Can conservatives make money without the labor of liberals?

[Nosmo King]

Wrong, idiot.

Venture capital is often ventured on new unproven concepts.

Then run right out and open a showroom selling racing yachts in Denver. No demand, no sales. Without a vibrant middle class, there is no demand. The economy slows.

And you throw around the epithet "idiot" as if you were experienced in being called one.

That's because the term was apprpriate for you. Ever crack a history book in your life?

Do I write as if I'm illiterate? Do I strike you as uneducated, a rube, a hillbilly? Have you noticed no sophistication, no nuance, no working knowledge in my posts?

I think that once you and your ilk are stymied by a comprehensive, cohesive, well-reasoned argument, you tend to fall back on the tactics which served you well while you were skipping school: name calling.

 

[naturegirl]

Now this thread is a hoot. Am I to understand the OP is saying laborers are liberals?? That conservatives don't know how to push brooms or clean toilets??

Seems like the conservative laborers are just a little ahead of the progressive ones. They actually save their money and start their own businesses instead of pushing a broom their entire life.

When liberals tire of pushing brooms, they just live off the government. Easy Peasy.

 

[Goodoledays]

Could you blow the marxist dog whistle any louder?

You actually think that labor is provided exclusively by LOLberals?



What happened today with the LOLberals? Was it the failed Romney attacks by Obama that is causing this mindless teeth gnashing?

Well with Ubama's failures its all they have left to go on. What a shame.

 

[Wiseacre]

No investor is going to put up a dime without strong consumer demand for the product. Keep screwing the Middle Class at the benefit of the wealthy and watch that golden goose of consumer spending die a slow death.

Obviously no investor will put up any money if the expected demand is insufficient, but that is beside the point.

"Keep screwing the middle class at the benefit of the wealthy", there we have it. 100%, absolute bullshit.

Right. Because both wealthy and middle class wage earners have seen an identical up tick in their wages and benefits? No. Because once the wealthy get what they want, the rest will automatically trickle down to the middle class? No.


So.....where's the 100% bullshit? Or is that just the position Limbaugh told you was right?

I am totally wasting my time here, but what the hell. Let's see if I can layout your position, incomplete as it is, and proceed from there. So - the middle class, and presumeably the lower class also, are getting screwed at the expense of the rich. That implies a zero-sum game, when wealth is created somebody wins and somebody else loses. Which of course is not the case, otherwise GDP would hardly increase except maybe for the effects of inflation.

But that is not the case, as you no doubt know. The creation of wealth is NOT zero-sum, as evidenced by the economic growth of this country from the getgo. Let's assume you meant that the wealthy get the lion's share of the newly created wealth, with little left over for everyone else. True enough, the wealthy had most of the money that was invested, is it not therefore reasonable that they should reap the most profit? Hell no you say, the bastards really didn't work for it! Really? Sure about that are you? Seems like a big jump assumption to me. And they did risk their money, what about that?

Question: do you not have an IRA or 401k? So you're an investor too, if you do. And a whole lot of people do too, just not as much as the big boys. Do you feel like you're screwing over all those people who don't have an IRA/401k? Same moral principle, no? Is then a question of how much is too much? Obama seems to think so, he's said it many times. But I dunno, should morality be based on numbers? Who gets to decide the threshhold, you? Do you think you have that right, to limit someone else's income?

Anyway - if the lower and middle classes aren't investing then why are they entitled to more of the profits? Those who are employed have done so freely, right? You pay me X, and I do job Y. I still get X whether the company makes a profit or not, no? Why am I entitled to X + n if the company makes a bundle? A public company does something with that profit, it goes back to the shareholders, or it goes out in bonuses, or they spend it on M&A or business expansion, all good things. You see it as getting screwed, I see it as you didn't risk anything, and you can quit and do your own thing anytime you want to.

I think your concept of economic reality is heavily biased, with not a lot of practicality. Nobody got screwed, that notion is pure nonsense. But it does play well with those who don't know any better.

 

[Pho_King]

Of course we can make money off the "labor of liberals". Hell, if y'all would just take a break from shitting in and vandalizing public spaces and private business we would all be better off financially.