Prove it (or at least provide some evidence)!

[grunt11b]

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

Donald trump.

3. Only the private sector creates jobs.

The government does not create jobs, it does not have the money to create jobs. It only has the money the PRIVATE sector gives it to work within the constitution. The private sector has always been the job creator.

4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).

Another liberal lie, it's not like shrinking government will put thousands out of work, unfortunately for you I am a federal employee and know better. The plan is that for every two people who retire the government will only hire one person, end result will be shrinking government without laying anybody off.

5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.

Noone on the right even gives a shit, only the lefties have to bring this shit up everyday trying to create a problem where there isn't one.

6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.

That darned'ol constitution and people wanting to let babies live is just a crushing blow to the lefts nazi ideology and population control isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

Demand exists only because other productive enterprises are generating income and paying wages.

Correct, and it exists in proportion to HOW HIGH those wages are.

Your belief that government can set wages wherever it likes by fiat is too absurd for words.

Say's law says production generates it's own demand.

Say's law is garbage.

ROFL! Really? Says who? Certainly not any credible economists.

It depends on infinite price elasticity, which is not a fact.

No it doesn't.

Say's law would predict that a general demand-based recession is impossible, thus the existence of general demand-based recessions in history proves that it is false.

The "general demand recession" is a fiction. No such thing has ever occurred. What has occurred are recessions caused by mal investment that results from government interference in the economy. When government policy causes too much investment in, say, housing, the supply of housing will increase for a while. However, at some point consumers will express their preferences for less housing and the excess will become unsellable. Then all the people who were employed producing the excess will become unemployed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

See my comment above re Gates, Hewlett, Packard, etc. and their origins.

Answer my question as to where they got the start up capital to produce their designs on a large scale.

Don't know, let me know.

Bill Gate's dad was a high powered lawyer and his mother was the grand daughter of the founder of Seattle's National City Bank. He also had a large trust fund set up by Grandpa, the banker.

So Bill used these connections to get money from rich people, the one's you say don't create jobs.

As I have said before and will say again, When people with money are introduced to people with ideas, great things happen.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

Donald trump.


The government does not create jobs, it does not have the money to create jobs. It only has the money the PRIVATE sector gives it to work within the constitution. The private sector has always been the job creator.

Another liberal lie, it's not like shrinking government will put thousands out of work, unfortunately for you I am a federal employee and know better. The plan is that for every two people who retire the government will only hire one person, end result will be shrinking government without laying anybody off.


Noone on the right even gives a shit, only the lefties have to bring this shit up everyday trying to create a problem where there isn't one.

6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.

That darned'ol constitution and people wanting to let babies live is just a crushing blow to the lefts nazi ideology and population control isn't it?

Dumb dumb, dumb de de de dumb, dumb dumb ...etc.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, other than some really dumb comments and the usual opinions based on a foundation of hot air, no one has yet offered evidence that the 'truths' held by most of the conservatives on economic matters are not unproven and of suspicious origin.

For the record, the claims posted once again below are not my claims, they are offered as immutable truths by the New Right, i.e., the once fringe of the Republican Party which is now the dominant force in the GOP.

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

3. Only the private sector creates jobs.

4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).

5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.

6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, other than some really dumb comments and the usual opinions based on a foundation of hot air, no one has yet offered evidence that the 'truths' held by most of the conservatives on economic matters are not unproven and of suspicious origin.

For the record, the claims posted once again below are not my claims, they are offered as immutable truths by the New Right, i.e., the once fringe of the Republican Party which is now the dominant force in the GOP.

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

3. Only the private sector creates jobs.

4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).

5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.

6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.

People with money do create jobs or have you been ignoring my posts.

Steve Jobs received SBIC loans in which private venture capitalists (you know rich people) gave the money to the SBA to lend out

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, other than some really dumb comments and the usual opinions based on a foundation of hot air, no one has yet offered evidence that the 'truths' held by most of the conservatives on economic matters are not unproven and of suspicious origin.

For the record, the claims posted once again below are not my claims, they are offered as immutable truths by the New Right, i.e., the once fringe of the Republican Party which is now the dominant force in the GOP.

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

3. Only the private sector creates jobs.

4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).

5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.

6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.

People with money do create jobs or have you been ignoring my posts.

Steve Jobs received SBIC loans in which private venture capitalists (you know rich people) gave the money to the SBA to lend out

Steve Jobs got loans based on his genuis, which is the essence of the success of Apple in terms of profit and employees. Others purchased stocks, including including money market funds usingthe money of ordinary (not millionaire) Americans to provide loans to others like Jobs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, other than some really dumb comments and the usual opinions based on a foundation of hot air, no one has yet offered evidence that the 'truths' held by most of the conservatives on economic matters are not unproven and of suspicious origin.

For the record, the claims posted once again below are not my claims, they are offered as immutable truths by the New Right, i.e., the once fringe of the Republican Party which is now the dominant force in the GOP.

1. Repealing the Bush Tax cuts and making Billionaires and Millionaires pay more in tax will kill jobs.

2, Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)

3. Only the private sector creates jobs.

4. Shrinking government will jump start our economy (explain how adding thousands to the unemployment roles will benefit commerce, small business and the real estate market).

5. Gay & Lesbian Marriage threatens traditional marriage.

6. Citizens United v. FEC is good for America.

People with money do create jobs or have you been ignoring my posts.

Steve Jobs received SBIC loans in which private venture capitalists (you know rich people) gave the money to the SBA to lend out

Steve Jobs got loans based on his genuis, which is the essence of the success of Apple in terms of profit and employees. Others purchased stocks, including including money market funds usingthe money of ordinary (not millionaire) Americans to provide loans to others like Jobs.

Steve Jobs received SBIC money He got loans from people with money.

If people did not make money available to Steve Jobs via the SBIC program then no matter how smart he was he would not have been able to mass produce his product.

And people didn't buy stock in Apple until it went public and it didn't go public until it was already manufacturing products.

Face it, Jobs used other peoples' money to get started and a lot of those people were rich. Without that capital there would be no Apple today.

 

[Wry Catcher]

People with money do create jobs or have you been ignoring my posts.

Steve Jobs received SBIC loans in which private venture capitalists (you know rich people) gave the money to the SBA to lend out

Steve Jobs got loans based on his genuis, which is the essence of the success of Apple in terms of profit and employees. Others purchased stocks, including including money market funds usingthe money of ordinary (not millionaire) Americans to provide loans to others like Jobs.

Steve Jobs received SBIC money He got loans from people with money.

If people did not make money available to Steve Jobs via the SBIC program then no matter how smart he was he would not have been able to mass produce his product.

And people didn't buy stock in Apple until it went public and it didn't go public until it was already manufacturing products.

Face it, Jobs used other peoples' money to get started and a lot of those people were rich. Without that capital there would be no Apple today.

"a lot of those people were rich"; that's not the best evidence, yet knowing that the SBA attracts private financing sources through the SBIC's I won't dispute your claim. That said, taxpayers also fund the SBA and loans to startups too.

Of course the New Right seems to feel government is the problem, so I wonder why a conservative such as yourself would offer a government program as an important link providing capital to new business. Most on the right object to such programs, especially new efforts to make America rely less on oil.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Steve Jobs got loans based on his genuis, which is the essence of the success of Apple in terms of profit and employees. Others purchased stocks, including including money market funds usingthe money of ordinary (not millionaire) Americans to provide loans to others like Jobs.

Steve Jobs received SBIC money He got loans from people with money.

If people did not make money available to Steve Jobs via the SBIC program then no matter how smart he was he would not have been able to mass produce his product.

And people didn't buy stock in Apple until it went public and it didn't go public until it was already manufacturing products.

Face it, Jobs used other peoples' money to get started and a lot of those people were rich. Without that capital there would be no Apple today.

"a lot of those people were rich"; that's not the best evidence, yet knowing that the SBA attracts private financing sources through the SBIC's I won't dispute your claim. That said, taxpayers also fund the SBA and loans to startups too.

Of course the New Right seems to feel government is the problem, so I wonder why a conservative such as yourself would offer a government program as an important link providing capital to new business. Most on the right object to such programs, especially new efforts to make America rely less on oil.

Tax payers don't fund the SBA but rather tax payers guarantee the SBA loans. There is a difference.

I am disputing your calm that rich people don't create jobs.

Rich people fund SBIC loans without rich people there would be less capital available for start ups

Bill Gates was financed by rich people

When people with money are introduced to people with ideas via the market and banks great things happen

None of it happens when there is no money from private sources.

So are you still going to tell me that rich people and more importantly their money which is made available through the stock market and banks have nothing to do with the growth of our economy and therefore the creation of jobs?

 

[Dragon]

Your belief that government can set wages wherever it likes by fiat

does not exist. Next?

ROFL! Really? Says who? Certainly not any credible economists.

ALL credible economists, actually. Say's law is taken seriously only by Austrians, who are NOT credible economists.

It depends on infinite price elasticity, which is not a fact.

No it doesn't.

Sure it does. Say's law holds that when production happens, buying power equal to the market value of the goods produced comes into existence.

But this fails to take into account who is in possession of that market value. Demand equals the desire to buy plus the ability to buy; clearly, the owner of the goods produced has the ability to buy those goods (i.e., he or she is in possession of exactly their market value), but does not have any desire to do so. Others who may have the desire, will buy the goods only if they also have the ability (that is, if they are in possession of equal value). Or, put more simply, the owner of the goods is not himself a market for them, and for anyone else to be a market for them that person must have the money to meet the price.

Now, this would present no problem, and Say's law would be more than a meaningless tautology, if the price for the goods was infinitely elastic. In that case, lack of funds in the hands of those who want to buy the goods would result in the price dropping until the lack was remedied, whereupon they would be sold. But the price is not infinitely elastic. There is a limit to how low it can go before the sale becomes unprofitable. And that is why Say's law is garbage.

The "general demand recession" is a fiction. No such thing has ever occurred.

All recessions have been general demand recessions, without a single exception. All have resulted from a lack of demand able to absorb the products produced.

What has occurred are recessions caused by mal investment

I'm not even going to respond to your contention that this "malinvestment" is the result of government interference, because it's not necessary. Your claim that recessions result from malinvestment itself is untrue. Malinvestment does sometimes happen, but it never results in a recession; what it does result in is the failure of one product. For example, Ford's investment in the Edsel was a famous example of malinvestment. It caused Ford to lose money. But it did not cause a recession.

Malinvestment economy-wide simply cannot happen in a market-driven economy, which, even at maximum "government interference," the U.S. economy has always been. A recession occurs when there is not enough money being spent by consumers to absorb the products being produced. Usually it is triggered by a failure of some portion of the financial sector, resulting in a sharp decline of consumer credit. But that only causes a recession because it reduces consumers to spending only their incomes -- and then only when incomes are insufficient. If this were caused by "malinvestment," it would be a case of business producing too much of everything.

Now, business producing too much of everything, and consumers having inadequate buying power, are two different slants on the same thing, namely an imbalance between buying power and production. But to call that "malinvestment" implies that people ought to be poor. As long as there are people who WANT the goods being produced, the fact that they have insufficient money to buy them should not be interpreted as meaning the goods should not have been produced, but rather that the people who want them are underpaid (or the goods priced too high, which means the same thing in the end).

 

[daveman]

So, other than some really dumb comments and the usual opinions based on a foundation of hot air, no one has yet offered evidence that the 'truths' held by most of the conservatives on economic matters are not unproven and of suspicious origin.

Yep, I called it:

Prediction: Wry will read the posts answering his strawman points and screech "Nuh-UH!!"

You know, like he has with every other post answering his strawman points in this thread.

How does it feel to be so predictable? Why don't you be honest for once and just say you want everyone to agree with you because you deserve it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Steve Jobs received SBIC money He got loans from people with money.

If people did not make money available to Steve Jobs via the SBIC program then no matter how smart he was he would not have been able to mass produce his product.

And people didn't buy stock in Apple until it went public and it didn't go public until it was already manufacturing products.

Face it, Jobs used other peoples' money to get started and a lot of those people were rich. Without that capital there would be no Apple today.

"a lot of those people were rich"; that's not the best evidence, yet knowing that the SBA attracts private financing sources through the SBIC's I won't dispute your claim. That said, taxpayers also fund the SBA and loans to startups too.

Of course the New Right seems to feel government is the problem, so I wonder why a conservative such as yourself would offer a government program as an important link providing capital to new business. Most on the right object to such programs, especially new efforts to make America rely less on oil.

Tax payers don't fund the SBA but rather tax payers guarantee the SBA loans. There is a difference.

I am disputing your calm that rich people don't create jobs.

Rich people fund SBIC loans without rich people there would be less capital available for start ups

Bill Gates was financed by rich people

When people with money are introduced to people with ideas via the market and banks great things happen

None of it happens when there is no money from private sources.

So are you still going to tell me that rich people and more importantly their money which is made available through the stock market and banks have nothing to do with the growth of our economy and therefore the creation of jobs?

The essence of my argument is by raising the top rate of the 1% a few percentage points will not impact their need to invest their 'loose change' in American business. You assume all of the 1% invest in America; my guess is that most of the 1% invest where the risk is low and the return is high and that has been in the emerging markets in South America and Asia.

Many of the 99% keep money in banks, money market accounts and stocks - generally in mutual funds - mostly in American institutions. Can the same be said for the top 5%? The 99% of us don't hold our assets in gold coins, rare art, rare books or other goods likely to protect them from inflation. In fact the wealth of the 99% where it existed was in home equity and is now gone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"a lot of those people were rich"; that's not the best evidence, yet knowing that the SBA attracts private financing sources through the SBIC's I won't dispute your claim. That said, taxpayers also fund the SBA and loans to startups too.

Of course the New Right seems to feel government is the problem, so I wonder why a conservative such as yourself would offer a government program as an important link providing capital to new business. Most on the right object to such programs, especially new efforts to make America rely less on oil.

Tax payers don't fund the SBA but rather tax payers guarantee the SBA loans. There is a difference.

I am disputing your calm that rich people don't create jobs.

Rich people fund SBIC loans without rich people there would be less capital available for start ups

Bill Gates was financed by rich people

When people with money are introduced to people with ideas via the market and banks great things happen

None of it happens when there is no money from private sources.

So are you still going to tell me that rich people and more importantly their money which is made available through the stock market and banks have nothing to do with the growth of our economy and therefore the creation of jobs?

The essence of my argument is by raising the top rate of the 1% a few percentage points will not impact their need to invest their 'loose change' in American business. You assume all of the 1% invest in America; my guess is that most of the 1% invest where the risk is low and the return is high and that has been in the emerging markets in South America and Asia.

I didn't assume anything. I am merely stating that people with lots of money to invest are responsible for creating jobs when you say they are not. And I don't consider any of my money to be loose change and I'll wager that a lot of rich people don't either because they value their money is one of the reasons they are rich. By using terms like this you attempt to devalue other people's assets thereby making it easier to justify taking more away from them.

Many of the 99% keep money in banks, money market accounts and stocks - generally in mutual funds - mostly in American institutions. Can the same be said for the top 5%? The 99% of us don't hold our assets in gold coins, rare art, rare books or other goods likely to protect them from inflation. In fact the wealth of the 99% where it existed was in home equity and is now gone.

Do you really think that rich people have the majority of their assets in art and gold coins? Now that is quite an assumption.

 

[code1211]

The essence of my argument is by raising the top rate of the 1% a few percentage points will not impact their need to invest their 'loose change' in American business. You assume all of the 1% invest in America; my guess is that most of the 1% invest where the risk is low and the return is high and that has been in the emerging markets in South America and Asia.

Many of the 99% keep money in banks, money market accounts and stocks - generally in mutual funds - mostly in American institutions. Can the same be said for the top 5%? The 99% of us don't hold our assets in gold coins, rare art, rare books or other goods likely to protect them from inflation. In fact the wealth of the 99% where it existed was in home equity and is now gone.

I thought the essence of your argument was that the rich did not create jobs.

Whether or not taxes are raised crosses into two areas that I have a problem with and neither is connected with creating jobs:

1. If taxes are to be raised, then all people should bear the increase equally. The poor disproportionately receive the fruits of government tree and should have to pay tax for this. They do not. Where is their fair share?

If you raise the tax by 1% on the rich, then apply that 1% to the poor also and eliminate all credits, write offs, deductions and hide-aways for everyone. Obviously, 1% of a million beats 1% of $30,000.

If you owe 1%, then pay it.

2. When the government receives money, it wastes it. There is no accountability. No matter how much they get, they are still short of the amount that they spend. Unless and until there is some kind of accountability, there is no use in wasting more with this gang of blind and retarded economic leaders.

How's that 2009 budget coming along, Harry?

If the tax liability affects only a small percent of the population, then there is no real outcry when a tax is increased.

When Nixon implemented the Lottery as the mechanism for the draft, the riots ended because the affected population reduced from everyone to a small sliver. This is the same tactic AND it includes Class Warfare so it's perfect for public opinion driven politicians and therefore, Democrats.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax payers don't fund the SBA but rather tax payers guarantee the SBA loans. There is a difference.

I am disputing your calm that rich people don't create jobs.

Rich people fund SBIC loans without rich people there would be less capital available for start ups

Bill Gates was financed by rich people

When people with money are introduced to people with ideas via the market and banks great things happen

None of it happens when there is no money from private sources.

So are you still going to tell me that rich people and more importantly their money which is made available through the stock market and banks have nothing to do with the growth of our economy and therefore the creation of jobs?

The essence of my argument is by raising the top rate of the 1% a few percentage points will not impact their need to invest their 'loose change' in American business. You assume all of the 1% invest in America; my guess is that most of the 1% invest where the risk is low and the return is high and that has been in the emerging markets in South America and Asia.

I didn't assume anything. I am merely stating that people with lots of money to invest are responsible for creating jobs when you say they are not. And I don't consider any of my money to be loose change and I'll wager that a lot of rich people don't either because they value their money is one of the reasons they are rich. By using terms like this you attempt to devalue other people's assets thereby making it easier to justify taking more away from them.

Many of the 99% keep money in banks, money market accounts and stocks - generally in mutual funds - mostly in American institutions. Can the same be said for the top 5%? The 99% of us don't hold our assets in gold coins, rare art, rare books or other goods likely to protect them from inflation. In fact the wealth of the 99% where it existed was in home equity and is now gone.

Do you really think that rich people have the majority of their assets in art and gold coins? Now that is quite an assumption.

Not the majority, the majority is in held by banks in foreign countries.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I thought the essence of your argument was that the rich did not create jobs.

Whether or not taxes are raised crosses into two areas that I have a problem with and neither is connected with creating jobs:

1. If taxes are to be raised, then all people should bear the increase equally. The poor disproportionately receive the fruits of government tree and should have to pay tax for this. They do not. Where is their fair share?

If you raise the tax by 1% on the rich, then apply that 1% to the poor also and eliminate all credits, write offs, deductions and hide-aways for everyone. Obviously, 1% of a million beats 1% of $30,000.

If you owe 1%, then pay it.

2. When the government receives money, it wastes it. There is no accountability. No matter how much they get, they are still short of the amount that they spend. Unless and until there is some kind of accountability, there is no use in wasting more with this gang of blind and retarded economic leaders.

How's that 2009 budget coming along, Harry?

If the tax liability affects only a small percent of the population, then there is no real outcry when a tax is increased.

When Nixon implemented the Lottery as the mechanism for the draft, the riots ended because the affected population reduced from everyone to a small sliver. This is the same tactic AND it includes Class Warfare so it's perfect for public opinion driven politicians and therefore, Democrats.

"I thought the essence of your argument was that the rich did not create jobs." Wrong! I simply asked for evidence that the 1% were job creators. Seems the only examples are Gates and Jobs, both of whom created jobs as their ideas took hold and a huge market was established (allowing insider traders to share information on a can't miss making the wealthy richer).

 

[Skull Pilot]

"I thought the essence of your argument was that the rich did not create jobs." Wrong! I simply asked for evidence that the 1% were job creators. Seems the only examples are Gates and Jobs, both of whom created jobs as their ideas took hold and a huge market was established (allowing insider traders to share information on a can't miss making the wealthy richer).

get your quote function skill up to date

That is not anything i posted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The essence of my argument is by raising the top rate of the 1% a few percentage points will not impact their need to invest their 'loose change' in American business. You assume all of the 1% invest in America; my guess is that most of the 1% invest where the risk is low and the return is high and that has been in the emerging markets in South America and Asia.

I didn't assume anything. I am merely stating that people with lots of money to invest are responsible for creating jobs when you say they are not. And I don't consider any of my money to be loose change and I'll wager that a lot of rich people don't either because they value their money is one of the reasons they are rich. By using terms like this you attempt to devalue other people's assets thereby making it easier to justify taking more away from them.

Many of the 99% keep money in banks, money market accounts and stocks - generally in mutual funds - mostly in American institutions. Can the same be said for the top 5%? The 99% of us don't hold our assets in gold coins, rare art, rare books or other goods likely to protect them from inflation. In fact the wealth of the 99% where it existed was in home equity and is now gone.

Do you really think that rich people have the majority of their assets in art and gold coins? Now that is quite an assumption.

Not the majority, the majority is in held by banks in foreign countries.

prove it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I didn't assume anything. I am merely stating that people with lots of money to invest are responsible for creating jobs when you say they are not. And I don't consider any of my money to be loose change and I'll wager that a lot of rich people don't either because they value their money is one of the reasons they are rich. By using terms like this you attempt to devalue other people's assets thereby making it easier to justify taking more away from them.



Do you really think that rich people have the majority of their assets in art and gold coins? Now that is quite an assumption.

Not the majority, the majority is in held by banks in foreign countries.

prove it.

Seems as if there has been plenty of data on tax cheats using foreign banks. I'll find some links this morning (until the boss has her coffee at which time the choirs begin - we're having thd clan for Christmas dinner tonight).

Merry Christmas.