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.
Corporate profits will grow--when employees are LAID OFF. In fact--that is the only reason that the stock market went up--because companies across the nation laid off employees--decreasing costs--adding more to bottom lines.
Now investors are looking for GROWTH in companies which they are not seeing. Therefore any profits will be flat in comparison to prior quarters--which will send the stock market down.
Many economists expect that we are headed for a double-dip recession--meaning more lay-offs.
What is lacking in this economy is DEMAND for goods and services. With demand--we will see growth--requiring corporations to hire more. The only way to get this growth is more expendable cash in Americans pockets to evenly distribute through-out the economy--and for consumer confidence to RISE.
Corporations sitting on cash will not risk it to invest or grow--with the MOST anti business administration in our history. They have no idea what Obamacare will cost--they do not know what their tax rate will be from one year to the next--and if they cannot see into the future--they will continue to sit on cash.
Each and every day Obama is out there threatening them with over-regulation--higher taxes--and Obamacare. Our Harvard graduate--most intellectual--community organizer--and now amateur golfer is also an economic MORON.
View attachment 15205
In other words they are currently brain dead morons who have lost any sense of creativity leaving the only means of profit is to cut the neighbors throat. Bad philosophy, bad karma, a zero sum end game.
Corporations in this country are in for the PROFIT. They're not doing for their HEALTH. Without PROFIT--like Solyndro--they go BANKRUPT--cease to exist. Get over it. Business has tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave--and that threat is Barack Obama.
In other words they are currently brain dead morons who have lost any sense of creativity leaving the only means of profit is to cut the neighbors throat. Bad philosophy, bad karma, a zero sum end game.
Corporations in this country are in for the PROFIT. They're not doing for their HEALTH. Without PROFIT--like Solyndro--they go BANKRUPT--cease to exist. Get over it. Business has tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave--and that threat is Barack Obama.
and...that self serving philosophy is working real well for them, heh. Golden Rule..You get what you give. Damn the accountants. They are not doing all that great for you now, heh, except the same ole' smoke & mirrors. Lift all boats, all boats lift. Drift out on sea by yourself. Well you are just a drifter waiting to get sunk.
They're not in business to lose money. If they lose money they end up like Solyndra.
Corporations in this country are in for the PROFIT. They're not doing for their HEALTH. Without PROFIT--like Solyndro--they go BANKRUPT--cease to exist. Get over it. Business has tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave--and that threat is Barack Obama.
and...that self serving philosophy is working real well for them, heh. Golden Rule..You get what you give. Damn the accountants. They are not doing all that great for you now, heh, except the same ole' smoke & mirrors. Lift all boats, all boats lift. Drift out on sea by yourself. Well you are just a drifter waiting to get sunk.
Yeah it is WORKING for them--they have PROFIT. That is what they're in business for--
I believe the point of this post is that "trickle down economics"Where the hell do you think the money to pay wages comes from, you fucking dunce?
is a load of B.S.!!
Yep it is suck up economics, in more ways than one.
Perhaps Buffett is overestimating the intelligence of the many Americans.I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than weve ever had it ...
(Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, 11/22/2010)
The rich are always going to say that, you know, Just give us more money, and well go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.
(Warren Buffett, 3rd richest man in the world, 11/22/2010)
Warren Buffett: Trickle-Down Economics Failed; More Taxes For The Rich | Veracity Stew
Deep thinkers like "Oddball," "CrusaderFrank," "boedicca," and "whitehall," just don't get it - and never will!
Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, 1% Went to Wages
and...then wonder why the economy is stuck. Duh!
Well Duhh we ARE a consumer spending based economy.
They want the consumer to spend yet they don't wnat to pay them a wage that enables them to. then they want to gouge the consumer on necessities to pay their hedge fund obligations and wonder why they have no discretionary income. What a bunch of blind greedy mongers they are. Glad I don't depend on such scum.
The Moonbats, unsurprisingly, miss the point.
Wages are affected by Supply and Demand, just like any other good or service. When the government damages the conditions for economic growth so that there is an Excess Supply of Labor, Wages are not going to increase.
You want higher wages, free up the economy to grow so that there is more demand for labor...instead of spending $4.8M per job to create a paltry 3.5K of Green Jobs.
Since 1980 America has steadily deregulated the economy, "freed it up" to set the markets free. This reached its current apex in the early 2000s under george bush who went on a deregulation binge especially with the financial industry. So markets had never been freer in the first decade of this century than they'd been since the 1920s. And exactly what happened? Bush got the worst job growth of any president. Also, too. Since we started deregulating corporations have foun d less and less demand to cater to and invest to meet. They're steadily accumulated money and are sitting on uninvested trillions of dollars. This accumulation of cash continued all through the GW Bush years, the period when markets have never been freer. So, bearing this in mind, why wasn't there massive job growth in the 2000s when markets had never been freer in living memory?
Gee. If the Feds taxed every penny of this increase in profits generated between Q2-2009 and Q4-2010, that $464B would cover about three months of the Obama Deficits.
Yea, 10 trillion in Bush and Republican deficits, then they hand it off to Obama and say, OK, Now it's your. What do you expect from people who yell, "Let him die"?
Reminds me of a track star thinking he's being passed a baton, then he looks at his hand and realizes he's been passed a big turd. A really, REALLY BIG turd. He doesn't want to drop it or he'll lose the race. But the teammate who handed it to him told him he wanted him to "fail". See, the guy who passed the turn didn't like having a black teammate.
The Moonbats, unsurprisingly, miss the point.
Wages are affected by Supply and Demand, just like any other good or service. When the government damages the conditions for economic growth so that there is an Excess Supply of Labor, Wages are not going to increase.
You want higher wages, free up the economy to grow so that there is more demand for labor...instead of spending $4.8M per job to create a paltry 3.5K of Green Jobs.
Since 1980 America has steadily deregulated the economy, "freed it up" to set the markets free. This reached its current apex in the early 2000s under george bush who went on a deregulation binge especially with the financial industry. So markets had never been freer in the first decade of this century than they'd been since the 1920s. And exactly what happened? Bush got the worst job growth of any president. Also, too. Since we started deregulating corporations have foun d less and less demand to cater to and invest to meet. They're steadily accumulated money and are sitting on uninvested trillions of dollars. This accumulation of cash continued all through the GW Bush years, the period when markets have never been freer. So, bearing this in mind, why wasn't there massive job growth in the 2000s when markets had never been freer in living memory?
Obamacare is deregulation?
Please show me some of the deregulation that occured in the financial industry under Bush.
Was Sarbanes-Oxley the deregulation you were thinking about?
BTW, Obama has the worst job growth of any President.
Perhaps Buffett is overestimating the intelligence of the many Americans.I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than weve ever had it ...
(Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, 11/22/2010)
The rich are always going to say that, you know, Just give us more money, and well go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.
(Warren Buffett, 3rd richest man in the world, 11/22/2010)
Warren Buffett: Trickle-Down Economics Failed; More Taxes For The Rich | Veracity Stew
Deep thinkers like "Oddball," "CrusaderFrank," "boedicca," and "whitehall," just don't get it - and never will!
And then there are the idiots who believe his BS.
Maybe you can show me how his $60,000 a year secretary paid 30% in income taxes? LOL!
The Moonbats, unsurprisingly, miss the point.
Wages are affected by Supply and Demand, just like any other good or service. When the government damages the conditions for economic growth so that there is an Excess Supply of Labor, Wages are not going to increase.
You want higher wages, free up the economy to grow so that there is more demand for labor...instead of spending $4.8M per job to create a paltry 3.5K of Green Jobs.
Since 1980 America has steadily deregulated the economy, "freed it up" to set the markets free. This reached its current apex in the early 2000s under george bush who went on a deregulation binge especially with the financial industry. So markets had never been freer in the first decade of this century than they'd been since the 1920s. And exactly what happened? Bush got the worst job growth of any president. Also, too. Since we started deregulating corporations have foun d less and less demand to cater to and invest to meet. They're steadily accumulated money and are sitting on uninvested trillions of dollars. This accumulation of cash continued all through the GW Bush years, the period when markets have never been freer. So, bearing this in mind, why wasn't there massive job growth in the 2000s when markets had never been freer in living memory?
Or maybe Buffet pays less in taxes because the rate for cap gains and dividends are lower than that for wages, salaries, fringies and bonuses...But the Buffet butt sniffers don't often like to notice such distinctions in the tax code, as long as they think they're scoring political points against the eeeeeviilll rich.Perhaps Buffett is overestimating the intelligence of the many Americans.
Deep thinkers like "Oddball," "CrusaderFrank," "boedicca," and "whitehall," just don't get it - and never will!
And then there are the idiots who believe his BS.
Maybe you can show me how his $60,000 a year secretary paid 30% in income taxes? LOL!
She doesn't pay anything like 30% of her income in income taxes. but income taxes aren't the only taxes that people pay! there are FICA taxes to start with, along with lots of others. I'm guessing Buffett and people he employs are smart enough to work out the percentage that they're taxed at and i'm happy to take him at his word that he's paying a smaller percentage of his income in federal taxes than his employees are.
There's no upward pressure on wages, no surprise that there's almost no income growth there. Companies pared down expenses to maximize profits, no surprise there either. Would you feel better if they were less profitable?
Or maybe Buffet pays less in taxes because the rate for cap gains and dividends are lower than that for wages, salaries, fringies and bonuses...But the Buffet butt sniffers don't often like to notice such distinctions in the tax code, as long as they think they're scoring political points against the eeeeeviilll rich.And then there are the idiots who believe his BS.
Maybe you can show me how his $60,000 a year secretary paid 30% in income taxes? LOL!
She doesn't pay anything like 30% of her income in income taxes. but income taxes aren't the only taxes that people pay! there are FICA taxes to start with, along with lots of others. I'm guessing Buffett and people he employs are smart enough to work out the percentage that they're taxed at and i'm happy to take him at his word that he's paying a smaller percentage of his income in federal taxes than his employees are.
And speaking of Buffet and taxes, how much does Berkshire-Hathaway owe in back taxes, penalties and interest again?
without the workers they would make ZERO PROFIT.....workers are the backbone of every business....they create, invent, sell their products etc....Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress
After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:
Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.
<more>
How much of 2008 real national income went to wages?
How much to corporate profits?
Please let me know the precise mix in the future that would satisfy the left.
I believe the point of this post is that "trickle down economics"
is a load of B.S.!!
Makes sense when you think about it in simple terms: One guy with a million bucks is still only going to need one car and one 'fridge. A thousand guys with $100,000 each are going to need a thousand cars and a thousand refrigerators.
Which scenario do you reckon will create more jobs? 'Trickle Down' is a scam.
A thousand guys with $100,000 each is $100 million. Of course that much income produces more demand than total income of $1 million.
I guess Obama could raise taxes to try and increase jobs. It's obvious his wasteful deficit spending didn't work.
Since 1980 America has steadily deregulated the economy, "freed it up" to set the markets free. This reached its current apex in the early 2000s under george bush who went on a deregulation binge especially with the financial industry. So markets had never been freer in the first decade of this century than they'd been since the 1920s. And exactly what happened? Bush got the worst job growth of any president. Also, too. Since we started deregulating corporations have foun d less and less demand to cater to and invest to meet. They're steadily accumulated money and are sitting on uninvested trillions of dollars. This accumulation of cash continued all through the GW Bush years, the period when markets have never been freer. So, bearing this in mind, why wasn't there massive job growth in the 2000s when markets had never been freer in living memory?
Obamacare is deregulation?
Please show me some of the deregulation that occured in the financial industry under Bush.
Was Sarbanes-Oxley the deregulation you were thinking about?
BTW, Obama has the worst job growth of any President.
Bush deregulated the mortgage industry pretty much entirely. one of the major changes was that he changed the rules so that banks and mortgage originators no longer had to hold mortgages to maturity and could sell them immediately.
without the workers they would make ZERO PROFIT.....workers are the backbone of every business....they create, invent, sell their products etc....Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress
After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits. Now, economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations. According to the study:
Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.
<more>
How much of 2008 real national income went to wages?
How much to corporate profits?
Please let me know the precise mix in the future that would satisfy the left.
