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.
I agree that innovation is what will generate the jobs. The old ones aren't coming back. But if you guys would stop berating green jobs that would result from new technology in alternative energy, it would be a start.
We're already free, which is a certainty, just as never reaching a point of totalitarianism is also a certainty. You're relying on scare tactics generated by extremists by making those exaggerated claims.
Really? We're already free? And the government fores us to:
- Use certain types of light bulbs
- Wear bicycle helmets
- Pay extra for foods and drinks they think we shouldn't eat
The Nanny State is running amok, on top of the punitive tax system which rewards sloth and dependency while punishing entrepreneurial effort/risk taking and independence.
People like you do a lot of damage by minimizing the accumulated damage and ignoring the trajectory.
[
I'm glad it's called a "fable" because when you put the analogy of taxes to that tale using a 1040, the larger amounts are ALWAYS reduced to the lowest figure possible by available tax writeoffs enjoyed by the upper classes. Nice lunch.
It's clear that you don't understand that a Fable is a Moral Lesson - and hardly surprising.
I've already posted a link that shows there has been no net loss of jobs the last several times the minimum wage was raised. It also showed that the majority of those making minimum wage are adults, not teenagers.
The truth is that we had a much better economy when the wealthy paid more taxes and minimum wage had more spending power.
My circle of friends includes wealthier people, and I can tell you right now that none of them complained when their tax rate went up to around 39% when Clinton and the Republicans were trying to balance the budget.
then you know wealthy idiots...
I would not mid a 39% tax, if everyone had 39% of every dollar they earn... equal treatment and taxation of all, not selective equality
Funny thing is you start taxing everyone like that, and not just those you like to label as the 'evil rich', you'll get even more of a call for reducing taxation and the government spending
What is it? 5% control what... 70+ % of the wealth in this country...
And the retarded conservatives think that this is healthy.
Sheer nonsense. Those of us who are Anti Big Government believe that the poor are competent enough to manage their own lives if not brainwashed with government dependency.
Its the Lefties that want to keep them on a Virtual Plantation of Poverty - mostly illiterate and much easier to herd to voting booths with their list of "approved" selections.
What a bunch of faux crap. That kind of bullshit isn't even believed by smart conservatives who might find themselves in a position to contribute to a government more to your liking. Grow the fuck up.
Impressive.
Not.
The Left has a huge vested interest in keeping poor people on government entitlements in a dependent position. I live in a city where I see the real life implications of this every day. It's sad to see the waste of human life and potential.
Want proof? Why does the left oppose School Vouchers? The success rates for students who do have them is very high? Why keep kids in failing schools instead of giving them the choice to move to a school that better suits their goals?
The answer is quite simple - it's important to keep control of what they learn to ensure they are appropriately indoctrinated and that the teachers unions continue their monopoloy (and campaign donations).
Now, go wash out your mouth.
The government does not exist, nor should it exist, for wealth redistribution purposed in some Robin Hood scheme based on liberal guilt
You want your piece of the pie... work for it... invent something.. make yourself valuable... or hell, win the fucking lottery for all I care....
Retarded leftists think private property and holdings of others is owed to them
What is it? 5% control what... 70+ % of the wealth in this country...
And the retarded conservatives think that this is healthy.
Here's a crazy idea. Stop taxing people who make money and you will see more people pull themselves out of poverty. Otherwise, you will just continue to see people who already have money staying rich and the poor growing.
If the Bush tax cuts had worked as "planned," the economy should be thriving, no?
The government does not exist, nor should it exist, for wealth redistribution purposed in some Robin Hood scheme based on liberal guilt
You want your piece of the pie... work for it... invent something.. make yourself valuable... or hell, win the fucking lottery for all I care....
Retarded leftists think private property and holdings of others is owed to them
So, you're ok with it even though it will be disastrous for our economy to have the wealth distributed among so few? Wow, partisan hackery at its finest.
Everyone works hard for their money. Problem is, we're doing more work and making less. Wages have been declining steadily since the 70's. Meanwhile, the cost of living is going up by leaps and bounds. This is a real problem and I fear it is only going to get worse. When the economy was booming due to inflated housing prices and Wall Street shenanigans, were we wage earners also getting a piece of the windfall? HELL NO WE WERE NOT. We were sitting back, waiting to get "trickled on" which NEVER HAPPENED. Sure did lose a big chunk of our 401K though, didn't we?
That particular "fable" (which has been around for years) hardly holds up to Aesop. It's intent was political, period.
Perhaps some of the righties here should join me in a communal mouth washing? So now you're shocked by language? Or only when someone on the "left" curses. Uh huh...
The left doesn't oppose school vouchers. Even Obama doesn't. But it would be nice if we could have the same kind of quality in public schools as well. But see that makes sense only to sensible people.
I appreciate your intelligent response, although I don't agree with it.
I'm thinking how to phrase this to make it rather gentle.
People who own businesses and own apartment buildings are people too. Just because they own a business doesn't mean that they are making a living or have a lot of money.
Most small businesses fail.
What is the survival rate for new firms?
Seven out of ten new employer firms last at least two years, and about half survive five years. More specifically, according to new Census data, 69 percent of new employer establishments born to new firms in 2000 survived at least two years, and 51 percent survived five or more years. Firms born in 1990 had very similar survival rates. With most firms starting small, 99.8 percent of the new employer establishments were started by small firms. Survival rates were similar across states and major industries. [/I]
People who own apartment buildings can get foreclosed on too.
The difference is if you lose your job, you lost a job, when a business fails, a business owner is losing a big investment and often can now be in large debt as a result.
Yes, if you own a business, and let's say an employee sells a vase that cost $5, the employee doesn't get that $5. Why? Because you also have to pay from that $5 the employee's wages, rent, utilities, taxes, and who knows what else. You also have taken a great deal of risk maintaining a small business.
Your landlord can charge you $600, and yes the landlord does make a profit. What happens though if the apartment has a number of vacancies. The landlord can soon go into foreclosure and lose the building.
These people are human too. Many of them can have a lot of financial trouble as well. They just probably have more zeros attached.
I don't understand why you feel that if I succeed someone failed.
I was a salesperson doing door to door sales on commission only.
I created my own business doing the same thing, selling the same product.
I now employ a bunch of salespeople. Some of them I pay $2,000/week.
Who failed because I succeeded?
I am providing livelihoods to people who may not have jobs. I provide a product to my customers, and I pay a lot of taxes. How exactly is that bad?
I was struggelling for over 10 years. As I said I was nervous buying lettuce in the grocery store. For a time, my wife and I lived in my brother in law's basement. We paid him rent for it.
Yeah, it is tough out there, but it's not impossible. The defeatist attitude bothers me. If that's what people believe that's what will happen.
I agree with you regarding credit cards. IMO it's legalized loan sharking without the actual leg breaking.
I want to stress again that I have the greatest sympathy for those who can't work like the elderly, and those who are truely seeking work, and aren't too proud to take a job that they feel isn't at their level.
I have disgust for those who would rather live off the system than work hard, and I have encoutered a lot of them.
This is America. Anything is possible.
Just as a side note. I mentioned that I used to get nervous buying lettuce in the grocery store I know feel wonderful that I buy my wife flowers once a week
I get everything you're saying. You take it too personally, and what I mean by that is, you think I'm talking about you personally. I'm not. You and me and everyone else on here are small potatoes, not even a blip on the radar. The people I'm talking about certainly do not spend any of their free time on USMB.
However in your situation, whose going down because you're going up? Well I don't know what you're selling, but anyone else who's selling it is going down. If you're still marketing door-to-door, the local stores that sell it are losing revenue. If it's non-commodity, you're taking a portion of your customer's disposable income that would have been spent elsewhere. And that's fine, that's competition, that's capitalism. It's a game I play too.
Perhaps I am taking it too personally. You do have a point, that if I get a sale, another competitor isn't getting that sale.
However, I see this as benefitting society. Why? Because that puts pressure on businesses to offer the best product for the lowest price.
If there was no competition, there would be no pressure for businesses to offer a good product, for a reasonable price, especially if the product is a necessity for the consumer.
Wouldn't you agree?
The people I'm talking about are big box retailers... Bankers... importers... huge, mutli-national firms that stifle competition... Pharmaceutical companies... Insurance (that's a big one.)
Actually the same rule applies only on higher scale.
If there was one auto manufacturing company, would that company be pressured to come up with the best car, for lowest price? Why would they? Because they have so much competition they are forced to offer a better choice to the consumer.
For example, let's take... Oh I dunno... Wal-Mart.
The Waltons are worth about US$90Billion, but they didn't produce a single thing, ever. How did they get this money? The answer is, exploitation on all fronts, plain and simple. They exploit a flooded labor pool by paying employees as little as possible (Less than $20k on average). They do business with 3rd world nations who exploit workers even worse; And with their massive buying power, they have an unmatched ability to "Beat them up" on price even more, leading to further exploitation. Nothing they sell there is made in the USA, even though that was a big part of their image in the early days. The local competitors go out of business because they can't compete with the buying power they have, which makes unemployment even worse. In a single breath, they exploit the daylights out of a situation they helped to create. Where does all this money go? Up to the Waltons. Just what the hell do you do with another $500 million when you're already worth $90 billion?
Banks are just as bad. Competition has been shaken down for decades through mergers, acquisitions, and simple market manipulation. It'd be enough to make Rockefeller blush. They used to make their money through lending, you know our fractional reserve system. But the problem is that nowadays the average person is broke, so they found new creative ways to make money off broke people. Fees, rather than interest income, have become the new cash cow for banks; Low balance fees, overdraft fees, late payment fees, whatever they can think of to monetarily punish you for not having money. I did $4k in fees one year, 04 I think when I was just starting out. That was a LOT of money to me back then, a lot. It's still a lot of money to me now, but back then, my bank almost put me out of business! And of course the amazing interest rate that doubles when you pay late as we discussed earlier; You're broke, no problem, just give us some more money!
Good for Sam Walton. How many people like Sam Walton are there? Most people have failed?
Walmart also creates thousands of jobs, AND it offers a good product at a cheaper price for the consumer. That is good. Don't you think it's good for poor people to be able to buy a product for cheaper if they can, especially groceries?
I never begrudge anyone for how much they make. That doesn't help me one bit. I think it's an aspiration for how much I can make.
Here is something we can agree upon, fees. I think that's rediculous, especially with credit cards.
Credit card companies are salivating for customers to be late on a payment so they can really fuck them. Also if they can hardly make their credit card payments because of a problem with income, how can they keep up with all the fees and late payments?
We have agreement there
Guess how many credit cards I have? Zero.
Now myself, I climbed out of it. But I had every advantage in the world too; Young, intelligent, white, good looking, personable, born male. I also had my mom co-sign my first business loan when I was the ripe old age of 20. What if mom's credit sucked too, or she had no credit?
I guess my point is, yes it's feasible to climb out of a hole, but with every advantage in the world (except actual money to start with), it took me 7 years and everything I've got to do it. What if I was born not so intelligent? Or black? Or not good looking or personable (Let's face it, these things affect your ability to sell, whether they should or not)? In the current system, I wouldn't stand a chance! In the 50's I could just get a factory job. My grandfather raised 3 kids as an ex-Army guy who worked in a 8 man tool and die factory until he retired in his 60's, raised 3 kids and his wife never had to work. Think that kind of story exists these days?
I am not so good looking, and I had bad credit, and I climbed way out of it. I also didn't need a cash investment for it.
My point is that if you (not you personally) believe you don't have a chance, you will never succeed. You need to believe you do and work toward it.
I don't at all believe in the defeatist attitude.
That's another thing that kind of bothered me during door to door sales.
For some reason many of these "poor" people could afford big plasma TVs with game consoles. How is that possible?
My biggest sympathy is for the elderly and handicapped.
I especially like the poor people who have cell phones glued to their ears and a set of $1500.00 wheels on their heaps of shit cars.
That's another thing that kind of bothered me during door to door sales.
For some reason many of these "poor" people could afford big plasma TVs with game consoles. How is that possible?
My biggest sympathy is for the elderly and handicapped.
I'm sick of door to door salesmen and have often told them "I have no money"....which is true as I don't have money to spend on stupid things sold door to door. How can you know if someone is poor simply by knocking on their door and trying to sell them something?
The truth is there are a lot of poor out there that don't have doors....or windows, or walls, or roofs.
We cannot raise the worlds standard of living up to ours we have to decline to reach global equality.'The Obama effect continuesI think it's about time to admit Obama's and the Democrat's policies are horribly failing:
Report: Level of poverty growing - NewburyportNews.com, Newburyport, MA
This is just the beginning, so everyone hang in there. Peace.
Yes those poor poor billionaires.
They're so put upon by those collectivists, aren't they?
Only they didn't lose any money until their fellow classmates in the financial community crashed capitalist (again).
In fact, despite it all, regardless of the higher tax rate under Clinton, they were getting richer in comparison to everybody else.
There are arguments for raising or lowering taxes, of course.
But to think that TAXES are the entirely answer to helping or hurting an economy is ignorant to the extreme.
Let me remind you that the economy flourished under Clinton despite the fact that BUSH I had RAISED taxes.
It might be argued that by raising taxes and putting the US government less in the RED, Bush I set up the conditions for a period of high productivity.
No SINGLE ISSUE explains anything about an economic period, folks.
The economy is a complex ongoing event that responds to issues of taxation CERTAINLY, but it also responds to other issues having nothing whatever to do with taxes.
Yes those poor poor billionaires.
They're so put upon by those collectivists, aren't they?
Only they didn't lose any money until their fellow classmates in the financial community crashed capitalist (again).
In fact, despite it all, regardless of the higher tax rate under Clinton, they were getting richer in comparison to everybody else.
There are arguments for raising or lowering taxes, of course.
But to think that TAXES are the entirely answer to helping or hurting an economy is ignorant to the extreme.
Let me remind you that the economy flourished under Clinton despite the fact that BUSH I had RAISED taxes.
It might be argued that by raising taxes and putting the US government less in the RED, Bush I set up the conditions for a period of high productivity.
No SINGLE ISSUE explains anything about an economic period, folks.
The economy is a complex ongoing event that responds to issues of taxation CERTAINLY, but it also responds to other issues having nothing whatever to do with taxes.
Raising taxes did not put the government any less in the red...
Ah, yeah actually it did. Well that an decreasing government spending both on the domestic side and the foreign policy side, too.
the government needs to spend less time looking at how to bring more money in and more time on how to cut down its enormous expenditures
On that we can agree.
And I'll state it again... equality... not selective equality
Not sure how to respond to that since on its face it make perfect sense.
But if your point is that we don't live in asociety that has equality, I certainly wouldn't disagree with you.
