Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Detroit?

On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather hear your reasoned explanation for "We'll just have
>>>>> left wing version of national socialism now." I'm sure you can put
>>>>> me right in my place.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's beyond your abilities. I suggest you learn what
>>>> national socialism is by generic definition instead of relying on
>>>> whatever fiction you believe.
>>>
>>> "National Socialism" was an actual political party with an actual
>>> history.
>>
>> There have also been 'socialist' and 'communist' political parties
>> where there particular implementations do change the meaning of the
>> words.
>
> I wasn't aware that was possible. =)
>
>
>>
>>> The use of 'left wing' was merely an attempt on
>>>> my part to have you understand by trying to fit it into the terms
>>>> the typical binary thinking american can grasp because they were
>>>> taught that nazism = national socialism = right wing, which of
>>>> course is so simplistic as to be very misleading.
>>
>>> Actually, that second 'equals' should be 'is a subset of' for your
>>> statement to be correct. While all Nazis are right wing, all right
>>> wingers are not Nazis. At least, not while anyone's watching.
>>
>> Read it again clueless. I was describing what people are taught in US
>> government schools,
>
> Nope.
>
>
> not what is reality. I quite clearly state that
>> such a teaching is misleading. Do try to read for understanding.
>>
>>
>>> I would suggest looking at both
>>>> words separately. What nationalism is and what socialism is.
>>
>>> Went though that about 1996 or thereabouts,.after running into
>>> right wing k00khauses that try to pass the Nazis off as lefties.
>>
>> Like I figured, you're caught up in left-right nonsense.
>
> Just used to seeing the term abused by folks who use all the same
> ideological keywords you do.
>
>
>>
>>>> Maybe you're young enough to do compulsory service for your country,
>>>> for the good of your country as Obama so said he wishes to implement
>>>> while his economic team redistributes the wealth 'around'. This is
>>>> supposed to be "change" from rallying around the flag and
>>>> 'supporting the troops' while GWB's team redistributed the wealth
>>>> 'around'.
>>>>
>>>> 'around'=those with the proper political connections.
>>>>
>>>> nationalism + socialism = national socialism. It's very simple.
>>>
>>> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists. What now?
>>
>> As if what was done in one impelementation changes anything.
>
> "There have also been 'socialist' and 'communist' political parties
> where there particular implementations do change the meaning of the
> words."
>
> Make up my mind, will ya?

It's the same thing. Read it again. You ain't worth the time.

"marcodbeast" > wrote in message
...
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> nationalism + socialism = national socialism. It's very simple.
>
> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists.

They were terribly conflicted. :-)
-- Ernie

In "marcodbeast" >
wrote:

> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists.

Just getting rid of any competition.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Bert Hyman > wrote in
:

> In "marcodbeast" >
> wrote:
>
>> Funny, the "National Socialists" jailed real socialists.
>
> Just getting rid of any competition.
>

like today's "tolerant" liberals;disagree with their policies/beliefs,and
they lose any tolerance they may have believed they had.
It's "their way or the highway"

(R.A.D content;"highway"!) 8-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:

>> LOL You certainly are intent on pricing your belief system out of the
>> marketplace of ideas. =)
>
> Is that all you have? One insulting statement after another? Quite the
> small mind you have.

Not much substance there is there? (rhetorical question) Unfortunately
that's the mentality that will be running things.

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

On 24 Nov 2008 14:36:24 GMT, Larrybud > wrote:

>> Here's how to sell Detroit Iron:
>>
>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>
>> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the
>> income tax is removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.
>>
>> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine
>> about the poor - they'll get compensation for the basic
>> necessities of life).
>
>
>The problem with introducing a consumption tax and repealing the
>income tax is that in 5 years politicians will easily reintroduce the
>income tax, and we'll be socked with both of them.

Well, not if we repeal the 16th amendment.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:54:34 -0800 (PST), Lloyd > wrote:

>On Nov 23, 7:27*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:45:45 -0500, edward ohare
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Have the people who support this lost their minds?
>>
>> >Consumers know reorganizations sometimes fail. *Issues concerning
>> >future availability of parts, resale value, and whether anyone will be
>> >around to honor their warranties will be considered by them before
>> >making a purchase from an automaker in bankruptcy reorganization.
>>
>> >Durable goods manufacturers cannot be operated successfully during
>> >bankruptcy reorganization. *
>>
>> >Taxpayer money cannot bail out Detroit. *Only consumer money, spent on
>> >the purchase of Detroit's vehicles, can bail them out. *It appears way
>> >too late for that.
>>
>> No, its not.
>>
>> Here's how to sell Detroit Iron:
>>
>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>
>
>oh good Lord, a right-wing anti-government kook.

What's anti-government about changing the way taxes are levied?
>
>> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the income tax is
>> removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.
>
>Makes no sense.

Sure it does. All that $$$ that was being paid to the feds for the income tax
can be used by the car companies to lower the price of their cars.

>>
>> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine about the poor -
>> they'll get compensation for the basic necessities of life).
>>
>
>Yeah, charge everybody another 30% when they buy a car. That'll get
>more people to buy cars!

The price of American cars should stay about the same.

>> 4) The prices of cars built in this country are taxed back up to where they
>> used to be via the consumption tax.
>>
>> 5) People now have a whale of a lot more money by the amount of their income
>> tax witholding. *
>
>No they won't. If your tax is revenue neutral, in fact, the middle
>class will pay more because the rich will pay less.

? The middle class isn't going to buy any yachts, or fuel to run them. The
middle class isn't going to buy personal bizjets. The middle class isn't going
to buy $100,000K+ cars. The rich are. They will pay the most tax.

>>Some will buy a new car, and that will be more than there were
>> before since they have all this extra money.
>>
>> 6) The cars _not_ built in this country, which were not experiencing the burden
>> of paying US income tax, will not experience the lowering of their price.
>>
>What burden does the income tax put on cars?

The US corporate income tax is either the 2nd highest, or the highest on the
planet, depending on who you ask or what source you use. All that money that
was being sucked out of the American car companies via the income tax could
instead be used to lower the price of their cars.

>
>> 7) The cars _not_ built in this country will then be taxed by the amount of the
>> consumption tax.
>>
>> 8) The people that have decided to use their windfall $$$ from not paying
>> income tax to buy a car are way more likely to buy Detroit Iron, since it's
>> going to be waaaaay cheaper than the cars built other than in the USA.
>>
>> 6)
>
>You've been worshipping at the foot of right-wing talk radio too long;
>it's mushed your brain.

It's Denny Hastert's plan, really. I'm just supporting it.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:

>> Make up my mind, will ya?
>
> It's the same thing. Read it again. You ain't worth the time.

It took you long enough, Brent. You were arguing with someone either
stupid enough not to realize the difference between a descriptive
(non-capitalized) name and a "branded" name which may or may not bear
much resemblance in its nature to the non-capitalized one, or dishonest
enough to pretend he didn't know the difference. For example, he would
undoubtedly either not be able to understand the difference between
"Democratic Party" and "democratic party" (any number of terms could be
used in the example) and/or pretend that the two are synonymous.

As you say, a waste of time.

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

On 2008-11-25, Bill Putney > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>
>>> Make up my mind, will ya?
>>
>> It's the same thing. Read it again. You ain't worth the time.
>
> It took you long enough, Brent. You were arguing with someone either
> stupid enough not to realize the difference between a descriptive
> (non-capitalized) name and a "branded" name which may or may not bear
> much resemblance in its nature to the non-capitalized one, or dishonest
> enough to pretend he didn't know the difference. For example, he would
> undoubtedly either not be able to understand the difference between
> "Democratic Party" and "democratic party" (any number of terms could be
> used in the example) and/or pretend that the two are synonymous.
>
> As you say, a waste of time.

I think he was playing on a couple of typos looking back at it.
whatever... he doesn't want to discuss ideas but trivialities like you
mention above.

Lloyd wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:15 pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:
>>
>>>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>> oh good Lord, a right-wing anti-government kook.
>> Everyone who is against theft by government is "a right-wing
>> anti-government kook" to a central planner.
>
> Calling taxes theft just shows how radical, out on the fringe you are.

When it is taken for things not provided for by the Constitution - yes -
that is theft. That ought to send you off into quite a tangent or three.

Do you agree with Obama (you know - the guy that's going to swear in
January to uphold the Constitution) that this country has a major flaw
created by the Constitution? Or do you think he was wrong?

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