Cost of Chrysler financing

"Geoff" > wrote in message
icas.hpqcorp.net...
>

> > >> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually
cutting
> > >> > spending so
> > >> > that the tax cut is paid for?
>
> Doublespeak. One does not "pay for" a reduction in income. One *might*
> "reduce spending", or choose to engage in deficit spending. You see,
> "paying for" implies that the government is "giving" us something. It is
not.
>
> It is being forced, by law, to not *take* as much of what is rightfully
> OURS *from* us. Not that this is a distinction that you'll be able to
understand, Ted.
>

I understand this but it really has no bearing on anything. If you want to
play these kinds of games then I'll remind you that WE the people CHOSE the
representatives and government officials that created the government
programs
that the government spends money on. WE approved these programs and
WE are responsible for paying for them. WE chose to spend our money on
everything from Social Security to buying the Sequoia yacht

Where I am annoyed is that while I may be responsible for choosing to spend
my money on these programs - via taxes - unlike you I happen to want the
expenditures on these programs cut down to the point that the government
isn't deficit spending to pay for them.

Choosing to engage in deficit spending - is that how you put it - is not a
viable
long term method of funding anything. I suggest if you think so that you
quit your
job and run all your credit cards up to the maximum and see what happens.

I am perfectly willing to go with a reduction in many of the programs in
order
to produce a surplus so that we can have a big tax cut, this is as
responsible
a fiscal policy as the previous one was, as both result in a balanced
budget.

I am not willing to see even more spending and increases in programs
at the same time as a big tax cut, as not only is it first of all
irresponsible to
increase the spending in the first place, since no money was budgeted for
it to begin with, and second of all it is irresponsible to cut taxes without
cutting spending so the budget stays balanced.

You apparently seem to think it is OK to increase spending when there is
no money to support it. I don't. Returning my tax cut doesen't solve
anything
because I didn't want to see the increased spending to begin with. Why
support it with more tax money?

> No, conservatives love to talk about the amount of their *own money*
> they get to keep, as compared to what would otherwise be if you
> socialists were in power. I love my tax cut; I went down an entire
> bracket. I want ANOTHER tax cut, an even larger one. I'd like to see
> my federal income tax somewhere around 5-10%, and my FICA eliminated.
>

Good, no problem with that - as long as you are perfectly willing to cut the
spending in accordance. If you are willing to give up your Social Security,
and
you are willing to stop throwing money into trying to prosecute doctors that
are following state law, then no problem - let's see, how much is it going
to
cost us when John Asscroft on his way out the door filed a court challenge
of
Oregon's D.w.D?

>
> Republican != conservative, although conservative Republicans are the
> majority
>
> Democrat != socialist, although socialist Democrats are the majority
>
> Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>

Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
good...

> > >
> > > You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you
could
> > > do
> > > a better job of running the country than us liberals.
>
> Trained monkeys could do a better job than you socialists did. Oh, wait
> a minute, Bill Clinton WAS a trained monkey!
>

Great, then the Republicans in control of the government don't have to work
very hard to make the grade.

>
> Well, now is your
> > > chance to
> > > prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget
>
>
> Who says that a "balanced budget" is a goal of today's conservatives? A
> "balanced budget" is a canard, a red herring, a vaporware goal. Nobody
> who's ever had a mortgage has had a "balanced budget".

A mortgage is nothing like what the US government is doing today. When the
US government's budget was balanced back in the late 90's, at that time
a portion of the budget was going into paying interest and principle on
the national debt. (mostly interest) This was equivalent to a household
that maintains a mortgage on a balanced budget.

Today, the US government is STILL paying interest on the national debt,
AND they are ADDING to it. The situation is equivalent to a household
that had a mortgage that they were successfully paying the monthly payments
on, suddenly going on a home buying spree and buying a new home a
month, and assuming yet another mortgage every month. It is in short, a
giant Ponzi scheme.

> "Deficit
> spending" is a commonly-accepted means to an end,

means-to-an-end do you really know what that phrase actually means?
Ever wonder about that small word "end" that is a part of it?

What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
run up?

Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.

And you think your better off with that tax money? Well let me tell you
this - in 1999, before any tax cutting, I personally was in an industry
where there was a shortage of workers, and if I had wanted to make
more money I could have walked out of my job and within a month
had another one in my industry that paid me more.

Today, well I'm still in that industry, still working that job, still making
the same money I was in 1999. But, what has changed is that now
the depression has destroyed most of the other positions that were out
there, and there's a glut of workers in my industry. So I can no longer
go out and just move to another employer and get a big raise as a
result. So on one hand I have a tax cut, on the other I don't have any
leverage when review time comes round to demand more money.
And prices have gone up in the last 5 years, too. Overall I would have
been better off with a healthy job market and no tax cut, than what
we have now which is a tax cut and a crappy job market. And most
other professional people I know are the same way. Wages simply
do not rise very fast when there's an oversupply of workers in the
market, that is basic supply and demand.


> and it is workable and
> manageable. Don't give me this "balanced budget" hooey. I couldn't
> honestly care *less* whether or not the budget is "balanced."
>

Well, thanks at least for proving to everyone that you are a complete fool.
For
an explanation as to why this kind of economic system is impossible, refer
to
"Economics and Politics in the Weimar Republic" by Theo Balderston.

>
> - and
> > > it
> > > was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
> > > a few years ago, mind -
>
> If so, it was misguided, and probably an attempt to reign you
> socialists in.
>

What a recommendation for political advice - you don't even know
obvious things about political history and you think you know what's
going on? Unbelievable.

> Fortunately, we were able to do so without amending the Constitution
> that time. Regardless, if amending the Constitution is what it takes
> the next time, we'll likely pull it off.
>

Please do. I would love an amendment requiring a blanced budget.

>
> then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
> > > have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end
of
> > > the
> > > consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay
> > > marriage,
> > > an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
> > > all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.
>
> The conservative swing in the US is just getting under way, Ted. We're
> only 10 years in, and if the pattern repeats, there's 30 more to go.
> By the time we're done, there won't BE any liberals as currently
> defined. Heh! I can't wait until all the socialist hippies from the 60s
are DEAD! :-)
>

The conservative swing started in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.
What happened with President Carter's handling of the Iran hostage incident
was the end result of many years of political correctness, and how this kind
of thing could be driven to an extreme. The American public realized then
that, Sorry, when bad people do bad things, innocent people are going to
get killed when you take the steps to punish the bad people, and there's
nothing
that can be done about it.

The Iran hostage situation was probably the most collosal mishandling of
hostage taking that has happened since WWII. The number of subsequent
people who have died simply because mid east terrorists decided as a
result of this that taking hostages was a profitable endeavor, surely dwarfs
the number of hostages in the American Embassy. This event crystalized
how misguided an untraliberal approach is in government, and started the
pendulum swinging to the conservative side.

On reflection, I really feel sorry for you. Quite obviously you are either
young
and have had a ****-poor education, or you are older and just plain ignorant
and happy to be so. You simply cannot understand politics without
understanding
political history, and you don't even understand that.

The conservative swing is getting very close to the end. I give it maybe 10
years
more, tops. What has happened is that now the conservatives have finally
gotten
what they have been fighting for since 1980, - control of the executive and
legislative branches of the federal government. The smarter people in the
conservative
movement know that now is a very delicate time, it is crucial to tread
carefully
so as not to provoke a backlash. But, as has always happened in American
political
history, the radical elements in the party who have been pouring
their blood sweat and tears into pushing the movement, now they finally got
what
they want and they are going to run hog-wild. The same thing happened with
President Carter when he booted Ford out of office. The idiot ultraliberals
in the
Democratic party wern't restrained and Carter got booted.


Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>>Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>
> Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
> good...

The libs are believing their own lie - one of the many, many, many
factors that cost them credibility and the election. You are falling
into the trap of thinking that conservatives, including GWB, is against
funding (federal gov't and otherwise) of stem cell research. Fact is,
it is funded (federal gov't and otherwise), and GWB supports it. You
are intentionally confusing the very dead-end fetal stem cell research
(as in very little if any return on investment) with the very beneficial
and broader category of (non-fetal) stem cell research). Christopher
Reeve's widow and Ronald Reagan's son (and the entire Democratic Party)
were FOS on that issue, and most Americans knew it, thanks to some
honest reporting on the issue.

> What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
> ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
> run up?
>
> Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
> result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
> for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
> growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.

Even if that were true (and it isn't), was there anything else going on
in the last four years that could have had a negative effect on things?
Gee - I'll have to stop and think real hard to answer that one. I
know there was something, but I just can't think of it. Let's see -
what could it be...?

(BTW - I too believe in a balanced budget)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>>Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>
> Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
> good...

The libs are believing their own lie - one of the many, many, many
factors that cost them credibility and the election. You are falling
into the trap of thinking that conservatives, including GWB, is against
funding (federal gov't and otherwise) of stem cell research. Fact is,
it is funded (federal gov't and otherwise), and GWB supports it. You
are intentionally confusing the very dead-end fetal stem cell research
(as in very little if any return on investment) with the very beneficial
and broader category of (non-fetal) stem cell research). Christopher
Reeve's widow and Ronald Reagan's son (and the entire Democratic Party)
were FOS on that issue, and most Americans knew it, thanks to some
honest reporting on the issue.

> What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
> ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
> run up?
>
> Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
> result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
> for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
> growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.

Even if that were true (and it isn't), was there anything else going on
in the last four years that could have had a negative effect on things?
Gee - I'll have to stop and think real hard to answer that one. I
know there was something, but I just can't think of it. Let's see -
what could it be...?

(BTW - I too believe in a balanced budget)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>>Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>>
>> Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
>> good...
>
> The libs are believing their own lie - one of the many, many, many factors
> that cost them credibility and the election. You are falling into the
> trap of thinking that conservatives, including GWB, is against funding
> (federal gov't and otherwise) of stem cell research. Fact is, it is
> funded (federal gov't and otherwise), and GWB supports it. You are
> intentionally confusing the very dead-end fetal stem cell research (as in
> very little if any return on investment) with the very beneficial and
> broader category of (non-fetal) stem cell research). Christopher Reeve's
> widow and Ronald Reagan's son (and the entire Democratic Party) were FOS
> on that issue, and most Americans knew it, thanks to some honest reporting
> on the issue.
>
>> What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
>> ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
>> run up?
>>
>> Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
>> result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
>> for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
>> growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.
>
> Even if that were true (and it isn't), was there anything else going on in
> the last four years that could have had a negative effect on things? Gee -
> I'll have to stop and think real hard to answer that one. I know there
> was something, but I just can't think of it. Let's see - what could it
> be...?

Don't forget what went on in the eight years previous to GWB's first term -
the decimating of the military by Bill "I loathe the military" Clinton.
Rebuilding the military costs money, lots of it.

> (BTW - I too believe in a balanced budget)
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>>Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>>
>> Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
>> good...
>
> The libs are believing their own lie - one of the many, many, many factors
> that cost them credibility and the election. You are falling into the
> trap of thinking that conservatives, including GWB, is against funding
> (federal gov't and otherwise) of stem cell research. Fact is, it is
> funded (federal gov't and otherwise), and GWB supports it. You are
> intentionally confusing the very dead-end fetal stem cell research (as in
> very little if any return on investment) with the very beneficial and
> broader category of (non-fetal) stem cell research). Christopher Reeve's
> widow and Ronald Reagan's son (and the entire Democratic Party) were FOS
> on that issue, and most Americans knew it, thanks to some honest reporting
> on the issue.
>
>> What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
>> ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
>> run up?
>>
>> Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
>> result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
>> for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
>> growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.
>
> Even if that were true (and it isn't), was there anything else going on in
> the last four years that could have had a negative effect on things? Gee -
> I'll have to stop and think real hard to answer that one. I know there
> was something, but I just can't think of it. Let's see - what could it
> be...?

Don't forget what went on in the eight years previous to GWB's first term -
the decimating of the military by Bill "I loathe the military" Clinton.
Rebuilding the military costs money, lots of it.

> (BTW - I too believe in a balanced budget)
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

I have no strong opinion one way or the other on stem cell research but it
seems to me a bit crazy to be against it when thousands of embryos are
destroyed every year during artificial insemination procedures. Or don't
the right wingers know that.


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>>Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>>
>> Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
>> good...
>
> The libs are believing their own lie - one of the many, many, many factors
> that cost them credibility and the election. You are falling into the
> trap of thinking that conservatives, including GWB, is against funding
> (federal gov't and otherwise) of stem cell research. Fact is, it is
> funded (federal gov't and otherwise), and GWB supports it. You are
> intentionally confusing the very dead-end fetal stem cell research (as in
> very little if any return on investment) with the very beneficial and
> broader category of (non-fetal) stem cell research). Christopher Reeve's
> widow and Ronald Reagan's son (and the entire Democratic Party) were FOS
> on that issue, and most Americans knew it, thanks to some honest reporting
> on the issue.
>
>> What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
>> ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
>> run up?
>>
>> Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
>> result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
>> for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
>> growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.
>
> Even if that were true (and it isn't), was there anything else going on in
> the last four years that could have had a negative effect on things? Gee -
> I'll have to stop and think real hard to answer that one. I know there
> was something, but I just can't think of it. Let's see - what could it
> be...?
>
> (BTW - I too believe in a balanced budget)
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

I have no strong opinion one way or the other on stem cell research but it
seems to me a bit crazy to be against it when thousands of embryos are
destroyed every year during artificial insemination procedures. Or don't
the right wingers know that.


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>>Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>>
>> Explain how support of stem cell research is socialist, this ought to be
>> good...
>
> The libs are believing their own lie - one of the many, many, many factors
> that cost them credibility and the election. You are falling into the
> trap of thinking that conservatives, including GWB, is against funding
> (federal gov't and otherwise) of stem cell research. Fact is, it is
> funded (federal gov't and otherwise), and GWB supports it. You are
> intentionally confusing the very dead-end fetal stem cell research (as in
> very little if any return on investment) with the very beneficial and
> broader category of (non-fetal) stem cell research). Christopher Reeve's
> widow and Ronald Reagan's son (and the entire Democratic Party) were FOS
> on that issue, and most Americans knew it, thanks to some honest reporting
> on the issue.
>
>> What end are you talking about. I see no end in sight. And if we
>> ever do get to an end, who is going to pay the national debt that we have
>> run up?
>>
>> Bush cut taxes in year 2000. The economy did not pick up as a
>> result, it's been FOUR YEARS and we still aren't creating enough jobs
>> for simple growth. Tax cutting did nothing to stimulate any economic
>> growth so I don't see that it did anything to reach any kind of end.
>
> Even if that were true (and it isn't), was there anything else going on in
> the last four years that could have had a negative effect on things? Gee -
> I'll have to stop and think real hard to answer that one. I know there
> was something, but I just can't think of it. Let's see - what could it
> be...?
>
> (BTW - I too believe in a balanced budget)
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

Art wrote:
> I have no strong opinion one way or the other on stem cell research but it
> seems to me a bit crazy to be against it when thousands of embryos are
> destroyed every year during artificial insemination procedures. Or don't
> the right wingers know that.

Well, no. What would really be crazy would be to spend a lot of effort
and money on something that holds, at best, very little promise, when
the non-embryonic stem cell research is where the results are. Why
divert resources away from things that offer benefits (and I don't mean
just non-embryonic stem cell research) to something that offers no bang
for the buck.

Face it, Art: The distortions about stem cell research were simply a
vehicle for the Dems to come up with anything to attack Bush. If there
had been anything genuine to it, Dan Rather would not have been so eager
to try to legitimize yet another red herring like he did. The fact that
the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic research was so
carelessly but intentionally blurred by your liberal buds made it pretty
obvious. But please - do all you can to make sure it is a major issue
for the Dems to run on again in '08. M. Moore and G. Soros would make
excellent spokesmen for the cause once again.

Let's let the state of CA report back in a few years on the medical
breakthoughs resulting from their stem cell initiative.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Art wrote:
> I have no strong opinion one way or the other on stem cell research but it
> seems to me a bit crazy to be against it when thousands of embryos are
> destroyed every year during artificial insemination procedures. Or don't
> the right wingers know that.

Well, no. What would really be crazy would be to spend a lot of effort
and money on something that holds, at best, very little promise, when
the non-embryonic stem cell research is where the results are. Why
divert resources away from things that offer benefits (and I don't mean
just non-embryonic stem cell research) to something that offers no bang
for the buck.

Face it, Art: The distortions about stem cell research were simply a
vehicle for the Dems to come up with anything to attack Bush. If there
had been anything genuine to it, Dan Rather would not have been so eager
to try to legitimize yet another red herring like he did. The fact that
the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic research was so
carelessly but intentionally blurred by your liberal buds made it pretty
obvious. But please - do all you can to make sure it is a major issue
for the Dems to run on again in '08. M. Moore and G. Soros would make
excellent spokesmen for the cause once again.

Let's let the state of CA report back in a few years on the medical
breakthoughs resulting from their stem cell initiative.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')