Cost of Chrysler financing

Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on their
"entitlements."


Matt

 

What entitlements are you referring too. Here's a few...

From MSNBC:

"Taxpayers for Common Sense, a bipartisan group favoring less federal
spending, said it found 11,772 projects worth $15.8 billion.
Projects included:

a.. $335,000 to protect sunflowers in North Dakota from blackbird damage.
b.. $60 million for a new courthouse in Las Cruces, N.M.
c.. $225,000 to study catfish genomes at Alabama's Auburn University.
d.. A potential boon for Bush himself, $2 million for the government to
try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold
three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at $9.8
million and are distressed by the provision.
"

 

Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election ya
idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we have
both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
liberals"

If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much chance
to **** up the country.

You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you could do
a better job of running the country than us liberals. Well, now is your
chance to
prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget - and it
was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
a few years ago, mind - then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
have been full of shit 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.

It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
doers?

Ted

 

I think your underwear is on too tight.

 

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.


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.



Republican != conservative, although conservative Republicans are the
majority

Democrat != socialist, although socialist Democrats are the majority

Liberal = socialist, every single time.

Another fine-line distinction that will doubtless go over your head,
Ted.


Trained monkeys could do a better job than you socialists did. Oh, wait
a minute, Bill Clinton WAS a trained monkey!


Well, now is your

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


- and
If so, it was misguided, and probably an attempt to reign you
socialists in.

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.


then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
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!

I think he's right. Funny, I didn't think you socialists even wore
underwear.

--Geoff

 

Yes, we won and you need to get over it. I hear there are support
groups in Florida that may still have some openings.

Ha, ha, ha. Teddy, Teddy, Teddy, please take your medication.

A lot will be done, but there is no way to balance the budget and still
do anything, unless major cuts are made to defense, medicare, medicaid
and SS. And no politician who wants to get re-elected is going to do
this, doesn't matter what the party affiliation. I know you all think
Clinton was responsible for a balanced budget for a year or two, but the
fact is that he was the lucky recipient of an economic bubble that was
years in the making and about which he had no involvement (other than
partnering up with Gore who we all know invented the internet that
fueled the telecom bubble).

The reality is that the American people have gotten so used to the
hand-outs initiated during the "New Deal", that we'll bankrupt the
country before we go back. That is today's reality and no politician is
going to change that as they'll get voted out as soon as they do and the
next politician will undo whatever they did. And this isn't a partisan
issue, it is an American issue.


Matt

 

Never heard of the government subsidized underwear program?

 

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 piss-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

 

Really? I do. I don't want to see even more of my tax dollars being
spent on paying interest on old loans, I'd prefer to see it doing
something useful.

You obviously don't understand how a mortgage works, either. It's a
secured loan, with the house being used as the security. A person
generally takes out a mortgage to buy a house or other dwelling simply
because he can't, or prefers not to for whatever reason, scrape together
enough cash to pay for it all in one lump sum. He still needs to make
the regular payments in full and on time, however. The basic difference
between the federal gov't and the average homeowner with a mortage is
this - the homeowner is planning to someday pay off his mortgage and
actually own his place outright. The federal gov't just keeps on taking
out more and more loans to meet the mortgage payments so it doesn't have
to cut back on all the steak dinners. It would seem obvious on the face
of it that people would realize that this was a Bad Idea(tm) but nobody
actually seems to want to actually do anything about it. A good start
would be a balanced budget, so that we don't actually dig ourselves
deeper into a hole. If we end up with a surplus, so be it. Pay off
some debts, so that we don't have to spend as much on interest payments
next year. Then you get a bigger surplus, etc. etc. etc. see how it
works? Eventually we can then cut taxes *without* deficit spending and
everyone's happy.

"deficit spending" might be a useful short term tool, however, we've
gone far, *far* beyond that.

nate

 

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.

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')

 

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.

 

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')

 

You guys crack me up, here is this financing thread, and Im reading about
stem cell research, we Chrysler finantics are certainly well-versed in
EVERYTHING!!!
LMAO

SRG