
>>>wealth of everyone under age 18, and the next two generations not yet
>>>born, with this fiscal profligacy. We have given our victims no voice
>>>in the matter. The disbursement of every single deficit dollar should
>>>make us wince with pain and remorse, not celebration.
>>>
>>>180 Out
>>
>> Don't blame OB. Bush is the one who got the ball rolling. And none
>> of it could happen without congress passing the laws.
>
>Less we forget, with a Democratically controlled Congress for the last two
>years of his term...
>

Doesn't matter, Bush the Idiot got us into a pointless and hugely
expensive war that drained the economic lifeblood of the country. ALL
money spent on the military is the same as shoveling money into a
fire. The goal should be the smallest military possible, not the
largest.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:41:35 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2009-08-12, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:50:15 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2009-08-11, dwight > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2009-08-11, dwight > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting bit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> brent: So a bunch of people get new cars.
>>>>>> Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was
>>>>>> diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that
>>>>>> people would have spent on something else had there not been this
>>>>>> program to encourage them to buy a new car instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dwight: What about all of those other businesses that are suffering
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> consumers are not spending? I'm doing MY part, that's for damn sure. Are
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> doing yours?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> brent: Oh, yes, here's where I'm a bad person for being a responsible
>>>>>> saver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> heh...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>)
>>>>>
>>>>> I guees you've not read krugman and the other Keynesians. The Keynesians
>>>>> call it "The Paradox of Thrift". It's nonsense, but it basically says
>>>>> that people who aren't spending every penny they have and borrowing more
>>>>> are bad for the economy. This is one of the reasons they like inflation
>>>>> so much, it's to get people to spend more and more by destroying the
>>>>> value of savings.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north672.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I think covers where you were taking this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nah, I was just pointing out that we can talk in circles, loops, and go off
>>>> in a thousand different directions when talking about fiscal policies. You
>>>> and I are not going to solve the problems here in ramfm.
>>>
>>>No. But every person who learns there is something beyond (and better)
>>>than the new-deal keyensian economics that government school teaches the
>>>better.
>>>
>>
>> You won't find any brand of economics that can't pull data to "prove"
>> that it works.
>
>You sound perfect to learn the austrian school, which isn't such math
>based idiotcy.
>


I've talked to Austrian school economists and they are no different
then the rest, they just have different theories.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:46:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some
electrons to say:

>
> Not that it would matter, no
> one changes their mind based on facts.

Especially you.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:07:45 +0000 (UTC), david >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:46:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some
>electrons to say:
>
>>
>> Not that it would matter, no
>> one changes their mind based on facts.
>
>Especially you.

You haven't presented any. We are both just offering opinions. I've
been thru this drill before and wasted my time digging up the FACTS.
All that happens is that the other side just goes off on a tangent.
Like when you say that bush should be hanged for his war crimes the
bush sympathizers start blathering about "what about when Clinton did
<whatever>" as if that excuses bush.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:12:51 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some
electrons to say:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:07:45 +0000 (UTC), david > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:46:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some
>>electrons to say:
>>
>>
>>> Not that it would matter, no
>>> one changes their mind based on facts.
>>
>>Especially you.
>
> You haven't presented any. We are both just offering opinions. I've
> been thru this drill before and wasted my time digging up the FACTS. All
> that happens is that the other side just goes off on a tangent. Like
> when you say that bush should be hanged for his war crimes the bush
> sympathizers start blathering about "what about when Clinton did
> <whatever>" as if that excuses bush.

I'm not the one that made the statement

>"The fact is that higher taxes have produced a better economy and lower
>taxes have produced a worse economy.".

That was you. If you call it a fact, as you do, then back it up with
data. Otherwise, it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. I
have nothing to prove, you do.

Brent > wrote in news:h5aqo9$215$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> On 2009-08-04, Dick R. > wrote:
>> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
>> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
>> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
>> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
>> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.
>
> It is stupid. It's a government plan. It's wasteful, stupid, and
> transfers wealth from one group to another. These are the people that
> want to run health care.
>
>

What's money when Obama can keep mortgaging America to the Chinese forever?
What does it matter that at the rate America is going, interest on the debt
will cost 50% of the GDP soon?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:35:28 +0000 (UTC), david >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:12:51 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some
>electrons to say:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:07:45 +0000 (UTC), david > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:46:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher rearranged some
>>>electrons to say:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not that it would matter, no
>>>> one changes their mind based on facts.
>>>
>>>Especially you.
>>
>> You haven't presented any. We are both just offering opinions. I've
>> been thru this drill before and wasted my time digging up the FACTS. All
>> that happens is that the other side just goes off on a tangent. Like
>> when you say that bush should be hanged for his war crimes the bush
>> sympathizers start blathering about "what about when Clinton did
>> <whatever>" as if that excuses bush.
>
>I'm not the one that made the statement
>
>>"The fact is that higher taxes have produced a better economy and lower
>>taxes have produced a worse economy.".
>
>That was you. If you call it a fact, as you do, then back it up with
>data. Otherwise, it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. I
>have nothing to prove, you do.


I've seen sufficient analysis that I believe it's a fact. You have
not. You want me to do your research for you. If you are willing to
pay me I will. But to clarify, it's my opinion that it's a fact and
it's your opinion that it isn't. That's why I said we are both
offering opinions.