No Mr. Romney, Rich People Do Not Create Jobs

reply to post by beezzer

Emotional buzzwords like "responsibility" and no arguments whatsoever, sir.
A total disregard of existing arguments which require comparison.
In your posts here (not arguments, sir) there are unfortunately presuppositions which show a complete disregard of the previous statements of your opponents, and indeed, economic reality.

One example: you keep on running your logic about how good trickle-down economics is as if the US was some kind of isolated area where the rich are forced to face their own country.

No sir, they aren't. Reagan made sure of that. It is called DE-RE-GU-LA-TION.
It is not a separate issue from trickle down, it was sold (ideologically) as part and parcel of the economic credo of the new right. And one would not have worked without the other.

Did you miss the post where somebody wrote the word CHINA?

Yes, they did create jobs - in China.

Why didn't that happen before?
Simply because there were LAWS before, brought by men wiser and more humane than this any Reaganite ever was. On the pressure of the working class - and agaisnt resistance by the rich and sometimes the authorities they paid - after decades of bitter experiences, the modern welfare state has been established and regulations enacted which did not permit one person to rule with absolute tyranny over his or her workers simply because their ancestors rolled in dough and theirs didn't.

What did Reagan do?

REMOVED the regulations - and for a few unfortunate years people believed in that ideology. This was no conservativism, although they called it that.

OK, so you could strike, you aren't shot as you were in the first decade of the 20th century.

The only thing is, there is no one answering you in your country any more. If you don't like your wages or anything, your job will go to China, or Mexico, or anywhere cheaper.

Get it?

DEREGULATION.

This was forbidden before by laws, just like the merging of insurance and banking, and for a very good reason. Along with the explosion of derivative money - like selling futures etc.

Now they aren't trying to sell us the same fish that was spoiled by 1984, stinking badly during Bush the Second (with Clinton not attacking this whole dangerous bull# as honestly as he should have done), and which is pretty rotten by today.

Let's have a Boston Fish Party and dump this rotten ideology that has hurt the American people for three decades now!

reply to post by Kokatsi


And do what? Loot? Steal? All I see is justification for taking something that hasn't been earned!

This obsession with people who have wealth (and they won't give it away, so lets take it!) astounds me.

reply to post by beezzer
I tell the wife our home is a roof over our head , not a bank. And we own our stuff until it breaks then we get new. If we go on vacation its cash. One more thing not everyone has skin in this game, some people pay no federal tax at all.

Distorting my words, quite.
A normal way to grow a plant is to take care of seed, water, soil, weeds etc. NOT just stressing one factor in an isolated way.

I am not against rich folks personally. There is nothing in my words that you could construe that way. I have a few friends, though I must say honest entrepreneurs who got to be well off by their own efforts usually stay honest and they do not expect the pie from the sky like those guys who try to pay off lawmakers and mount expensive campaigns to get more tax breaks. Versus people who sit on wealth they did not work for - tend to be - well, extravagant and expect entitlements from life (another emotional buzzword BTW). At least some of them do help others when they feel like.

Traditional Chinese philosophy (as opposed to Maoists) would say an enterprise is in a yang position (initiative, active) and its consumers and workers are yin (reactive, passive). Like figure and background in psychology.

In trickle-down, we have a philosophy where yang is against yin, figure against background. Not cooperating, but forcing.

This cannot go on and on for generations. History shows the pendulum will swing. But it has been so extreme with globalization since the Reagan doctrine and the Chicago School that the backswing will be quite violent unless we stop rocking the boat. It stands a risk of turning over.

BTW it is simple people that "create jobs" in any basic economy, not those that saved the surplus bananas from the tribe.

Originally posted by Tarzan the apeman.
reply to post by beezzer

 

I tell the wife our home is a roof over our head , not a bank. And we own our stuff until it breaks then we get new. If we go on vacation its cash. One more thing not everyone has skin in this game, some people pay no federal tax at all.

This whole narritive is divisive in nature. It's just another attempt at separating us into categories.

If that's what some want (as seen on this thread) then bully for them, I suppose. I have greater concerns than that. I don't ever want a mortgage, I don't want to ever owe anyone. I'll work for what I have and can provide. I won't look nor demand handouts.

for your approach!

some people pay no federal tax at all.

yes, but just who are those people...
by what I hear, it's close to 50%

but, I've looked up the mean income...half earn more, half earn less...
and my household's income is well below that mean...
and we've always paid taxes!!!
matter of fact, I had to ask the gov't to take more of my money, just so we don't get hit with a huge bill in april...

have a home business?? take a nice deductions for part of your home... claim you car as a business expense. dinner with friends can be a business expense...

buy a new fridge, get a tax deduction...install solar panels and get a credit.
have an extra kid, and get money given to ya, even if you have no income!!!

just work to survive?? and get slammed with the taxes!!!

Originally posted by hououinkyouma

Originally posted by AudioOne My rich friends have no problem stating, it takes money to make money. Your daddy is rich and you have 10,000 to invest, great.. bust some cat born in a trailer who goes to a bottom of the barrel school in Mississippi, they can work their butt off and not have enough money to invest to get riches.

I think that`s the biggest issue. In the past it were much easier too start a successful business from zero.

I started my business almost 2 years ago and have been struggling ever since. I can't afford to hire anyone. Heck, I can't even afford to pay myself. It's lucky I have savings but that is running out...

I will never be a millionaire, but somehow that's okay for me.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


While I agree with a tiny bit of what you have said, the fact of the matter is that those "WITH MONEY" are the one's investing in their future by creating businesses that are putting people to work. While YOU are not one "WITH MONEY" its easy to say the RICH DO NOT create jobs. They obviously do create them and under the OBummer Administration, they have not felt compelled to do that because of the OVER TAXING of AMERICA.

Romney is right, TAXES need to be lowered to STIMULATE GROWTH and until that happens, the RICH are NOT going to INVEST.

Now, who is considered RICH ??? Is it those that make $250,000 a year ? Is it those that make $1,000,000.00 a year ? Is it the Entrepenure who makes $100,000.00 a year ? Its certainly not the single men and women who make $30,000 to $100,000 per year because they are TAXED at the HIGHEST RATE and always have to pay in MORE being penalized for NOT being MARRIED !

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Look,

I suppose part of the problem is that we are being "sold" a quality and standard of life in our media that is not compatible with the wages we are earning.

For years we have grown used to "having nice things" -- well, as inflation increased and cost of living increased, our paychecks didn't always follow suit.

So now we are making less, some of us without jobs -- but we still want that shiny new iPhone.

The blame goes all around. Demand for a quality/standard of living comes first from the people. Advertisers and media moguls only present what we want to see.

I admit, perhaps using a franchise operation wasn't the best analogy. Not that it matters, but in my town, the McDonald's are all owned (with the exception of two) by Corporate HQ.

Our family friend owns a very large private retail store. I think it used to be an old big-box store. She's actually thinking of downsizing her space, because people can't afford her products/services anymore. This dosen't just hurt her bottom line, but also the people she might have to lay off. And yes, she is a "millionaire".

Look, we're all partially to blame. The poor for being "poor" and the elites for driving the income gap to larger proportions. Personal responsiblity is a great idea, but we're way past that turning point now.

You had me until you diss'd personal responsibility.

Because, ultimately, we are responible for our own fortunes and failures.

Whoa! It's OK to believe this but it certainly has no logical basis - you could say you are religious or have a unique mysticism.

Please think about answering just this one question:

How can you be held responsible for something you cannot control?
Obviously in common sense the two concepts are at least near each other if not identical.

Responsibility and control...

Originally posted by Labrynth2012
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

While I agree with a tiny bit of what you have said, the fact of the matter is that those "WITH MONEY" are the one's investing in their future by creating businesses that are putting people to work. While YOU are not one "WITH MONEY" its easy to say the RICH DO NOT create jobs. They obviously do create them and under the OBummer Administration, they have not felt compelled to do that because of the OVER TAXING of AMERICA.

Romney is right, TAXES need to be lowered to STIMULATE GROWTH and until that happens, the RICH are NOT going to INVEST.

Now, who is considered RICH ??? Is it those that make $250,000 a year ? Is it those that make $1,000,000.00 a year ? Is it the Entrepenure who makes $100,000.00 a year ? Its certainly not the single men and women who make $30,000 to $100,000 per year because they are TAXED at the HIGHEST RATE and always have to pay in MORE being penalized for NOT being MARRIED !

To paraphrase a famous American Indian quote: when you polluted all the rivers and cut down the last trees you will see that you cannot eat gold. But by then it will be too late...

reply to post by Labrynth2012

Its certainly not the single men and women who make $30,000 to $100,000 per year because they are TAXED at the HIGHEST RATE and always have to pay in MORE being penalized for NOT being MARRIED !

that's what you get for being "responsible"!!!
they should get married, have a few kids, then get divorced because well, they married too young and for the wrong reasons, and well....without the income needed to support the new family!!....then she can be a irresponsible as she wishes, and he can jump from one job to another to avoid the child support, and all those "responsible" people out there can jump in and support the child, pay more in rent to house those kids than they can afford themselves, feed them better than they feed their own kids, ect....

it's what they want,
women and kids destitute and wards of the state...
"responsible" working their arses off, to pay the taxes...
and of course, the rich can keep getting richer, as long as those responsible continue being responsible,
they can charge whatever they want for the necessities of life, and many of the not so necessary, because there's a gov't there willing to take from those "responsible" ones and give it to the poor that they themselves created, so they can rent the outrageously priced apartments, and continue spending and buying...
and well, if not, there is always credit to be extended....

the whole system needs to be scrapped and started over....
the way it is now just isn't gonna make the cut!

reply to post by MystikMushroom

Well, its a fact that small businesses, those who employ less than 500 people, account for the majority of jobs in America.

Facts aside, how do you think jobs are created?

My conclusion after 6 hours of intense study of both Democratic and Republican spin sites is: No, trickle down/supply side/Reganomics doesn't work.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

So you did an "intense study" that was 6 hours long, and looked at spin sites. I'm glad I retired years ago, because if this is what students today consider an intense study, we indeed are in trouble in this country. I would laugh if this were not so tragic.

Originally posted by Kokatsi
reply to post by beezzer

 

Emotional buzzwords like "responsibility" and no arguments whatsoever, sir.
A total disregard of existing arguments which require comparison.

Compassion coming from an heavy right wing thinker?

Big oxymoron.

It is the same discussion everywhere.

Elites are god and they are blessing us.

We should praise them for blessing us.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


This is a constant myth perpetuated to excuse the corruption between the wealthy and government.

I was working for a successful medium sized business until 2010. The owner is a very wealthy man. He is a genuinely good guy, and he is smart. But pay rises were hard to come by at the company. While staff were listened to and individuals were given a helping hand where possible (he helped me and "adjusted the rules" when I was taken ill and had to leave, providing me with the extra pay I would have lost under company contract), he doesn't invest back into the company.

There are several things that he could do, but he chooses not to. He hasn't grown the company in any significant way for the last ten years.

It's not that he can't afford to, he could easily become the dominant provider in the city and offer far more services and employ far more people. He chooses to pay himself and his partners a higher wage.

The idea that already rich people need a little more money to invest in profitable business is a complete myth. I started my business with £50. If the government charged me less tax, I wouldn't miraculously be able to grow my business and employ people, if the demand isn't there or there is no need to grow my business right now then I'll just be pocketing that money! Alternatively, if the demand was there and I could see that I could increase my profits and hire someone, I would, regardless of the tax the government is charging me. The level of tax does not dictate the growth of a business, the greed of the owners and the potential for profits does.

It''s the same BS argument when it comes to the banksters. When it was being discussed that the UK government would consider raising the tax on the large banks, several of the banks THREATENED that they would leave the UK for a softer nation where they didn't have to pay as much tax.

This is also a myth. The first bank to leave the UK and put several thousand people out of work because they don't want to pay their fair share of tax would be boycotted and close down in this country within a year. The people would push them out and then start boycotting all the other businesses that deal with them. They would be forced out of the UK market, which is a significant market to lose.

Note: stay tuned for news of boycotts and other actions against the tax dodging corporations being exposed right now. I can guarantee you Starbucks is going to suffer a great deal in the UK market over the coming year!

Banks would not risk losing out on billions in profit from the UK market just to avoid paying their tax. The idea that they would is ridiculous.

But the government are willing to accept these excuses, because all of our elected are bought and paid for. They are mostly members of the same club. They are members of an elite who enjoy their fine lifestyles and look forward to a nice highly paid title on the board of one of those many corporations as a thanks for making things easy for them.

This is how it works in politics. Just look at all the elected who have positions within companies where they basically do nothing more than maybe attend a meeting once a year. And look at the number of people who move back and forth between government and the corporations.

This is legalized corruption. This is a corporatocracy. The corporations and their owners OWN government. You can elect the cleanest person to have ever walked the Earth, the most moral and intelligent you have ever seen, but the moment they are in government they are surrounded by hundreds of others with their personal investments and their back room deals, their board position promises and their incredible retirement plans courtesy of "Big Evil Corp".

Our elected do not work for us, they work for themselves. Their only intentions are to be a big shot, and to make as much money as they can while they do it.

Until the legalized corruption between business and government ends, this will always be the same. Nothing will change. No politician wants to be the one ending the promise of a highly paid corporate position waiting for them when they leave politics, and that is why no government will change the corrupt system. This is why they bolster the myth that corporations and banksters have us by the balls. They don't, they have their paid off politicians by the balls and we are all expected to comply and suffer so that they can continue their game.

As a UK politician recently said, we are all just plebs, we do not run the government.

GEEZ, this is just simple envy. How many people do you know who are employed by poor people?

Originally posted by searching411
GEEZ, this is just simple envy. How many people do you know who are employed by poor people?

how many wealthy people increase their wealth, by ONLY profiting off of other wealthy people? do you think that the waltons who own wal-mart only had wealthy people shopping in their stores?
if only the wealthy bought I-Phones, how wealthy do you think the Jobs family would be today, or the many wealthy investors who made millions off their stock?

Originally posted by Labrynth2012
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

While I agree with a tiny bit of what you have said, the fact of the matter is that those "WITH MONEY" are the one's investing in their future by creating businesses that are putting people to work. While YOU are not one "WITH MONEY" its easy to say the RICH DO NOT create jobs. They obviously do create them and under the OBummer Administration, they have not felt compelled to do that because of the OVER TAXING of AMERICA.

Romney is right, TAXES need to be lowered to STIMULATE GROWTH and until that happens, the RICH are NOT going to INVEST.

Now, who is considered RICH ??? Is it those that make $250,000 a year ? Is it those that make $1,000,000.00 a year ? Is it the Entrepenure who makes $100,000.00 a year ? Its certainly not the single men and women who make $30,000 to $100,000 per year because they are TAXED at the HIGHEST RATE and always have to pay in MORE being penalized for NOT being MARRIED !

"Romney is right, TAXES need to be lowered to STIMULATE GROWTH and until that happens, the RICH are NOT going to INVEST"


Romeny wants the rich to have all power and if there ever was a person that stands for "Silver Spoon" it is Romney. You give free willy - nilly access for the rich to run amuck with no accounting, you'll have a country that will have ONLY money on one side = MOUNT EVEREST and microbes = (the rest of us) on the other.

The ONLY hope for this country is for the democrats to stand up to the rich and realize we have an enemy within our country that is worse than the terrorist ever thought of being. Because our United States system is being murdered, slaughtered and menaced by a MOUNT EVEREST - STOCKPILE build up of wealth (saved hidden, sealed, locked, delivered, put away), that you and all the republicans living can't even begin to fathom in ALL the republicans wildest dreams. except the 1% !

Until our government on one hand can stop giving untold wealth to music stars, athletes, top country executives etc.and STOP giving the impression to kids that that is good for america. On the other hand do everything the that is possible to get at the 1%'s wealth build up. Until we do that we are cooked as a country.

There has to be a new attitude in our country for our children's sake! You keep giving them the impression that if they become stars, top executives, rich doctors, lawyers etc. Through movies, rap videos etc. It is like poison.
What the republicans are doing is telling the kids of america, it is ok for the rich have their build up of wealth and let them have it and as much of it as they can get there greedy hands on.

If you don't have save guards on the rich, you'll have a wealth system that will make the taliban look like child's play. Why, because it could get to the point that if it keeps getting lopsided and more lopsided, it will truly create another civil war. That may take decades, but if you have children and they have children, at least think of them. Don't raise those kids to be greedy and take, take. Try to install in them leadership qualities that work for the good of the country and not just themselves and how much wealth build up the 1% can have.

You ever get a job from a poor person?

Yep, thought so.