Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by Aim64C

 

By all means, use the threat to leave. No one will be forced at the point of gun to stay. Go where you can find slaves or the corrupt to make you wealthy. May you enjoy the filth and wealth that comes in your way. Stay out and stay away while American rebuilds itself and the world.

Such a shame. There is nothing but jealousy and hatred in your eyes. Dear boy, everything that is consumed must be made. Someone - or something - is going to have to make the things we consume. Whether it be as simple as the apple in your fruit basket, or as complex as the computer on your desk - someone must make it. Someone must also buy it for it to be worth spending the time and resources to make.

It is due to businesses and industry that you are no longer working the fields nearly every waking hour of the day simply to provide for your family. Food is now a periphery concern - you pay someone else to grow your food (and they do whatever they will with the money exchanged). You have time to do other things - such as enjoy the TV you purchased and cable you subscribe to (or the computer and internet).

Were it not for someone saying "Well, I bet if I take some of this iron and hammer it into a plow, then tie it to a horse, I bet I can plow this field in no-time!" - we'd all still be back in the very beginnings of the iron age. And were it not for the idea of people with the capability of making these "horse plows" to sell to other farmers - and the subsequent decision to drop farming almost entirely to build plows and service them... then we'd still all be forced to grow our own food to survive and we'd never have all of these secret government projects to debate about here on ATS.

In the true free market - everyone gains. You will always have people who have more than others (all natural systems have a hierarchy to them) - but the lower and middle classes continually see an improved standard of living over time. Poverty-level Americans have a higher standard of living per U.N. standards than the average European. There will be bad apples in every bunch - but in a truly free market, a greedy business will get obliterated by an honest and efficient business - if for no other reason that consumers have the right to choose a business they prefer.

One fine day, you will no longer have any where to flee to, when the masses realizes the extent of greed your classes had ben exploiting them to the hilt.

Dear sir, I make less than $15,000 per year. I'm a reservist seeking employment in the civilian world.

My father worked his entire life well below the industry standard pay for his position (he did not have a degree) and passed away with a deficit estate (only assets not included in the estate shall be inherited - which is not much.

My uncle owns a business back in my home town. My family has a history of owning businesses since they moved in from Germany and didn't speak English. I know the light and dark sides of businesses and corporations. I saw my father get less than fair treatment for all of his abilities and service to the business. However, even at that unfair wage - we lived to an extent you would probably consider worthy of being taxed to the hilt for. We had a vacation almost every year. We had a computer, the internet, some gaming systems, a house where us three boys had our own rooms.

Where you see corporate greed and maliciousness; I see a ship of incompetent fools that can be easily driven out of business by a competent, efficient business abiding by the principles of good business and customer relations.

Where you see a greedy rich person sitting on their money, I see a cautious and choosy investor who will not be swayed by the whimsical nature of many start-up companies.

My experience is from both ends of the coin. My mother's family is and mostly was blue-collar. My father's side of the family is and mostly was white-collar (if you consider die-casting and sheet metal ownership/management to be white-collar... everyone gets their hands dirty in a die-casting factory). I've also quite a bit of experience with the government in my military experience (another integral part of my family history concerning both officer and enlisted histories).

I will tell you that the darkest corners of the business world are comparable to some of the brightest the government has to offer. Don't get me wrong - the government has some great benefits that go along with working within it - but the amount of bloat and waste that goes on within government programs is simply unforgivable. Before going on a witch-hunt for rich people, you should apply that same hilt-taxing ferocity to the government.

Then you can talk about squeezing more out of tax payers. I'm not complaining - I'm in the tax bracket that gets most of its with-holdings back, but I can tell you that it is a terribly short-sighted decision fueled by jealousy and contempt, and you will reap that which you sow.

Interpretate it as you will with your shallow mind. Truth and realities are bitter pills to swallow. If casting aspersions on me will help you take that gulp, then by all means attack me as you wish, for I am not important, but you and what you must do is far more important.

I was born with a silver spoon, and can relate many of life stories to prove it is the truth I seek, and not base emotions that drives me as you so hurtfully attempt to heap on me, but as I am not important, to cut the story short, I walked away from it all when I realized how my money could make a human lose his own dignity for the sake of a few bucks, and it is no way for humans whom are equal like me, to live.

Greed is good and perfectly ok. I am not a commie. It fuels industries and progress. But over-excessive greed such as that which had caused our financial collapse will only doom mankind. And it is such greed we must eradicate. No one will hate a rich man if he uses his wealth to help society, or begrudge him of his justified rewards such as material things.

It is when they start to take all credit and profits, instead of sharing it with society, not by a few coins thrown to charity, but with iresponsible creation of slavery and defective toxic cheap products on an international level without any level playing field that mankind will begin to hate,deplore and seek ways to curtail their greed.

Cry if the rich must, for society like water, will find its level one way or another. The current status quo is unsustainable. Better we be awaken now to take action peacefully than to do so later when all hell break loose. When that happens, no human will win or be left alive, rich or poor.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


The truth is in nature.

Nature has no balance, no equilibrium. It is constantly in flux, constantly changing. Turbulence - chaos - change, is the result of an energetic and living system. The only state of balance and equilibrium is that of maximum entropy - no energy left to give; stagnation and death.

Even the 'level of water' is constantly changing with the cyclic motion of the tides, the coming and going of the rain, the whimsical nature of the wind, and even the efforts of man.

Water escapes its level - and it is that reason we exist.

Your ideal system is unnatural and flies in the very face of physics, itself. It will, therefor, fail.

Some people will lose their dignity over a few bucks. So what? If an idiot-farmer is killing half of his crops and charging ridiculous prices because of it, do it the right way and make the world a better place because of it. If a company is mistreating their employees, create a similar company and hire that business's employees away, then target his customers/clients with better pricing, services, deals, etc.

That is what the economy is about - making something people are glad to give you money to have, and everyone goes away from the transaction happy. If someone isn't doing that - then apply yourself (or find someone who can apply themselves) to setting things right.

The only time this cannot happen is when other parties are actively interfering in the formation of new businesses or protecting existing businesses through laws, contracts, etc. Namely - the government.

You can inflate the government in your sense of justice and some attempt to redeem yourself for your upbringing. But you haven't a clue what you are doing, or the slightest idea of what the consequences of your actions will be.

The answers are all in history. Your ideas are not new or any new movement or wave of enlightenment. It's the same old song and dance of socialism. There is not a single existing or historical example of the successful application of socialism. Merely attempting to socialize specific markets (such as healthcare) have driven several countries bankrupt, and others are frantically trying to figure out how to control the bloating of such systems while being advised by EU think-tanks to ditch many of their socialized programs or face economic collapse.

The U.S. having problems? Caused by greedy banks, not socialism, you say? Greedy banks that do not want to lose money would never approve a loan for a house to someone with such high statistical rates of defaulting on loans. The only way they would do this is if there was no penalty to them for approving the loan. But how can this be...? The only way they could not be held financially responsible for approving a loan to a high-risk demographic is if they were being backed by some kind of entity with a printing press... possibly in the idea that everyone deserves a nice place to live and equal housing....

Yes - the equal housing acts pretty much directly lead to the housing burst (which triggered a global economic recession - interestingly enough).

You can't tell your kids its okay to let the dog play in the house, then be angry with the dog for tracking mud in.

reply to post by Aim64C


No, I will not be angry with the dog for tracking mud into the house, but disappointed only with the kids for not taking that responsibility to ensure the dog is clean or clean up the mess themselves later. It is only mud after all, will not hurt or harm anyone.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the economic disasters caused by greedy bankers and global corporations, as I watched the thousands live in tents in America, an impossible humbling thought alone as it is not too long ago.

Socialism had never failed humanity throughout the course of our human civilisation. Only greedy humanity had failed socialism, by usurping power of the masses unto themselves, creating monarchies and totalitarian regimes that had kept mankind stupid and poor while the greedy and corrupt few grew rich.

Banks offered loans and need NO responsibility for it because the market had been UNREGULATED. They simply repackaged it and sold it off as 'derivatives'. The middle classes who had worked hard were conned off into this game (so called investments) that only left them losers.

Healthcare was an idealism left by our much enlightened ancestors whom had applied their intelligence and efforts in attempts to heal the many, often free of charge or in kind. Unfortunately, today's medical cost had been astronomical. Why is that so? How can the high costs of cure for cancer be attributed to research costs, when it HAD BEEN society that had funded such research, in capital and in resources?

How then can eratz medical costs for HIV is lower than the real costs provided by big pharma if economic production costs are high? Who instead now is benefitting and profitting from human illness, as well as the creation of a deep hole of our socialised funding for healthcare?

'making something people are glad to give you money to have' is a policy by conmen. Are you selling snake oil?

Competition is good for it eliminates waste and instead help improve productivity with resources. Unfortunately, cabals or oligarchies are formed to tackle competition, and new ways are applied to get round competition, and very often, at the expense of the consumers and workers.

Take a long hard look at the oil companies, private or nations that had control the price of our needed oil. Take a look at China's manufacturing plants as it continues to churn out toxic and defective products under one name, but when found out, they simply re-register another name and continue their game.

The truth is indeed found in nature, espacially in our HUMAN NATURE. There will always be a balance in nature for each action is often followed by another, and through such actions, it either destroys nature, or nature will fnd a balance to survive.

Excessive heat will cause the water to evaporate, and then it rains and cools down the land. A cycle of balance is created, and had been so for millions of years in our planet's history. So too will human nature be the same, subjected to change either by reason or by force.

The democrats want to renew the bush tax cuts minus of course the cuts for the super rich, which is why the republicans are stalling the bill and holding the American people hostage.

Let's also keep in mind that companies in the US are more liquid now than in any other time in American history ! And they're not creating jobs....WHY ? Because they don't want democrats in power ! Large companies are holding the American people hostage and creating fear so we'll vote for them. Don't fall for it !!!! FEAR is the republicans power base.

The reality is that income tax cuts for the super rich will NOT create jobs. The super rich do not re-invest money into their companies after they pay income tax on it. They re-invest company money.

Good thread !

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Banks offered loans and need NO responsibility for it because the market had been UNREGULATED. They simply repackaged it and sold it off as 'derivatives'. The middle classes who had worked hard were conned off into this game (so called investments) that only left them losers.

The limiting factor in bank loans is the bank's capital reserves versus their liable assets. If the banks were participating in such predatory lending schemes, then we would have seen a car-market bubble along with a burst for cars. This is not the case.

Why? Because banks apply more stringent criteria to car loans because they are still held accountable in that market.

Where did we see the lending burst? In the housing market. What exists there that doesn't exist in any other lending market? Government aid programs that relieve the lending institution of financial responsibility should the loan payer default.

Healthcare was an idealism left by our much enlightened ancestors whom had applied their intelligence and efforts in attempts to heal the many, often free of charge or in kind. Unfortunately, today's medical cost had been astronomical. Why is that so? How can the high costs of cure for cancer be attributed to research costs, when it HAD BEEN society that had funded such research, in capital and in resources?

You're comparing two different eras of society. A traveling medicine-man carried knowledge of anatomy and local herbs. A town would welcome such a person and accommodate them free of charge for their service or potential to serve and heal. The payment was being allowed to partake of the village's endeavors that would otherwise not be shared without some bartering process.

Today, we have no traveling medicine men. We'd throw them in jail for practicing medicine without a government-issued license. No drug may be developed or distributed without the approval of federally administered and regulated agencies. A doctor cannot prescribe a treatment (even if it is known to be effective and used in other countries) to a patient without it being approved by government agencies.

Kind of hard to have free-market competition in the medical arena, huh? That is why costs are so ridiculously high. Doctors go to school for 15 years to be told by a bunch of daft politicians with no medical experience what they are and are not allowed to do as medical professionals. The process of developing and approving pharmaceuticals is so hideously regulated and subject to pork&barrel politics that few new companies ever attempt to penetrate into the market.

How then can eratz medical costs for HIV is lower than the real costs provided by big pharma if economic production costs are high? Who instead now is benefitting and profitting from human illness, as well as the creation of a deep hole of our socialised funding for healthcare?

I'm not entirely sure what the hell that first sentence is attempting to say - but I interpret it to mean you're asking why a treatment for HIV is cheaper in another country while far more expensive here?

Really, the answer sits above. A lot of drugs are only approved for use if they are manufactured in America - a rather expensive place to build a factory and hire workers where the government arbitrarily sets the minimum wage and artificially drives up the average cost of living. We can't allow drugs manufactured in other countries (even if the factory is owned by the same damned corporation as factory in America) to be consumed by Americans. I understand why there are a number of concerns, here (even those of National Security) - but considering a lot of our food comes from other countries, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

However, pharmaceutical companies that have a foot-hold in America don't want to see foreign markets introduced. It opens up the possibility of competition in an area they have held rather exclusive dominance over.

That's not to say they are all evil - but that no established market wants to see its market share collapse, even if it is better for the consumer in the long run. In reality - it wouldn't have even been possible if our government didn't try to regulate every damned thing under the sun.

'making something people are glad to give you money to have' is a policy by conmen. Are you selling snake oil?

The difference between a good business man and a con man is that the business man makes an honest statement about their product and the consumer gets their expected use of the product. The con-man will say whatever you want to hear and isn't around when the consumer learns the truth. Just go to the science sub-forums and look at most of the perpetual energy companies that have opened themselves up to investment. That's a con strategy.

Giving the farmer a set of horse-shoes in exchange for an agreed upon amount of food is good business.

Competition is good for it eliminates waste and instead help improve productivity with resources. Unfortunately, cabals or oligarchies are formed to tackle competition, and new ways are applied to get round competition, and very often, at the expense of the consumers and workers.

This is generally only possible in very restricted markets. The only way markets are restricted is when physical concerns (resources, area, etc) or artificial shortages (government regulations) are involved. In natural markets, large corporations will emerge. Some may become anti-competitive. However, if at any time another business can out-perform them (whether already existing or newly started), the power of a near-monopoly will be challenged. In most cases, when other companies cannot compete due to effective pricing and logistics, the consumer is not being harmed by the existence of a near-monopoly (such as walmart). If another business cannot compete with the pricing, quality, or some other combination of factors - then the consumer has still won for the present time (any future deviations can be addressed by new or peripheral businesses).

Take a long hard look at the oil companies, private or nations that had control the price of our needed oil. Take a look at China's manufacturing plants as it continues to churn out toxic and defective products under one name, but when found out, they simply re-register another name and continue their game.

Oil prices have not changed much in quite a while. The real changes in price have been at the pump. That's because our government has not authorized the construction of new refineries despite over a 300% increase in demand since the last refinery went into operation. I don't want an oil refinery in my back yard, either - but something has got to give.

As far as China goes - they are a whole different can of worms (and socialist). There is a shift away from China - but we will always need sources of cheap labor - spoons don't have to have incredibly precise manufacturing processes applied to their production, and we don't want to pay $3 for a spoon - so we'll look to places like China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Africa, etc for that cheap labor.... or - we would look to Africa if they could stop friggin' killing each other and spamming our e-mail accounts with 419 scams.

The truth is indeed found in nature, espacially in our HUMAN NATURE. There will always be a balance in nature for each action is often followed by another, and through such actions, it either destroys nature, or nature will fnd a balance to survive.

Excessive heat will cause the water to evaporate, and then it rains and cools down the land. A cycle of balance is created, and had been so for millions of years in our planet's history. So too will human nature be the same, subjected to change either by reason or by force.

But there is no balance. Even without life to complicate matters - rain will cease to fall where it once did, water will flow in directions it once did not, land will rise and fall....

Human nature will not change via reason or force. Human nature is the nature of life. Life is a mysterious and seemingly counter-entropic force of self-construction and perseverance.

You are too blind to see that the free market is but another expansion of the primal concepts of communal living. It is the next evolutionary step.

Consider the farmer. He plows the fields, feeds the people of the community. But why should he do all of that work for them? What do they do? The blacksmith provides him with equipment to make his job easier. The baker processes food for him and for everyone. The carpenter built his home and the bridges, as well as keeps the town in good shape. Everyone knows each other and the impact their efforts have on the community. One's contribution to the whole is easily seen, appreciated, and compensated for.

But what happens when you get an outsider in the town? How does our community then value this person? What can he do for the community in exchange for sharing in the bounty of the community? Perhaps he has some currency used for exchange in the cities or with other non-locals. Perhaps he has skills - or perhaps the community is willing to give him a bed and food in exchange for a good few nights of story-telling and news of what is going on outside of the community. Obviously - their surplus or lack thereof will be a factor in how much they can spare for trade (supply and demand).

Over time, our community grows, and many people start to lose track of each other. The baker no longer knows the blacksmith or his family, the seamstress has no clue who the farmer is, and most couldn't differentiate between a town resident and someone passing through.

How, then, do you ensure that the whole is mutually provided for? The same way the outsider is handled within the community - some good, currency, or service is then necessary to complete transactions with all people (not just ones alien to the community). Those who have something to exchange have done something to benefit the greater whole at some point in time (generally - there's the possibility they stole it, found it, or whatever - but that's going to be in the extreme minority).

As our community grows even larger, there arises the need for not one, but two blacksmiths - several farmers, and more bakers than you can count. One farmer comes up with a way to prevent his crops from freezing over in early frosts, and can thereby extend his growing season and offer fresh goods earlier and cheaper than the other farmers. More people then patronize his business (unless he's a douche and nobody likes him - another factor in consumer dynamics), and he has more money to use to buy things in the town. He then proceeds to pay a carpenter to build another room onto his house - the carpenter has added business and the farmer is rewarded for his exceptional contribution to the whole by allowing other people to have the same goods at a lower cost and earlier in the year (those people now have spent less money on basic needs and can purchase other things).

Everyone wins.

Granted - society is not ideal, but this natural evolution of economics provides the most potential for growth and self-management (barring environmental disasters, one farmer should not be able to hike his prices much higher than any of the other farmers - in theory, they could all agree to raise their prices together, but farms aren't that difficult to build, and someone else would soon set up shop and underscore them - they could also not charge more than the market could bear - if people can hardly afford food, the market stagnates and there's nothing for the farmers to spend on... and nothing stopping the town from forming a mob and taking what they need).

reply to post by Mayson

Absolutely right.

The U.S. enjoyed a period of great prosperity during the 1950's and first half of the 1960's. As the OP has pointed out, the tax rate for the rich was 91% at that time and very few companies were outsourcing to other countries.

The prosperity of this period was due to the increase in wages, mostly the result of union activity and other social pressures. The growth began with the bottom rung of the income ladder, which pushed up the wages for the next rung up, and so on until all Americans enjoyed increased prosperity.

This additional wealth for the middle and working classes translated into great consumer demand for all kinds of goods, from basics like better food and clothing to household appliances to "luxury" items like cars. The economy was humming and the middle class was growing by leaps and bounds.

Prosperity does not begin with the rich and "trickle down," and we have seen this to be true since Reagan. The rich tend to save their money and put it into trust funds and other tax shelters and invest in foreign real estate. They also have good lawyers whose sole job is to find tax loopholes for them.

We've seen clearly that the increasing tax cuts for corporations and the rich has not produced the prosperity of the 1950's again. The economy is not humming, certainly not because a few people buy Mercedes Benzes and go skiing in Aspen.

Prosperity for the many works from the bottom up. We can do it again.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

"I suppose one could make an argument that corporate tax cuts would be better at creating new jobs, but the issue at hand is that some people (who shall remain nameless; those in the know do not need to be told) are protesting the increase in the highest marginal income tax rate because it will somehow raise unemployment. This data shows that this is plainly not the case, and that those nameless people should get in touch with reality! "

What happens is it will transfer monies that were going to be allocated by private investors to public investors (politicians).

When politicians run the investment for a country, they allocate resources based on political gain rather than in the most efficient profitable way.

This misallocation of resources reduces the overall productive capacity of a society.

For example, if everyone in America had a job digging ditches or as a census worker, the country would be impoverished rapidly.

That money has to be left in private hands so it can be invested properly back into the economy to create PRODUCTIVE jobs.

Handing out political favors or transferring that money to unproductive cronies, such as bankers and automakers, steals money from their competitors. It takes money away from the productive and gives to the unproductive.

I know for some its not a popular idea, but what we need is a decrease in the corporate tax rate. We have one of the highest rates in the world, and it drives business to other countries with much more favorable tax structures. If we lowered the corporate tax rate to 20-25%, you would have a flood of new businesses moving to the United States, which would do a lot for the economy and JOBS. What the government would lose in a lowered rate, would be more than recovered in an increase in volume. But while this is a proven success, many politicians will not support it because they want the image of being tough on corporate greed. What they fail to realize is that corporate taxes and basically passed on to the consumer anyway in the form of higher prices. You have to give businesses incentives to operate and grow in the United States. That is the only way to create new jobs. This administration and most liberal politicians are seen as anti-private sector. Its no wonder this "recovery" is taking so long - they refuse to do the things that actually work.

reply to post by Black Moclips


While lowering the corporate tax sounds like a rational and logical answer, unfortunately in reality, such rate savings is NEVER translated to the employment of more workers but only to deepen the pockets of the biz owners, at the expense of the host country and its workers.

It is not because of the lower tax structures practiced by other nations that entice these corporate pigs to flee there. It is the hardworking slave labour that they gleefully jump ship and let their homeland and fellow americans rot after having benefitted from the social expenditures since young.

Rather than to trust their human nature which is only greed at any costs, it is better to set up an Universal labour law to curtail their greed in ANY nation, for no fellow humans were meant to be slaves or be exploited. This is no commie or socialist idealogy, but only an universal truth of all humans being equal.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I am sure there is truth to what you say, but there are many different industries and services that do not rely on or use cheap unskilled labor. Companies move locations and operations all the time, and many times, the friendliness of the tax environment is an important factor. I believe strongly that we would see an impact.

If the large corporations and companies were to get hit with a tax hike,it would spur a more competitive market for nearly every type of business by creating gaps in the availability of goods and services when the big guys cut back.

Now we just have to get rid of the regulations which basically only allow monopolies to exist at the expense of those who are just trying to get started.

AKA:Meet the new boss,same as the old boss........

I say,take from those who can afford to lose something,not everything from those who have little or nothing.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I think that both you and spacekc929 have excellent analyses of the behaviour of the wealthy. If I may, I would like to respond to your solutions.

A) This seems to be a workable solution, but not a practical one at present. The wealthy have deep pockets and can outspend the majority of Americans when it comes to hiring lobbyists to 'persuade' (read: baffle and bamboozle) members of Congress. As Bill Maher is fond of saying, the Democrats are too weak-willed as a party to really promote agendas like these, probably because their ranks are still filled with neoliberals nostalgic for the halcyon Clinton era, when they aggressively looted foreign economies to fund America's growth.

B) How would this be funded? Another problem: a flat minimum wage around the world would have to take the most expensive-to-live-in country as its standard, but this will mean that the least-expensive-to-live-in countries will have extraordinarily affluent peasants! If it were simply enforced by a global law, then you would need the United Nations to step in as a global regulatory body for labour. It could be done, if people are willing to fund and accept a growing UN administration (I am).

C) This could be interesting; if America's industrial labourers were put back to work building luxury items for the wealthy of the entire world, then there could be an industrial job boom that will last until there is no loner a demand for industrial labour (i.e. when the older generations in America die out, and their more affluent and less hands-on children no longer want to work in factories). Machines will be so sophisticated by the time this job boom ends, that there will no longer be a need for industrial labour; perhaps the Government can become the owner of the means of production, so that it can distribute these free goods and free wealth to everyone.

D) A massive investment in post-secondary education could produce a populace that is extremely well educated, and a still more massive investment in new technologies, like nanotechnology, biotechnology or Green technology, could give these well-educated Americans a place to apply their new skills within the country.

E) Better yet (for Americans) offer courses in stock trading throughout high school and post-secondary school, so that everyone can participate in the global stock trade and grow fat off the wealth of other nations. Their time will come to overthrow the shackles of oppression, too, and Americans should kindly step aside when that happens, remembering their own traumatic past.

F) Sounds good to me!

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by spacekc929
The problem with saying that we should cut rich people's taxes is that the argument "When they have more money they can hire more people" is a rational, logical argument with no emotions attached. People aren't rational and economics isn't dictated by what makes the most sense. If you give wealthy people more money (or, in this case, take away less) you know where the extra is going? Investments. Bank accounts. Houses. Stuff for themselves. It's silly to think that they will use the surplus to hire more workers and 'help the little guy.' In the real world, we either raise the taxes on the rich, or they screw us over. It's all there is to it.

You said it right, brother.

A man does not becomes rich by spending. He gets rich by saving ( hoarding )

The only thing he buys would only be necessary stuff, or stuff that can generate more money for his wealth, example - a gleaming new mercz to impress his clients. It would certainly help the car industry, but it will only be quality stuff that the rich will buy, not some china faked, defective or toxic filled product that only the poor will buy.

If he ever goes into manufacturing, it will be such products he will dump on the middle and poor classes to get even more richer. But rather than go into manafacturing where it involves too much risks, time and effort, they would rather gamble in the casinoes named as stock markets and politically correct termed as investments, which are nothing but gambling skewered in favour of the rich, unlike real casinoes where both rich or poor are subjected to the same favour of luck.

Look at the rich media representatives alone - are they spending their obscene amounts of money, more than they can ever spend in 5 lifetimes, into manufacturing and creating jobs? Nope, besides the odd bodyguard or personal assistant, they would rather hoard up their monies in 'casinoes' or spend frivioulously on 'quality' goods.

Where does that leave the many small time american entreprenuer? Answer - on their own to battle uselessly with cheap China quantity economies of scale policies provided by slave labour. And who are the american entreprenuer gonna blame? Answer - the govt for taxing them to the hilt, manevoured by the rich elites whom had been prospering from tax cuts thanks to the moron bush.

What's the solution then?
A. ) Tax the rich elites to the hilt, force them to release part of their hoarded uptheir more monies than they can spend in 5 lifetimes unconcionably

Socialism. And when the wealth has been redistributed and the rich have nothing, who will be the cash cow? If I risk my wages to build a business and make a fortune, you want to tax me to the the hilt? And then give it to the lazy? Oh, your next point addresses this issue.

B.) Level the playing field of labour by setting up world wide minimum wages, enough for a human and family to live on working 6 days a week and save some for bad weather days.

And businesses that cannot afford to pay that wage? Will the state take them over? So will this be "mandatory 6 day work week" to receive your stipend?

C.) return to quality manufacturing.

The will be the same quality of work that was produced by USSR during communism.

D.) Source for newer tech that can replace current tech and improve lives, as the TV had, which replaced radio, as well as the mobile phones.

You mean like solar panels that are made in China? Autos made in Japan and Korea?

E.) Close down the casino stock market that had only robbed the middle classes of their hard earned monies.

I guess we should also close the real casinos that rob the poorer classes that cannot afford to gamble with blue chips?

F.) More regulation on banking class, that they be more socially responsible and not responsible only to self.

Get rid of the Federal Reserve and the debit-based monetary system, and return to an asset-backed monetary system. The banks follow what the Fed dictates, just as they do with Congress.

Much of your ideas are socialist in ideology. I prefer a Libertarian one that allows businesses to succeed or fail on their own merits and errors.

Government is the problem, not the solution.

Originally posted by jfj123
The democrats want to renew the bush tax cuts minus of course the cuts for the super rich, which is why the republicans are stalling the bill and holding the American people hostage.

Wake up. The republicans can't stall or stop anything. They are in a huge minority. If they could stop anything, they would not have let healthcare pass. The democrats are using this as a tactic in order to try to save themselves in November. If the democrats REALLY wanted to renew the tax cuts, in any shape or form, it would be done.

Originally posted by alienreality

Reagan proved that tax cuts help the economy, especially when big businesses have more money to expand and invest... economics 101

Did he do this when he was raising taxes or are you spouting rehashed neo-con bull#?

Taxes are not good for the economy. They are not good for large businesses, small business, rich people, or poor people. There is wasted energy and money in the transfer of wealth. There are costs in collecting and distributing the money.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Thanks for your considered and rational reply. There are points that I would readily agree with you, but with your rationality and intelligence, I do believe you have far more to offer.

But it is not to this site or the insignificant me that the conceptions be made. It will be to your loved ones - your family, relatives, friends and elected representatives to discuss and debate upon so that with your critical mass and support, neccessary changes can be effected

Cheers!

reply to post by PhilltFred


What in the rant world is the matter with you?

You keep blaming the govt, but who is the govt but representatives of you? The GOVT is you! You made that vote and selected the creep who could sell ice to eskimoes and you, but failed to convince the majority of the path that you think is right.

Guess next time you had better be more selective of those you wanna vote for. It's your birthright and entittlement, not even a priviledge.

So you are suggesting govts keep their hands of private enterprise. Good idea, but only depends on if you are the boss or the worker.

Study a bit of history and you will realize DEMOCRATIC govt intervention is but a recent thing. In the past and post industrialisation age, no govts tell the bosses what to do. There are benevolent bosses, but there are more rapacious uneducated knaves who became bosses and with absolute power, decided they were gods unto their workers.

They decided everything and become authoritarian. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, made worse by their delusions of granduer, even today. Think, my brother! The world today is becoming a FACIST planet! Even the Karl Marx pretenders called the CCP of China is getting into the act. This will only harm and curtail our destiny to the stars, thus the turmoil you see today.

No free human will ever want to be slaves again as their serf ancestors once were. Power unchecked will only lead to excesses. And biz owners weld considerable power. Left uncheckes, they will think themselves gods and subjugate their workers. The only ones who are stronger than the bosses are the powers of the masses, through their elected representatives.

You may be having a comfortable income, sharing scraps from your masters' tables, but think of the many millions whom are suffering from below minimum wages and unemployment struggling to survive. Are you blind and apathetic, so much so to called for the continuance of inept authoritarian rule by bosses with no people's power oversight? Are you even human, let alone a descendant of the founding fathers of the sacred Constitution?

Originally posted by Submarines

Originally posted by jfj123
The democrats want to renew the bush tax cuts minus of course the cuts for the super rich, which is why the republicans are stalling the bill and holding the American people hostage.

Wake up. The republicans can't stall or stop anything. They are in a huge minority. If they could stop anything, they would not have let healthcare pass.

And what ended up passing? A hugely watered down version that barely resembles the original bill.

The democrats are using this as a tactic in order to try to save themselves in November. If the democrats REALLY wanted to renew the tax cuts, in any shape or form, it would be done.

Sorry but that's not the case.