The me-first, screw everyone else crowd

[creation]

You are missing the point, there is no one to invest when it is all risk and no reward. It is NOT, and I cannot stress this enough.....not anyone's responsibility to contribute to society, although it is a nice gesture, to use the force of law to FORCE people to contribute more heavily is not an acceptable use of government. While it is true that investments pay off during a strong market, the exact opposite is true in a weaker one, this is why it is completely dishonest to say that taking more by law is a good thing, as many of the "evil rich" keep capitol in reserve for when a downturn affects the market, this gets harder to do when there are excessive taxes and a market will no longer bear out price increases, so again, people have a right to expect returns upon their investment, and government interference makes the processes harder to get return.

Many thanks.

True. Reward is required, and given. It IS, everyone's responsibility to contribute to society. It is acceptable to enforce a fair settlement. Investments pay off in a good market and fail in a bad one - for everyone. Investors lose money, people lose jobs. That's why its completely fair to share the burden and not the nominal amount. Indeed too much tax can be excessive, on everyone.

False premise, equal burden means exactly an equal share of the responsibility, this means everyone pays the same amount of money OR percentage, anything less puts an undue burden on initiative and it's rewards, and also violates the principle of equal protection.

True premise. The burden of $100 dollars is far easier for a rich man to pay then a poor man. Thus progressive taxation puts an even burden on all that can be carried by all, as history has shown.
Further the principle of equal protection remains intact.

No, wrong. People benefit from their own ideas or labors in a proper economic system, and as much as people want to throw out these theories that society somehow magically ingratiates the individual it is simply not the case, no matter which way you look at things economics boil down to choices, do you follow the law or break it, do you interfere with transactions or trust that people will make the choices that they see benefit from, to buy or not to buy, etc. From what I gather as I read your response you are arguing that somehow society made someone wealthy, this is false, however the market did.

No, correct. People benefit from their own ideas, plus heavy investment in public capital and the purchasing power of the masses. Society does ingratiate the individual and its not magic, its reality. Society did make people wealthy, because the market is society. There is not one citizen that is not connected in some form to the market.

Yes, it absolutely does, the fact is that taxes are based in law, this is why one goes to prison for not paying them, the equal protections clause pertains to all matters of criminal law, if there is penalty of incarceration there must be equal standing and due process must be applied.

Indeed, an equal sharing of the burden has been applied for years, has stood up in court and has worked well.

Has already been introduced over the years, and the courts have not heard the arguments, it doesn't mean they don't have merit, but possibly were not worded correctly or the court may have had more pressing or timely cases, either way though, your appeal to court argument is already invalid.

Indeed, they have not even heard the arguments, which haven't been worded correctly. Until they are, you have plenty of sound and fury, but no case.

Besides, you are the one who appealed to the law by speaking of the constitution - and given its not on your side obviously, your argument is the weaker. In the end what do you have but alot of words telling us that your principle is correct and your argument has merit? Very little.

The true difference is that I want a constitutional system of limited government returned to the U.S. and am getting tired of market interference

Well, that is a difference between us I suppose. But you dont really know what you want, and neither do your fellow ideological travellers, since as you say your case has yet to be even worded correctly.

I suspect you wish your country to hark back to a time in history of limited government, the trouble is, in this vague time, plenty of other things in American life were also limited, thats why the progressives got their way - and look at the results - not India, not modern Russia, not Africa, but a modern nation of healthy educated individuals.

 

[Morality Games]

Can anybody possibly see a link between poverty and undesirable outcomes for society as a whole? If so, then policies which provide a bulwark between the lower middle class and poverty and a ladder out of poverty for the poor are sound investments of tax dollar money. Does anybody see how, for example and considering its negative influence on informed awareness and time, poverty might pose a threat to the ability of citizens to participate in the republic? Republics are not, after all, self-maintaining.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Many thanks.

True. Reward is required, and given. It IS, everyone's responsibility to contribute to society. It is acceptable to enforce a fair settlement. Investments pay off in a good market and fail in a bad one - for everyone. Investors lose money, people lose jobs. That's why its completely fair to share the burden and not the nominal amount. Indeed too much tax can be excessive, on everyone.

False, and the founding writings of this country, which our law are based on, plus Thoreau and many of the authors of the natural philosophies of humanity soundly disagree with "societal responsibility" as do the basic fundamentals of economics.

True premise. The burden of $100 dollars is far easier for a rich man to pay then a poor man. Thus progressive taxation puts an even burden on all that can be carried by all, as history has shown.
Further the principle of equal protection remains intact.

Nope, doesn't stand up on any real principles of United States founding, our culture, economics, etc. You have to do better than appeal to emotion.

No, correct. People benefit from their own ideas, plus heavy investment in public capital and the purchasing power of the masses. Society does ingratiate the individual and its not magic, its reality. Society did make people wealthy, because the market is society. There is not one citizen that is not connected in some form to the market.

No, not even close, someone creates, someone buys, the middle man is contract labor and is paid to the terms of contract, and if someone is not a participant in the transaction then they are irrelevant, so as you can see, you are wrong. If you aren't a consumer OR seller, then the transaction is none of your business.

Indeed, an equal sharing of the burden has been applied for years, has stood up in court and has worked well.

Yeah, okay.:roll:

Indeed, they have not even heard the arguments, which haven't been worded correctly. Until they are, you have plenty of sound and fury, but no case.

I guess you missed the other part where other things were a little more time sensitive than progressive taxation, that has a little more to do with it than the wording angle, which is a smaller contributor.

Besides, you are the one who appealed to the law by speaking of the constitution - and given its not on your side obviously, your argument is the weaker. In the end what do you have but alot of words telling us that your principle is correct and your argument has merit? Very little.

You assume alot, but here is the deal, my case earlier was solid, the prior appeals have not been based in the equal protections clause, but way to try and tailor the discussion to whatever makes you right, seriously, it doesn't give you any credibility, but nice try.

I suspect you wish your country to hark back to a time in history of limited government, the trouble is, in this vague time, plenty of other things in American life were also limited, thats why the progressives got their way - and look at the results - not India, not modern Russia, not Africa, but a modern nation of healthy educated individuals.

Yeah, stacking lower courts with liberals and selective interpretation had nothing to do with it.:roll: The fact is that liberals(aka nanny staters/statists) are in fact violating the constitution and you shouldn't be bragging about that. Tell you what, go back and read the founding writings and learn the constitution this time, then go learn protocol and finally learn some basic economics and civics principles, since I gave you a big assignment I have only one more thing to say. Next participant please.

 

[creation]

False, and the founding writings of this country, which our law are based on, plus Thoreau and many of the authors of the natural philosophies of humanity soundly disagree with "societal responsibility" as do the basic fundamentals of economics.

Thank you for so many interesting answers.

Well, in counter;

1/ The founding writings of the country are basis of the law, which supports my argument, not yours.

2/ There are enumerable writers on man's relationship, responsibility to and for and with man.

3/ The fundamentals of economics? Even Keynes supports progressive taxation.

Nope, doesn't stand up on any real principles of United States founding, our culture, economics, etc. You have to do better than appeal to emotion.

Yep, it stands up in fact, in history and in logic. Its a real phenomenon put into practice to great effect. There is no appeal to emotion, merely history.

If you were to show us some successful period or country were your views hold sway and compare you may have a point - but until then what do you have?

No, not even close, someone creates, someone buys, the middle man is contract labor and is paid to the terms of contract, and if someone is not a participant in the transaction then they are irrelevant, so as you can see, you are wrong. If you aren't a consumer OR seller, then the transaction is none of your business.

Everyone you've just mentioned is participating in the market. There is no one who does not participate in the market, from babies who's parents buy for them on their behalf, to the old who's carers buy for them to all the people in between who require and provide goods and services.
So as you can see Im quite right, the society creates and composes the market.
This isnt a difficult concept.

Yeah, okay.:roll:

I apologise if this is unbelievable to you but I suggest you go outside and look at the results.

I guess you missed the other part where other things were a little more time sensitive than progressive taxation, that has a little more to do with it than the wording angle, which is a smaller contributor.

Its not really my business, you say you have a strong case, yet of the millions who think as you do, and with the decades that have passed since progressive taxations introduction you cannot get your case heard, even once. Considering all the crazy cases that get heard in court your obviously fantasising. You and your kind of thinking doesn't even make headway in academia, the media, or in business, so what do you expect of the rest of us? To just lie down and say ok ok your right?

You assume alot, but here is the deal, my case earlier was solid, the prior appeals have not been based in the equal protections clause, but way to try and tailor the discussion to whatever makes you right, seriously, it doesn't give you any credibility, but nice try.

You say your case is solid, but you might as well say the sky is pink. Its untested and unsupported. I will of course seek to tailor the discussion to whatever makes me correct. But if you can highlight where Im wrong, and bring something better than 'Im right, my case is strong' then Ill be glad to take on any point you offer.

Yeah, stacking lower courts with liberals and selective interpretation had nothing to do with it.:roll: The fact is that liberals(aka nanny staters/statists) are in fact violating the constitution and you shouldn't be bragging about that.

Oh my I hoped you weren't going to try a conspiracy argument now. Stacking the courts with liberals? Selective interpretation? That's an insult to the many learned people who operate the legal system who have studied the law and the constitution for decades.

You might as well tell us the constitution promotes cannibalism, until you can find an interpretation that enough learned people agree with you have nothing, and no amount of 'Im right' about the constitution or the law wil change that.

Tell you what, go back and read the founding writings and learn the constitution this time, then go learn protocol and finally learn some basic economics and civics principles, since I gave you a big assignment I have only one more thing to say. Next participant please.

Many thanks for the advice. However, there's no need as your argument is confounded by simple reality.
Given that you have sought to tell us that economics agrees with you, when even J M Keynes and Adam Smith support progressive taxation I doubt you are any more the expert on the constitution, economics or civics.

Given that simple example, until you can manage better, your current line is weak. However, I encourage not to dis-engage, but to come back with a more reasoned and nuanced argument, for example, you could attack progressive taxation along the lines of leading to the purchase of consumable goods over capital goods. Or you could try brain and tax avoidance arguments.

 

[LaMidRighter]

1/ The founding writings of the country are basis of the law, which supports my argument, not yours.

Negative, the free market is more desired under the founding writings, you'd better go back to the books if you think they allow for this amount of government interference.

2/ There are enumerable writers on man's relationship, responsibility to and for and with man.

Sure are, but this country was founded upon a very small percentage, and we are suffering the consequences of following less qualified and observant philosophies.

3/ The fundamentals of economics? Even Keynes supports progressive taxation.

Keynes was in favor of state interference, you may want to find a better example. Oh, and Keynes was a theorhetical model of economics, we are talking about fundamental economic LAW.

Yep, it stands up in fact, in history and in logic. Its a real phenomenon put into practice to great effect. There is no appeal to emotion, merely history.

Then demonstrate a grasp of it please, because you are using an appeal to emotion by segregating the people into classes to justify an imposition against equivalent exchange for your pro-state stance.

If you were to show us some successful period or country were your views hold sway and compare you may have a point - but until then what do you have?

pre-1870's America, pre-nazi Austria, pre-1900's U.K., you're welcome, bye-bye.

 

[El Dave]

Hmmmmm.... seems things accelerated a bit since BHO was elected...

A 2% increase in unemployment after near economic collapse? And the uptrend begins during Bush not Obama. Obama hasn't affected any policy, how can he take resposibility?

 

[j-mac]

A 2% increase in unemployment after near economic collapse? And the uptrend begins during Bush not Obama. Obama hasn't affected any policy, how can he take resposibility?

hasn't affected any policy? Are you for real? Since when was policy to nationalize industry in this country? He has raised the debit in this country to unsustainable levels, and a second round of recession is on the way.....But you go ahead and keep chanting "Yes we can!"


j-mac

 

[El Dave]

"False, and the founding writings of this country, which our law are based on, plus Thoreau and many of the authors of the natural philosophies of humanity soundly disagree with "societal responsibility" as do the basic fundamentals of economics."

This is false. Our economic fundamentals are derived mainly from Locke's 2nd treaty on government, in which he states that property is the result of labor. He also remarks that in order for the system to be equitable and to prevent theft of the commons, a man can only take from nature that which he can use. To take more than one can use "before it spoils" is considered immoral. I'll let you come to your own conclusion of what constitutes modern day "spoilage".

 

[Harshaw]

A 2% increase in unemployment after near economic collapse? And the uptrend begins during Bush not Obama. Obama hasn't affected any policy, how can he take resposibility?

Mostly because he and his allies specifically said his "stimulus" package back in February would keep it from happening, which is why it was needed NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW -- don't debate it, don't argue it, don't even READ it, just pass it NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. He took responsibility the moment he had his imperious little solo signing ceremony of the thing.

My, what short memories. :roll:

 

[El Dave]

Mostly because he and his allies specifically said his "stimulus" package back in February would keep it from happening, which is why it was needed NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW -- don't debate it, don't argue it, don't even READ it, just pass it NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. He took responsibility the moment he had his imperious little solo signing ceremony of the thing.

My, what short memories. :roll:

Indeed, very short.

 

[El Dave]

A 2% increase in unemployment after near economic collapse? And the uptrend begins during Bush not Obama. Obama hasn't affected any policy, how can he take resposibility?

Mostly because he and his allies specifically said his "stimulus" package back in February would keep it from happening, which is why it was needed NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW -- don't debate it, don't argue it, don't even READ it, just pass it NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. He took responsibility the moment he had his imperious little solo signing ceremony of the thing.

My, what short memories. :roll:

Can you tell me when the unemployment uptrend started please? Thanks.

 

[Harshaw]

Can you tell me when the unemployment uptrend started please? Thanks.

And here's reality vs. Obama's claims for the "stimulus" package.

He took responsibility. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you, but he did.

Of course, if you claim he didn't, if he hasn't done anything . . . then what's he waiting for? He's been in office for nearly eight months. I guess he's just fiddling while Rome burns, eh?

(After all, the ocean levels were supposed to start falling last June, with his clinching of the nomination. Hmmm.)

 

[El Dave]

And here's reality vs. Obama's claims for the "stimulus" package.

He took responsibility. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you, but he did.

Of course, if you claim he didn't, if he hasn't done anything . . . then what's he waiting for? He's been in office for nearly eight months. I guess he's just fiddling while Rome burns, eh?

(After all, the ocean levels were supposed to start falling last June, with his clinching of the nomination. Hmmm.)

And once again I ask you when the unemployment trend started. It doesn't matter who took responsibility, that is a matter of politics, not fact. I said he didn't create the policies which led to the unemployment spike. Who did?

I'm waiting for you to show some critical thinking before we move on. (could be here a while)

 

[Harshaw]

And once again I ask you when the unemployment trend started. It doesn't matter who took responsibility, that is a matter of politics, not fact. I said he didn't create the policies which led to the unemployment spike. Who did?

I'm waiting for you to show some critical thinking before we move on. (could be here a while)

No, you said he "hasn't affected [sic] any policy." He has. It apparently either failed completely or made things worse -- I think it's a smattering of both.

Throw in, of course, what he did with GM and Chrysler -- taking unto himself the judicial role of bankruptcy judge, bypassing just about all bankruptcy law to kick higher-priority bond and stockholders to the curb in favor of the unions and government -- and then include 1) an attempt at a massive takeover of 1/6 of the economy and 2) a projected deficit which is about the same as the last 8 years COMBINED (with promises to cut it in "half" several years from now, which would still be double any Bush deficit) and you have a scenario where anyone sane would be timid to trust the government and invest. And that's what's happening. You need investment for recover and job growth; Obama's policies and actions are stifling it.

That's "critical thinking," my friend. Far moreso than "this is all Republicans' faults and Obama hasn't touched anything."

Like I said, it may be inconvenient for your world view, but there it is nonetheless.

 

[LaMidRighter]

And once again I ask you when the unemployment trend started. It doesn't matter who took responsibility, that is a matter of politics, not fact. I said he didn't create the policies which led to the unemployment spike. Who did?

The point you are missing, whether intentionally or not, is that the unemployment, which started in 2007 at a small uptick, is now ticking up at a higher level, this is after stated policies were supposed to prevent that, projections did not accurately foretell how far the unemployment was going to go, and the worst case projections have been exceeded, this is the result of bad fiscal policy based on market interference and thus responsibility of the people who present the bills, pass them, and sign them, which would be the legislative and executive. You can drop the fact that Bush started the mess by signing bad legislation because the current president is doing it again and at a higher rate.

I'm waiting for you to show some critical thinking before we move on. (could be here a while)

Wow, you really don't have a leg to stand on since you assign blame to the political party you disagree with and offer no real analysis.

 

[Mach]

the worst case projections have been exceeded, this is the result of bad fiscal policy based on market interference and thus responsibility of the people who present the bills.

False. High unemployment was not created, nor significantly increased, by any recent legislation, especially any spending legislation. It was created by the market in response to the financial sector melt-down.

-Mach

 

[LaMidRighter]

False. High unemployment was not created, nor significantly increased, by any recent legislation, especially any spending legislation. It was created by the market in response to the financial sector melt-down.

-Mach

No, it was a bubble, the housing sector led to a credit crunch, the housing sector was incorrectly propped up by Fannie/Freddy, exacerbated by some Janet Reno enforcement in the nineties, and creative lending practices to facilitate which were neither ethical nor practical. The current catastrophe however was exacerbated by further interference, I've been looking at the numbers from the stock market daily and they pretty much told the story, investor confidence was shaken heavily by the legislation coming out of D.C. and the idea of heavier debt, more monetary printing, and government interference of the financial and auto sectors by Congress and the White House, while you are correct about the financial sector melting down, it was a symptom of a greater cause.

 

[El Dave]

No, you said he "hasn't affected [sic] any policy." He has. It apparently either failed completely or made things worse -- I think it's a smattering of both.

Throw in, of course, what he did with GM and Chrysler -- taking unto himself the judicial role of bankruptcy judge, bypassing just about all bankruptcy law to kick higher-priority bond and stockholders to the curb in favor of the unions and government -- and then include 1) an attempt at a massive takeover of 1/6 of the economy and 2) a projected deficit which is about the same as the last 8 years COMBINED (with promises to cut it in "half" several years from now, which would still be double any Bush deficit) and you have a scenario where anyone sane would be timid to trust the government and invest. And that's what's happening. You need investment for recover and job growth; Obama's policies and actions are stifling it.

That's "critical thinking," my friend. Far moreso than "this is all Republicans' faults and Obama hasn't touched anything."

Like I said, it may be inconvenient for your world view, but there it is nonetheless.

I'm still trying to understand how a unemployment trend that began in 2007 is Obama's fault and how TARP was an Obama policy even though it was implemented before he took office.

Furthermore, CARS has been a success, and the economy is expected to recover.

 

[j-mac]

I'm still trying to understand how a unemployment trend that began in 2007 is Obama's fault and how TARP was an Obama policy even though it was implemented before he took office.

Furthermore, CARS has been a success, and the economy is expected to recover.

GM sales were down, while the foreign auto makers were all up. Also as a note, less than 10% of these dealers were paid back for the cars they took in on good faith that the Obama administration would live up to its word. Suckers!


j-mac

 

[Harshaw]

I'm still trying to understand how a unemployment trend that began in 2007 is Obama's fault

You're being entirely dishonest. I never said it. Go back and look at what I did say.

and how TARP was an Obama policy

And you're being dishonest again -- I didn't say a thing about TARP.

If you're referring to the Obama meme that he "inherited" his deficit, that's BS in two ways -- 1) his own budget is entirely under his control, and the massive deficit (which will exceed 2 trillion once it's said and done) is his own doing, and 2) if he did "inherit" it, that works as an excuse for his FIRST fiscal year, not any others, where he himself is projecting massive, unprecedented deficits for several years out. No inheritance there; that's pure Obama.

Furthermore, CARS has been a success, and the economy is expected to recover.

It provided a small bump in car sales, which will subside immediately once it's rescinded -- and will also take away from the normal cycle of car sales which would have happened. They would have been better off just handing the money out.

Oh, and despite all that, the unemployment rate reached a 26-year high in August.

Unemployment rate rises to 26-year high - Yahoo! Finance

Now, as someone who said you believed in Obama as a transcendent political figure, I know you don't want to believe you've been duped . . . but duped you've been; he's a lightweight hack who is absolutely the wrong man for the times we're in.

 

[El Dave]

You're being entirely dishonest. I never said it. Go back and look at what I did say.



And you're being dishonest again -- I didn't say a thing about TARP.

If you're referring to the Obama meme that he "inherited" his deficit, that's BS in two ways -- 1) his own budget is entirely under his control, and the massive deficit (which will exceed 2 trillion once it's said and done) is his own doing, and 2) if he did "inherit" it, that works as an excuse for his FIRST fiscal year, not any others, where he himself is projecting massive, unprecedented deficits for several years out. No inheritance there; that's pure Obama.




It provided a small bump in car sales, which will subside immediately once it's rescinded -- and will also take away from the normal cycle of car sales which would have happened. They would have been better off just handing the money out.

Oh, and despite all that, the unemployment rate reached a 26-year high in August.

Unemployment rate rises to 26-year high - Yahoo! Finance

Now, as someone who said you believed in Obama as a transcendent political figure, I know you don't want to believe you've been duped . . . but duped you've been; he's a lightweight hack who is absolutely the wrong man for the times we're in.

And what would be the alternative? Let the banks fail? Let the economic crises hit full strength and "fiddle while Rome burns?" Lets hear your great plan for economic recovery.

I suppose Bush would have let the banks fail. Now, as someone who believed in Bush as a transcendent political figure, I know you don't want to believe you've been duped, but he started the bailout.

Maybe McCain would have let the banks fail.

The fact is it would be political suicide to do nothing and let our economy dive into the ground. So who are you really mad at?

I know, blaming big, mean, socialist Obama is the fad right now. But if you knew anything about politics you'd realize there isn't much choice.

And CARS worked. GM rehired over 1000 employees it had previously laid off. Tell them CARS failed.

 

[El Dave]

"2) if he did "inherit" it, that works as an excuse for his FIRST fiscal year, not any others"

Oh yeah, thats Harshaw's first rule of economic recovery right? I remember studying that when I got my MBA from the university of I make **** up.

 

[Harshaw]

And what would be the alternative? Let the banks fail? Let the economic crises hit full strength and "fiddle while Rome burns?" Lets hear your great plan for economic recovery.

It isn't about me -- it's about your transcendent Messiah.

I suppose Bush would have let the banks fail.

That's a preposterously stupid statement given the actual, verifiable history.

Now, as someone who believed in Bush as a transcendent political figure

:roll:

Show me where I said anything of the sort. As for you, one need only go to your "State of the Commons" missive posted today for your misplaced hope in Obama.

I know you don't want to believe you've been duped, but he started the bailout.

I never claimed that he didn't.

Maybe McCain would have let the banks fail.

Which has what to do with anything I've said? This is about your claims concerning Obama, and nothing else.

The fact is it would be political suicide to do nothing and let our economy dive into the ground. So who are you really mad at?

:roll:

Again, this isn't about me. It's about Obama and what you claimed he has or hasn't done. Which is it? Has he done anything, or hasn't he?

I know, blaming big, mean, socialist Obama is the fad right now. But if you knew anything about politics you'd realize there isn't much choice.

Wait -- I thought he hasn't done anything? This is what you said. "He hasn't affected [sic] any policy."

You know, I'd almost think you were Devil505 trying to present himself as a new, "more reasonable" personna, but if so, the cracks are already showing.

But in reality, you're probably just another garden variety lefty who claims to be a "Centrist." Got lots of those around here.

And CARS worked. GM rehired over 1000 employees it had previously laid off. Tell them CARS failed.

Tell them it succeeded when the end of their month comes along and they're laid off again. (Ask people on this board who have been rehired how confident they are that it's permanent.)

 

[Goobieman]

Why do you make assumptions about my income or what I do with that income? This is the sort of response you get when the person arguing is embarrassed and has been pinned by the argument. Weak comeback considering you have no clue about me.

I have asked you this several times, and you have yet to asnwer.

However much health care might be a right, how does having a right equate to then having the right to have the means to exercise that right be provided to you by others?

 

[El Dave]

You're being entirely dishonest. I never said it. Go back and look at what I did say.



And you're being dishonest again -- I didn't say a thing about TARP.

If you're referring to the Obama meme that he "inherited" his deficit, that's BS in two ways -- 1) his own budget is entirely under his control, and the massive deficit (which will exceed 2 trillion once it's said and done) is his own doing, and 2) if he did "inherit" it, that works as an excuse for his FIRST fiscal year, not any others, where he himself is projecting massive, unprecedented deficits for several years out. No inheritance there; that's pure Obama.




It provided a small bump in car sales, which will subside immediately once it's rescinded -- and will also take away from the normal cycle of car sales which would have happened. They would have been better off just handing the money out.

Oh, and despite all that, the unemployment rate reached a 26-year high in August.

Unemployment rate rises to 26-year high - Yahoo! Finance

Now, as someone who said you believed in Obama as a transcendent political figure, I know you don't want to believe you've been duped . . . but duped you've been; he's a lightweight hack who is absolutely the wrong man for the times we're in.

It isn't about me -- it's about your transcendent Messiah.




That's a preposterously stupid statement given the actual, verifiable history.




:roll:

Show me where I said anything of the sort. As for you, one need only go to your "State of the Commons" missive posted today for your misplaced hope in Obama.




I never claimed that he didn't.





Which has what to do with anything I've said? This is about your claims concerning Obama, and nothing else.




:roll:

Again, this isn't about me. It's about Obama and what you claimed he has or hasn't done. Which is it? Has he done anything, or hasn't he?




Wait -- I thought he hasn't done anything? This is what you said. "He hasn't affected [sic] any policy."

You know, I'd almost think you were Devil505 trying to present himself as a new, "more reasonable" personna, but if so, the cracks are already showing.

But in reality, you're probably just another garden variety lefty who claims to be a "Centrist." Got lots of those around here.





Tell them it succeeded when the end of their month comes along and they're laid off again. (Ask people on this board who have been rehired how confident they are that it's permanent.)

So...what are you arguing? That I'm not a centrist? Or that Obama caused the economic crisis?

The fact is that the economic crisis began under the Bush administration. Bush Bailed out the banks. Obama bailed out the banks. The question for a non-partisan THINKING PERSON, is what was the alternative?

As I said in The State of the Commons (thanks for reading), is that only a fool would have let the banks collapse. There was no choice. I'm still waiting for you to present an alternative to bailing out the banks. You can dodge the issue all you want by calling me a lefty, or criticizing a typo (Its a rare usage, I'll cut myself some slack) but I'm sensing its not hard to be left of you, so I'll take it in stride.

Typical that you attack straw men instead of the real issue. Its easy to be an attack advocate, its much harder to be good executive. I think we know what you are cut out for.