Here's a real life example. Let's see if this can clear things up.
Last summer I really wanted this Dodge SLT 2500 diesel truck so I could pull a brand new travel trailer. It would be great for the family. Let's equate this with the lobbyist written and enacted prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Choice A: I could borrow 42,000 from China with no intent to ever pay it back. Naw...... that wouldn't be the most fiscally responsible thing to my family. Boy, I sure would like it though. No I shouldn't expect my four year old to pay for it. Well what the hell, the boy will have some fun too. Let's buy it and have my children pay for it.

Choice B: I could dip it to my savings. Maybe take on a couple of other extra circulars. Have the wife work a couple of extra hours. If it's truly something that I want for my family. I should find a way of paying for it, If I truly want it.


Now how would YOU make this decision!

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:Name one thing he ever promised in a SOTU address that he actually successfully delivered upon.

Tens of billions of dollars in AIDS aid to Africa.

Here's another scenario:

Niner and I are walking down the road. Hey, Is that our neighbor's house on fire?

Mach: Hey we should call the fire dept!

Niner: Well if you were that concerned about the fire you would go over there and pour some water on it.

Mach: That won't do any good. We need to call the fire dept before it burns up the neighborhood.

Niner: If you were that concerned you would go over there and try to put it out yourself.

Mach: I can't fight it myself. I need more people.

Kind of simple really.

Machiavelli Wrote:Here's a real life example. Let's see if this can clear things up.
Last summer I really wanted this Dodge SLT 2500 diesel truck so I could pull a brand new travel trailer. It would be great for the family. Let's equate this with the lobbyist written and enacted prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Choice A: I could borrow 42,000 from China with no intent to ever pay it back. Naw...... that wouldn't be the most fiscally responsible thing to my family. Boy, I sure would like it though. No I shouldn't expect my four year old to pay for it. Well what the hell, the boy will have some fun too. Let's buy it and have my children pay for it.

Choice B: I could dip it to my savings. Maybe take on a couple of other extra circulars. Have the wife work a couple of extra hours. If it's truly something that I want for my family. I should find a way of paying for it, If I truly want it.


Now how would YOU make this decision!

1. I wouldn't buy it because buying a new car is the worst investment you can make.

2. If I was buying it, I would wait for 0% financing and buy it with the longest terms possible and use the money I was going to spend on it to make more money.

Machiavelli Wrote:Here's another scenario:

Niner and I are walking down the road. Hey, Is that our neighbor's house on fire?

Mach: Hey we should call the fire dept!

Niner: Well if you were that concerned about the fire you would go over there and pour some water on it.

Mach: That won't do any good. We need to call the fire dept before it burns up the neighborhood.

Niner: If you were that concerned you would go over there and try to put it out yourself.

Mach: I can't fight it myself. I need more people.

Kind of simple really.

Wow, is that stupid and absolutely fallacious in its formation.

Here's the bottom line Mach, you're a hypocrite. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing then does another.

Mach - It's wrong for the government to give back rebate checks....but I'll spend the one they send me anyway since not spending it won't do any good.

or

Mach - It's wrong to do crack cocain...but me not doing it won't stop the sell of it, so I'll do it anyway.

It's easy to stand on principle when you don't/won't sacrifice to live it out.

I was thinking about the water being a beer. Something that I would want but you would want me to give away. Meanwhile you would be keeping the beer in your hand. That would be a good scenario.

Mach's argument is not fallacious nor hypocritical. If you don't agree that the government should spend money on something (and rebates are essentially just that), but the govt does anyway, it doesn't make sense to not utilize the benefits of it, since you've already paid for it, in the form of taxes. And not utilizing it would not change anything. If EVERYONE didn't utilize it then it might do some good, if the benefit could be returned by everyone.

NIU007 Wrote:Mach's argument is not fallacious nor hypocritical. If you don't agree that the government should spend money on something (and rebates are essentially just that), but the govt does anyway, it doesn't make sense to not utilize the benefits of it, since you've already paid for it, in the form of taxes. And not utilizing it would not change anything. If EVERYONE didn't utilize it then it might do some good, if the benefit could be returned by everyone.

Ahh, but Mach "wanted" the truck. He didn't "need" the truck.

NIU007 Wrote:Mach's argument is not fallacious

His example was, not his argument.

Quote:nor hypocritical.

Yes it is.

Quote:If you don't agree that the government should spend money on something (and rebates are essentially just that), but the govt does anyway, it doesn't make sense to not utilize the benefits of it, since you've already paid for it, in the form of taxes.

You're right, it doesn't make sense. But it's still hypocritical. To rail against the rebates, which are optional, you don't have to take them, and then use them anyway is the very definition of hypocritical.

Quote:And not utilizing it would not change anything.

Irrelevant. If you're going to take a stand on principle in one breath and then violate it in the next, that's hypocritical. There is no way around it.

Does it makes sense to turn down 1200 dollars that's just offered to you? No. But standing on principal many times means you do things that don't make sense.

Saying something is wrong, then taking advantage of the benefit it provides anyway, especially when it's optional, is hypocritical. No if's, and's or but's about it.

Quote:But standing on principal many times means you do things that don't make sense.

His principal..... my family's money. I'm not into pouring a glass of water on a 5 alarm fire. That's my principal. BTW my share is 300 dollars.

It's political pandering pure and simple. Another reason I'm against it is I don't think it will have any effect. Many economists agree with me. The other thing i disagree with is how do you give a rebate to someone who never paid into it in the first place. This has everything to do with getting an approval rating above 40. It's a legacy ploy.

The problem with the arguments starts with whose money you think it is. It is the absolute basis of the Republican/Democrat argument.

If I send $10,000 to the Federal Government as taxes, and they send me back $500, why didn't they just only take $9,500 to begin with?? BECAUSE... The guy who only sent in $1,000 gets the same $500 rebate, and the guy who sent in $20,000 gets no rebate at all.

If you earn $50,000 or more, you want a tax cut. If you make $30,000 or less, you want a rebate, and if you have already earned so much money that you don't really need to work, you don't care.

If we have a progressive tax rate, make it progressive. If not, make it consumptive... Our current tax code is entirely set up to favor those who don't work... both those who lack skills/motivation/opportunity, and those who don't need the money.

Hambone10 Wrote:If we have a progressive tax rate, make it progressive. If not, make it consumptive... Our current tax code is entirely set up to favor those who don't work... both those who lack skills/motivation/opportunity, and those who don't need the money.

I think it's set up and molded in a way that best suits the political needs of any candidate. I, for one, am sick and damn tired of it.