Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That's a lot of jobs! So my question is how will throwing all these people onto unemployment help create private sector jobs? Can anyone answer me that? GG, your complete and total BS is welcome here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That's a lot of jobs! So my question is how will throwing all these people onto unemployment help create private sector jobs? Can anyone answer me that? GG, your complete and total BS is welcome here In words you can understand, no. But then the economic philosophy to which you subscribe, if carried out to it's logical conclusion, would have ever expanding growth and prosperity were we to give all the unemployed $100k/yr jobs digging and filling in holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 In words you can understand, no. But then the economic philosophy to which you subscribe, if carried out to it's logical conclusion, would have ever expanding growth and prosperity were we to give all the unemployed $100k/yr jobs digging and filling in holes. I would tax the wealthy to spread the prosperity, yes. Following your "logic" we are headed towards third world status, massive poverty, the roads not getting fixed, infrastructure left to its own, dirty air, no "shake downs" of polluters, etc, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I would tax the wealthy to spread the prosperity, yes. And what's your plan when the wealthy have no more money to tax, Skippy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 And what's your plan when the wealthy have no more money to tax, Skippy? More importantly, what's his definition of "wealthy?" In Minnesota, Dayton wants to raise the state tax rate on families that earn $150k/year to around 13%. So a married couple, each earning $75k/year is "wealthy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 More importantly, what's his definition of "wealthy?" In Minnesota, Dayton wants to raise the state tax rate on families that earn $150k/year to around 13%. So a married couple, each earning $75k/year is "wealthy." We already know the definition of "wealthy," according to this administration, is those individuals earning more than $200,000/year. You must also remember the core belief of this administration that "At a certain point, I do think you've made enough money..." That certain point is $200,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 We already know the definition of "wealthy," according to this administration, is those individuals earning more than $200,000/year. You must also remember the core belief of this administration that "At a certain point, I do think you've made enough money..." That certain point is $200,000. Then why is Mark Dayton saying, "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes!" and then applies that to families making $150,000.... Apparently he didn't get Obama's memo. You know the funniest part? Check out this article: http://www.nickcolemanmn.com/?p=1332 "Gov. Mark Dayton has gotten the richies and the righties (often, they are the same) in a tizzy by sticking to his campaign promises and proposing to close Minnesota’s yawning budget gap by raising taxes on the top 5 percent of state earners." But when Walker tries sticking to his campaign promises, there's rioting in the streets of Madison. What a double standard. I hate politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 We already know the definition of "wealthy," according to this administration, is those individuals earning more than $200,000/year. You must also remember the core belief of this administration that "At a certain point, I do think you've made enough money..." Too bad the libs don't believe "at a certain point, I do think you've lived on the public dole long enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 We already know the definition of "wealthy," according to this administration, is those individuals earning more than $200,000/year. You must also remember the core belief of this administration that "At a certain point, I do think you've made enough money..." That certain point is $200,000. Way to distort what was said. Obama was speaking of financial reform when he used that umm misquote of yours. Perhaps you are trying to be absurd... And yes, I would argue that at a certain point you could have too much money. We already have individuals worth 50-60 billion; let's say the estate tax is removed and they pass that down to their heirs. Within a few generations, what does that money do? What effect will these individuals with the power of some nations have on the world? Could be good, as I love the Bill Gates foundation. Could be bad in that you have one crackpot who uses his power unwisely or worse, in an evil fashion. Most harm will likely come from greedy individuals who use corporations in a shady fashion. I should note that never happens. The rest of Obama's quote read: We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy. Clearly he is not talking about families making 250k or whatever. If you are a billionaire, learn to cope, as most of your money is made at the capital gains rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Way to distort what was said. Obama was speaking of financial reform when he used that umm misquote of yours. Perhaps you are trying to be absurd... And yes, I would argue that at a certain point you could have too much money. We already have individuals worth 50-60 billion; let's say the estate tax is removed and they pass that down to their heirs. Within a few generations, what does that money do? What effect will these individuals with the power of some nations have on the world? Could be good, as I love the Bill Gates foundation. Could be bad in that you have one crackpot who uses his power unwisely or worse, in an evil fashion. Most harm will likely come from greedy individuals who use corporations in a shady fashion. I should note that never happens. The rest of Obama's quote read: So because people are !@#$s and there is evil in the world we should take money away from people because they just might do somthing evil with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 So because people are !@#$s and there is evil in the world we should take money away from people because they just might do somthing evil with it? I am not arguing for taking all of it. You are a sharp financial guy, if someone plopped 50 billion in your lap, at a 38% tax rate, that leaves you with 31 billion. What could you do with that in say 20 years? Should a single, unelected person be allowed to wield that much power? Currently they are, and the world hasn't come crashing to a halt, but what happens when we have a Paris Hilton type trillionaire. I actually brought the individual up to contrast that to the 200k bit LA threw out, as that is not what Obama was talking about. I would further argue though that financial institutions can grow too big. There you have a mere billionaire at best sometimes controlling hundreds of billions of assets. I should further point out that this makes Obama a hypocrite as the federal government has WAY too much power. On the other hand, at least he is elected. Just my thoughts, tear into em, I am stoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) I am not arguing for taking all of it. You are a sharp financial guy, if someone plopped 50 billion in your lap, at a 38% tax rate, that leaves you with 31 billion. What could you do with that in say 20 years? Should a single, unelected person be allowed to wield that much power? Currently they are, and the world hasn't come crashing to a halt, but what happens when we have a Paris Hilton type trillionaire. I actually brought the individual up to contrast that to the 200k bit LA threw out, as that is not what Obama was talking about. I would further argue though that financial institutions can grow too big. There you have a mere billionaire at best sometimes controlling hundreds of billions of assets. I should further point out that this makes Obama a hypocrite as the federal government has WAY too much power. On the other hand, at least he is elected. Just my thoughts, tear into em, I am stoned. So in your mind money equals evil power. I'm sorry I have more faith in people. Money also equals wonderful power. Most people that would have evil intent that inherited that kind of money would probably kill themselves before they did anything overly evil with it. But you do understand the power of a trust don't you? If someone evil inherited $50b I blame the person they inherited it from for not protecting the next generation(s). Most super affluent are not just going to hand over that kind of money to their heirs. Most of them are more concerned about leaving a legacy. Edited February 23, 2011 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 So in your mind money equals evil power. I'm sorry I have more faith in people. Money also equals wonderful power. Most people that would have evil intent that inherited that kind of money would probably kill themselves before they did anything overly evil with it. But you do understand the power of a trust don't you? If someone evil inherited $50b I blame the person they inherited it from for not protecting the next generation(s). Most super affluent are not just going to hand over that kind of money to their heirs. Most of them are more concerned about leaving a legacy. Bolded - At no point did I say that. Are you saying these hypothetical heirs have less discretionary income percentage wise than most people? What would be the only impediment to their rise to ultimate power than some sort of taxation? I wish I had your faith in humankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 That's a lot of jobs! So my question is how will throwing all these people onto unemployment help create private sector jobs? Can anyone answer me that? GG, your complete and total BS is welcome here Oh lookey, I have a fan. Actually, in a roundabout way you could create more private sector jobs because those people will have to find a job or maybe they will create a job on their own. If there's no need for that job in civil service, then why should the taxpayers foot the bill for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I wish I had your faith in humankind. Must suck to have your lack of that faith. You don't know me so because of that you don't trust me with billions of dollars. Therefore you feel I should be taxed to protect the world from what I MIGHT do with that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Must suck to have your lack of that faith. You don't know me so because of that you don't trust me with billions of dollars. Therefore you feel I should be taxed to protect the world from what I MIGHT do with that money. At no point did I say that. Would have been nice to have a real conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 At no point did I say that. Would have been nice to have a real conversation. Good point. My mistake was trying to have a conversation with someone who feels we need to tax people to prevent them from having too much power. Note to self: Don't converse with Booster when his admitted to being stoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Good point. My mistake was trying to have a conversation with someone who feels we need to tax people to prevent them from having too much power. Note to self: Don't converse with Booster when his admitted to being stoned. Certain taxes yes. What part of really rich guys paying 20% taxes at most is so hard to comprehend? Even a stoner can get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Then why is Mark Dayton saying, "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes!" and then applies that to families making $150,000.... Apparently he didn't get Obama's memo. You know the funniest part? Check out this article: http://www.nickcolemanmn.com/?p=1332 "Gov. Mark Dayton has gotten the richies and the righties (often, they are the same) in a tizzy by sticking to his campaign promises and proposing to close Minnesota’s yawning budget gap by raising taxes on the top 5 percent of state earners." But when Walker tries sticking to his campaign promises, there's rioting in the streets of Madison. What a double standard. I hate politics. The rich should hire poor people to riot for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Damn, Dave is dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Oh lookey, I have a fan. Actually, in a roundabout way you could create more private sector jobs because those people will have to find a job or maybe they will create a job on their own. If there's no need for that job in civil service, then why should the taxpayers foot the bill for it? So if the free market can't provide for everyone then tough luck, enjoy poverty, it simply cannot be helped? Is that your point? Damn, Dave is dumb. Answer the question stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 So if the free market can't provide for everyone then tough luck, enjoy poverty, it simply cannot be helped? The "free market" isn't supposed to provide for anyone. The free market allows people the opportunity to provide for themselves. You have serious issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 So if the free market can't provide for everyone then tough luck, enjoy poverty, it simply cannot be helped? Is that your point? what kind of a dumazz question is that? Does self-accountability ever factor in to your moronic little pathetic world? I've answered your questions before in great detail, but you lack the ability to comprehend anything that is provided for you. So I'm done explaining things to you dumazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 what kind of a dumazz question is that? Does self-accountability ever factor in to your moronic little pathetic world? I've answered your questions before in great detail, but you lack the ability to comprehend anything that is provided for you. So I'm done explaining things to you dumazz. We can actually type "dumbass" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 We can actually type "dumbass" here. What would you do if they set the board to filter out idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 What would you do if they set the board to filter out idiot? Probably type "idiot" and let the filter handle it. Kind-of like when I type "!@#$tard". I live in absolute terror, though, of someone pulling a stojan on me, and filtering "idiot" to "DC Tom". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 So if the free market can't provide for everyone then tough luck, enjoy poverty, it simply cannot be helped? Is that your point? What in the world are you talking about? How does cutting government waste equate to poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 What in the world are you talking about? How does cutting government waste equate to poverty? He doesn't know, and he doesn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 The "free market" isn't supposed to provide for anyone. The free market allows people the opportunity to provide for themselves. You have serious issues. Thank you! Exactly, and of course I have serious issues with that. It has zero social responsibility at all. It recognizes our nation in no way, humanity none at all and compassion still less. As to your point about opportunity, that is relative, government also offers opportunities to rich and poor alike The tax cut revolution of Reagan and Bush is a failure. Where is he free market utopia we were promised? All these tax cuts and we have to live with 17% unemployment? Fail What in the world are you talking about? How does cutting government waste equate to poverty? Only you would call a person's job 'waste' What a low life you are. what kind of a dumazz question is that? Does self-accountability ever factor in to your moronic little pathetic world? I've answered your questions before in great detail, but you lack the ability to comprehend anything that is provided for you. So I'm done explaining things to you dumazz. How will cutting all those government jobs create free market jobs stupid. Please answer stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Only you would call a person's job 'waste' What a low life you are. I'm sure that the unemployed in the private sector are giddy about your support for protecting the fat of the public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Only you would call a person's job 'waste' You've got a job the requires three people to dig a ditch but they hire four for whatever reason. Is that fourth person a waste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Thank you! Exactly, and of course I have serious issues with that. It has zero social responsibility at all. It recognizes our nation in no way, humanity none at all and compassion still less. As to your point about opportunity, that is relative, government also offers opportunities to rich and poor alike I understand. You believe in entitlement, not responsibility. I'd be contemptuous of you, if it wasn't so pathetic. Only you would call a person's job 'waste' It's not the government's job to be the employer of last resort...except in your bizarre little world, where jobs are an entitlement, not a responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 I understand. You believe in entitlement, not responsibility. I'd be contemptuous of you, if it wasn't so pathetic. It's not the government's job to be the employer of last resort...except in your bizarre little world, where jobs are an entitlement, not a responsibility. So if there are not enough jobs produced by the sacred free market, screw those who are left behind. That's sickening. You clowns can get away with that hateful notion in the short term, but the people will not put up with it forever. And look here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-cuts-20110224,0,2687045.story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 So if there are not enough jobs produced by the sacred free market, screw those who are left behind. That's sickening. You clowns can get away with that hateful notion in the short term, but the people will not put up with it forever. And look here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-cuts-20110224,0,2687045.story. Fascinating story. You really are a clown. I can't even take mocking you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 So if there are not enough jobs produced by the sacred free market, screw those who are left behind. That's sickening. You clowns can get away with that hateful notion in the short term, but the people will not put up with it forever. And look here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-cuts-20110224,0,2687045.story. "Story not found." Perhaps the two guys who still work at LA Times forgot to post the link thanks to guys like Dave who stop buying newspapers and then complain about people losing their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Fascinating story. You really are a clown. I can't even take mocking you seriously. He's a troll. He can't possibly be that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 He's a troll. He can't possibly be that stupid. Oh, but he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 So if there are not enough jobs produced by the sacred free market, screw those who are left behind. That's sickening. You clowns can get away with that hateful notion in the short term, but the people will not put up with it forever. And look here: http://www.latimes.c...,2687045.story. Capitalist Imperialist running dogs! The people will overthrow your wicked decadence and usher in a glorious revolution! </Kim Jong Il> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Say, what a great idea! * While cuts and tax increases are necessary to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems, cutting too deeply before the economy is in full expansion would add unnecessary risk. * The House Republicans’ proposal would reduce 2011 real GDP growth by 0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2 percentage points This would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012. http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=197630&src=bb Almost as if they want to hurt people to further their anti-Obama agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Say, what a great idea! http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=197630&src=bb Good. The fact that 1.3 million jobs would be created (or saved) by increased government spending is simply an indication that the government spending is excessive and exerts far too much effect on the economy. Almost as if they want to hurt people to further their anti-Obama agenda Uh-huh..."We're responsible for you so you don't have to be." Good plan...if you're a nine year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts