We have an indicator for this, it is called "housing starts". It is a measure of new home construction and yes, it's up nationally. Although it is down here in California, which explains why houses are so damned expensive here, we can't keep up with demand in other words.
Don't forget to thank the environmentalists, and they're wonderful effort at stopping "sprawl", and putting anti-growth measures in place. It seems that people actually lack the brains to figure out why fewer houses mean such high prices.
I see the Terdster aka 'Toddster' has started some more chit...we're all amazed at his big brain.
Tax shelter errr investment call it what you want bro-lets RECAP:
What was once the greatest financial power in the world is now hinged on total economic collapse. Paralyzed by sky-rocketing debt, the U.S. govt is powerless to protect itself and its citizens from the threat of an impending fallout. But hell- the central banks will still operate globally...buying up resources, heads of state & industry one day at a time. Its thier world on paper.
The lobbyist, special interest groups, elected officials and new world order operatives have spent & slowed the engines of our economy to almost a standstill. The government CAN'T control its own spending in time to prevent a collapse because there is neither the will nor the courage to do what is neccessary to change. Kerry or Bush it wont matter. U.S. Treasury chest is beyond empty. U.S. outlook is flat. Many analyists are predicting a depression within a yr or two.
I believe the interest on the federal debt will exceed the annual personal income tax revenues. As a result, an already devalued currency will lose more ground as the govt is increasing money supply to pay its bills.
Back on TOPIC: So Terdster says they've come up w/ tax shelters because it benfits the rich- that much is TRUE
Fact: That wont help us. Fact:The rich have gotten richer these past 4 yrs (those w/ 100 million or more in net worth). They've seen thier wealth increase thanks to these 'tax tricks' International lease laws, denouncing thier citizenship, paying more into life insurance premiums and starting foundations etc. have already given these rich ****s more than enough loopholes.
Pensions are no longer, IRA's dwindling into scam artists pipe dreams, and Social Security will dissapear around 2015. Tax shelters will not help Americans escape these facts.
Our middle class MUST grow (but it wont) to see our country dig itself out of the 'gift' our beloved ruling class has left. Besides, last time I checked, these rich ****s are putting thier money everywhere except America (international index funds).
OUT>
[This message has been edited by G-Nasty (edited 07-10-2004).]
Ah, it all becomes clear now. I see that making the wealthy even wealthier beyond even their greediest fantasies helps us all. I look around and see so many of my friends making half or less than what they were making 5 years ago, some not making anything because the only jobs out there are McJobs and oddly my friends with their engineering and technology degrees aren't willing to work for$4.50 an hour. I see a relatively stagnant economy where the main growth is in the service industries (food service, janitorial service, etc) that all pay below-subsistance wages with no health insurance and therefor no affordable access to health care. In my state one out of 4, that's 24%, of every single man, woman, and child has no health insurance. None.
Sorry, I ramble. I don't know where these people crawl out of the woodwork from, with their text-book fantasies on the economy. I can only surmise that they must be living outside of the economy, like the economics professor being interviewed on a local radio show earlier this week who made the comment that "job churn" and the ability to "...destroy jobs..." was good for our economy. This man obviously spoke from a position of job security (tenured professor) and high income, and most likely never in his life had to make the hard choice between paying rent or eating.
And Toddster, what I said earlier still stands. No new jobs are created unless there is some reason to create them. The new jobs that are being created are almost entirely all bottom end jobs that don't pay enough to live on, don't pay enough for medical care access through insurance, and don't pay enough for education or retirement savings. And if you took all of the tax cuts back that the deserter handed out to the wealthy elite it would be a bit more than the 4 cents you so handily worked out above. I don't know why you are so against the people who have benefitted the most from this country's economy being asked to give something back. It just doesn't make sense why someone who is as apparently educated as you would be in support of companies like Wachovia who not only didn't pay any taxes on their profit of 3.6 billion dollars in 2002, received a refund (of my tax dollars) of 159 million dollars. I know that you don't believe that squirreling away taxable income into illegal offshore tax shelters (that is what they are, right? Illegal? Tax shelters?) is good for this country, and I know that you want to stop this as much as I do, right? You don't hide income and avoid paying your fair share of taxes, do you, Toddster?
JazzMan
In deference to your green bar and articulate post I will reply.
Jazz, how many "rich" people do you know? I mean REALLY rich, not, "I own the local 7-11, rich", I mean, "I own ALL 7-11's, rich"? I know several of them and I can tell you that your total miscomprehension of the type of people that they are is mind boggling. You seem to have seen some picture of a 19th Century Robber Baron and have now "LABELED" all rich people with that image despite the fact that the SEC, monoply laws, trade unions, etc. have ALL dramatically changed the face of business in the last Century.
what difference does it make to YOU if the rich are rich as long as you have the same opportunities that they get? And don't BS me with this crap about you not having the same opportunities because of all the rich people I know I can tell you one thing, almost ALL of them came from dirt poor backgrounds and MADE their wealth.
Just as I AM currently creating my own wealth...with the sweat of my labors, my drive, and my wits. And you do not need to remind me that no new jobs are created unless there is some reason to create them. If you re-read my post you sill see that investing in business DOES create them, and I am not talking about bottom feeder jobs, i am talking about skilled jobs. For God's sake man just open the classified!!!!! I see skilled positions all over the frickin' country BEGGING to be filled and no-one is there to fill them because nobody has the skills. the problem isn't the jobs, it's ignorant fools who don't have the education to fill them going around telling US hard working educated people that WE are the problem and that we undervalue the efforts of burger flippers.
You're disappointed? Well get off your "Burger Flippers Unite" soap box and go get and education! You think you are the only person who has had to change careers in mid-stream? Got news for you , I've done it recently and I haven't had an easy time of it to be sure! But I am not bitching. I just work harder because I KNOW that with the right opportunities hard workers will prosper.
Originally posted by Toddster: Is is just me Nasty or is your rating bar twice as red as the last time you took me on?
Run along. What you can contribute to a discussion on economics and fiscal policy I can find in the "little red book".
Not that ratings really mean anything... he still has a green in my books. I'm less inclined to support him 100% at present because I am a little gunshy at the moment.. Not G's fault mind you.
Anyway what G is saying makes sense. Much like my resonse to Steve Normington / I'm Backs argument in the the Job growth by president thread.
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: "What is wrong with those numbers? People earning $1M per year are paying more taxes to begin with than the average middle-class people. The $1M taxpayer pays $346,675 in base taxes." People who earn $1M/yr are most likely multimillionaires, and they likely pay very little in taxes, especially when you factor in the rate of taxes based upon their gross income. These people have accountants ensure they pay little in taxes. "The $50,000 (my number for the average taxpayer) pays $10,125 in base taxes." I doubt the average person earns 50k/yr. It's likely 25 -30k/yr. "So the $1M person gets a 0.8% to 1.4% tax rebate and the $50K person gets a 2.9% tax rebate." Nice thought if you live in a vacuum. You're not factoring in any other variables such as ability to write off.
Let's all join Steve and bow our heads in sympathy for the rich.
My Reply was.
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill: Can I just hold out my hand and say omms instead?
Obviously I have done that and took alot of crap from ALOT of people for doing it... What kind of message are we sending??
There was a movie I saw once where this machine was blown up.. It then revealed an ALIEN who was running for president and the pic on the wall behind it that once said Support Blaa Blaa for President later said OBEY
Not that ratings really mean anything... he still has a green in my books. I'm less inclined to support him 100% at present because I am a little gunshy at the moment.. Not G's fault mind you.
Anyway what G is saying makes sense. Much like my resonse to Steve Normington / I'm Backs argument in the the Job growth by president thread.
I read some of the job groeth thread and lost interest in posting for two reasons. One, it is pure political crap and NOTING will convince I'm Back that he is clueless. Two, trying to explain that job growth is NOT a political measure and is related EXCLUSIVELY to the business cycle is a waste of breath since I'm Back will find some BS to refute it.
Just decided not to waste my time explaining reality to him when he wants to live in the myopic world of "I MUST FIND SOME DIRT ON BUSH NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES OR HOW I HAVE TO INTERPRET THE FACTS!"
Originally posted by Toddster: I read some of the job groeth thread and lost interest in posting for two reasons. One, it is pure political crap and NOTING will convince I'm Back that he is clueless. Two, trying to explain that job growth is NOT a political measure and is related EXCLUSIVELY to the business cycle is a waste of breath since I'm Back will find some BS to refute it. Just decided not to waste my time explaining reality to him when he wants to live in the myopic world of "I MUST FIND SOME DIRT ON BUSH NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES OR HOW I HAVE TO INTERPRET THE FACTS!"
I'll buy that. Just don't give up on me though. He is a stubborn muthahumper and he really is standing on the wrong side. So I need to recalibrate a bit... if you would not mind providing some places where I could get the fact, I'd appriciate it.
To put it more bluntly... I don't trust his judgement any longer.
However, the fact remains as I stated... Hold out my hand and say omms or be a slave or just die?
------------------
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-10-2004).]
Originally posted by 84Bill: There was a movie I saw once where this machine was blown up.. It then revealed an ALIEN who was running for president and the pic on the wall behind it that once said Support Blaa Blaa for President later said OBEY
I wish I could find it.
"they live" with roddy piper truly great conspiracy flick
"marry and reproduce" was my favorite billboard in that movie.
Run along. What you can contribute to a discussion on economics and fiscal policy I can find in the "little red book".
"Is is just me Nasty or is your rating bar twice as red as the last time you took me on?"
That's your best/only argument
Nasty is 10x as intelligent as you, toadlicker.
Hmmm, so if I visit a more liberal forum with a rating system and achieve a highly positive rating, does that mean I'm more correct? And you dare call the liberals a bunch of lemmings?
I read some of the job groeth thread and lost interest in posting for two reasons.
"One, it is pure political crap and NOTING will convince I'm Back that he is clueless."
K, well then answer my questions chicken little.
"Two, trying to explain that job growth is NOT a political measure and is related EXCLUSIVELY to the business cycle is a waste of breath since I'm Back will find some BS to refute it."
Why does the crux of your argument revolve around me and not the issue at hand? And job growth is correlated with politics and you know it.
"Just decided not to waste my time explaining reality to him when he wants to live in the myopic world of "I MUST FIND SOME DIRT ON BUSH NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES OR HOW I HAVE TO INTERPRET THE FACTS!""
Do I need to go back and cut-n-paste em for ya? Duck and run little toady......duck and run.
Originally posted by EDsB52: "Is is just me Nasty or is your rating bar twice as red as the last time you took me on?"
That's your best/only argument
Nasty is 10x as intelligent as you, toadlicker.
Hmmm, so if I visit a more liberal forum with a rating system and achieve a highly positive rating, does that mean I'm more correct? And you dare call the liberals a bunch of lemmings?
Toadlicker? Jeaz man... started with the personal crap already?
Bushlicker maybe but defintaly not a toadlicker. Atleast keep it within the context of the person... Not that there is anything wrong with bushlicking if you are into that sort of stuff.
Stop being a Richardlicker for a change will ya EdsB52.
So if people are investing in houses instead of stocks, that doesn't push up the GDP?
Edit: Dang, I hit "enter" to start a new line and it posted on me!
The unemployment #s I presented were for the first three years of W. There are more McJobs now, yes.
Things are coming back now, but as I look around me, people were much better off four years ago.
GL
If people are taking money out of the stock market to invest in real estate, the market drops and real estate booms. None of which necessarily has any effect on the GDP. In fact the overall value of the stock market actually has little impact on the GDP; it's the other way around: a company which is performing well (ie making money) sees the value of its stock increase, while a company which perform poorly see the value of its stock decrease. If a lot of companies are doing well, the DJ average rises because people want to buy their stock and make money (classic case of supply vs demand) from the stocks' dividends. But if a lot of companies are doing well, their stocks will trend higher and the GDP is going to be rising.
The problem is, investors don't always take the long view. The stock market can crash in an otherwise healthy economy. It happened in October of 1987. It didn't happen because the economy blew up; it happened primarily because someone sold a large chunk of something and a bunch of computers started selling, too. The market gyrated up and down for a couple of days (and people on the right side of those transactions made a LOT of money) but it had no overall effect on the economy.
What happened to the stock market in the closing years of Clinton's term of office is similar to that. When the DoJ announced that Microsoft was going to be broken up, people sold stock in MS and other tech companies. It wasn't that the companies were suddenly less sound; only that investor confidence in the stream of dividends was shaken. Now, some of those companies that were sold (thus depressing their per-share stock price) were valuable only on paper--they were only worth what the market decided they were worth--and when their stock prices fell, they were doomed: hence, the Dot-Com Bust. It dragged the market down.
In any event, several pundits had been saying for months (or years) at that point that the market was overvalued. The economy of the US must be of a certain size to support a DJ average of such-and-such; in the late 1990s we did not have a GDP capable of supporting a DJA of 13,000. The dot-coms (which had been very valuable on paper, but which were not in fact actually valuable) had artificially inflated the DJA. To borrow a phrase from a prominent Democrat (who was speaking of the 1980s) in the 1990s, we had a huge party...and around the time of the 2000 elections, the bills for that party were coming due.
The only tax cut which took effect before 2002 was the so-called "tax rebate". It came to a miniscule total compared to the Federal Gov't's budget. I don't remember what it was. $100 million? $200 million? $300 million? Out of a total budget of $2 trillion, it's pocket change even if it came to a billion dollars, which I seriously doubt.
I guess what I'm saying is, show me how George Bush is responsible for the unemployment you cited. I don't know of any policy he set forth which can be blamed for the unemployment situation. BTW you did not give me any figures. You merely said that unemployment had "doubled" which is also not so--it had been hovering somewhere between 4% and 5%, and rose to somewhere between 5% and 6%; a rise of 1-2% is not "doubling" unless you're starting at 1 or 2%.
If people are taking money out of the stock market to invest in real estate, the market drops and real estate booms. None of which necessarily has any effect on the GDP. In fact the overall value of the stock market actually has little impact on the GDP; it's the other way around: a company which is performing well (ie making money) sees the value of its stock increase, while a company which perform poorly see the value of its stock decrease. If a lot of companies are doing well, the DJ average rises because people want to buy their stock and make money (classic case of supply vs demand) from the stocks' dividends. But if a lot of companies are doing well, their stocks will trend higher and the GDP is going to be rising.
The problem is, investors don't always take the long view. The stock market can crash in an otherwise healthy economy. It happened in October of 1987. It didn't happen because the economy blew up; it happened primarily because someone sold a large chunk of something and a bunch of computers started selling, too. The market gyrated up and down for a couple of days (and people on the right side of those transactions made a LOT of money) but it had no overall effect on the economy.
What happened to the stock market in the closing years of Clinton's term of office is similar to that. When the DoJ announced that Microsoft was going to be broken up, people sold stock in MS and other tech companies. It wasn't that the companies were suddenly less sound; only that investor confidence in the stream of dividends was shaken. Now, some of those companies that were sold (thus depressing their per-share stock price) were valuable only on paper--they were only worth what the market decided they were worth--and when their stock prices fell, they were doomed: hence, the Dot-Com Bust. It dragged the market down.
In any event, several pundits had been saying for months (or years) at that point that the market was overvalued. The economy of the US must be of a certain size to support a DJ average of such-and-such; in the late 1990s we did not have a GDP capable of supporting a DJA of 13,000. The dot-coms (which had been very valuable on paper, but which were not in fact actually valuable) had artificially inflated the DJA. To borrow a phrase from a prominent Democrat (who was speaking of the 1980s) in the 1990s, we had a huge party...and around the time of the 2000 elections, the bills for that party were coming due.
The only tax cut which took effect before 2002 was the so-called "tax rebate". It came to a miniscule total compared to the Federal Gov't's budget. I don't remember what it was. $100 million? $200 million? $300 million? Out of a total budget of $2 trillion, it's pocket change even if it came to a billion dollars, which I seriously doubt.
I guess what I'm saying is, show me how George Bush is responsible for the unemployment you cited. I don't know of any policy he set forth which can be blamed for the unemployment situation. BTW you did not give me any figures. You merely said that unemployment had "doubled" which is also not so--it had been hovering somewhere between 4% and 5%, and rose to somewhere between 5% and 6%; a rise of 1-2% is not "doubling" unless you're starting at 1 or 2%.
Ed
quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:
So you're saying the economy was at it's worst when Bush took office and has improved (more or less) steadily since? I don't know a lot of people who see it that way. The Dow Jones peaked in January 2000, the Nasdaq in March.
In 2000, the Dow lost 6.17% of its value (11,497.10 to 10,788.00) In 2001, the Dow lost 5.35% of its value (10,788.00 to 10,021.60) In 2002, the Dow lost 16.76% of its value (10,021.60 to 8,341.63)
In 2000, the Nasdaq lost 39.28% of its value (4,069.31 to 2,470.52). In 2001, the Nasdaq lost 21.05% of its value (2,470.52 to 1,950.40). In 2002, the Nasdaq lost 31.53% of its value (1,950.40 to 1,335.51).
But the economy was improving?? People seeing their savings evaporate don't tend to spend a lot. Of course since the market's been in the crapper, people have been investing in houses and other things that build the GDP instead of the market and the GDP figures are inflated.
Unemployment in Virginia was 2.2% in 2000, 4.1% in 2002 and 2003.
GL
You claimed the dot com bust happened in '99 when Microshaft was broken up. I posted that the markets peaked in 2000. Look it up.
I have a hard time with thinking the economy was improving when unemployment (at least in my area) doubled and the markets lost 1/4 - 1/2 their value in 2001-2002. We have contradicary data here. And I don't know anybody who is better off than 4 years ago. But I don't travel in Todd's circles either.
The economy may be improving, but not for the average man. We're still bleeding jobs, deny that it's because of W's policies if you want. And yes, Clinton started it, W shifted it into high gear. They're both at fault. We need a president who isn't an elitist, controlled by special interests, and I'm not sure Kerry is it. Edwards may help.
You claimed the dot com bust happened in '99 when Microshaft was broken up. I posted that the markets peaked in 2000. Look it up.
I have a hard time with thinking the economy was improving when unemployment (at least in my area) doubled and the markets lost 1/4 - 1/2 their value in 2001-2002. We have contradicary data here. And I don't know anybody who is better off than 4 years ago. But I don't travel in Todd's circles either.
The economy may be improving, but not for the average man. We're still bleeding jobs, deny that it's because of W's policies if you want. They're both at fault.
GL
"And yes, Clinton started it, W shifted it into high gear."
Actually Bush Sr started it, Clinton signed it, and Bush Jr not only shifted it into high gear, but brought it to a different forum/venue. NAFTA is just that, North American. Bush expanded it to be global. Nafta was only a tax cut for manufacturers that were already having work done in Mexico and Canada. It would be interesting to see if NAFTA actually motivated work to be ousted to other North American countries at a higher rate than was already being established.
"We need a president who isn't an elitist, controlled by special interests, and I'm not sure Kerry is it. Edwards may help."
Right on brother! I really like the addition of Edwards. He's gonna get the, "hot chick" vote anyway! A crusty old man like Gephardt would just assimilate the two party's candidates.
Tugboat, I'm better off. Not because I have any more money but I have less debt so I would call that better-off. The reason is lower interest rates and a new job opportunity. I can't speak for all Americans but I am in Bush's camp for that simple reason. I am better off today that at any time during the 90's except for '97. That was a good year!
I'm Back, Hey congratulations Ed...3 more negatives in the last 24 hours. We'll be rid of you before Kerry at this rate.
Right on brother! I really like the addition of Edwards. He's gonna get the, "hot chick" vote anyway! A crusty old man like Gephardt would just assimilate the two party's candidates.
Ya know... I have a serious problem with this and I'm going to don my male chauvinist hat. That is a really great reason to vote for the second most powerfull person in the world and is a demonstrates the reason why some women should not vote.
Part of the reason Bill got away with what he did is because his pathetic wife could not stand up to his filandering bullcrap and take a walk!! Yeah great message Hillery "I am woman hear me whimper in silence." Women are freaking idiots!! This country is in BIG, BIG trouble and "Pretty boy" Bill Clinton made it even worse.
Get the jiffey pop with the tinfoil dome.. You can use the ready made dome to ward off evil goldfish and prevent them from eating the grey matter under it while eating the contents it once housed.
I call it the "swiss army knife of warding". It keeps both fish & hunger pangs at bay.
Forgot the sig ------------------
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-11-2004).]
Get the jiffey pop with the tinfoil dome.. You can use the ready made dome to ward off evil goldfish and prevent them from eating the grey matter under it while eating the contents it once housed.
I call it the "swiss army knife of warding". It keeps both fish & hunger pangs at bay.
Forgot the sig
Been using the "Jiffy Pop Defense" for years! Thats why Goldfish HATE popcorn! 2 fer 1.
Tugboat, I'm better off. Not because I have any more money but I have less debt so I would call that better-off. The reason is lower interest rates and a new job opportunity. I can't speak for all Americans .
Typical Bush cheerleader. Its all about you. Forget the debt that our children will have to pay off (those that arent used as expendable cannon fodder). Forget the less fortunate. They can starve as long as you get a little tax cut. Forget the grandkids that have to deal with a marginally inhabitable planet with few resources left and constant wars between the haves and the have nots. Forget the fact that the middle class is soon to be just a memory.
Clodster got a tax cut! Whoopee!!
(edited for spelling.)
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 07-11-2004).]
Tugboat, I'm better off. Not because I have any more money but I have less debt so I would call that better-off. The reason is lower interest rates and a new job opportunity. I can't speak for all Americans but I am in Bush's camp for that simple reason. I am better off today that at any time during the 90's except for '97. That was a good year!
I'm Back, Hey congratulations Ed...3 more negatives in the last 24 hours. We'll be rid of you before Kerry at this rate.
Sign up for some new accounts lately? What, the Republicans fixing a vote? Color me shocked.
Tugboat, I'm better off. Not because I have any more money but I have less debt so I would call that better-off. The reason is lower interest rates and a new job opportunity. I can't speak for all Americans but I am in Bush's camp for that simple reason. I am better off today that at any time during the 90's except for '97. That was a good year!
I'm Back, Hey congratulations Ed...3 more negatives in the last 24 hours. We'll be rid of you before Kerry at this rate.
Maybe if the tax breaks and employment opportunities were spread out equally you could sell your 400 mile car that actually has, "The odometer still reads 119k although everything on the car is new, ..." 119k miles on it. See, when money pools at the top it stagnates; when it goes to the bottom it gets circulated and America is a fun place to be.
More flaws in your reasoning are that, (A) you claim the economy is great, and, (B) you claim your car has everything new and is comparable to a 400 miler and therefore should/could be reclassified as new under California DMV policy which is likely true, but, (C) You can't sell it through the most prolific national marketing tool of all times, EBAY, for what you say it's worth. So where is the BS? Is it that your car is a pos? It looks nice to me, so I don't preliminarily subscribe to that. Or is it that the economy is just wonderful for the very few, crap for the masses, you know, the group that would be interested in buying your car? I think so.
Hell, the economy is so great that you can't even sell you cheaper car.
BTW, toady, what is a, "This beautiful 1988 Fiero GT has undergone a complete frame off restoration and build-up." frame off restoration with a Fiero? You have the crossmember up front; is that the frame to which you refer?
BTW, toady, what is a, "This beautiful 1988 Fiero GT has undergone a complete frame off restoration and build-up." frame off restoration with a Fiero? You have the crossmember up front; is that the frame to which you refer?
Someone who knows anything about a Fiero, first and foremost that its a spaceframe assembly, would assume he meant "frame UP" and simply made a typo. Trying to make a typo into a point you can attack someone at in a coversation that is NOT about proper punctuation and/or grammar is just petty. Stick to the topic at hand.
**Edited to fix tags.
[This message has been edited by Fastback 86 (edited 07-11-2004).]
Hmmm. My first Fiero, and the first car I was ever proud of owning was that cars twin. Silver 86SE v6 4 spd. If it wasn't Satan's, I mean Todd's car, and if it was $1000 less to put it at fair market value, I'd be all over that just for the nostalgia. Broke my heart losing that car. Got a better one in every way, but I still miss it.
Originally posted by I'm Back: Maybe if the tax breaks and employment opportunities were spread out equally you could sell your 400 mile car that actually has, "The odometer still reads 119k although everything on the car is new, ..." 119k miles on it. See, when money pools at the top it stagnates; when it goes to the bottom it gets circulated and America is a fun place to be.
More flaws in your reasoning are that, (A) you claim the economy is great, and, (B) you claim your car has everything new and is comparable to a 400 miler and therefore should/could be reclassified as new under California DMV policy which is likely true, but, (C) You can't sell it through the most prolific national marketing tool of all times, EBAY, for what you say it's worth. So where is the BS? Is it that your car is a pos? It looks nice to me, so I don't preliminarily subscribe to that. Or is it that the economy is just wonderful for the very few, crap for the masses, you know, the group that would be interested in buying your car? I think so.
Hell, the economy is so great that you can't even sell you cheaper car.
BTW, toady, what is a, "This beautiful 1988 Fiero GT has undergone a complete frame off restoration and build-up." frame off restoration with a Fiero? You have the crossmember up front; is that the frame to which you refer?
Ya, and I haven't owned them for 10+ years and rebuilt many Fiero engines. I don't have a N* in my garage with a Holly 900 control unit from CHRFAB. And I'm not an FAA licensed mechanic and inspector.....ya, I know nothing
"...first and foremost that its a spaceframe assembly, ..."
Which is my point, there is no such thing as a, "frame off" restoration.
"...would assume he meant "frame UP" and simply made a typo."
Thanks for speaking for him, he really needs a representative. It's not a typo because there is such a thing as a frame off restoration when referring to an older car that has a true frame, or, for instance, a truck. A typo would be to call it a, 'frame to up,' or an 'up-frame' restoration. But, "frame off" is a valid term used to describe taking the chasis off the frame and restoring both the frame and the chasis. The idea is that you can't fully access the frame with the chasis on it. There's a powder coating place in Phoenix that does a lot of bare chasis'. They do a sweet job - I've had a couple acft parts done there.
"Trying to make a typo into a point you can attack someone at in a coversation that is NOT about proper punctuation and/or grammar is just petty."
No, in case you haven't followed Todd, he stretches things, embellishes, lies, and contorts the facts to make himself look good. The best example of Todd's arguments is that he claims he must be right because he has a higher forum rating. So maybe you don't follow all of that. For example, Todd, in a political argument recently, claimed he voted in the 1980 Reagan election, when I know that I am older than he is and I was barely old enough to vote in that election. I called him on it and he continued to lie and then I found his birthdate that made him over a year too young. He finally conceded, but that's the kind of stuff Todd does. A great example of Todd is found in the EBAY ad where he claims the car has 400 miles. Truth is it's a fixed-up 119k miler.
"Stick to the topic at hand."
Which is what, Clinton's book???? The entire thread has deviated from that, so what's your point?
Hmmm. My first Fiero, and the first car I was ever proud of owning was that cars twin. Silver 86SE v6 4 spd. If it wasn't Satan's, I mean Todd's car, and if it was $1000 less to put it at fair market value, I'd be all over that just for the nostalgia. Broke my heart losing that car. Got a better one in every way, but I still miss it.
Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Typical Bush cheerleader. Its all about you.
That's the real issue, isn't it? In this country, it *is* about "you." It's about personal freedom, responsibility, initiative, and the opportunity to make a better life for *yourself*. A lot of what I see from democrats is that they want to punish you for succeeding.
Put another way, Todd has a wife, kid, and a second one on the way. I'm Back criticized him for fixing up and selling a Fiero. Gee, Todd is taking his and his family's destiny into his own hands, putting his skills to work, earning himself a living, and adding value to the economy (not to mention getting yet *another* Fiero on the road). His reward here in O/T? Criticism. If that's not a typical socialist reaction, I don't know what is.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-12-2004).]
That's the real issue, isn't it? In this country, it *is* about "you." It's about personal freedom, responsibility, initiative, and the opportunity to make a better life for *yourself*. A lot of what I see from democrats is that they want to punish you for succeeding.
Put another way, Todd has a wife, kid, and a second one on the way. I'm Back criticized him for fixing up and selling a Fiero. Gee, Todd is taking his and his family's destiny into his own hands, putting his skills to work, earning himself a living, and adding value to the economy (not to mention getting yet *another* Fiero on the road). His reward here in O/T? Criticism. If that's not a typical socialist reaction, I don't know what is.
Ed does have a point however.
He made it clear (to me anyway) that this so called "prosperous situation" Todd is in has caused him to lower the price of the car he was selling.
Now Todd, living in the "ivory tower" can not see the fact that people HAVE NO MONEY to buy his car. Either that or people think fieros are a piece of crap and not worth the asking price.
SOOOOOO
The question is who has the more valid point... Well... I for one know I can not afford Todd's car BUT I could have about 2 to 4 years ago.
Anyone else want to take a crack at this WITHIN the context I have outlined?
1. Can you afford it NOW without much trouble? AND 2. Could you have done so 2 to 4 years ago?
So for me it would be 1. No 2. Yes
So to me toddster is living in an "ivory tower".
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-12-2004).]
.......
