If the investment class is doing better than it ever has, why has job growth been slow?

[jillian]

The current state of the stock market has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts and everything to do with Obama's and the Fed's current policies.

When people with money can borrow it virtually for free and then get a really good return in the market why would they risk that same money on new business ventures in an economy that is barely growing at 1%?

Well I'll be damned, skull finally accidentally told the truth.

Well no shit skull. if you actually recognize that the supposed top 1% "job creators" are actually just borrowing money to make money with in the markets, why in the fuck do you and people like you care if they pay a higher percentage in taxes than they currently do?

YOU ADMIT that even with their Bush tax cuts they didn't create those promised jobs. They just took those cheap bailout dollars after the Bush collapse and spent them in the stock market. What a job creation strategy that was.

And you were correct twice. The Bush stock market sure didn't look like the market now.

I didn't admit anything about the Bush tax cuts other than they have nothing to do with the current state of the market.

And in case you haven't understood my stance on taxes.

IDGAF how much anyone makes. I do not believe that just because a person happens to make more than another that a higher percentage of his money should be confiscated by the government.

And I never called any segment of society "job creators" that's your schtick not mine

your use of language is wrong. the tax structure is not confiscatory.

you haven't as yet addressed why the top 1% pays a smaller PERCENTAGE of what they make in taxes than the middle and working classes. you need to address that issue. and flat tax is not it nor is a VAT which takes a much higher percentage from working people than the wealthy.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So let them start their own business. Moving merchandise isn't skilled labor. No one, including liberals, especially liberals, are interested in paying someone $50,000 a year to handle packages.

$50,000 is as $50,000 does. Arbitrary limits don't mix well with 'free enterprise'.

I'd certainly pay someone $50k / year to 'handle packages' if doing so was worth it to me.

And if an average package handler buys dividend paying stock in the company instead of paying dues in to a union, $50,000 a year is not unreachable.

 

[jillian]

The more ownership taken in 'The Means of Production' by The Average American Joe and The Average American Jane, the better for our future.

True Story!

So let them start their own business. Moving merchandise isn't skilled labor. No one, including liberals, especially liberals, are interested in paying someone $50,000 a year to handle packages.

why would you say "especially liberals" when rightwingnuts have done nothing but drive down wages?

 

[jillian]

So let them start their own business. Moving merchandise isn't skilled labor. No one, including liberals, especially liberals, are interested in paying someone $50,000 a year to handle packages.

$50,000 is as $50,000 does. Arbitrary limits don't mix well with 'free enterprise'.

I'd certainly pay someone $50k / year to 'handle packages' if doing so was worth it to me.

And if an average package handler buys dividend paying stock in the company instead of paying dues in to a union, $50,000 a year is not unreachable.

so unions should be destroyed to pacify the randians? it took a lot of years for workers to stop the way they were treated and the conditions under which they worked.

btw, I am still waiting for a response to my pm. thanks.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

The stock market is not the economy.

Amazing how many people don't know that.

.

you're correct. it's a reflection of the wealth of the investor class.

that said, we aren't exactly putting forth policies designed to increase job growth.

when the economy crashed when bush was president, we should have had a jobs program. the right has blocked every effort to create the types of jobs that build infrastructure (which we need anyway) in favor of rewarding coroporations for off-shoring jobs.

We spent over a trillion dollars in supposed "jobs" programs, "counselor." Surely you were alive at the time.

The truth is bad fiscal policy combined with bad monetory policy has resulted in misallocation of capital--companies buying their own stock instead of new equipment or product lines.
It is just part of the total and complete failure of Democrat policies.

And of course in another BIlly Triple Zip troll thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

The current state of the stock market has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts and everything to do with Obama's and the Fed's current policies.

When people with money can borrow it virtually for free and then get a really good return in the market why would they risk that same money on new business ventures in an economy that is barely growing at 1%?

Well I'll be damned, skull finally accidentally told the truth.

Well no shit skull. if you actually recognize that the supposed top 1% "job creators" are actually just borrowing money to make money with in the markets, why in the fuck do you and people like you care if they pay a higher percentage in taxes than they currently do?

YOU ADMIT that even with their Bush tax cuts they didn't create those promised jobs. They just took those cheap bailout dollars after the Bush collapse and spent them in the stock market. What a job creation strategy that was.

And you were correct twice. The Bush stock market sure didn't look like the market now.

I didn't admit anything about the Bush tax cuts other than they have nothing to do with the current state of the market.

And in case you haven't understood my stance on taxes.

IDGAF how much anyone makes. I do not believe that just because a person happens to make more than another that a higher percentage of his money should be confiscated by the government.

And I never called any segment of society "job creators" that's your schtick not mine

your use of language is wrong. the tax structure is not confiscatory.

you haven't as yet addressed why the top 1% pays a smaller PERCENTAGE of what they make in taxes than the middle and working classes. you need to address that issue. and flat tax is not it nor is a VAT which takes a much higher percentage from working people than the wealthy.

Nor will changing the rates.

It dies not matter what asinine tax structure you put in place - the rich have the resources and the fluidity to ensure they are not paying taxes, period.

The reason that a true flat tax addresses this is because it takes the complexity (and therefore the ability to lick the tax code) out of the system. unfortunately, I have yet to see anyone actually propose such a system. Basically all of the 'flat tax' measures still leave methods in place for the rich to avoid taxes. Not one single raise taxes measure from the left has been any different by the way.

You all keep blaming the other side without looking at the very real methods that the the rich, through various c corp loopholes and other methods, shelter almost all of their actual gains. That is not going to change until the tax code goes from the hundreds of thousands of pages it now embodies to simply hundreds of pages.

 

[Iceweasel]

why would you say "especially liberals" when rightwingnuts have done nothing but drive down wages?

Wages have been going up on this planet. Income has gone down because the market sucks and the available jobs are lower end, people aren't leaving good jobs. And many are part time. It's cheaper for a business to have two part timers than one full timer. That's not a rightwinger idea, it comes from naive libs that think they can mandate an economy into being.

 

[BluesLegend]

The more ownership taken in 'The Means of Production' by The Average American Joe and The Average American Jane, the better for our collective future.

True Story!

So let them start their own business. Moving merchandise isn't skilled labor. No one, including liberals, especially liberals, are interested in paying someone $50,000 a year to handle packages.

why would you say "especially liberals" when rightwingnuts have done nothing but drive down wages?

Hello the left encouraging millions of illegals to pour across our border ring a bell? Hello earth to liberals pull your heads out.

 

[BluesLegend]

Middle class spending is still reeling from their insane borrowing and spending spree prior to the housing bubble popping. Underwater on their mortgage, unable to obtain gobs of easy credit to fuel that spending, naturally spending is down and with it demand and jobs and the rest.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hello the left encouraging millions of illegals to pour across our border ring a bell? Hello earth to liberals pull your heads out.

Yep, and they'll hire them dirt cheap while screaming about how American workers deserve more money.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hello the left encouraging millions of illegals to pour across our border ring a bell? Hello earth to liberals pull your heads out.

Yep, and they'll hire them dirt cheap while screaming about how American workers deserve more money.

I loved the story on the socialist party in Seattle, they are advocating for a $20 an hour national minimum wage while at the same time running a ad to hire a web manager for $13 an hour.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"investment class"???

Is the OP saying he does not invest anything for his own future?

Since he won't be able to take care of himself, who will be taking care of him when he's too old to work?

 

[AVG-JOE]

so unions should be destroyed to pacify the randians? it took a lot of years for workers to stop the way they were treated and the conditions under which they worked.

Given the reality of today, unions have a necessary place in the economy - there's no denying that. The adversarial role is too well established.

I muse on possibilities and goals...

I don't like the concept behind incorporated unions performing an adversarial role in corporations. There becomes a certain self perpetuation necessity in the role of the incorporated union, and the relationship between capital and labor remains adversarial to feed it.

I think that given the choice between buying the companies that we work for, and forming corporations to hire lawyers to beat concessions from the companies that we work for, paying union dues is short-sighted and costs jobs in the long run.

We, as a society need to begin to think in terms less adversarial and litigious, and more in terms of community and company, with loyalty in both enforced by ownership in both.

 

[The Rabbi]

so unions should be destroyed to pacify the randians? it took a lot of years for workers to stop the way they were treated and the conditions under which they worked.

Given the reality of today, unions have a necessary place in the economy - there's no denying that. The adversarial role is too well established.

I muse on possibilities and goals...

I don't like the concept behind incorporated unions performing an adversarial role in corporations. There becomes a certain self perpetuation necessity in the role of the incorporated union, and the relationship between capital and labor remains adversarial to feed it.

I think that given the choice between buying the companies that we work for, and forming corporations to hire lawyers to beat concessions from the companies that we work for, paying union dues is short-sighted and costs jobs in the long run.

We, as a society need to begin to think in terms less adversarial and litigious, and more in terms of community and company, with loyalty in both enforced by ownership in both.

Something like National Socialism, perhaps?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hello the left encouraging millions of illegals to pour across our border ring a bell? Hello earth to liberals pull your heads out.

Define "encouraging". Please.

Please be as specific as possible, links are always helpful.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hello the left encouraging millions of illegals to pour across our border ring a bell? Hello earth to liberals pull your heads out.

Define "encouraging". Please.

Please be as specific as possible, links are always helpful.

Encourage means to promote, to work for, to cheerlead for.
And yes, the administration has done that with their illegal refusal to enforce Federal immigration laws. It was in all the papers.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Something like National Socialism, perhaps?

Label Schmabel - nobody knows what that means.

Give me real solutions, like a call for fair and simple taxes and balanced public budgets.

 

[sameech]

No it doesn't require more labor as an absolute, or more specifically, American labor. Machines will replace humans the way the tractor replaced teams of horses.

And that economic direction requires education.

Are We, The Peeps ready to stop investing in weapons and security, and start investing in education?

Well when we have an education system that makes sense to them they will. As is, not so much.

 

[Mac1958]

.

When the market drops by 54% and there's trillions of cash on the sidelines, the market's gonna go up.

When interest rates are historically low and bonds aren't worth a shit, the market's gonna go up.

When the Fed is pumping +/- $80 billion a month into securities, the market's gonna go up.

When all three are happening at the same time, you're gonna see the market do what it has done, economy irrelevant.

The question is whether growth - REAL growth - can make up the massive slack in the system.

No on can say for sure, we'll see.

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The current state of the stock market has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts and everything to do with Obama's and the Fed's current policies.

When people with money can borrow it virtually for free and then get a really good return in the market why would they risk that same money on new business ventures in an economy that is barely growing at 1%?

Well I'll be damned, skull finally accidentally told the truth.

Well no shit skull. if you actually recognize that the supposed top 1% "job creators" are actually just borrowing money to make money with in the markets, why in the fuck do you and people like you care if they pay a higher percentage in taxes than they currently do?

YOU ADMIT that even with their Bush tax cuts they didn't create those promised jobs. They just took those cheap bailout dollars after the Bush collapse and spent them in the stock market. What a job creation strategy that was.

And you were correct twice. The Bush stock market sure didn't look like the market now.

I didn't admit anything about the Bush tax cuts other than they have nothing to do with the current state of the market.

And in case you haven't understood my stance on taxes.

IDGAF how much anyone makes. I do not believe that just because a person happens to make more than another that a higher percentage of his money should be confiscated by the government.

And I never called any segment of society "job creators" that's your schtick not mine

your use of language is wrong. the tax structure is not confiscatory.

you haven't as yet addressed why the top 1% pays a smaller PERCENTAGE of what they make in taxes than the middle and working classes. you need to address that issue. and flat tax is not it nor is a VAT which takes a much higher percentage from working people than the wealthy.

Of courser I have you just don't listen.

They get to pay less because we have an unfair tax code written by corrupt bought and paid for politicians.

And confiscatory is and adjective confiscated is a verb. The government takes money by force that is confiscation.

I've mentioned to you several times that the corrupt pols are screwing people over by taxing all the gains in retirement accounts as regular income as well but you don't seem to have your panties in a twist over that.

It's not the 1% that are screwing you over it's the assholes you elect to represent you.