It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican Corporate Chairman On Whether Tax Cuts For The Rich Create Jobs: ‘That’s So Baloney'

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
I just watched Bill Maher's "But I'm Not Wrong" and he had one really poignant comment on this exact topic; the super rich don't create jobs, they create wealth.

They create wealth for themselves by eliminating jobs, which are an expense in their accounts. They would rather have machines and robots do the work that human beings are paid to do, so that they can have more personal wealth for themselves. The owners of the means of production get rid of jobs to improve their own bottom lines.

It's basic economics. An aside, I loathe when Republicans say "tax cuts=more jobs, that's basic economics." It's an argument that makes absolutely no sense on the surface. Really basic economics go like this: less expenses means more profits.




Sorry SmedleyBurlap,

But this is about a stupid as it gets. And I would be ashamed to quote a drama queen like Bill Maher as an expert on this type of non thinking. Bill Maher is a parasite on peoples insecurities and unthinkingness. His forte is humor and sarcasm.

Ask yourself one important question here. How many jobs has Bill Maher created or is he just a cheerleader for nonsense?? People have to become educated in nonsense to think Bill Maher is an expert or authority on anything. If Bill Maher was good at anything to do with this joblessness ..he would be doing something else other than creating humor and chaos/doubt through a cheerleading medium like television. I never go to Bill Maher for critical thinking. If he was that good he would be creating jobs..not questions. Get a clue here!! Stop emoting and start thinking.

The reason companies and those with monies invest in machines is in order to make their companies more effecient. If they do not do this their competitors will do this and eventually their competitors will own them.

It is simple common sense. But dont ever accuse Bill Maher of common sense...only humor, sarcasm, and tilted reasoning. He never covers all the bases on issues..only his emotional slant. Bill Maher is not playing with a full deck here and you don't seem to be able to see this for yourself.

This is common sense.

Bill Maher also does not cover one other thing...and that is that it takes capital to create capital. It also takes something called RISK. This is what people do with capital invested..they take RISKs with it.

Interestingly enough...much of politics on both sides of the political spectrum also avoid the RISK factor. This way they can afford more stupidity on the public purse.
Because anyone with any real skills in life does not go to work for government when they can do better in the private sector. Common sense as well.

Bill Maher as well as the political party for which he shills does not give you or others the whole picture. Neither do the Republicans. They too are just as guilty as those for whom Bill Maher shills. The Republicans too have a vested interest in public ignorance. Bewarned..and learn to think for yourself.

Try this out for size and think..dont emote..Phil Donahue is doing all the emoting here and he looks incredibly stupid. Just like Bill Maher.

www.youtube.com...

Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 29-8-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Nice try at impersonating a poor person but you won't get any sympathy from me.
Sorry, but you ain't poor if you own capital because you can always sell what you have if you really wanted.

... but you won't because seems to me you are working hard to try make a living for yourself.
At some point you'll hit the motherlode, that's when you'll be considered a rich person and will be the target of others less fortunate, never mind the long hard work you put in to get there.

I think deep down you are conservative because you don't believe in entitlements.

kudos to ya.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Gracias Amigo...

I've never in my long career been motivated by the money even though at times I have made an obscene amount of money and blew it all in a few short months of debauchery and holdem. Business to me is an art form, a puzzle, a reason to BE. I love the thrill, the rush of success and the knowledge gained by crashing and burning.

Life is a game....savor your victories because somewhere down the line you are going to get your ass kicked.
If you don't sit at the table, you can't play............

No rules, No limits, No excuses...........



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Tax breaks for the Rich. Who are the wealthy?


We constantly hear this mantra ..."Tax Breaks for the Rich." Over and over and over ad nauseum it is promoted and burned into our memories without thinking and so many looking for a "Bad Guy " on to whom to blame their miseries take a huge bite out of this placebo.

Let us take a look at conditions and who is the wealthy in this nation.


The mantra or dogma of certain political parties teaches and preaches that those who have monies have power...and that there is some guilt or crime naturally borne out by these wealthy/rich peoples by the non virtue of the fact that they have monies. They are guilty of some great social/moral crime or trespass by virtue of the fact that they have monies.

Let us take a look at the reality of this..not the emotional justification as promoted by certain political parties in their standard issue mantras.


Peoples acquire wealth by a process of work...ie..labor. This wealth and labor involves an olde fashioned process called RISK. People take RISKS in their endeavours/labors to acquire wealth. RISK is taken whether investing or in direct labors.



Now watch what happens here in money creation by deficit. This is a concept and understanding never told to the public either in public schools or in the media..and certainly not by the body politic.



Now in these three links...it is quoted as to the price of printing monies.



wiki.answers.com...

answers.yahoo.com...

money.cnn.com...



In the wiki Answers.com article it gives a quote of 7 cents as a high price for a $1 bill. Let us take that out to percentages or 100cents divided by .07 which equals 1429% rounded off.
Most peoples do not make 1429% profit on a business transaction.

Someone out here is making a 1429% profit on a $1 dollar bill. Someone out here is wealthy while screaming ' No more tax breaks for the Rich." Whoever is issuing the monies is making 1429% profit as they get us to give up 100 cents of our labor to acquire this $1 dollar bill.


Now take a look at the second link from Yahoo Answers..on how much it costs to make a $100 dollar bill.

Using their high figure ..of 12 cents this translates into 10000cents divided by .12 cents and equals 83,333% profit. Do you know anyone who makes 83.333% profit on a business deal??
Who is making wealth here?? We the people give up $100.00 of our labor or RISK to acquire this money that someone else gets for 12 cents. They are not going to give you any silver or gold for it...but get us to labor for something they get for 12 cents.
Do you know anyone who makes 83,333% on a business transaction?? Can any of you explain to me how and why anyone making 83,333% profit can possibly be interested in balancing a budget??

Do you realize that in going to an all electronic money system that someone can even recoup the 12 cent cost of printing the monies....infinite profit?? And at the same time someone also knows on what you are spending your monies. No privacy. Whoever is issuing the monies is making a 83,333% profit on a $100 bill. Who is wealthy here..who is rich??


In the third link they are quoting 9.6 cents per one dollar bill. So 100 divided by .096 equals...1042% profit on a $1 bill. Someone in the system is making a good profit on a $1 bill.
Who is wealthy/rich here..the people who take RISKs in their labors or investments or the people who make the monies and get us to labor for something they make a 1042% profit by issuing this monies to us??

My point in all this is to be very careful about what you think is wealth or riches.



Once you understand and comprehend the costs and profits of Issuing fiat/phony monies to the public..you will change your mind about the same olde mantra of "Tax Breaks for the Rich."

Continued next post



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Continued here,

It is the government which is making tremendous profit and wealth by issuing phony/'fiat monies and getting us to labor for it. By deficit spending they can also outspend, outbid, and outbuy the public in the only economy there is out here.

They need to create in our minds a "bad guy" in order to hide and conceal how much they are out spending, out bidding and out buying the public in this one economy. For peoples who have monies also work, labor, and take RISKS for their monies.

And government can get all the monies they need by raising the deficit..involving no Labor and no RISK. Once you know this template..who is the RICH here..who is wealthy???

Beware and Bewarned about the same olde tired mantra of Tax Breaks for the RICH. It is a placebo to keep you from recognizing that the government gets all the monies it wants and needs by deficit spending without RISK or Labors. This is all a cover ...divide and conquer..to keep you from noticing that the Government is able to outspend and outbid the private sector in the one economy there is out here.

Once you do the math on the figures given...it is obvious and clear who is the rich here. It becomes clear who gets access to monies without RISK and without Labor.



Now here is the nature of this problem..also not a nature taught by public education, nor the media, nor by the body politic seeking to keep and maintain power....all the political parties out there.

This is not just a liberal democrat political party problem. For the truth of the matter is that the Republicans cannot be themselves that dumb and stupid that they do not comprehend this problem and scam on the public. The very fact that the Republicans are not teaching this to the public...means that they too are part of the problem and need this phony/fiat money system in place for when they gain political office. That the Republicans themselves are not exposing the phonyness of Tax Breaks for the RICH means that they too are a big part of the problem.
There is a big problem inherent in the two party system that they do not explain this simplicity to the public and what it bodes to the people of this nation.



Now to be frank..most of the monies created by Government Deficit spending are not spent it the form of Notes or paper currency. They are spent in the form of checks or electronic deposits/electronic transactions to bank accounts. Hence Government does not incur the expense of printing. Even the Federal Reserve Banks in their publications admit that most transactions are either electonic or through checks ..not by exchanging paper currency.
This means that the Government does not incur the expense of printing and distributing most of what is used for monies today.

The real objective of the Government and the Federal Reserve is a money system with total traceability...total control. Electronic money exchange grants total traceability and total control of the economy. It also grants total control and profitability to the issuing institutions.

If you think this is a good thing...just look at what is happening in the economy with this electronic system and micro management of the economy..by regulations and control.



Ask yourself another question...

If Government can get all the money it wants by deficit spending or borrowing...for what reason do they want the pubic's monies in the form of taxes?? A reasonable question for sure.

Remember I stated earlier in this narrative that there is only one economy out here..only one...only one producing economy...not two or three or more...only one. If you increase the money supply ..the price of everything must needs go up sufficient to absorb the new monies injected into it for spending on goods or services.

In order to keep prices stable....monies must needs be removed from the people.....but never from the Government. People must have their purchasing power reduced in order to keep the public from outbidding the government in the one marketplace there is out here. If you understand this ..you will understand why cutting back on Government entitlement programs is so difficult. What the Government intends to do is always limit the ability of the private sector of the economy to spend in the same economy by taxing monies away from them. The Government does not need your monies as they can create all the monies they need by increasing the deficit. This is why whenever the deficit is increased substantially a tax increase is soon to follow. And this has been a huge debate point of recent. Some of us knew a year ago that a tax increase would be needed to hide the amount of deficit spending taking place.
But Government never cuts back on it's spending...they cut back on our spending.

They cut back on our spending either by direct taxes on our labors...monies earned by labor...or by inflations...rising prices.

You are getting two taxes here...either direct on our labors..or by inflation. A tax is work we do for which we get no goods or services of our choosing. Inflation is work we do for which we get no goods or services..same thing and same result as a tax or tax increase. People are being subject to two taxes here...and we wonder why people are angry. They know something is wrong..the numbers dont add up correctly. They just have never had it explained to them in a manner they can understand.

Neither the Republicans or Democrats are educating the public to the nature of what is going on out here. They are both in on the deception.

By this process a nation is moved into a situation where the Government becomes the major employer and the biggest customer. They do not however become the biggest producer.
If you know where to look in history you can find this trail repeated over and over by educated men of letters. The destruction of their nations by deficit spending/borrowing.

Informations for you folks to think about when confronted again by the mantra..."Tax Breaks for the Rich."






Bewarned...for this is just divide and conquer....to keep you unawares of what is really going on. It is bait and switch tactics.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 

I don't look to Bill Maher as a source of education or information. The point that he brought up in his special was one that I was already aware of, but had not thought about in this specific context, the debate over 'job creators.'

So, since most of your post was nothing more than an attack on Bill Maher's authority, I am going to refer to the few real points you had.


The reason companies and those with monies invest in machines is in order to make their companies more effecient. If they do not do this their competitors will do this and eventually their competitors will own them.

Why are their competitors using machines? To compete? This is extremely circular logic. Besides which, who are they competing with? They are not competing with the OWNERS of the rival business. They are competing with the LABOURERS of the rival business by using machinery that never tires out, requires no wages, and never complains. They are trying to remove labourers from the picture. I believe that I am vindicated, here.


Bill Maher also does not cover one other thing...and that is that it takes capital to create capital. It also takes something called RISK. This is what people do with capital invested..they take RISKs with it.
You talk about risk as though it were an asset, something to be invested in production of capital. Risk is not an investment. Risk is the likelihood of an investment's failure to produce a profit. Risk has nothing to do with how profitable an investment can be. Safe investments can be just as gainful as risky investments. The reason people conflate risky investments with large profits is that there are many things (such as the personal computer) which have obviously great potential for profit, but at the present time it is not likely that an investment in PCs will generate a great profit.

Now, I know that Apple took risks when it introduced the first home computer. However, these were modest risks. Please allow me to use another example that I am more familiar with in the tech field. Video games and consoles are extremely sophisticated and expensive pieces of machinery and take a great deal of capital and labour investments to be worthwhile to the public. However, some games are less risky than others. The Nintendo Entertainment System (called Family Computer in Japan) was a risk for Nintendo in 1984.

The market for home video game systems had collapsed a few years earlier, and it appeared unlikely that it was a viable industry. However, it was not a big risk to invest in video games, which were booming in arcades, nor was it a big risk to invest in the cheap components that Nintendo used in their system. The NES was obsolete technology when it was developed! It was deliberately made cheap and reliable, with a small selection of popular games on it. It was a risk because it stood a great chance of failure, but it was far less risky than more ambitious and less well-planned projects like Nintendo's later Virtual Boy.

When you invest capital to generate more capital, you take risks because you want to reap previously untapped sources of income. You do not gamble. You do not throw caution to the wind. You make a calculated risk.

That said, profit is the natural, innate reward of succeeding in spite of the risks.

I don't know why I responded to the second point except that it was interesting. I don't think I was even disagreeing with you - it was a tangent from the debate at hand, as far as I can tell it did not follow.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I was of the same thought, until I read this. Maybe we should close loopholes in import taxes. It's insane.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I am more interested in seeing our government spend less than in seeing any sector of our country taxed more. This is class warfare propaganda at its finest.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Something else that occurred to me, it might be wise to question why the head of a large tax firm would be in favor of increased taxes. A couple of points:

1. A big, bloated federal tax code increases the demand for his company's services.
2. If taxes are raised on the wealthy, then his "money" customers will be willing to spend even more to reduce their burden.

My antenna always pricks up when guys like this and Warren Buffet start talking about increasing taxes on the wealthy. How do they benefit? Most of these guys didn't get rich by being stupid or suicidal.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
SmedleyBurlap,

I do not approve of Bill Maher as an expert or an authority on anything because his stock in trade is Humor..and satire ..just like Rachel Maddow. How many jobs do either of them create in this economy. I am not speaking of the networks for whom they work or are employed but they themselves.

Some of us SmedleyBurlap know the difference and are not easily emoted over to their conclusions by humor or satire..as a default setting to define the whole conversation.


Why are their competitors using machines? To compete? This is extremely circular logic. Besides which, who are they competing with? They are not competing with the OWNERS of the rival business. They are competing with the LABOURERS of the rival business by using machinery that never tires out, requires no wages, and never complains. They are trying to remove labourers from the picture. I believe that I am vindicated, here.


This is all circular logic to you because you think from the standpoint of labor..and entitlement. Not from the requirement of business to make a profit.
Your concept or understanding is based on labor...not on the Risks of those with capital invested. If they lose out to the competition it is very likely that all the laborers will be out of a job..both salaried and hourly. Your post does not point this out.
If the competition solves this issue for themselves and the other company does not ..it is most likely that the company solving the issue will put their competition out of business.

Thinking peoples know this about posts and postings like yours...also about people like Bill Maher...Rachel Maddow. Emoting peoples tend to gloss over it and think they are vindicated. Not so.
You totally ignore the concept that companies are in competition with each other...on all fronts..but make no mistake..it is competition.

You are not vindicated.




You talk about risk as though it were an asset, something to be invested in production of capital. Risk is not an investment. Risk is the likelihood of an investment's failure to produce a profit. Risk has nothing to do with how profitable an investment can be. Safe investments can be just as gainful as risky investments.


This is double talk SmedleyBurlap.

Risk is the dominant factor taken into consideration ..whether a safe investment or a high risk investment...RISK assessment is paramount. RISK Assessment has everything to do with how profitable can be an investment.
RISK investment in capital verses Profit returned on this investment.


Now, I know that Apple took risks when it introduced the first home computer. However, these were modest risks.


These were modest risks..looking back in 20/20 hindsight. Back then no one knew for sure what the market would do or react to Apple's invention. They were pioneers in their day. All pioneers take heavy risks at the beginning for capital invested. Once they determine how the market trends and can be predicted..they can better manage the risks. This is usually after the initial pioneering stages are passed.
Thinking people know this as well.


When you invest capital to generate more capital, you take risks because you want to reap previously untapped sources of income. You do not gamble. You do not throw caution to the wind. You make a calculated risk.


It is still RISK...particularly in lieu of competition in the marketplace. You are double talking here..but you are "Vindicating" the points I am making.

Only governments who force their revenue can do little worrying about competition or RISKS.
Government is also an institution which seldom has to deliver the product advertised and or worry about costs verses profits...because they can in fact force their revenue. Thinking peoples know this as well. Private businesses do not function in this manner....they will go under if they do.

This is how one tells a government institution from a private one...they must deliver the product advertised or go out of business..in the private sector.

If government had to deliver the product advertised they would go out of business..because they cannot do so in a free market of ideas and competition. They must hide this knowledge from us by public education thinking and over reliance on Emotions rather than real thinking...in order to hide what they cannot do.

If Apple did not deliver ..they too would soon be out of business...and so too their laborers.

Thanks,
Orangetom









edit on 4-9-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


It is sad that I have to repeat myself, here.


I don't look to Bill Maher as a source of education or information. The point that he brought up in his special was one that I was already aware of, but had not thought about in this specific context, the debate over 'job creators.'


So, are these rhetorical companies actually job creators? Let's see. According to you, companies compete with one another as ruthlessly as possible. This vindicates their usage of machines that compete directly with human labour. This means that a company that competes successfully is a company that successfully eliminates jobs. The most successful competitor in the future is the one that depends on zero human labour and has increasingly efficient production machinery at its employ. Perhaps an intelligent machine that can simulate human movement and creativity. Is this incorrect? Wouldn't it be ideal for competing companies to make human labour obsolete so that they could fulfill the "requirement of business to make a profit"?

You say also that "If the competition solves this issue for themselves and the other company does not ..it is most likely that the company solving the issue will put their competition out of business." If one company is driven out of business completely, then its niche in the market is vacated and the winning competitor can take over that section of the market. When Ford's market share contracts, for example, Honda's expands. This means that Ford workers will be temporarily unemployed, but can find work at the new Honda plants that open up as the successful competitor expands its operations. You frame this situation as if labourers are out of work forever when one company is broken down by a rival that does the same work. You frame it as though workers should be grateful that their employer is becoming more competitive by eliminating their jobs forever (replacing them with tireless machines).

Apple was not taking a colossal risk by producing microcomputers for small consumers. The demand for computers had been increasing for decades when they came on the scene. Apple produced computers that were small, affordable and functional for the purposes of small businesses. They made computing technology readily available to those who desired it but could not afford it at that time. The market was certainly there and it had obvious growth potential. It was a bigger risk than marketing the latest version of a Dell laptop in 2011, sure. It wasn't a super-dangerous risk, though.

The thing about risk and likelihoods is that they don't affect the actual value of the outcome. Ten thousand years ago, how likely was it that human beings would ever land on the moon? Oh, it was possible, yes, sure, maybe. But it was so unlikely that it was, for all intents and purposes, impossible. After something has happened and you look back, you realize that the calculated risk of the past had no bearing on what actually happened. Maybe it had been calculated that Apple would fail as a business. This doesn't matter, because the facts were that Apple produced a high quality computer that was affordable and was promoted to an audience hungry for computers. They did all the right things to succeed. They didn't just gamble on whether or not they would succeed. They worked for it.

Do you think that someone who buys a lottery ticket and wins a million dollars has earned it? After all, they invested their capital in a risky venture and came out on top...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

how many jobs do those 50 million americans on welfare create? none.



Actually they do create jobs. The money they receive on welfare is spent for goods and services. Which directly impacts the economy. One might even be able to make the argument that through their demand for goods and services they create more jobs than tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% of Americans as businesses hire more employees to meet the demand.

edit on 4-9-2011 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
what an idiot hey if he wants to pay more let him.

heres how the rich create jobs and people can aruge this til their blue in the face but it wont change the simple fact.

if you have more money you spend more money does a rich person buy a used car? no do they buy entry level homes no they dont.

people need to stop dehumanizing the rich for the simple fact what are they people. and like it or not the rich dont build everything they use the middle class does and rinse and repeat.

how many jobs do those 50 million americans on welfare create? none.

last count there are a little over 200,000 millioniares left in this country and every day they decrease in number.

and the guy from h and r block knows the fact of it all half this country doesnt pay taxes.

edit on 26-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


What do the rich buy that create jobs? I know no one that builds mansions. I know no one that builds private jets. In fact, I do not know anyone that has a job because a rich person had too much money. Your talking points are a lot of fun until you need some facts included.

Can you name just one person that created jobs simply because they had more money?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


God; he needs your donations so he can hire more priests to send around the collection plate!



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Smedley Burlap,


So, are these rhetorical companies actually job creators? Let's see. According to you, companies compete with one another as ruthlessly as possible. This vindicates their usage of machines that compete directly with human labour. This means that a company that competes successfully is a company that successfully eliminates jobs.


Companies have competition in the marketplace. NO matter how many speeches you are want to make they must take this RISK factor into consideration. The number one factor after raw materials is labor. Raw materials are somewhat fixed in costs. That leaves labor. Any company which does not invest in labor saving devices will raise their costs. It is simple math.
Labor does not determine this. Government is want to use/misuse labor for their selfish and inefficient purposes...votes. What happens when governments step in is that these businesses become as inefficient as is government. This is common sense.

I know this about government because if government had to deliver the product they advertise when running for election / re election...they would go out of business.

Private businesses cannot survive in such an environment for they must deliver the product. If they don't deliver..the marketplace will put them out of business.

Once you know this speeches like Jimmy Hoffa's son's do not make good nonsense...when you know the vote angle. So too with speech by the leader of the AFL CIO..to properly stroke the faithful for votes.


The most successful competitor in the future is the one that depends on zero human labour and has increasingly efficient production machinery at its employ.


You are becoming drama queen like here. The most employable individual in the labor market is the one who has educated themselves to be able to keep the machine running. How did you miss this?? This will require labor. Labor must keep up with the shifting labor trend line...just as do businesses....and not just default through on entitlement beliefs. Entitlement beliefs is what government sponsors and educates people to believe in in exchange for votes. More Drama Queen stuff...just like "Tax Breaks for the Rich" while they take another vacation..or recess.
It is deflection and misdirection.


Wouldn't it be ideal for competing companies to make human labour obsolete so that they could fulfill the "requirement of business to make a profit"?


You have some serious issues here. If they do away with human labor ...who will keep the machines running. Also if they do not have enough laborers to keep the system running..who will be purchasing the products. Your social problem by then will be to many peoples. Think about this in lieu of Health Care??
Circular reason this one through Smedley. Then read some history to see how nations solved this problem. Men of intelligence ..reason and logic.


The thing about risk and likelihoods is that they don't affect the actual value of the outcome.


You are using circular emotional political logic here and missing totally certain details by assumptions. They affect the value of the outcome for the companies...ie...people...laborers who took the initial RISKS...start up companies. For these peoples too...live eat, breath and purchase in the overall economy. They are also voters.

RISK Is everything in a company begun then maintained by private business...made up of peoples..not machines. Those who mismanage the risks...mismanage the company and lose in this ruthless marketplace.



Do you think that someone who buys a lottery ticket and wins a million dollars has earned it?


This Smedley is about as dumb as it gets. Business works by labor and thought to manage the RISKs on their investment.

In the lottery here in most states ..one is depending on the government to manage the RISK for them. and we know how most of that turns out.
LOL LOL LOL. Sorry Smedly but your drama technique is not an accurate representation of how a business must operate to survive...but it is an accurate representation of how a government operates. It is also accurate of entitlement thinking and public education standards.
It is a government running the lottery...in most states ..not private business. The proceeds go to government. It is as close as most states can come to printing their own monies.

And government is also ignorant enough to tell us that someone who takes RISKS for their monies and succeeds is guilty of some moral trespass or crime...as is in the title of this thread...Tax breaks for the RICH...while they run a lottery and stack the deck against the public in every venue possible.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by neo96

how many jobs do those 50 million americans on welfare create? none.



Actually they do create jobs. The money they receive on welfare is spent for goods and services. Which directly impacts the economy. One might even be able to make the argument that through their demand for goods and services they create more jobs than tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% of Americans as businesses hire more employees to meet the demand.

edit on 4-9-2011 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)


It only initially appears to create jobs Kaploink. For most of the monies government uses to distribute to welfare recipients is created by deficit money creation. What eventually happens without significant income tax increases is that the price of goods and services in the economy must go up sufficient to absorb the newly created monies.

After a few rounds of this type of money creation...you have more monies/demand than goods and services and you see the productive sector taking a back seat to the non productive sector of a nation..which is where we are at. Soon enough the non productive sector can out vote the productive sector and hold them hostage for votes and more power to extract..and politics hides this from all..by keeping them fighting against each other with political propaganda like ..."Tax Breaks for the Rich."
In this manner you are deflected from seeing what is really happening out here in the economy/politics/peoples.

Businesses, soon enough, must go elsewhere where the economies are more favorable..even to foreign countries.

This is precisely what is happening in England and soon to become the model/template for what is happening here..only more intense..as government shakes down the nation while hiding what is transpiring.

Kitilani,


What do the rich buy that create jobs? I know no one that builds mansions. I know no one that builds private jets. In fact, I do not know anyone that has a job because a rich person had too much money. Your talking points are a lot of fun until you need some facts included.

Can you name just one person that created jobs simply because they had more money?


I agree with what neo posts. But Neo does not take if far enough.

The rich do indeed create jobs just as do most of us who keep our monies in the banks. These monies are loaned out and in this loan process create jobs.

IF events happen such as today..where the banks are sitting on alot of monies because of to much RISK in the economy this is not the fault of RICH peoples who keep their monies in the banks.

RICH peoples are being short sheeted here for political convenience. I know peoples who have alot of monies..they do not drive flash cars nor build huge flash homes et al.

Some of them do create seasonal jobs and hire peoples for them. They create jobs by investing their monies...either in individual endeavours or in other investments.


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


So you agree that "job creators" are actually job destroyers. Thank you.

The historical solution to too many workers, not enough work, is mass murder. I sure am looking forward to another senseless world war!



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Here's some good info related to this subject. (lower taxes and less regulation= more entrepreneurship and a better economy)

www.sovereignman.com...


This is exactly the sort of thinking that only makes sense in Washington. It puts completely unnecessary and unrealistic obligations onto American firms, forcing them to deal with administrative nonsense instead of what actually matters in business: making money.

The concept isn’t hard– when companies can focus on their core business and grow, they’re more likely to hire. For all the talk that politicians want to reduce the unemployment rate, everything they’re doing is making it more difficult for businesses to prosper… and hire.




PUBLIC POLICY, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND
ECONOMIC FREEDOM
Steven F. Kreft and Russell S. Sobel
(warning: PDF file!)


.
The state panel causality tests we perform in this article conclude
that entrepreneurial activity causes an inflow of venture funding, and
not vice versa. Because entrepreneurial activity tends to be the underlying
factor that automatically and naturally attracts more venture
capital to an area, economic development policies should focus on
creating an environment attractive to individual entrepreneurs, rather
than on attracting venture capital.
We gathered data across U.S. states on the growth of entrepreneurial
activity in each state, other key factors that have previously
been shown to be correlated with entrepreneurial activity for that
state, and the degree of economic freedom in the state. Our results
show that an area’s degree of economic freedom significantly impacts
the underlying level of entrepreneurial activity. Put simply, an environment
of low taxes, low regulations, and secure private property
rights
is what is necessary to encourage the entrepreneurial activity
that is vital to produce economic growth.



The point is, if the government stays out of the way of economic activities, they will prosper.

edit on 12-9-2011 by TheBandit795 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


go ahead an tax them only 200 thousand left when their gone who the hell are you going to tax?

you? dont think so.

200 thousand millionaires 400 billionaires who can pick and and leave anytime they want.

you want to know what a country with no rich looks like?

the former soviet union emphasis on former and north korea.

hey but feel free to continue to act fascist.


Your sympathy for the rich is stunning. You are either filthy stinkin rich or HORRIBLY brainwashed by Fox News.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


So you agree that "job creators" are actually job destroyers. Thank you.

The historical solution to too many workers, not enough work, is mass murder. I sure am looking forward to another senseless world war!



No I do not Smedley Butler. They create jobs...and they cut jobs...what moral and ethical crime have they committed?? What law have they broken??

On the other hand ...how many jobs to the labor unions create??

The local union down town here is one of the largest United Steelworkers of America locals...Local 8888. How many jobs have they created during their stay at representation here? They ..the United Steelworkers took over from a previous union.
When the company lays off..how many jobs does the Union create??

What most people with your mind set avoid ..is that the Union is also a business. A company in business for themselves.

I have watched this union play "good cop/bad cop" on its members for many years now. They began to sound just like politicians and it gets tiring. But the thing or concept never taught to the membership is that the Union is also a business.

And alot of members here are becoming disillusioned with their union and are dropping their membership.



Job creators also need the ability to flex with the economic changes or go under. You imply like many in government preaching that there is a great crime or moral trespass which has taken place here...Just as in the Mantra "Tax Breaks for the Rich."

Look up the term in Black's Law Dictionary...Legal Fiction or Fiction of Law.

"An assumption or supposition that something which is or may be false is true or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place.

Such and assumption or supposition is of necessary and even beneficial character and made for the advancements of the ends of justice."

This is a fancy way of making a lie Smedley. A legal fiction and that is what you are promoting here...a fiction of law...when no law has been broken. No moral or ethical trespass has been done.

But it makes for great emotional drama.

The thing with you and even the politicians .and the Union here too...is all of you need a bad guy to stroke your emotions and beliefs. This is "good cop/bad cop."

It does not stroke my emotions Smedley. I do not fall under that control or guilt technique. I have seen to much of it over the years and it gets predictable. One can see it coming.

This also is the technique of Politicians and what passes for leadership today. And one can see it coming too..in cases of "Racism" and "Tax Breaks for the Rich. " all Good guy/ Bad guy techniques. All of it emotional drama to keep the faithful in proper line and under control.
It is Wolfie to those who have seen it''s predictability over the years while nothing changes. Just more speeches.
Many are catching on to it because it is not Uniting..it is divisive.
And politics along with their links to labor..has become divisive..even vitriolic...toxic..when what is needed is real leadership..not speeches and emotion stroking.


See what I mean here Smedley ..this by Procession101



Your sympathy for the rich is stunning. You are either filthy stinkin rich or HORRIBLY brainwashed by Fox News.





For the simple truth is that when businesses cannot compete and go out of business ...everyone looses....including labor.

So how many business does labor start up Smedley ...verses making demands of business without taking the risks of business??



Now this here Smedley...is correct...and it is good that you know this much history for most havent a clue.


The historical solution to too many workers, not enough work, is mass murder. I sure am looking forward to another senseless world war!



This give me encouragement for the future. Except that it looks like government is trending to going down this road without war.
This was already attempted by the French during the period known as the French Revolution and what transpired afterwords.

However..I do think we are getting ready for another war..albeit quietly. I believe this is what is causing the price of metals to go up...steel is now in high demand and being stolen all across the nation. As well as copper and other metals. It used to be that copper was the metal in high demand ..it still is..but has been joined by the other metals. All products for a military economy.


Thanks,
Orangetom


Post Script...for Procession101

There are those of us out here who put no more stock in Fox News shills than we do in the Repubican Party. We also do not put much stock in the Demcorats and their litany of Media shills.
As far as we are concerned ..most of the media is for the purpose of controlling the public by emotionstroking..in a carefully engineered pincer movement..from the left and then the right..but they are both playing the same game...good cop/bad cop." This kind of emotion stroking is also called Tabloid Journalism.






edit on 13-9-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join