Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gubmint doesn't create any added value to anything, therefore cannot "create jobs" in one sector without destroying them in another.
That's only one of the most basic of economic concepts.
Circular lameness nothing. They're economic concepts that have been accepted for decades, if not centuries.
So-called "targeted" tax breaks only use the force of the tax code to direct money that would've been spent or invested in other sectors of the economy to favored industries....Zero net economic gain....It's a variation on the old and thoroughly debunked "broken window" theory.
If attending a basic economic course at your local community college isn't your cup of tea, there are numerous cogent and easily digested books on the topic.
Good places to start would be here:
Amazon.com: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics (9780517548233): Henry Hazlitt: Books
Amazon.com: The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers (9780765604804): Mark Skousen: Books
Tax cuts leave more money in the hands of those who create added value, which has a likelihood of increasing productivity, hence employment.
Taking tax dollars and using them to prop up this or that industry merely takes resources from the productive to fund the less productive....Which would tend to equal a net loss in productivity, and subsequently employment.
No, it's economic fact.
You have zero room to carp about others' lack of substance when all you bring to the table are economic populist myths.
General marginal rate reductions aren't targeted, as people move into and out of the various tax brackets all the time. Claiming that such reductions only benefit hedge fund managers is a dead giveaway of your bias.Circular lameness nothing. They're economic concepts that have been accepted for decades, if not centuries.
So-called "targeted" tax breaks only use the force of the tax code to direct money that would've been spent or invested in other sectors of the economy to favored industries....Zero net economic gain....It's a variation on the old and thoroughly debunked "broken window" theory.
If attending a basic economic course at your local community college isn't your cup of tea, there are numerous cogent and easily digested books on the topic.
Good places to start would be here:
Amazon.com: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics (9780517548233): Henry Hazlitt: Books
Amazon.com: The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers (9780765604804): Mark Skousen: Books
And giving a hedge fund manager a tax break is not a targed tax break as you speak of?
You are just plain hosed on this and appear to be only for tax breaks for the rich that might trickle down a couple of percentage points. I go for trickle up tax cuts that directly create jobs.
In 1980 we purchased our current home, a home which was not insulated. Under Carter's leadership a program providing us with a zero interest loan - administered by PG&E - allowed us to fully insulate the walls and ceiling of our home for $17 / month over five years.
A massive government effort to subsidize homeowners to re-roof with solar roof panels would reduce the cost of such materials (supply and demand), provide jobs, and reduce our nations need for nonrenewable energy. It would allow homeowners to 'fill' their green cars with power, power generated during the day and stored in batteries for later use, or at collection stations at their job, or where they park their car to ride an electric train to work. All public buildings should have solar panels on their roofs, new building construction and remodels of older ones too.
Or, we can drill, baby, drill; continue spending $ billions on a military to protect private industry in foreign lands, continue to pollute our air and water and continue to make sarcastic comments when progressive ideas challenge the propaganda we love and respect - for change is real scary. Isn't that right conservatives?
No, it's economic fact.
You have zero room to carp about others' lack of substance when all you bring to the table are economic populist myths.
In 1980 we purchased our current home, a home which was not insulated. Under Carter's leadership a program providing us with a zero interest loan - administered by PG&E - allowed us to fully insulate the walls and ceiling of our home for $17 / month over five years.
A massive government effort to subsidize homeowners to re-roof with solar roof panels would reduce the cost of such materials (supply and demand), provide jobs, and reduce our nations need for nonrenewable energy. It would allow homeowners to 'fill' their green cars with power, power generated during the day and stored in batteries for later use, or at collection stations at their job, or where they park their car to ride an electric train to work. All public buildings should have solar panels on their roofs, new building construction and remodels of older ones too.
Or, we can drill, baby, drill; continue spending $ billions on a military to protect private industry in foreign lands, continue to pollute our air and water and continue to make sarcastic comments when progressive ideas challenge the propaganda we love and respect - for change is real scary. Isn't that right conservatives?
An increase in demand does not result in a decrease in cost.
In 1980 we purchased our current home, a home which was not insulated. Under Carter's leadership a program providing us with a zero interest loan - administered by PG&E - allowed us to fully insulate the walls and ceiling of our home for $17 / month over five years.
A massive government effort to subsidize homeowners to re-roof with solar roof panels would reduce the cost of such materials (supply and demand), provide jobs, and reduce our nations need for nonrenewable energy. It would allow homeowners to 'fill' their green cars with power, power generated during the day and stored in batteries for later use, or at collection stations at their job, or where they park their car to ride an electric train to work. All public buildings should have solar panels on their roofs, new building construction and remodels of older ones too.
Or, we can drill, baby, drill; continue spending $ billions on a military to protect private industry in foreign lands, continue to pollute our air and water and continue to make sarcastic comments when progressive ideas challenge the propaganda we love and respect - for change is real scary. Isn't that right conservatives?
An increase in demand does not result in a decrease in cost.
Universally I agree. With large demand costs generally are reduced if there are sufficient suppliers in competition and the materials are in sufficient supply. In my example recycled and treated newspaper was placed in my exterior walls and attic. Our home is warmer in winter, cooler in summer and outside noise reduced considerably.
Anyother critique you'd like to offer?
In 1980 we purchased our current home, a home which was not insulated. Under Carter's leadership a program providing us with a zero interest loan - administered by PG&E - allowed us to fully insulate the walls and ceiling of our home for $17 / month over five years.
A massive government effort to subsidize homeowners to re-roof with solar roof panels would reduce the cost of such materials (supply and demand), provide jobs, and reduce our nations need for nonrenewable energy. It would allow homeowners to 'fill' their green cars with power, power generated during the day and stored in batteries for later use, or at collection stations at their job, or where they park their car to ride an electric train to work. All public buildings should have solar panels on their roofs, new building construction and remodels of older ones too.
Or, we can drill, baby, drill; continue spending $ billions on a military to protect private industry in foreign lands, continue to pollute our air and water and continue to make sarcastic comments when progressive ideas challenge the propaganda we love and respect - for change is real scary. Isn't that right conservatives?
An increase in demand does not result in a decrease in cost.
Universally I agree. With large demand costs generally are reduced if there are sufficient suppliers in competition and the materials are in sufficient supply. In my example recycled and treated newspaper was placed in my exterior walls and attic. Our home is warmer in winter, cooler in summer and outside noise reduced considerably.
Anyother critique you'd like to offer?
Ironic that someone should decry someone else's alleged sarcasm and cliches with mere sarcasm and cliches, with a good smattering of strawmen and ad hominems thrown in for good measure....Again, you project and are exceptionally piss poor at taking the advice you so freely dispense to others.No, it's economic fact.
You have zero room to carp about others' lack of substance when all you bring to the table are economic populist myths.
LMAO, you amplify your arrogance and sarcasm with cliches and silly attacks. My example of home insulation is not a myth, it was a concret example of how government policy can and does create jobs and save energy use.
I'd never provide an abstract example to you Dude, even the concret can't break through your faithfully held opinions.
I suppose your opinions are based on the comprehensive report of the Cheney Task force on energy. Ooops, I forgot, there wasn't one (published at least).
An increase in demand does not result in a decrease in cost.
Universally I agree. With large demand costs generally are reduced if there are sufficient suppliers in competition and the materials are in sufficient supply. In my example recycled and treated newspaper was placed in my exterior walls and attic. Our home is warmer in winter, cooler in summer and outside noise reduced considerably.
Anyother critique you'd like to offer?
Newspaper loses much of its insulatory quality after 1 year. Wouldn't it be nice if unlike the recent redo of government paying for insulation, the money went to poor southerners instead of rich East Coast people. What were the qualifiers for this last one that Obama just did? I think it was you have to earn less than $70k if you live in New Jersey, but less than $18k if you live in Texas. What an asshole. It's institutionalized corruption and vote buying.
Ironic that someone should decry someone else's alleged sarcasm and cliches with mere sarcasm and cliches, with a good smattering of strawmen and ad hominems thrown in for good measure....Again, you project and are exceptionally piss poor at taking the advice you so freely dispense to others.No, it's economic fact.
You have zero room to carp about others' lack of substance when all you bring to the table are economic populist myths.
LMAO, you amplify your arrogance and sarcasm with cliches and silly attacks. My example of home insulation is not a myth, it was a concret example of how government policy can and does create jobs and save energy use.
I'd never provide an abstract example to you Dude, even the concret can't break through your faithfully held opinions.
I suppose your opinions are based on the comprehensive report of the Cheney Task force on energy. Ooops, I forgot, there wasn't one (published at least).
You already have provided abstract examples, and they're all based upon populist myths that have been debunked so many times that they're laughable on their face.
Now, go take your meds.
Thanks for failing to live up to the expectations you hold others up to.
Like I said, you're straight out of a psych stereotype textbook.
