Creating jobs 101 for dummies (Obama)

[LogikAndReazon]

Creating a larger state workforce and employing more civil servants is what leads to prosperity.....................Its true Lol

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

I understand the policy just fine...What you refuse to understand is that giving someone a "tax break" that's useless to them is a fucking waste of time and effort.

I also understand how the policy of claiming a "benefit" that isn't beneficial to anyone with half a brain plays, to hyper-partisan ignoramuses....Y'all lap it up and decry those not sucked in by the stupid shell game as too stupid to know what's in their own best interests.

Y'all insult peoples' intelligence, then get all huffy when your insults are returned in kind.

so again, you have reinforced the simple fact that giving businesses tax breaks and credits does not lead to job creation.

thanks again for the great lesson in basic tax policy.

All I've done is pointed out that people won't move to act on a disingenuous "tax break" that is of no benefit whatsoever to them.

Nonetheless, how do the resources of any company or person belong to politicians, bureaucrats or even you to dispose of, before they belong to the people who earned them?

since when has any part of this conversation referred to the government owning the resources of a company? nice random tangent there

 

[Oddball]

I'm talking the presuppositions of the semantics.

Claiming that "allowing" someone to keep more of what was theirs in the first place, or "giving" them a tax break, presumes that the one doing allowing/giving is in the ultimate controlling/ownership position, and that the businessman and creator of that which is being taxed is mere chattel property.

But at this point, I'm not expecting someone for whom basic business modeling and accounting is clearly over his head, to be able to recognize such subtitles of the English language.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

I'm talking the presuppositions of the semantics.

Claiming that "allowing" someone to keep more of what was theirs in the first place, or "giving" them a tax break, presumes that the one doing allowing/giving is in the ultimate controlling/ownership position, and that the businessman and creator of that which is being taxed is mere chattel property.

But at this point, I'm not expecting someone for whom basic business modeling and accounting is clearly over his head, to be able to recognize such subtitles of the English language.

only a wingnut can understand wingnut logic.

there has been no discussion regarding government ownership of private resources, yet somehow in your mind you believe that a discussion about tax breaks and credits and how they do not create jobs relates to this.

apparently you dont understand the basics of the english language, let along the subtleties.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, so the "above it all" jackwagon now resorts to the name calling, when he finds himself out of his intellectual league...How drearily predictable.

And you know nothing about semantics...I need no more evidence than your predictable ad hom post, that doesn't come anywhere near discussing the presuppositions of words like "give" and "allow"...You done run out of intellectual ammo.

Good thing I don't expect that lolberals will actually live up to the rules that they expect everyone else to live by.