Job Creator Myth

[Clayton_Wetter]

Sorry Duane, we leave the link posting to newsmax to the right wingers who need that sort of crutch to fall back on.

You probably don't even KNOW when you are fed Koch Brothers propaganda. Yet when reading your posts, you parrot some of the latest Koch brothers offerings in the media.

Now, I know YOU aren't smart enough to make those arguments, so its just a matter of putting two and two together to see where you got your latest opinion spoon fed to you from, whether you realized it or not. I never said they were not very capable manipulators of people, and you just proved it with your latest argument about income and the 1 versus 100 stuff, and the point you tried to make mirrors the latest Koch offering.

Sorry Duane, but they just owned you.

Would like some more Koch?

What a load!!! Now get back in your basement and resume watching the Young Jerks so you can show us some more of the far lefts propaganda. You know the lies that you choose to believe out of sheer ignorance.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Bubstr,
I am curious if you subscribe to the theory of Pelosi and Obama that unemployment insurance (paying people not to work) creates jobs?

He won't answer that with a simple yes or no, just a another pile of mumbo jumbo just like the crooked politicians that he claims to despise.

I hate run around answers, its a cop out!!

[Clayton_Wetter]

Again, its the language and the way you frame your position that leaves a lot to be desired. You look at unemployment benefits as "paying people NOT to work."

I look at what happens to people when there are 300 applicants for every job. What happens when there is no more assistance? They don't have any money to buy the basics with, so that cash flow in the economy gets removed. When that cash flow gets removed, people who DO have jobs now have less money being spent on the basic necessities, food, clothing, electricity, transportation, and more people's jobs are put at risk.

From there it's just a downhill spiral. But again, you frame it in this simplistic "paying people not to work" way that does not accurately reflect what unemployment benefits actually do. You make it sound like a vacation at taxpayer expense, when the reality is it is just about enough to eat on and that's it. It's not a vacation by any means, it is a hand to mouth subsistence payment and nothing more, and the more important thing it does is keep people at the grocery store, shoe store, paying the rent or mortgage, etc in work until the people on food stamps and unemployment get a job.

So paying unemployment to them for five years straight is not enough? Obummer and the left are doing this to secure votes plain and simple. Unemployment has literally been turned into a permanent entitlement program and you think it's just humanitarian??? LOLOLOL I would love for your kind of fools to be governed by the kind of crooks and lies you are falling for. But there are many of us that live in this nation too, that actually see the Progressive (Marxist) playbook unfolding and happening everyday. And with less and less appreciation for those like yourself that are helping perpetuate the demise.

[LITE-INN]

http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/financialservices-doddfrank-report.pdf

[mudslinger47]

Well you where wrong. You still are wrong. It;s a simple ratio/proportion problem. No matter how many people you include, 1% is still 1%. If your talking 100 people it is one person that makes up 1%. If your talking a 1,000 people, 10 people make up 1%. The numbers make it extremely unlikely that 10 people will, not could, out buy 1,000.

As Nathan Johnston said in the movie, The Jerk, "Oh it's a numbers game?" How can you understand anything about Economics, if you can't understand simple math?

Just as a by the way thing, there are around a dozen people in this world, that no one really knows their earning or assets, because no one is powerful enough to get a audit. The US government can't even get a full audit of the FED. We really don't know who owns the FED. Every country, that has debt based currency, has some type of FED and FED owner. They make compound interest on every dollar, pound, frank, yen or Euro in existence. They are not taxed, they are not audited and for the most part, no one really knows who they are. If they where included in the 99/1 percent, it would really show how poor everyone else was.

Don't feel bad or angry. This is just one of those indefensible platforms that political parties have, and they all have them.

Dam, your as dumb as Tnie

[Bubstr]

Why do some people think that attempting to make the rich man "poorer" will somehow make the poor man richer?????????? Tell me how that works?

You will not make the rich man poor by making him pay his fair share of taxes. What it does do, is change the way or route that money circulates or even if it circulates at all. Circulation of money is the key to a growing economy. It will not make the poor man rich either as all business tax is passed on to the consumer. What it does do is turn the poor man into a consumer if the money is directed there.

Example, After ww2 the US gave boat loads of money to fight the war rebuild Europe and Japan. We also sold them the materials to rebuild. The results was the most prosperous time the US ever had. All because of money circulating. We had that great growth, not because there was more money, it was because more money circulated. There is more dollars in existence now that ever before, it's just not circulating. The question really is, did it cost us anything to give them boat loads of money away? The answer is, It made us the richest country in the world.

Now you could say, by taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, it would make everyone better off, especially the rich, and the only possible way to tax the poor. You can't tax anyone that has nothing.

[LITE-INN]

dam, your as dumb as tnie

he couldn't be

[skids]

You will not make the rich man poor by making him pay his fair share of taxes. What it does do, is change the way or route that money circulates or even if it circulates at all. Circulation of money is the key to a growing economy. It will not make the poor man rich either as all business tax is passed on to the consumer. What it does do is turn the poor man into a consumer if the money is directed there.

I'm all for circulation of money. Where we differ is that I don't want the government in charge of circulating it. It seems you do since you use the "pay their fair share" in taxes line.

How much was the "stimulus"? Wasn't it all about injecting (circulating) money into the economy? What did it do for the poor?

Now you could say, by taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, it would make everyone better off, especially the rich, and the only possible way to tax the poor. You can't tax anyone that has nothing.

Forcibly taking from one and giving it to another has never worked and never will.

It seems to me that you and t.nie despise "the rich" for no other reason than...........they are rich. You could tax the rich 100% and it won't make the poor any richer until they decide to do something about their situation. Which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with the rich.

[kidrock]

[QUOTE=skids;1761209]I'm all for circulation of money. Where we differ is that I don't want the government in charge of circulating it. It seems you do since you use the "pay their fair share" in taxes line.

How much was the "stimulus"? Wasn't it all about injecting (circulating) money into the economy? What did it do for the poor?



Forcibly taking from one and giving it to another has never worked and never will.

It seems to me that you and t.nie despise "the rich" for no other reason than...........they are rich. You could tax the rich 100% and it won't make the poor any richer until they decide to do something about their situation. Which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with the

I despise only the rich who get away not paying their fair share by hiding their money in offshore accounts. I despise the rich when the rules don't apply to them as it does for the rest of the people. I despise the rich when they can pay off the politicians that pass bills that only benefit themselves but, I have respect for those that are rich and pay their fair share,pay their workers a fair share,live by the same rules as the rest of us do. Guess what I despise the poor who take advantage of the system instead using it for what it is intended for and not to live off of.

[mudslinger47]

I hate to have to explain this crap to these bone heads.... The world population is 7.136 billion and the US population is 314,016,000 (roughly). Take the top 1% of each and see which one is higher.....maybe then you'll see your argument doesn't wash.....see I didn't even call either one of you a dumb azz....I can be nice...

[ss12]

Excellent post Kidrock!

[dirtisforracin]

What a FAIR SHARE of taxes? 50-60% of income?? Personally I would like a fair tax somewhere between 15-20%. No loopholes, but and this is a big BUT, everyone pays fair tax. You make 10 billion, you pay 20% you make 20,000 a year you pay 20%. And please stop earned income tax break. Everyone pays income taxes period.
Its amazing to me, as Obama been in office 5 yrs and the rich are getting richer, yet is the republicans faults.

[skids]

[QUOTE=kidrock;1761214]

I'm all for circulation of money. Where we differ is that I don't want the government in charge of circulating it. It seems you do since you use the "pay their fair share" in taxes line.

How much was the "stimulus"? Wasn't it all about injecting (circulating) money into the economy? What did it do for the poor?



Forcibly taking from one and giving it to another has never worked and never will.

It seems to me that you and t.nie despise "the rich" for no other reason than...........they are rich. You could tax the rich 100% and it won't make the poor any richer until they decide to do something about their situation. Which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with the

I despise only the rich who get away not paying their fair share by hiding their money in offshore accounts. I despise the rich when the rules don't apply to them as it does for the rest of the people. I despise the rich when they can pay off the politicians that pass bills that only benefit themselves but, I have respect for those that are rich and pay their fair share,pay their workers a fair share,live by the same rules as the rest of us do. Guess what I despise the poor who take advantage of the system instead using it for what it is intended for and not to live off of.

I can certainly side with some of your sentiment. What confuses me is why your anger is directed toward the rich, when it's the politicians who don't change the laws and allow themselves to be "bought".

[kidrock]

[QUOTE=skids;1761269]

I can certainly side with some of your sentiment. What confuses me is why your anger is directed toward the rich, when it's the politicians who don't change the laws and allow themselves to be "bought".

Like I said only despise the rich who do to play by the same rules as the rest of us have to. It's some of the rich who pay off the politicians to pass bills to allow them to do this so, they are both at fault here. Do the politicians make them take their money and put it in offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. No
Like said I don't have any anger towards rich people just those that pay off politicians to get bills passed so, they don't have to play by the same rules. I would think anyone would be angry that we have to pay more because they can pay less. I'm not asking for them to pay anymore then their fair share. I would think if we all paid what 10 or 15% no matter what your income is would that not be a fair share.

[Bubstr]

I hate to have to explain this crap to these bone heads.... The world population is 7.136 billion and the US population is 314,016,000 (roughly). Take the top 1% of each and see which one is higher.....maybe then you'll see your argument doesn't wash.....see I didn't even call either one of you a dumb azz....I can be nice...

Take the bottom 99% and see which is bigger. You really don't get it. If your race car has 53% front bias, it don't matter how much the car weighs, the darn car still has 53% front bias. If the car weighs 100 lbs, you have 53 pounds on the front. if the car weighs 2,000 lbs you have 1,060 pounds on the front. They handle similar because the balance is the SAME. This is why percentages are used. You can compare large numbers with small numbers with a absolute degree of accuracy. You can not tell someone to make the front of their car weight 1,500 lbs with out knowing what the car weighs. The percentages could be all over the place.