Economic Sabotage

[gallantwarrior]

Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Your assumption is flawed because you appear to assume that the people from whom that money was taken (to fund your entitlements) would not spend it.

 

[Stephanie]

Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Your assumption is flawed because you appear to assume that the people from whom that money was taken (to fund your entitlements) would not spend it.

that's what his Dear Leaders party fed them so that is what it is..

amazing

 

[gallantwarrior]

Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Here's a novel concept, why not allow the people who actually EARN the money spend it? The net results remain the same and government does not become a agent that steals from those who earn their keep in order to subsidize those who do not.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Those on the receiving end of entitlements spend money they did NOT earn.

You can not go on forever giving privileges to non-producers without collapsing the system.

Let me revisit my own post in order to clarify things.

First, the definition of the word "entitlement".

Those who spent their entire life working and producing and are now retired and collecting Social Security ARE entitled to receive whatever they receive.

Those able-bodied, young and strong males and females who find any and all excuse NOT to work and produce and contribute are NOT entitled to anything but scorn, derision and cruel denial of them getting a single penny earned by somebody else.

Those who are disabled and can not work are entitled to assistance.

Those who CLAIM to be disabled and are collecting disability payments are entitled to jail for fraud.

OK, I can agree with defining the entitled group as people who worked and paid into SS and Medicare. For most, participating in those programs, paying onto them, was not voluntary. They are not responsible for government mismanagement of those funds and should not be punished.

As for the disabled, I would like to see that category much more precisely defined. Sorry, but that 300 lb behemoth motoring around Walmart should not be paid taxpayer dollars. A veteran missing body parts...different story altogether.

Additionally, taxpayer money should never be used to subsidize, bail out, or otherwise pay off any business concern, including unions.

 

[saveliberty]

Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Actually I did exactly that, TWICE, got tired of the frist one, was too much hassle, did another till I decided to retire, worked pretty well for me.

I'm in the landscape business. Want to guess how easy it would be to go strictly cash with my customers? I'd be invisible to the government. Yet, I choose honesty. When the President is such a liar it is tempting though.

 

[Oldguy]

Because those dollars were sucked away form someone else, you know the folks that acutally earned them, so they would have more than likely been spent anyway.

That's true of any dollars taken away by taxation, not just in this instance. Those dollars will be spent not by their earners, but by someone else or some other entity for some purpose.

Surely, you're not arguing against taxation in toto, are you?

The difference is the government takes theirs off the top so all of it fails to reach the economy.

What do you mean "fails to reach the economy?" Some of that money goes somewhere else? How and where?

But let's not those pesky little facts get in the way of a good fantasy.

I won't, but don't you either.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

Right stef?

Hey, just because the ultra-rich haven't produced jobs in the past 12 years, doesn't mean it couldn't happen just any day now.

And, actually, to be fair, they have produced a few shitty jobs that pay less than minimum wage. Not a lot of shitty jobs but they have created some.

And, if someone doesn't want a shitty job, all they have to do is go out and get a good job, paying gobs of money and with good benefits.

Fact is, the rw's won't be happy until they turn the US into another China.

 

[saveliberty]

For the record, I did not make the statement attributed to me in post #26. Oldguy can't use the quote function.

 

[OKTexas]

That's true of any dollars taken away by taxation, not just in this instance. Those dollars will be spent not by their earners, but by someone else or some other entity for some purpose.

Surely, you're not arguing against taxation in toto, are you?



What do you mean "fails to reach the economy?" Some of that money goes somewhere else? How and where?



I won't, but don't you either.

Federal taxes on individuals, yep I'm totally against it. They just give the politicians leverage to manipulate the population and engage in social engineering through the tax code. That violate our right to liberty, the founder were aware of this and is why they forbid it in the Constitution. We survived very well from 1787 to 1913 without them.

The government is a tax consumer, it creates no value, like manufacturing, and adds nothing to our GDP, bureaucrats circulate the wealth created by others, keeping it out of the hands of the productive who would multiply it.

 

[saveliberty]

Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

Right stef?

Hey, just because the ultra-rich haven't produced jobs in the past 12 years, doesn't mean it couldn't happen just any day now.

And, actually, to be fair, they have produced a few shitty jobs that pay less than minimum wage. Not a lot of shitty jobs but they have created some.

And, if someone doesn't want a shitty job, all they have to do is go out and get a good job, paying gobs of money and with good benefits.

Fact is, the rw's won't be happy until they turn the US into another China.

China's economy is growing fast than ours. Perhaps you would like to be more specific?

 

[OKTexas]

Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

Right stef?

Hey, just because the ultra-rich haven't produced jobs in the past 12 years, doesn't mean it couldn't happen just any day now.

And, actually, to be fair, they have produced a few shitty jobs that pay less than minimum wage. Not a lot of shitty jobs but they have created some.

And, if someone doesn't want a shitty job, all they have to do is go out and get a good job, paying gobs of money and with good benefits.

Fact is, the rw's won't be happy until they turn the US into another China.

Ever thought those nasty rich people have saved a hell of a lot more jobs than your dear leader, and they haven't created trillions in debt in the process.