Wealthy Americans Unholster Their Weapons

[fossten]

Nope - just making sure that people reading this understand that Kennedy has no facts or data or stats to back up his assumption...

And to show how the 'right' side of the forum continues to post anything in hopes it will stick - I guess you think that people will start to believe this junk. It is getting worse...

Hey fox...since you're such a fan of this, I thought I might offer you some of your own advice.

Why don't you write the author of the article and challenge him yourself? I'd love to see the back and forth of the emails.

I don't have to defend claims I didn't make. But you made claims in this thread, and I have yet to see you defend a single one of them.

 

[Calabrio]

Nope - just making sure that people reading this understand that Kennedy has no facts or data or stats to back up his assumption...

You are essentially right.
He's basing his argument and observations almost entirely on anecdotal evidence and his own personal experience.

Why would the is author assume that it is a form of protest?

Because I understood him to be using a very lose definition of protest.
A decision made in response to political actions being taken today. Not with the intention of changing policy, but a response to policy waiting for it to change. He ends the article encouraging people to protest economically.

I didn't think it was particularly well written or titled, but I anticipated that it might start a conversation that would be more interesting and better than the article. I was wrong about that.

The economic policies are influencing the wealthy, they influence business decisions, and lately, not usually in a positive way. Business people are making decisions right now, decision to NOT spend money or invest domestically, or to spend it overseas, in response to the economic environment that is being created right now. And many people, because of the impending future, are simply sitting on the wealth they have.

Is that a protest? Not necessarily.
Could it be used as a form of protest. Yes.

And does government policy influence people earning and spending habits?
Absolutely. Unfortunately, there are too many politicians who think that earning and spending figures are static numbers that don't respond to tax and regulation policies.

 

[fossten]

I didn't think it was particularly well written or titled, but I anticipated that it might start a conversation that would be more interesting and better than the article. I was wrong about that.

Ah, yes. Leave it to fox to squelch any discussion that she doesn't find interesting.

 

[foxpaws]

Why don't you write the author of the article and challenge him yourself? I'd love to see the back and forth of the emails.

He has been challenged bunches by the comments posted about the article at Townhall... Lots of people noticed it was a very weak article.

I didn't think it was particularly well written or titled, but I anticipated that it might start a conversation that would be more interesting and better than the article. I was wrong about that.

Cal, how, what is the word I am looking for..... ah, convenient...

How did you expect to start an interesting conversation based on a flawed assumption in a questionable article?

 

[Calabrio]

How did you expect to start an interesting conversation based on a flawed assumption in a questionable article?

I answered this in the last post.

But what is the flawed assumption?
That people are making economic decisions right now as a formal, but silent protest of the government?
Is that flawed or simply unsupported by data and polling?

That people make economic decisions, both short and long term, influenced by the knowledge of what administration is in power and how they feel they are going to manage the economy and regulation?
Is that flawed?

Or that people should use their economic power as a means of protesting?
Unholstered doesn't mean that they fired their weapon, merely that they've removed it from the holster.

For example, Bryan (MM), like the examples in the essay, has repeatedly stated that he's made business decisions these past eight months that were influenced by the coming regulations and taxes promised by this administration. Is that a protest or merely a business response? Is there a difference? And does there come a point where those two things begin to intersect?

 

[PetesSweets86]

You are a liar.
Not the numbers, those are just silly.
But because you said you were going to try to post intelligent stuff- and you were CLEARLY lying about that!

Wish I could find all the videos that prove me right ;-)
Okay and I over stepped the numbers but A LOT are that high....

YouTube - Keith Olbermann Special Comment On Health Care Reform

 

[04SCTLS]

But what is the flawed assumption?
That people are making economic decisions right now as a formal, but silent protest of the government?
Is that flawed or simply unsupported by data and polling?

This is a flawed assumption and a generalization.
Everybody's circumstances are unique to them.
If your business was going to double in the next five years
are you going to not invest in it and pass as a protest over a few more percentages of tax?
On the other hand if your business is meagre and marginal then that extra tax may be the tipping point for you.

 

[luxuryrules]

It is a really strange assumption - most people in income brackets of 250,000 or more aren't 8 to 5ers...

Are you kidding?
Everyone who makes over $250k that I know, works full days, everyday...
many weekends too.

And most of the people I know who make over 250k don't work 8 to 5 - often they work much longer hours....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cal when Fox mentiones that those people aren't 8-5ers, you ASSUMED she meant that they work shorter days than that.

That would be an assumption, yes?

 

[foxpaws]

But what is the flawed assumption?
That people are making economic decisions right now as a formal, but silent protest of the government?
Is that flawed or simply unsupported by data and polling?

This is what Kennedy said…

Those $250,000+ earners, threatened and demonized by President Obama, are retaliating with their most powerful and damaging weapon: not spending. It is a quiet, deliberate, determined, very real resistance.​

I would gladly agree that ‘some’ people are protesting, in fact he later states that he, personally, has talked to ‘many’ affluent people and they are refusing to spend. I have no reason to think that he isn’t telling the truth. But talking to ‘many’ certainly doesn’t even come close to ‘all’ 1/4 million dollar earners – which is what he states in his third paragraph. How many did he talk to – 5, 98, 560, 1,280? And under what circumstances? Republican fund raisers? Save the Whales charity events? Dinner out with his buddies? Board meetings? In what part of the country? Texas or California?

So, he has his own little theory, which he is personally supporting – not spending to protest Obama’s policies - and then he tries to take his theory and use it for the reason that all spending is down among affluent people. The only hard data he has is that spending is down – you can’t go from the hard data to his conclusion with personal experience – that is a very flawed assumption.

And then he adds in the bit about Fed Ex – which has nothing to do with personal spending and everything to do with corporate decisions. It isn’t applicable within the case that he is trying to make – but he tosses it in, hoping that we will associate the two events. A sound business decision isn’t a form of protest. There isn’t anything in Fred Smith’s reasoning that indicates that he is not buying planes because he is protesting Obama, there is everything to show that he is basing it on sound business decisions.

Again – from the article

I’m actually overdue a new suit. A store I patronize even advertised a remarkably attractive offer last week, offering two free suits with purchase of one. But I will not give the president even a dime of help.​

And I love this – Trickle up… Don’t by the suit from the shop you have patronized for years, because you are protesting, not because you can’t afford it. The shop owner pulls down 300,000 a year… But, because of your (and according to Kennedy, all affluent people’s) decision that 300,000 goes down to 100,000-wow, now he doesn’t even qualify as ‘affluent’ and guess what, he isn’t buying anything, not because of some weird protest, but because he has no money. He goes out of business, your favorite Italian suit is no longer available in your city. Your protest did an amazing thing. Plus, in this case, it really isn’t a protest, because no one knows about it – it is a form of silent protest…

…he's made business decisions these past eight months that were influenced by the coming regulations and taxes promised by this administration. Is that a protest or merely a business response? Is there a difference? And does there come a point where those two things begin to intersect?

Monster has stated repeatedly he is doing well…so I am not sure what he is personally doing..

Do you destroy your business to protest? Most businessmen don’t. Not taking advantage of opportunity – no matter when it presents itself – usually destroys businesses. As Luxury said, it is a business owner’s decision, but based on different type of criteria than a purely personal decision. Not buying a suit now may not affect your earning power next year. Not investing in machinery that comes to market at a phenomenal price because of someone going out of business, will much more likely affect your earning power in the upcoming years.

Do you believe that there will be ‘business as usual’ opportunities in the upcoming years- I guess that is an opinion, and certainly would carry weight in any purchasing decision.

 

[PetesSweets86]

no one even watch my video? lol
oh and Foxpaws...I'd give you "bussiness as usual" in the upcoming years......

 

[Calabrio]

This is what Kennedy said…

Are you asking me to defend the article? I've already expressed what I think of the article. Are you expecting me to repeat myself every time you have a new observation?
I don't think anyone needs persuading that this little essay wasn't a scholarly article. In fact, there's uniform agreement on that point. He bases his opinion and observation on what can be described as anecdotal evidence.

I expressed what I thought about the article and what elements of it, or themes within it, that I found interesting. You've chosen to ignore them and simply harp on the opinion essay. That's up to you, but there's not much dispute on that point.

And I love this – Trickle up… Don’t by the suit from the shop you have patronized for years, because you are protesting, not because you can’t afford it.

Well, you shouldn't simply consume because you have money to spend. Just because the price is good doesn't mean you should necessarily buy something.

If he needed suits, then it'd be foolish to do that.
If he doesn't need suits, not making a purchase like that is not unreasonable. Not engaging in indulgent or frivolous spending as a form of personal protest isn't nearly as unreasonable as you're presenting it.

But if you have the money to spend on a luxury item but chose not to based upon the lack of confidence in the direction of the economy, is that a form of protest?

I'd even expand that- when government raises luxury taxes on goods, the consumers targeted can still afford the items. Yet, time and time again, you see the consumption of these goods falls dramatically. Is that protest, simply economics, both?

Do you destroy your business to protest? Most businessmen don’t.

No. And I think that's one of the big mistakes in that, I'd assume hastily written, poorly conceptualized, essay. I don't think business will often make decisions that hurt themselves to protest.

I think that they will make decisions that are IN THEIR INTEREST that can arguably be associated with a silent protest... if by protest you mean expression of opinion or a way to voice their sentiment. If I were in manufacturing right now, I wouldn't even consider building facilities in the U.S. right now. I wouldn't spend dime one doing any of the pre-planning either. I wouldn't do it because of the current administration and congressional leadership. Cap/Trade has yet to be defeated. Some framework for socialized medicine has yet to be defeated. Tax increases are inevitably rising. And there's a strange, hard to identify, almost fascist alignment between the federal government and some of the largest corporations, squeezing out smaller players.

Do you believe that there will be ‘business as usual’ opportunities in the upcoming years- I guess that is an opinion, and certainly would carry weight in any purchasing decision.

Of course, but our definition of usual might quite different than it is now.

 

[Calabrio]

Correct me if I'm wrong,

Will do.

but Cal when Fox mentiones that those people aren't 8-5ers, you ASSUMED she meant that they work shorter days than that.

You seem to invest your effort here in an effort to dazzle us with your cleverness. It's not impressing anyone.

Foxpaws complete quote was:

most people in income brackets of 250,000 or more aren't 8 to 5ers... they often are dependent on other types of income, investments, property, overseas income, all of which have taken big hits because of the recession.

What part of that means "most people who work 40-80 hours a week?" There's no assumption there, she says they make their wealth on "other types of income... which have taken hits because of the recession."

That would be an assumption, yes?

No, that wouldn't be.
That would be a logical conclusion. I didn't assume that, I deduced that.

You could say, "she might have meant they work as a stock boy at the grocery store but have a personal investments generating in excess of $250K a year," but I think that'd be a silly ASSUMPTION.

 

[foxpaws]

So, Cal – the assumption that you can use ‘not spending’ as a form of protest is what is interesting you… correct?

So, it is a silent form of protest, certainly in this case it would be. I haven’t seen any group that has been set up where you swear you won’t spend… it appears to be a very individual, private and silent effort.

So, the government sees that its tax revenues are going down – correct? This happens when the products you would have bought sit on the shelves unpurchased, therefore profits are down (less federal taxes) and people get laid off (less federal taxes), businesses shut down (less property taxes – but of course that is local – whoops). The direct result of no spending has to do more with state and local tax revenue going down, not the ‘round about’ chain of events that needs to occur if you want to protest by not purchasing something. But, if you are lucky, that will happen. You of course will have more money, perhaps sitting in an account that has interest, dividends, profit of some sort – you of course will be paying federal tax on that – so, we need to take that into account.

But, overall GDP has fallen – woo hoo!!!! The recession will linger – the Obama administration will be labeled as unable to save us from dire financial straights – all will be well in 3-1/2 years when he gets booted from office….

No one knows about your little protest – isn’t it like a tree falling in a forest where no one can hear it? The government will either print more money or raise taxes to offset your lack of spending. It won’t know why it needs to do this – just that it does…

All those other events will occur that I outlined before – business go under – state and local governments will have less revenue, your friend who owns the building has lost revenue stream…

Did your silent protest achieve what you wanted it to do – in this case – I guess it is to protest Obama’s policies? Well, you get to feel good about what you did – you can tell your buddies how good it feels (except of course the owner of the haberdashery and your really good friend who owns the building that once housed it).

But, will it change policy? No. Will the government be aware that you are dissatisfied with their current policy? No. Will others around the country be inspired by your actions and take up the cause? No.

Oh, by the way – Kennedy said he does need a suit – however he is unwilling to buy 3 for the price of one because of his silent protest.

Did this hurt the Obama administration?

 

[Calabrio]

Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent the little that I said?
Did you already have a draft of your response before I even finished the one I provided? It often seems like it.

So, Cal – the assumption that you can use ‘not spending’ as a form of protest is what is interesting you… correct?

Is not spending or investing money a form of political protest?
Do you consider it a form of protest is an individual or business refrains from making investments because of the political climate that exists?

It does have a political and economic consequence. Be it intentional or not.

Oh, by the way – Kennedy said he does need a suit – however he is unwilling to buy 3 for the price of one because of his silent protest.

No, he says he's due to buy one, not that he needs one.
He's also "due" to buy a new car, but instead just fixed the one he had.
His spending habits are changing, his priorities are changing.
As are many people.

He's consciously telling himself that he's making a political statement when he changes his spending habits. Other people are changing their spending habits because of the political environment.

And I think a lot of people and businesses are making the economic decision to either refrain from expanding and investing right now, or more worrisome, simply deciding to take that investment capital overseas.

Is that a political protest or just simple economics?
Does it matter? The outcome is the same.

 

[foxpaws]

Is that a political protest or just simple economics?
Does it matter? The outcome is the same.

So, Cal - if the protest has the same results as good business practice - is it a protest? Or is it convenient to say 'this is a protest'?

Wouldn't it be like saying 'I am not buying red wine' as a protest, when in fact, you don't drink red wine. The outcome is the same, no wine being purchased. Has the protest made a difference in the final outcome? Nope. Do you get to feel good about yourself, yes.

By doing something you would do anyway, and then labeling it as a protest as well... reeks of elitism, don't you think?

 

[Calabrio]

So, Cal - if the protest has the same results as good business practice - is it a protest? Or is it convenient to say 'this is a protest'?

That's similar to the question I asked.
However, I'm asking if the business practice has the same result as protest- does it matter what you call it?

Do you get to feel good about yourself, yes.

I'm completely uninterested in the motivations and justifications the author creates to make himself feel good. And I think that protest for the sake of feeling good about yourself is silly.

By doing something you would do anyway, and then labeling it as a protest as well... reeks of elitism, don't you think?

No, because the decision is made in RESPONSE to political policy.
You're wine example doesn't apply as you stated it.

Let's say I love Autralian table wines. But the government decides to impose a heavy tarrif on it. If I decide that I'll instead drink Australian beer since it's not taxed. I don't like it as much, but it's in my economic interest to do so.

Does that reek of elitism or is it a silent protest?
I've addressed this point already- like in the case of luxury taxes.

 

[fossten]

So, Cal – the assumption that you can use ‘not spending’ as a form of protest is what is interesting you… correct?

So, it is a silent form of protest, certainly in this case it would be. I haven’t seen any group that has been set up where you swear you won’t spend… it appears to be a very individual, private and silent effort.

So, the government sees that its tax revenues are going down – correct? This happens when the products you would have bought sit on the shelves unpurchased, therefore profits are down (less federal taxes) and people get laid off (less federal taxes), businesses shut down (less property taxes – but of course that is local – whoops). The direct result of no spending has to do more with state and local tax revenue going down, not the ‘round about’ chain of events that needs to occur if you want to protest by not purchasing something. But, if you are lucky, that will happen. You of course will have more money, perhaps sitting in an account that has interest, dividends, profit of some sort – you of course will be paying federal tax on that – so, we need to take that into account.

But, overall GDP has fallen – woo hoo!!!! The recession will linger – the Obama administration will be labeled as unable to save us from dire financial straights – all will be well in 3-1/2 years when he gets booted from office….

No one knows about your little protest – isn’t it like a tree falling in a forest where no one can hear it? The government will either print more money or raise taxes to offset your lack of spending. It won’t know why it needs to do this – just that it does…

All those other events will occur that I outlined before – business go under – state and local governments will have less revenue, your friend who owns the building has lost revenue stream…

Did your silent protest achieve what you wanted it to do – in this case – I guess it is to protest Obama’s policies? Well, you get to feel good about what you did – you can tell your buddies how good it feels (except of course the owner of the haberdashery and your really good friend who owns the building that once housed it).

But, will it change policy? No. Will the government be aware that you are dissatisfied with their current policy? No. Will others around the country be inspired by your actions and take up the cause? No.

Oh, by the way – Kennedy said he does need a suit – however he is unwilling to buy 3 for the price of one because of his silent protest.

Did this hurt the Obama administration?

Apparently you need to re-read Atlas Shrugged. It describes this very scenario. You cannot assume that people aren't silently protesting with their dollars, considering they're openly protesting in town halls. Of course, you rather frown on both.

 

[04SCTLS]

This protest is`more like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You decided that although you like the cash for clunkers program
you won't trade in your Mark as a form of protest.

The protest feeling is more satisfying to you than the pleasure of a new vehicle.
Now if you really don't need a new car then this protest is painlessly convenient.

People act in their own best interests first.
This not spending by the rich as a protest is just a wishful political notion.

 

[shagdrum]

This protest is`more like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You decided that although you like the cash for clunkers program
you won't trade in your Mark as a form of protest.

The protest feeling is more satisfying to you than the pleasure of a new vehicle.
Now if you really don't need a new car then this protest is painlessly convenient.

People act in their own best interests first.
This not spending by the rich as a protest is just a wishful political notion.

Not necessarily the best example. In the "Cash for clunkers" program, the government is taking tax dollars and paying you for the car. That is not happening in the protests the author is talking about.

As to the main point being raised in the analogy, you said it when you said, "if you really don't need a new car then this protest is painlessly convenient." These people are not spending on convenience, only on necessity.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal - perhaps a melbourne yellow?

But, I have to agree that American beer is like making love in a canoe...

No, because the decision is made in RESPONSE to political policy.
You're wine example doesn't apply as you stated it.

So, you are saying that the business decision, in this case, FedEx's decision to hold off buying planes because of the 'in the air' status of the unions is a protest? It is in reaction to political policy, or what could become policy, right? It is the correct business decision, but is it also a protest.

Yes, of course, since Smith came out and said it was. But, without voicing the protest part (as Smith did) doesn't it become a moot (or mute) point? Let's say he didn't come out and actually state he was holding off buying the planes dependent on the outcome of the unionization scheme, I might assume he is against the upcoming legislation - but, by his actions alone, all I can say for certain is that he is a good business man, the economy is iffy, his profits are down, there is upcoming legislation that could hurt profits further, holding off on the planes looks to be the prudent thing to do. He knows that he is protesting the unionization scheme - but I don't, the government doesn't, his employees don't, so what good does the silent protest do?

The same with your not buying Perth Pink. By not buying it, in your mind you have have made a both an economic decision - you can buy more Fosters, but in some odd way you are getting back at the government by not paying the higher taxes on Perth Pink. But, unless the government knows by you stating somehow that you are buying Fosters to protest the taxes on Perth Pink, how will it know there is this protest going on? The government may assume that you like Fosters better, that Perth Pink had a bad year, that you are eating hamburgers instead of steak, it might even think there is a protest involved - but can't be sure about any of those options. The one thing it really accomplishes is that you feel good about your little protest... Since it is silent.

So, if no one knows about your silent protest, what good is it? I think that it is protest for the sake of feeling good about yourself - isn't that elitism?

 

[foxpaws]

This protest is`more like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You decided that although you like the cash for clunkers program
you won't trade in your Mark as a form of protest.

The protest feeling is more satisfying to you than the pleasure of a new vehicle.
Now if you really don't need a new car then this protest is painlessly convenient.

People act in their own best interests first.
This not spending by the rich as a protest is just a wishful political notion.

Hello 04ctls... Well, sort of. I think when foss states (I don't want to put words in his mouth - blick - but, part of this argument is about what others 'see' when a silent protest occurs) he wouldn't be trading in his Mark using the clunker program, and that he just won't be buying a new car in general, he is protesting both what he sees as an ill-advised government program (clunkers) and by not buying a car in general, he isn't adding to gdp, adding to the taxes, keeping afloat car companies, there could be a myriad of 'protest' reasons on this point. But, in his mind, the action is a protest against Obama policies, and his government.

Now, do I know that - does the government know that - will others know that if it is silent? If it is silent, I guess you hope others will somehow pick up on it and join you, because your protest will go unheeded - it is too small.

Silent protests just don't work, it isn't that economic protests don't work -they can, and they can work well. Ask any action group that threatens not to buy a product if the company continues to advertise on a show or in a publication that has offended them. The threat of pulling consumer dollars is a great big threat - even for the government. It is a good form of protest. But, if you just decide not to buy a car, and no one knows the reasoning behind it, getting to the fact that you are silently protesting something is pretty far down the line of reasons. And, then, in Foss's case - there are many reasons - is one more 'right' that the others, should we focus on which reason is the true 'silent protest'?

Atlas Shrugs' protest of the innovators and men of industry works because it isn't a secret among them. They all know what they are doing, and they have come together to use economic clout to destroy the government. If just Reardon had done it, and kept it as a silent protest, the effect would have been minimal, and the idea of protest would have been buried among other reasons that Rearden Metal had quit being profitable. But they all knew about it, and were able to join in it. Now, they kept it a secret among themselves, so the government wouldn't realize what was happening until it was too late, but that was a strategy they were using to topple the government. One individual's protest, or even 10s of them, done as silent protests, wouldn't have created the atmosphere they needed to get rid of the corrupt government. They needed an effort among many, and they all knew of the 'silent' protest.

 

[Calabrio]

This protest is`more like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You decided that although you like the cash for clunkers program
you won't trade in your Mark as a form of protest.

The protest feeling is more satisfying to you than the pleasure of a new vehicle.
Now if you really don't need a new car then this protest is painlessly convenient.

People act in their own best interests first.
This not spending by the rich as a protest is just a wishful political notion.

No, it would be like-
I don't like the cash for clunkers program, I don't like the administration, and I think they are creating an environment that is hostile to capitalism. So despite the fact I might LIKE a new car, I fix my old car.

That's in my best interest. I have a solid, reliable piece of transportation and I don't have 60 months of payments and a $20k note hanging over my head.

It's also in response to the economic conditions being created by this government. Because I really skeptical about the economic condition this country is going to be in a year from now.

AGAIN- luxury taxes.
Mega-wealthy people can afford expensive toys, regardless of the tax. And based on that idea, with an unhealthy dose of classism, the government has though it a good idea in the past to impose heavy taxes on luxury goods.

People simply stopped buying them.
The boat industry at the time, for example, was nearly destroyed.
Was that a protest?
Did they NEED a new race boat, regardless how low the dealers were dropping prices?
Did they "spite themselves" by not buying a new boat?

Too many people in government, and people who think that government is the solution to our problems, seem to think that economics are a static variable. That the actions taken by Washington don't have a direct impact on the actions people take. And they don't see the unintended consequences associated with that.

Report came out today saying that the vast majority of jobs lost to cap/trade will be in the manufacturing sector. If I remember right, they suspect 66% of lost jobs will be in manufacturing. It's not going to create more jobs than it costs.

If you refrain from expanding right now, or just go build over seas, is that protest, or survival, can it be both?

 

[fossten]

Hello 04ctls... Well, sort of. I think when foss states (I don't want to put words in his mouth - blick - but, part of this argument is about what others 'see' when a silent protest occurs) he wouldn't be trading in his Mark using the clunker program, and that he just won't be buying a new car in general, he is protesting both what he sees as an ill-advised government program (clunkers) and by not buying a car in general, he isn't adding to gdp, adding to the taxes, keeping afloat car companies, there could be a myriad of 'protest' reasons on this point. But, in his mind, the action is a protest against Obama policies, and his government.

I'm also not adding to my personal debt, fox. You FAILED to consider fiscal responsibility. OOPS! But then again, liberals usually do.

Our country's financial system is nearly in ruins because of policies that encourage consumption through debt. You should think about that for more than 5 minutes before responding.

 

[foxpaws]

I'm also not adding to my personal debt, fox. You FAILED to consider fiscal responsibility. OOPS! But then again, liberals usually do.

Our country's financial system is nearly in ruins because of policies that encourage consumption through debt. You should think about that for more than 5 minutes before responding.

And foss, the first paragraph is a wonderful example of why silent protest doesn't work... I overlooked that reason among the myriad of reasons that you could have for not buying a car.

You don't have enough money to buy a car outright?

And Republicans love debt... it keeps their banks in business...

 

[fossten]

And foss, the first paragraph is a wonderful example of why silent protest doesn't work... I overlooked that reason among the myriad of reasons that you could have for not buying a car.

You don't have enough money to buy a car outright?

Interesting assumption. Once again you FAIL to explore all the possibilities. Want to try for Double Jeopardy? Not that it's any of your business.

And Republicans love debt... it keeps their banks in business...

Really? That's an interesting comment, considering the number of banks that Obama owns now... Don't keep up on current events much, do you?