Tax the Rich?

[Wry Catcher]

Slow down and think before you post; your typos suggest you became emotional and flummoxed when I suggested your post was stupid. Sorry, it was and remains so.

you said conservatism was stupid, [did I? Prove it by posting the quote/ link] I said say why or admit to being a typical liberal, you said it was self-evident as if to demonstrate your low IQ, I said truth was self-evident to your 20th Century friends, Hitler Stalin and Mao too. You closed by again saying conservatism wa stupid but again as a low IQ liberal did not even realize it was important to have a reason.

Are you drinking (are you old enough to drink)?

See post at 11:54 AM today and post the evidence wherein I called conservatism stupid. I called your post stupid and elitist as well as the one which preceded yours.

What factor(s) cause you to characterize (the Rosenbergs, Fuchs, Hall, Gold and Greenglass) as liberals? What evidence do you have that they were? What defined a liberal in 1950?

THe Vinona decripts showed that Rosenberg was codenamed "liberal" by the KGB. Oleg Klugian said he looked among the liberals in Washington when he needed new spies. Alger Hiss and Henry Wallace, typical New Deal libturds, it turned out were spies for Stalin. Obozo had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of the only open communist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders.

Post a link, I'm curious where you are getting your information. I will read this link from PBS, a source I trust.

NOVA Online | Secrets, Lies, and Atomic Spies | Read Venona Intercepts

 

[Koios]

to a liberal its a toss up between that guy and Steve Jobs!!

Gee, aren't you clever. Both this post and the one above are examples of stupidity and self righteous elitism.

Poor people don't create jobs. Obama defines the wealthy as those with over $250k. So tell us, who are the job creators? Who owns businesses? Who hires people? It isn't the guy flipping burgers or the guy sleeping on the street. If $250k is the 2% who stole the wealth from the "people", then they are your job creators. But feel free to school us on who the true job creators are.

They do, with their consumption, if we're smart and reduce poverty with direct payments. Example:

You make toothpaste, let's say. Lots of teeth out there, many of whom can afford your paste. But some cannot, but with assistance, do. Now more teeth are using your paste, and you hire the folks needed to make it.

In essence, when we tolerate poverty, we leave potential need that businesses would love to serve, withering on the vine.

Our value is not in our work. It's in what we spend, into the economy, creating the need for work.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm curious where you are getting your information.

you want to know where I learned Alger Hiss Henry Wallace and Barry are fellow travelers, that Barry voted to the left of a communist, that Rosenberg was code named Liberal, that Oleg
Klugian looked among the liberals for new spies?

Obama said, in his biography, he gravitated to Marxist professors in college, he had a Marxist preacher best friend for 20 years, said in his auto biography that when he worked on Wall Street he felt as if "he had parachuted behind enemy lines", was more liberal in the Senate the Bernie Sanders( an open socialist) and now, despite 200 years of gov't growth, his deficits will be bigger than all other American presidents combined, and, he also wants perhaps absolute control over health care (already mostly controlled by gov't), banking, and the auto industry.

Through Frank Marshall Davis,( Communist Party number: 47544) Obama had an admitted deep and prolonged relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path.
But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."


Bernie Saunders is a Democrat and an open socialist. Obama is to the left of Saunders based on his voting record in the Senate.

Oleg Klugian (head of KGB in cold war) said that when he wanted to recruit spies he looked among the liberals. When FDR's liberals went to the USSR they came back on a ship named the "Leviathan" to report, "they had seen the future and it worked."

Then of course BO appointed at least 4 communists: Mark Lloyd (supporter of communist revolution in Venezuela) and Van Jones who said "give them the wealth, give them the wealth," and Annita Dunn who said, "Mao is my favorite philosopher" , and Bloom who said, "free markets are nonsense."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn’t say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive [Marxist] change.

Obama: "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn't say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

In an article titled "The Impossible is Now Possible: Assessing the Obama Presidency," executive vice chair of the Communist Party United States, Jarvis Tyner hailed the President's "drive to the left." "The health care bill, the stimulus package, the cap-and-trade bill, the elimination of secret elections for union representation-it's a program we dared not dream possible only a year ago," Tyner wrote. "But now it's on the verge of becoming the new blueprint for a truly socialist America."

A quick visit to the CPUSA website yields:

"In some ways last night's State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need." Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling » cpusa


And, if all that is not enough BO wrote a book called " Dreams From my Father". His father was a drunken suicidal Marxist who dreamed to free the world from American imperialism. His mother married 2 communists and urged BO to follow is communist bio dad.


And lets not forget that BO is openly for single payer socialist health care!!

And lets not forget Barry wrote a book called "Dreams from my Father"

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”

2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

 

[Skull Pilot]

We all know throwing money hand over fist into the black hole that is government is much better than letting people keep their own money.

Actually you don't know that; and yet, it's dead bang fucking on.

Here's a primmer:

1. Government is not a black hole where money is sucked in never to come out. Only the abject retards (aka Righties) would think that. It's spent, assuredly, if government taxes the Dollars. Instead of me buying gum, for example, government buys a stamp and mails something. The money goes in, and in a better way if you print envelopes at your company, or a worse way if you're in the gum business. But in the economy (all of us) the difference is moot. The bux went in and moved up the value chain, same as you or I spending it.

2. It get's even better, thanks to REDISTRIBUTION!!! Yep, that word the abject retards hate, and also do not understand. Not move money from one to another. Redistribute it back through the economy, letting is work its magic on its way back UP!!! the value chain (something economists call: high monetary velocity). Great way to get the economy rosy for us all, using money (since we tax the wealthy) that's stagnated. Bear in mind, wealth is wealth, which we only tax if some goes to benefactors in the big pay day since rich Uncle Frank kicked the bucket. The folks who just got the windfall are taxed on that income (new money coming in). Ditto when Uncle Frank is still pumping blood. We only tax his new money coming in (income tax; not wealth tax). And Uncle Frank being so wealthy, spends but a tiny fraction of his income. It's VERY, VERY low monetary velocity.

3. Who wins when high incomes are redistributed? Workers, vis a vis, more jobs resulting from the money moving at the higher monetary velocity points. Maybe, if unemployment is low, and the job market forces some higher pay, the individual worker might see a tiny percentage more. But the big winners are the stockholders, business onwers and the rich -- whose incomes go from really rich to really, really richer. They scale to the success of their companies. Jane, in the mailroom does not. Most likely, she gets to meet a new coworker, since things are picking up in the mailroom, now that business is growing again.

So those we tax most, benefit even more, and the vortex starts sucking up, and not down, as it does when we tax less (have less redistirbution.)

Another fucking idiot who thinks that the government stealing your money and spending it is somehow better than spending it yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm curious where you are getting your information.

you want to know where I learned Alger Hiss Henry Wallace and Barry are fellow travelers, that Barry voted to the left of a communist, that Rosenberg was code named Liberal, that Oleg
Klugian looked among the liberals for new spies?

Sorry, I won't read any more; you are part of the idiot fringe. I'll post at the end a link to Alger Hiss.

Obama said, in his biography, he gravitated to Marxist professors in college, he had a Marxist preacher best friend for 20 years, said in his auto biography that when he worked on Wall Street he felt as if "he had parachuted behind enemy lines", was more liberal in the Senate the Bernie Sanders( an open socialist) and now, despite 200 years of gov't growth, his deficits will be bigger than all other American presidents combined, and, he also wants perhaps absolute control over health care (already mostly controlled by gov't), banking, and the auto industry.

Through Frank Marshall Davis,( Communist Party number: 47544) Obama had an admitted deep and prolonged relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path.
But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."


Bernie Saunders is a Democrat and an open socialist. Obama is to the left of Saunders based on his voting record in the Senate.

Oleg Klugian (head of KGB in cold war) said that when he wanted to recruit spies he looked among the liberals. When FDR's liberals went to the USSR they came back on a ship named the "Leviathan" to report, "they had seen the future and it worked."

Then of course BO appointed at least 4 communists: Mark Lloyd (supporter of communist revolution in Venezuela) and Van Jones who said "give them the wealth, give them the wealth," and Annita Dunn who said, "Mao is my favorite philosopher" , and Bloom who said, "free markets are nonsense."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn’t say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive [Marxist] change.

Obama: "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn't say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

In an article titled "The Impossible is Now Possible: Assessing the Obama Presidency," executive vice chair of the Communist Party United States, Jarvis Tyner hailed the President's "drive to the left." "The health care bill, the stimulus package, the cap-and-trade bill, the elimination of secret elections for union representation-it's a program we dared not dream possible only a year ago," Tyner wrote. "But now it's on the verge of becoming the new blueprint for a truly socialist America."

A quick visit to the CPUSA website yields:

"In some ways last night's State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need." Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling » cpusa


And, if all that is not enough BO wrote a book called " Dreams From my Father". His father was a drunken suicidal Marxist who dreamed to free the world from American imperialism. His mother married 2 communists and urged BO to follow is communist bio dad.


And lets not forget that BO is openly for single payer socialist health care!!

And lets not forget Barry wrote a book called "Dreams from my Father"

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the “East Africa Journal” the following: “We need…to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the “commercial” or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.”

2. In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/who.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sorry, I won't read any more; you are part of the idiot fringe.

of course if so why be so afraid to give your best example
for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about the liberal character and IQ??

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sorry, I won't read any more; you are part of the idiot fringe.

of course if so why be so afraid to give your best example
for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about the liberal character and IQ??

Thanks for sharing. Tell me, what you 'know' about the "liberal character" and IQ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sorry, I won't read any more; you are part of the idiot fringe.

of course if so why be so afraid to give your best example
for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about the liberal character and IQ??

Thanks for sharing. Tell me, what you 'know' about the "liberal character" and IQ?

it enables you to call conservatism/libertarianism idiotic and not need a reason. Your fellow travelers HItler Stalin Mao and Castro did not need reasons either. Everything is self-evident to a liberal.

 

[Wiseacre]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

With real interest rates pushing the zero bound and major corporations and wealthy individuals sitting on trillions of excess cash, traditional economic theory would suggest that there is a shortage of low-risk, adequate return investments. At least that is what the capital markets are saying. In such an environment, the amount of expected increase in physical investment and employment due to increasing the the amount of monetary capital in the hands of business is precisely zero.

Until something increases demand, there will be no economic growth; we can be stuck at 1% for decades. Our range of possible policy choices are devalue the dollar (increase exports), promote inflation (lower real interest rates below zero to promote investment), or increase consumer or government spending. The last two imply borrowing by the public or government. Unless of course you believe in confidence fairies and bond vigilantes.

The current regime's plan of higher taxes, more regulations, and more spending isn't going to work. Surely the last 4 years have taught us that lesson. Devaluing the dollar has not worked, nor has near zero interest rates either. Maybe leaving income tax rates as they are, relaxing the regulation burden, and a coordinated and comprehensive plan to cut spending while reforming the entitlement programs would be more successful. Might want to cut corp taxes while you're at it, the current rates are the highest in the world.

 

[Koios]

We all know throwing money hand over fist into the black hole that is government is much better than letting people keep their own money.

Actually you don't know that; and yet, it's dead bang fucking on.

Here's a primmer:

1. Government is not a black hole where money is sucked in never to come out. Only the abject retards (aka Righties) would think that. It's spent, assuredly, if government taxes the Dollars. Instead of me buying gum, for example, government buys a stamp and mails something. The money goes in, and in a better way if you print envelopes at your company, or a worse way if you're in the gum business. But in the economy (all of us) the difference is moot. The bux went in and moved up the value chain, same as you or I spending it.

2. It get's even better, thanks to REDISTRIBUTION!!! Yep, that word the abject retards hate, and also do not understand. Not move money from one to another. Redistribute it back through the economy, letting is work its magic on its way back UP!!! the value chain (something economists call: high monetary velocity). Great way to get the economy rosy for us all, using money (since we tax the wealthy) that's stagnated. Bear in mind, wealth is wealth, which we only tax if some goes to benefactors in the big pay day since rich Uncle Frank kicked the bucket. The folks who just got the windfall are taxed on that income (new money coming in). Ditto when Uncle Frank is still pumping blood. We only tax his new money coming in (income tax; not wealth tax). And Uncle Frank being so wealthy, spends but a tiny fraction of his income. It's VERY, VERY low monetary velocity.

3. Who wins when high incomes are redistributed? Workers, vis a vis, more jobs resulting from the money moving at the higher monetary velocity points. Maybe, if unemployment is low, and the job market forces some higher pay, the individual worker might see a tiny percentage more. But the big winners are the stockholders, business onwers and the rich -- whose incomes go from really rich to really, really richer. They scale to the success of their companies. Jane, in the mailroom does not. Most likely, she gets to meet a new coworker, since things are picking up in the mailroom, now that business is growing again.

So those we tax most, benefit even more, and the vortex starts sucking up, and not down, as it does when we tax less (have less redistirbution.)

Another fucking idiot who thinks that the government stealing your money and spending it is somehow better than spending it yourself.

Well; you're a big dumb poopyhead! So there!!!

 

[Rshermr]

No! They need it to grow the economy.

Or, maybe not:

Winners and

Looks like one more in a long line of bullshit promulgated by the GOP and their surrogates in the echo chamber has been exposed by the greed of the super rich.

With real interest rates pushing the zero bound and major corporations and wealthy individuals sitting on trillions of excess cash, traditional economic theory would suggest that there is a shortage of low-risk, adequate return investments. At least that is what the capital markets are saying. In such an environment, the amount of expected increase in physical investment and employment due to increasing the the amount of monetary capital in the hands of business is precisely zero.

Until something increases demand, there will be no economic growth; we can be stuck at 1% for decades. Our range of possible policy choices are devalue the dollar (increase exports), promote inflation (lower real interest rates below zero to promote investment), or increase consumer or government spending. The last two imply borrowing by the public or government. Unless of course you believe in confidence fairies and bond vigilantes.

The current regime's plan of higher taxes, more regulations, and more spending isn't going to work. Surely the last 4 years have taught us that lesson. Devaluing the dollar has not worked, nor has near zero interest rates either. Maybe leaving income tax rates as they are, relaxing the regulation burden, and a coordinated and comprehensive plan to cut spending while reforming the entitlement programs would be more successful. Might want to cut corp taxes while you're at it, the current rates are the highest in the world.

What has worked is the republican plan to halt any additional jobs bills. That has worked really well to keep the economy slow, and unemployment high. What is your plan? All I here is the same old attack dog crap. But no plan at all.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

With real interest rates pushing the zero bound and major corporations and wealthy individuals sitting on trillions of excess cash, traditional economic theory would suggest that there is a shortage of low-risk, adequate return investments. At least that is what the capital markets are saying. In such an environment, the amount of expected increase in physical investment and employment due to increasing the the amount of monetary capital in the hands of business is precisely zero.

Until something increases demand, there will be no economic growth; we can be stuck at 1% for decades. Our range of possible policy choices are devalue the dollar (increase exports), promote inflation (lower real interest rates below zero to promote investment), or increase consumer or government spending. The last two imply borrowing by the public or government. Unless of course you believe in confidence fairies and bond vigilantes.

The current regime's plan of higher taxes, more regulations, and more spending isn't going to work. Surely the last 4 years have taught us that lesson. Devaluing the dollar has not worked, nor has near zero interest rates either. Maybe leaving income tax rates as they are, relaxing the regulation burden, and a coordinated and comprehensive plan to cut spending while reforming the entitlement programs would be more successful. Might want to cut corp taxes while you're at it, the current rates are the highest in the world.

What has worked is the republican plan to halt any additional jobs bills. That has worked really well to keep the economy slow, and unemployment high. What is your plan? All I here is the same old attack dog crap. But no plan at all.

The Republican plan has always been capitalism, to unleash the free market to make the economy explode!! How amazing that you would still not know that!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

of course if so why be so afraid to give your best example
for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about the liberal character and IQ??

Thanks for sharing. Tell me, what you 'know' about the "liberal character" and IQ?

it enables you to call conservatism/libertarianism idiotic and not need a reason. Your fellow travelers HItler Stalin Mao and Castro did not need reasons either. Everything is self-evident to a liberal.

I didn't call conservativism idiotic; I said you were a member of the idiot fringe - and you are. Some day you'll grow up and see how foolish you are.

As for Libertarians, it is my opinion that anyone who holds to a rigid ideology and measure everything as good or bad by its congruency or not with a dogma is foolish. I listen to Rand Paul and scratch my head with wonder, "what would the founders think of him?"

 

[Rshermr]

So wiseacre says:

The current regime's plan of higher taxes, more regulations, and more spending isn't going to work.

the part about more regulations is your idea. Not part of the current administrations plans. And again, in every case where we have had unemployment in the past, higher taxes and stimulus spending have worked. That would be Roosevelt, Reagan, and Carter.

Surely the last 4 years have taught us that lesson. Devaluing the dollar has not worked, nor has near zero interest rates either

.
Nope, too bad a recession and too low rates at the start of the mess. At any rate, as any economist will tell you, in a recession, lowering interest rates has little to do with increasing demand. It is known as pushing on a string.

Maybe leaving income tax rates as they are, relaxing the regulation burden, and a coordinated and comprehensive plan to cut spending while reforming the entitlement programs would be more successful.

You must have some reason for saying that. Only one that I know of is that you are a con tool who spends all of his time quoting con dogma. Because, though you can show times when decreasing taxes and spending have hurt a bad economy, you can not show a time when it has helped. Want to try??

Might want to cut corp taxes while you're at it, the current rates are the highest in the world.

Apparently you think that corporations pay stated tax rates. They are among the highest. However, they do not matter. What does matter is effective rates, or the rates that corporations pay. And those are among the lowest.

"Here's how the tax burden breaks down by different categories, as a percentage of GDP:

Income tax payments: U.S.: 9.8 percent; OECD average: 11.4 percent
Taxes on goods and services: U.S.: 4.5 percent; OECD average: 10.7 percent (The higher OECD number is due to a value-added tax, or national sales tax, in many countries.)
Social Security taxes: U.S.: 6.6 percent; OECD average: 9.2 percent
Taxes on property: U.S.: 3.3 percent; OECD average: 1.8 percent
So in only one category—property—are Americans taxed higher than citizens elsewhere.
Memo to Mitt Romney: America Already Has the World's Lowest Taxes - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

" But as we’ve noted time and time again, while the U.S. has a high statutory corporate tax rate (meaning the rate on paper), U.S. corporations actually pay incredibly low taxes due to the ever-proliferating loopholes, credits, and deductions in the tax code and the use of overseas tax havens.
U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors."
Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations | ThinkProgress

The Congressional Research Service report also notes that in the United States corporate taxes as a share of G.D.P. were the third lowest among all O.E.C.D. countries in 2009 – 1.7 percent of G.D.P. (including state taxes), compared with an O.E.C.D. average of 2.8 percent of G.D.P. Even Ireland, which conservatives often point to has having an exemplary corporate tax system, raised corporate taxes equal to 2.4 percent of G.D.P.
Bruce Bartlett: Some Big Corporations Don't Pay Taxes, Either - NYTimes.com

Cmon, Wiseacre. do you ever post anything except con dogma?

 

[kwc57]

Gee, aren't you clever. Both this post and the one above are examples of stupidity and self righteous elitism.

Poor people don't create jobs. Obama defines the wealthy as those with over $250k. So tell us, who are the job creators? Who owns businesses? Who hires people? It isn't the guy flipping burgers or the guy sleeping on the street. If $250k is the 2% who stole the wealth from the "people", then they are your job creators. But feel free to school us on who the true job creators are.

They do, with their consumption, if we're smart and reduce poverty with direct payments. Example:

You make toothpaste, let's say. Lots of teeth out there, many of whom can afford your paste. But some cannot, but with assistance, do. Now more teeth are using your paste, and you hire the folks needed to make it.

In essence, when we tolerate poverty, we leave potential need that businesses would love to serve, withering on the vine.

Our value is not in our work. It's in what we spend, into the economy, creating the need for work.

Nice little story. Now, would you like to address how many poor people start businesses and hire people? You know, job creators.

 

[Koios]

Poor people don't create jobs. Obama defines the wealthy as those with over $250k. So tell us, who are the job creators? Who owns businesses? Who hires people? It isn't the guy flipping burgers or the guy sleeping on the street. If $250k is the 2% who stole the wealth from the "people", then they are your job creators. But feel free to school us on who the true job creators are.

They do, with their consumption, if we're smart and reduce poverty with direct payments. Example:

You make toothpaste, let's say. Lots of teeth out there, many of whom can afford your paste. But some cannot, but with assistance, do. Now more teeth are using your paste, and you hire the folks needed to make it.

In essence, when we tolerate poverty, we leave potential need that businesses would love to serve, withering on the vine.

Our value is not in our work. It's in what we spend, into the economy, creating the need for work.

Nice little story. Now, would you like to address how many poor people start businesses and hire people? You know, job creators.

I haven't a clue. Do you? Certainly some, which is quite apparent here in the Seattle area, where many Southeast Asians came yearning to breath free, etc. and now have thriving businesses. Many Latinos, too, have risen from laborers to having thriving businesses. Also many Blacks, Whites and mixes of all of the above may have similar stories to tell. In fact, even in my own family we have a story, which began as a family scandal (an aunt married a handsome and charismatic ex-con, to the horror of many in my family). But he was and is a remarkable guy; and some 40+ years later, he and his children have a few thriving businesses and net worth in the millions. Also, he is one of the best, nicest and most-loved in our family.

But certain things had to exist to make it possible: for many, free community college and language training, plus preferrence in SBA loans. For my uncle, mentioned above, it was a wife with modest resources in a community of high wage earners, where doing moving jobs on weekends and evenings, then building a lawn care business with many employees and well as some car lots selling cars and trucks was made possible by the thiving economy.

Take the same person, and put them in a different environment, even here in the US, and same effort does not yield equal reward. Rural Mississippi, for example.

In short: environment + effort = reward. Effort alone is meaningless, without the environment to ply it in.

 

[Wry Catcher]

HP, Apple, Microsoft all started out small. They weren't poor, but they were not mega rich either. Romney has shown that using other peoples money he can create jobs, sometimes that means taking a skilled worker making a great income before his job was outsourced offshore into a sales clerk at Staples.

 

[Koios]

HP, Apple, Microsoft all started out small. They weren't poor, but they were not mega rich either. Romney has shown that using other peoples money he can create jobs, sometimes that means taking a skilled worker making a great income before his job was outsourced offshore into a sales clerk at Staples.

Actually, Bill Gates grew up in an elite gated community in Seattle, his father being a senior partner in one of the city's largest law firms. And he had the very best private school education, and in a high school for the very well off, which had among its inspirational tools for students, a computer back when having one was rare and costly, he met Paul Allen, and they became geek pals toying with the computer.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They do,[create jobs] with their consumption, if we're smart and reduce poverty with direct payments.

stupid stupid illiterate liberal!! We could print money by the trillions and drop it from helicopters so everyone could consume trillions and trillions more, but it would only harm and distort the economy with inflation. There would be depression not growth.

Economic growth from the stone age to here came from new inventions!! Please post that above your bed and think about it every night!! Again, stupid stupid illiterate liberal ego maniac just like Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot and Castro. Any feeling is great because you lack the IQ to have a thought!!

 

[kwc57]

They do, with their consumption, if we're smart and reduce poverty with direct payments. Example:

You make toothpaste, let's say. Lots of teeth out there, many of whom can afford your paste. But some cannot, but with assistance, do. Now more teeth are using your paste, and you hire the folks needed to make it.

In essence, when we tolerate poverty, we leave potential need that businesses would love to serve, withering on the vine.

Our value is not in our work. It's in what we spend, into the economy, creating the need for work.

Nice little story. Now, would you like to address how many poor people start businesses and hire people? You know, job creators.

I haven't a clue. Do you? Certainly some, which is quite apparent here in the Seattle area, where many Southeast Asians came yearning to breath free, etc. and now have thriving businesses. Many Latinos, too, have risen from laborers to having thriving businesses. Also many Blacks, Whites and mixes of all of the above may have similar stories to tell. In fact, even in my own family we have a story, which began as a family scandal (an aunt married a handsome and charismatic ex-con, to the horror of many in my family). But he was and is a remarkable guy; and some 40+ years later, he and his children have a few thriving businesses and net worth in the millions. Also, he is one of the best, nicest and most-loved in our family.

But certain things had to exist to make it possible: for many, free community college and language training, plus preferrence in SBA loans. For my uncle, mentioned above, it was a wife with modest resources in a community of high wage earners, where doing moving jobs on weekends and evenings, then building a lawn care business with many employees and well as some car lots selling cars and trucks was made possible by the thiving economy.

Take the same person, and put them in a different environment, even here in the US, and same effort does not yield equal reward. Rural Mississippi, for example.

In short: environment + effort = reward. Effort alone is meaningless, without the environment to ply it in.

I do have a clue. In fact, you laid it out nicely. Many a good folk get an idea and start working for themselves. As they succeed and prosper, they hire other people to help with their expanded business. They hire other people because their is more demand for their good or service than they can handle alone and they have enough profit to pay someone else. So the answer is, poor people don't create jobs and hire people. Profitable people with more work than they can handle do. It is these people that Obama has determined have more than they need and are not paying their fair share.....even though they create jobs and drive the economy. A guy sleeping on a park bench has no jobs to offer anyone. People with money do.